Period 11:Chemical Weapons, President Trump, Syria

Since the terror attacks that took place on 9/11, the commanders in chief have been using the same AUMF to fight the “war on terror”. The language within the post 9/11 authorization is so vague, as it states, “IN GENERAL.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”(congress.gov). This has enabled the executive branch to take the lead role in determining how and where the U.S military defends the United States. Recently, however, Congress has made an attempt to rein in the existential growth in presidential powers. According to an article from the New York Times Congress has been debating for a long time how to revise and update the war authorization law, because since its enactment, “three presidents, from both major parties, have stretched it to cover enemies beyond the original Al Qaeda and its Taliban host in Afghanistan.”. This was evident in the more recent Obama and Trump administrations through their use of military force in an attempt to eliminate the use of chemical warfare in Syria, as well as the power ISIS was gaining from the dismantled Syrian regime, which has been taking place since 2011. According to Vox, “Since practically the beginning of the conflict, al-Qaeda had been sending forces into Syria, seeing a chaotic civil war as a great environment for them to use as a safe haven and a place to get recruits.” Obama approached this situation in as much of a hands-off situation as possible, spending millions of dollars in an attempt to train Syrian Rebels that resulted in failure. Yet he threatened that there was a “red line”, and if it was crossed, the use of military force would take place. This line, referring to the use of chemical weapons, was tested by Assad in 2013 when he sarin gas, killing thousands of civilians. However, Obama did not follow through with his statement and Russia, who has very close relations with Assad, took advantage of the president’s in-action to escalate Russian dominance. Since then, another chemical weapon attack took place and Trump is claiming that he is willing to act and on the basis of the post 9/11 AUMF. The role President Trump takes in this situation with Syria is crucial to the security of the nation. As of right now, “Both Russia and the Syrian government deny the reports of the chemical attack, calling them bogus and fabricated.” (NPR) so if Trump were to engage in military action without a definite answer as to who committed this act, the U.S. could face major repercussions. However, the use of chemical weapons is against agreements made by the United Nations and the deviant behavior of Assad and his Russian allies has to be curbed somehow. Even Congress, despite its want to limit presidential war powers,” are also calling on President Trump to act definitively.”(NPR).
Q1: Is Trump's approach to eliminating the use of chemical weapons by pulling troops out of Syria and attacking Assad through an airstrike a more rational approach than Obama's?
Q2: What problems could Trump run into if he engages in military action without affirmative informtion about who used the chemical weapons?

@bonetti I liked how you stated, "it is believed by many that the intervention of the U.S. Government is “necessary” for security purposes because there has been a recent use of chemical weapons on the people of Syria." The torture these people were having to go through is quite horrific. I cannot imagine anyone having to suffer that type of pain. I also liked the quote you chose "you don't see things like that as bad as the news is around the world." In today's world it seems like every time you turn around there is violence occurring in some way. It seems like that is the only thing that is pictured on the news and it is scary to think what the future holds.

The use of violence against other nations has unfortunately become an action very familiar to people of this age. When violence is targeted towards specific areas with malice intentions, that is when the president feels compelled to intervene. President Trump has recently taken matters into his own hands when he launched airstrikes against Syria following an alleged chemical attack in the northern part of the country. Dozens of Syrians lost their lives to the chemical weapons, most of the fatalities being women and children. According to npr, the first of multiple chemical attacks appeared to use chlorine gas. The second, stronger chemical attack followed a half hour later, deploying a gas that hit homes and penetrated basements. What makes this case so incredibly sad is that there is really no chance of escape from the chemical weapons. Unlike conventional weapons, once chemical weapons gas is deployed into the air, civilians have no choice but to breathe it in. With conventional weapons there is a much better chance of survival. Chemical weapons are also deadly, causing damage to the skin, lungs, and mind. Wsj news source predicts that the U.S. could launch a punitive military strike against Mr. Assad, the president of Syria. Right now our president (Trump) is using his wartime powers to fight back with an assumed enemy to protect our country. It is only right for Trump to act as a mediator between Syria and the United States while unyielding to the intimidation of Syria and it’s leader. Since Trump holds the title of president, he’s obtained the most power over any citizen in the United States, and is more likely to be negotiated with. In support, npr says that Pope Francis called the attacks an unjustifiable use of “instruments of extermination”, urging political members to seek a different path of negotiations, who is the only one who can bring about peace and not death and destruction. The fight is far from over, now up to Trump to instill some sort of sense without abusing his presidential powers.

When looking at the recent chemical attacks that occurred in Syria, the question of what role president Donald Trump should play in this situation arises. According to a NPR article, “The first attack appeared to use chlorine gas. Most in the ICU were treated and apparently survived. The second, stronger chemical attack followed a half hour later —deploying a gas that hit homes and penetrated basements. Medical workers report a chlorine odor, however they believe the second attack was mixed with a stronger chemical agent, causing instant death.” The fact that over 40 innocent people, mostly women and children, in Douma died because of these chemical attacks stated in the quote above is devastating and something needs to be done to stop further attacks. Chemical weapons are considered to one of the deadliest weapons on Earth. Although conventional weapons can cause just as much damage , I believe that chemical weapons are worse because they can cause mass destruction in a short amount of time and they are discreet. One minute you’ll be fine and the next you could be dead. Obviously, Trump is very disgusted with the act Assad has committed. According to an NPR article, “...he took to Twitter Sunday morning to condemn what he called a ‘mindless CHEMICAL attack.’ He referred to Syrian President Bashar Assad as an ‘animal’ and pointed to a ‘big price to pay.’” These tweets show that Trump is planning to take matters into his own hands and is going to face the problem head on. What Trump was planning to do to make Syria pay was not really known, but a recent tweet he made today shows his intentions. According to a Chicago Tribune article, Trump tweeted, “Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria," Trump wrote. "Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and 'smart!' You shouldn't be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it!” Overall, the situation is a double edge sword. If Trump just sits back and does not do as his tweets say, this civil war will just continue and more and more civilians will be killed. On the other hand, getting involved could lead to an even bigger war. Although some say getting involved in this war is “immensely complicated and risky” (Vox), I believe that the role Trump is playing in this situation is for the best

Questions
If conventional weapons were used instead of chemical weapons, do you think it would have been this controversial?
Do you think the U.S involvement will just lead to a larger war?

@sarver
When you had mentioned President Trump’s quote, “This is about humanity, and it can’t be allowed to happen.” (Washington Post). It really opens people’s eyes to see just how cruel and inhumane that the events in which are taking place really are. You later also stated “President Trump has taken precautions in demanding the international security for the harm that the chemical weapons have created.” President Trump has been using the AUMF as his way of intervention, in the idea of preserving our national security. Even if Trump has jumped to a conclusion very quickly, it is important that they know we are willing to intervene with military force in order to prevent future chemical attacks. If we do not intervene with military force, it will tell them in a sense that they can continue to do what they are doing and walk all over us. If there is not a consequence to come with their actions, these chemical attacks will continue to occur.

@sarver I like how in your post you included the empathetic side of Trump. This event is about humanity to me, and about what it means to have human decency. The fact that attacks like these keep happening time after time s a problem fighting to be solved. I feel like if Obama took a stricter approach to remove Syria's weapons in the first place, this could of possibly been prevented. It seems like Assad enjoys terrifying his citizens to me, and what good of a leader is that? I agree that we should deal with the mistakes in the past in order to have a successful outcome in the future, but that is grounds no one wants to touch.