During his campaign, Donald Trump promised that finally, the American government would put the people first. No more playing policeman of the world. It was “America first.” Now, as president, it is clear that Trump may not be able to fulfill his promise. On April 6, 59 tomahawk cruise missiles were launched from United States Navy ships at a Syrian airbase which was reportedly the source of chemical attacks launched by the Assad against his Syrian civilians. Western news media, world leaders and even Democrats praised the attack as a bold and appropriate response to Assad’s crimes. A significant segment of Trump’s own supporters, however, were left dumbfounded. As a Trump supporter myself, I am going to breakdown why many oppose this attack and why I think it leads to a more important question: should America be the policeman of the world?
The largest reason many of those whom I respect disagree with this missile strike is simply because they believe the chemical attacks were a false flag. In other words, they believe that there is no compelling evidence that Assad had any motive or reason to carry out this atrocity. Think about it: not long after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson publicly said, “I think the … longer term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people,” Assad gasses innocent civilians. What does he have to gain from this action? Certainly, it would have been denounced by countries around the globe and there is no clear military advantage. On the other hand, the rebels or Islamic State would have a lot to gain from framing Assad in a war-crime. Both groups are losing the war, but if western countries had a motive to attack Assad, that plays right into their hands. I frankly cannot be sure whether or not Assad is indeed responsible. He is a dictator after all, and it is easy to simply believe he is a sadistic leader. But there is good reason to question this incident and that alone makes it a volatile situation. Additionally, those against the strike believe this is a dangerous move towards America entering into yet another brutal Middle Eastern conflict — something Trump has spoken out against in the past.
On the other side of the argument, supporters claim this attack was a brilliant move. Politically, this was a sign that Trump is willing to back up his ‘red-lines’ is strong evidence that he is not a Russian agent as some still believe. How is it that a Russian puppet could attack Russia’s proxy Syria? This move is clearly based on a motive to show that America is no longer going to allow other nations to commit heinous acts without retribution, nor will it be bullied into stepping down from its demands. And of course, this attack was done with precision and great care. Russian forces were notified to evacuate just short of the attack (no, not because Trump is a puppet but to prevent a surprise war against Russia) and the airbase that was attacked was reportedly the source of the chemical weapons attacks. Realistically, showings of strength such as this are arguably necessary to deter evil leaders from committing war-crimes.
This strikes at the heart of the issue. Should America be involved at all? Should we policing the actions of other nations, which do not directly affect us? I believe the answer is twofold. First, being the policeman of the world is a bad term. We can enter joint agreements with our allies or act solely to deter evil in the world without having to be unnecessarily proactive and solve all the world’s problems. There is nothing that says we have to follow an ‘all or none’ mentality. Secondly, while we are a compassionate people and we have a moral interest in defending the weak, we must also look after our own interests. As a country we can help others and defend those in need, but we must foremost ensure our own prosperity and survival so that we can be in a better position to help those who need it. It’s almost impossible to defend the weak when the protector is weak himself. So yes, we can be proactive in policing against evil, but more importantly we must demonstrate restraint and keep our own needs in sight.
