There has been a lot of mixed emotion among Americans about President Trump’s recent strike on Syria. Some think it will lead to war, some think he was unauthorized to make such a unilateral decision and still others criticize him because he hadn’t previously planned to take steps against the Syrian dictator.
Florida Senator Marco Rubio was asked about whether he believes this strike to be a violation of international law. Rubio justified the attack by characterizing Syria as a threat that could use chemical weapons again at any time.
Senator Rubio pointed out that this strike probably took out the very aircraft used in the terrible chemical attack against the Syrian people. If that’s not a message to those in power, I don’t know what is. This may not have solved the whole problem, but it will certainly make those who might do similarly horrible acts take notice.
We know that behavior depends on its consequences, and the consequences from the United States for the past 8 years there have been nothing but alternative negotiations and counting to 3. Now, there have finally been some real, hard to deal with, clean up the rubble kind of consequences.
These people that are criticizing the President for changing his stance on Syria don’t seem to value a person who won’t let his media persona get in the way of doing the right thing. Yes, based on previous information the President didn’t predict that he would want to make any military moves against Syria. The information he was given changed, therefore his reasoning and actions changed.
These laws about how the President can deal with things were not set in just so that the balance of power can be retained, though that is important. It was also set up so that intervention could be executed when a president sees that someone’s basic human rights are being violated. Hopefully, congress is worried about human right first, balance of power second and budgets third.
(H/T: The Blaze)