On the morning of April 7, 2017, President Trump issued a missile strike on a Syrian airbase. The missiles, or more specific “Tomahawk missiles”, were launched from a U.S. Navy ship along the coast of Syria. 59 missiles were launched and all successfully hit their intended target. The strike startled the world, for the President did not announce that a strike would take place. This sort of action is completely opposite of the previous administration and may foreshadow a new era for the country. Although Trump received harsh critique directly after the strikes, he justified the attack by stating “No child of God should ever suffer [the] horror” caused by the chemical weapons attack of Assad on his own people. Both Democrats and Republicans became angered by the President’s strike, many arguing that he needed congressional approval for the attack. 
However, the Constitution only states that it is up to Congress to declare war; in other words, every U.S. president has the authority to call for strikes and even the deployment of troops. In fact, a majority of presidents have used this authority (including Obama and Johnson). The other argument, primarily from Republicans, is that America has no business in dealing with the problems of the Middle East (or any other country). This argument comes from the idea of isolationism, basically the strategy of not being involved in worldly issues unless you are forced to become involved. Although this concept makes sense and better guarantees safety, it should not be the foreign policy of the United States. As the most powerful and respected country in the world, I believe we have an obligation to involve ourselves in the conflicts of other nations. Of course, we must prioritize such problems as with any situation within our own country. However, if something is occurring in another nation that greatly threatens innocent lives and has the potential to spread to other countries, it is in our best interest to stop it. With the incident in Syria, President Trump’s strike is perfectly justified; the Syrian President Assad has been killing his own people for years. Call it what you want, but that is genocide. With this, Assad utilized chemical weapons to carry out the slaughtering. The use of chemical weapons is against the Geneva Convention, and it is quite obvious that no other country is willing to enforce the Geneva Convention besides the U.S. If the law is not enforced, what is the purpose of having the law? Although many state these strikes were “unconstitutional” and/or we should not involve ourselves, the strikes were completely constitutional and an involvement is morally right. I have one question for those who believe we should not involve ourselves in foreign conflicts: Should we have not engaged in war against Nazi Germany? After all, they never directly did anything to us…
It's Tough, Dude 