Syrian conflict requires clear strategy from Trump

Bashar al-Assad is a heinous dictator who has been terrorizing his own people for years, and the most recent crime against innocents of which he's been accused-indiscriminately killing dozens of civilians with a banned chemical poison in the village of Khan Sheikhoun-was particularly grotesque.

Obama had drawn a famous "red line" in Syria in 2012, warning Assad against the use of chemical weapons.

It is worth underlining that while Obama publicly sought to rebuild America's relations with the "Muslim world", he did little while Syria was torn asunder, and while Assad brought death to hundreds of thousands of its citizens.

But was the strike legal?

Russian Federation is propping up Mr Assad's regime with military and political support, while the U.S. conducts ongoing airstrikes against Islamic State in the war-torn country.

But many said the president must present a plan to Congress outlining his Syria strategy for the future, including how his plan of safe zones inside Syria will help victims of the conflict.

Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed earlier in the week that Syrian jets had actually struck a rebel-controlled location where chemical weapons were being stored, but also admitted there is "no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons" in the past. Just last week, the Trump administration signaled the US was no longer interested in trying to push Assad from power over his direction of a conflict that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and led to the worst refugee crisis since World War II. Had that not been done first, we would have seen an bad lot more die from chemical weapons.

They have provided him with military support not only against jihadists like the Islamic State group and former Al-Qaeda affiliate Fateh al-Sham Front that are targeted by a US-led coalition but also against other rebels they deem "terrorists" too.

So what is the legal justification for Trump's actions? "We do not believe it's acceptable for the Syrian regime to use chemical weapons".

Russian Federation responded by warning that the military action could have serious consequences.

Many Republicans at the time opposed a more forceful intervention in the growing civil war.

The United States has conducted air strikes against Islamic State, which controls territory in eastern and northern Syria, and a small number of USA troops are helping rebel militias. But he also said Trump's team must now decide on concrete goals for their Syrian policy.

Obama's abrupt decision not to fire missiles and instead work with Russian Federation to remove Assad's chemical weapons infuriated many Republicans who had backed the Democratic president's proposal. The United Nations allows for use of military force by one nation against another if it is backed by the Security Council or it is a case of self defence. A United States official said the Russians on the ground had been given just 60 to 90 minutes of notice that the missiles were coming. However, the relevant United Nations resolution made it clear that the Security Council had to authorize the use of force before military action could be taken. "This was my position during the Obama administration, and it continues to be my position during the Trump administration". "It is in...[the] vital national security interest of the United States", the President said, moments after 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from warships in the Mediterranean hit the Shayrat airbase. He concluded by saying, "We hope that as long as America stands for justice, then peace and harmony will, in the end, prevail".

  • Carolyn Briggs