Iraq 2.0

Today President Trump declared military action against Syria. My first time hearing the speech, I thought President Trump did an alright job, and that the speech writing was pretty good. After thinking about things, I felt there were a few issues with the speech. This isn't the biggest deal, but it sounds like President Trump is always yelling, which isn’t ideal for a speech about such a grave matter. A little vocal variation and less yelling could have done some good, but that is a issue for a different blog. After all, this is a politics blog, not a public speaking blog. I thought the line “To Iran and to Russia, I ask: What kind of a nation wants to be associated with the mass murder of innocent men, women and children? The nations of the world can be judged by the friends they keep” is a hard statement to argue with. It really does seem Russia and Iran are backing the wrong side. Even excluding the chemical weapon attacks, the Al-Assad regime has oppressed the Syrian people for generations. But as I thought more about it, perhaps this is not the best statement for the United States to make, especially as the speech continues, and Trump mentions, “...our friends, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt and others…” [Emphasis added]. (Transcript available here) Of all the atrocities Saudi Arabia does to its own people, is this who we want to identify as our friends? Today in Saudi Arabia, women need a male guardian to do almost anything, such as renting an apartment or filing a legal claim. Saudi Arabia backs rebel groups of countries it doesn’t like, playing a large role in the civil war in Yemen and is partially to blame for the humanitarian crisis there (Source). The United States doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to friends either.

Let’s go beyond the speech here and look at the ideas Trump is proposing. Trump is announcing attacks on Syria because of a chemical weapon attack. However, no UN inspectors have actually been to Syria to confirm the attack. Russia has continually denied the attack. So, there have been reports of the attack, but there is not solid evidence without UN inspectors. Does this ring a bell? Well it should. In 2003, President George W. Bush declared war on Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction. Well, years later the American public learned that they didn’t! If President Bush could have waited just a little longer, UN inspectors could have gone to Iraq and confirmed that there were no weapons of mass destruction. It would have saved countless lives, dollars, and time. Likewise, I ask today, why don’t we follow the process set by the international Community? Why do we insist on unilateral action? Perhaps this time will be different, but then again as the President might say, “maybe not.”