Foreign affairs 

In accordance to recent events, I feel, a blog post is in order (not that my opinion is anything special, but I do like to express myself semi-formally when possible).  Most of my personal politics are not that of the majority, that is no secret; I do however, like to enlighten others on the views of most conservatives to dismantle any previous bias people may have toward us (and I speak for moderate conservatives like myself, not the few that give us a bad name).  Specifically, I would like to discuss the conservative support of The Trump administration’s decision to strike Syria with 59 Tomahawk missiles.  Some time ago, Barack Obama stated in regards to chemical weapons: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”  It is unclear to me, however, where exactly that red line was.  He stated there would be “enormous consequences”.  In fact, many reports even stated that Barack Obama was working with Russia to remove 100 percent (yes, you read correctly) 100 percent of chemical weapons from Syria.  How many people were going to die before some real consequential action was to be taken?  I digress…  Following the most recent chemical attack in Syria and almost without hesitation President Donald Trump authorized the missile strikes on the Syrian airbase.  People from all over had quite an array of reactions.  From support to feelings of hypocrisy toward the Trump administration (in regards to his previous stance on the matter).  I’m here to discuss our (Conservative) support of this decision and why it is so much bigger than the argument of “…if he [Trump] would have let them [Syrian refugees] in none of this would have happened!”  The United State’s decision to launch missiles following the horrific chemical attack was a loud and very clear message to Assad and to “other players on the ground” that chemical warfare will NOT be tolerated and there is an actual red line now.  While we want to help these innocent Syrian civilians, we also don’t want to negotiate with a hostile regime, and put our own people at risk by an influx of migrants.  By accepting hundreds of thousands of refugees we are avoiding the real problem here.  Why would we encourage the relocation of Syrians when we can instead make their own home safe?  The same question exists when when you put this into the context of a hostage situation.  Why doesn’t the U.S. negotiate with terrorists holding hostages?  “But don’t they care about the hostages?!”  Of course we care about the hostages, but we do not want to encourage this situation to keep happening.  By not negotiating we are strongly condemning these actions and drawing a red line.  By striking Syria’s airbase we are sending a strong message that these actions will not be tolerated, and actual consequences will ensue.  We are sending Syrian civilians the message that we are on their side and are there to defend them against their own hostile regime.  We are not removing them [Syrians] from the problem, we are removing and disabling the problem at its source.  We do care about Syrians and the abhorrent conditions.  I would like to dispell the myth that conservatives are ignoring all of this slaughter happening in Syria.  We are looking out for our own people as well as the Syrian civilians, only now, with the strong support of the U.S. they will be safe in their own country. 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s