Why the Military Action in Syria Was Justifiable

By James Lakin & Sean Cummings | United States

(71 RepublicBreaking) – Recently, President Trump carried out an attack against Syria. This left many people at odds with each other over whether this was the legal and moral right decision. Logically, the Assad regime was fully aware of the implications of carrying out chemical attacks upon its civilians. These attacks do not adhere to global propriety and they are in clear contravention of international law.

Furthermore, the regime’s actions were an egregious abridgment of the human rights and dignities of Syrians. The protection of individual sovereignty and global democracy is a guiding cardinal principle on which the United States exists. This, therefore, justifies the actions of the Trump administration, as it upholds this most essential philosophy.

Action in Syria: Helping Citizens

This incident was set upon the background of the international powers lacking the capacity to resolve the numerous quandaries within Syria. As a result, various elements, both fiscal and political, factor into the problems. This creates turmoil that Syria lacks the ability to resolve. It would be illogical for global parties to refrain from engaging in military conduct because of the imminent threat the Assad regime possesses to the citizens of Syria and American aid workers present.

That does not mean, however, that they should engage in a full war involving combat roles. Moreover, superfluous actions should occur to secure the welfare of the Syrian civilians. Nonetheless, the global community has an obligation to defend those who do not possess adequate means to defend themselves. Thus, military action was acceptable, but a fiscally rash and globally detrimental campaign is not.

A Repressive Regime

To conclude, the repressive Syrian state perpetuates inhumane acts towards its people. In many cases, this is due to the Islamic government present. To cite the Syrian Constitution, “Article 3 of the 1973 Syrian constitution declares Islamic jurisprudence one of Syria’s main sources of legislation. The Personal Status Law 59 of 1953 (amended by Law 34 of 1975) is essentially a codified Islamic law.” This an example of the lack of capacity of Islamic countries to govern themselves effectively. Thus, based on the fundamental principles which United States citizens defer to, the action on the grounds of such principles is justified. This principle should give cause to the uprooting of an Islamic government. Syria is no special exception.

Note: The views displayed in this editorial do not necessarily reflect the views of 71 Republic.

Get awesome merchandise. Help 71 Republic end the media oligarchy. Donate today to our Patreon, which you can find here. Thank you very much for your support!