Why Action In Syria Was Justifiable

The recent attack on Syria carried out by the Trump administration has left many people at odds with each other with regards to whether or not it was justifiable



Image Of War-Torn Syrian Street

By James Lakin & Sean Cummings | SYRIA

(71 RepublicBreaking) – The recent attack on Syria carried out by the Trump administration has left many people at odds with each other with regards to whether or not it was justifiable by the standards of international law as well as the moral code of the nation in question. It can logically be deduced that the regime of President Bashar Al-Assad 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 the inculpable citizens of Syria. The protection of individual sovereignty and global democracy is a guiding cardinal principle on which the United States was inaugurated. This, therefore, justifies the actions of the Trump administration on the grounds that it upholds this most essential philosophy.


This incident was set upon the background of the international powers lacking the capacity to resolve the numerous quandaries within Syria. As a result of their lack of capacity, various elements, both fiscal and political, factor into the problems faced by the country at issue which therefore creates turmoil that Syria lacks the ability to resolve. It would be illogical for global parties to refrain from engaging in militarial 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 thoroughgoing and all-encompassing war that risks the fate of the Syrian civilians and Americans in combat roles. Moreover, superfluous actions should be taken to ensure that the welfare of the Syrian civilians is secured. Nonetheless, the global community is endowed with an obligation to defend those who do not possess adequate means to defend themselves and this is why military action was merited. This is not to state that a fiscally rash and globally detrimental campaign is warranted.

To conclude these contentions, the repressive Islamic government of Syria perpetuates inhumane acts towards its people in the name of the furtherance of Islamic government. This is indicative of a government which subscribes to the Islamic decree. 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 any Islamic government which, emphatically, includes that of Syria.

On April 6th, 2017, 59 tomahawk cruise missiles were fired at a Syrian airbase. Whether or not this was justifiable is purely based upon the interpretation of the reader; however, the facts substantiate the claim that these attacks were not only militarily justifiable but also morally justifiable being that this attack was in the furtherance and interest of the Syrian people as well as the global community.

Note: The views displayed in this editorial do not necessarily reflect the views of this news site.


%d bloggers like this: