Contact theSOPAbout theSOPSupport theSOPWritersEditorsManaging Editors
theSOP logo
Published:April 6th, 2017 11:47 EST

Donald Trump Shouldn't Intervene Militarily in Syria

By Robert Paul Reyes

"President Donald Trump is condemning the chemical attack in Syria that left 72 people dead as an `affront to humanity` that `cannot be tolerated.`"

CBS News

I agree with Donald Trump`s former part of his statement, but not the latter. A chemical attack that targets innocent civilians, including children, is an affront to humanity. But in the Muslim world affronts to humanity occur on a daily basis, and the United States doesn`t have the financial or military resources to intervene every time a massacre occurs in that part of the world where the Religion of Peace reigns supreme.

In Syria there are many competing factions, and each one commits atrocities on a regular basis to achieve their objectives. What difference does it make if civilians are butchered by chemical attacks, bombs dropped by fighter jets or car bombs?

Why do Americans automatically demand that the president take military action when chemical weapons are used?
Trump was elected, in large part, because he preached a non-interventionist foreign policy. Trump`s supporters are trusting that he won`t lead America into another Iraq or Afghanistan.

To declare that the chemical attack cannot be tolerated implies that Trump intends to take military action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad. Syria`s president is supported by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, any American military action against al-Assad can quickly escalate into a world war.

Unfortunately, the Syrian government`s attack against its own civilian population must be tolerated, there`s nothing we can or should do to try to bring reason into a region of the world where people are blinded by their fanatical devotion to a blood-soaked religion.

Read More:

Follow Robert Paul Reyes on Twitter:

Photo Credit: Wikipedia

Link to homepage of Robert Paul Reyes: