U.S. Response to Syrian Chemical Weapon Attacks Ryan Lorig

Contrary to my blog post from last week, President Trump has decided to "respond" to Russia in an indirect sense, some would argue. With the U.S. responding to Syria using chemical weapons on its own citizens, the foreign policy dance has begun. With many swirling questions, the main one the White House faces right now is this; How does the U.S. stop the slaughtering of innocent civilians without risking the possibility of war? Colum Lynch, Elias Groll, and Robbie Gramer would agree as they argue the "goalpost" the U.S. has to kick this foreign policy football through is very narrowly tailored with the central goal of deterring Syrian chemical warfare. With Friday's missile strikes, President Trump believes the U.S. has achieved that goal, apparently "hitting the heart" of Syrian chemical weapons programs and setting progress back "several years." This is certainly an interesting development in the Middle East, considering this is potentially a conflict the President wants to withdraw U.S. troops from as soon as possible, but with attacks on civilians by oppressive regimes, self-elected "police of the world" United States has to step in and make its military power understood by those willing to test it. This all comes months after a travel ban that has stopped Syrian refugees from seeking shelter in the U.S. leaving many wondering what options these refugees truly have in times like this.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/14/syrian-chemical-weapons-use-prompts-missile-volley-from-trump/