Hard
questions in the aftermath of Syria air strike
Committing the use of
force and American men and women in uniform is about as serious as it gets.
But
the truly great presidents understand that knowing when NOT to act is as
important as knowing when to act.
It
is a whole lot easier starting wars than finishing them.
And there are many historical examples of where a promise of limited engagement quickly metastasized into something much bigger.
And there are many historical examples of where a promise of limited engagement quickly metastasized into something much bigger.
There is a tendency to rally around the flag, and a President who takes on a war footing can see a boost of support. It is often transitory.
There
are arguments to be made that President Assad in Syria has crossed a line that
demands U.S. military interference.
Whether
this should have been a unilateral action is something we all must consider.
Whether
President Trump has a plan for what comes next must be debated.
Whether
there is a coherence to this missile strike fitting into a larger foreign
policy strategy is a question that should give us all pause.
The
role of the press is to ask hard questions. There is ample evidence that this
Administration needs to face deep scrutiny.
The
lies we have heard, the chaos in governance, and the looming questions about
ties with Russia - itself a major player in Syria - demand that the press treat
this latest action with healthy skepticism.
Perhaps
it was the right thing to do. Perhaps a strong and wise policy will emerge. But
that judgement is still definitely hanging in the balance.
The
number of members of the press who have lauded the actions last night as
"presidential" is concerning.
War
must never be considered a public relations operation.
It
is not a way for an Administration to gain a narrative. It is a step into a
dangerous unknown and its full impact is impossible to predict, especially in
the immediate wake of the first strike.