There were probably better ways to react to the government of Syria using chemical weapons in its own people, especially children, but firing fifty Tomahawk missiles into a Syrian air base, as Donald Trump did this past Thursday, was not one of them. Even though it was a limited strike on a Syrian air base (which was back in operation after the attack), and even though the White House sought to ensure that the Russians would be out of harm's way by notifying them advance, this could escalate an already tense situation. Maybe we are not headed for a third world war, but this action - which took place one hundred years to the day after the U.S. entered World War I - puts this country in an even more perilous situation as far as maintaining stability in the Middle East is concerned.
The perversity here is that Trump said he had no tolerance for military intervention in Syria or other foreign countries during the presidential campaign, when Hillary Clinton was the one supporting tougher action in Syria by establishing a no-fly zone over the country, which, if enacted under any President, could start a bigger conflict with Russia. And if Trump is really concerned about the welfare of the Syrian people, why doesn't he let Syrian refugees come to America?
One politician, who fervently supported taking in Syrian refugees, was just as fervently opposed to intervention in Syria and was also against "regime change" there. Speaking particularly in opposition to Hillary's call for a no-fly zone in 2015, he said, "This could lead to an escalation of Cold War proportions because of an accident, and I don’t think that’s in the best interest of the United States."
His name? Martin Joseph O'Malley.
But you probably didn't hear him say that, because the media were too busy making fun of him for saying in a presidential debate, "I think Assad's invasion of Syria will be seen as a blunder," when he meant to say Vladimir Putin instead of Assad. Really classy, guys. :-(