The Syrian government, led by President Bashar al-Assad, is once again accused of another lethal chemical weapons attack in the northern Syrian province of Idlib, the deadliest gas attack since 2013. The Trump administration has responded by calling this an action “that cannot be ignored by the civilized world” and cited the Obama administration’s “weakness and irresolution” as a reason for this attack. With that being said, the Trump administration must send a strong message these heinous attacks will have dire consequences.
Unfortunately, the United States failed to hold the Assad regime accountable in the past. In August 2012, in the midst of the Syrian civil war, President Barack Obama made it clear the use of chemical weapons was a ‘red line’ that would be met with a military response. One year later, in August 2013, when the Assad-led Syrian government crossed that line, Obama failed to receive Congressional support for those respective strikes.
Then-U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry came to the rescue with a face-saving deal. In the absence of a military strike, the Assad regime would forfeit 1,300 tons of chemical weapons (excluding certain chemical weapons that fell outside the scope of the agreement such as its chlorine stockpile) and declared all the rest of its chemical arsenal. And that was that; mission accomplished or so the world believed.
This was just a huge façade. Hollow threats matter not to a desperate regime clinging to power, attempting to break the will of its people at any cost. By failing to hold the Assad’s regime truly accountable with a military response, as promised, the Obama administration failed to enforce international standards that were meant to protect the most vulnerable people in a war zone.
This latest attack is further evidence that the Assad-led Syrian government doesn’t care about international law or that red line Obama mentioned. The attacked occurred from a Sukhoi 22 jet (a signature Russian jet supplied to the Assad regime), using chlorine gas (something Assad’s regime still has in its possession), and targeting those opposed to the Assad regime. Thus, the most likely suspect is — you guessed it — the Assad regime.
This isn’t anything new. The United Nations found that the Assad regime used chemical weapons at least three times (and potentially more) in the past; two of which occurred after the supposed peaceful removal of Assad’s chemical weapons. This time is different; it is on a far larger scale, and the Assad-led government has done little to hide its role in the attack – besides the usual; it wasn’t us.
The Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons is a serious break from international norms and law. Weapons are inherently destructive – that is a given – but conventional weapons are considered more humane as they can more accurately discriminate between soldiers and civilians. Chemical weapons are undifferentiating, cause appalling misery, can cripple people for life, and can contaminate an area for generations.
While it is uncertain why the Assad regime used chemical weapons, yet again, and far more egregiously this time, it may have something to do with the Trump administration’s public acknowledgment that it will not demand President al-Assad’s ouster. This could have been the catalyst for the Assad regime’s reckless behavior.
The Trump administration has a responsibility to make sure these types of chemical attacks are not “ignored,” whether by military response or otherwise. It also has a duty to reconsider whether President al-Assad can remain in power, and should not tacitly tolerate the Syrian government’s behavior. The Assad regime has for far too long violated international norms for this to be met with a muffled response, again.
Matt Fecteau ([email protected]) of Pawtucket, Rhode Island was a Democratic candidate for office in 2014 and 2016. He is a former White House national security intern and Iraq War veteran. Follow him on Twitter @MatthewFecteau
Trump's Win - What Does it Mean for Rhode Island?
Jennifer Duffy
Cook Report
"We don't really know what a Trump presidency means for the nation, never mind the smallest state. One of the unintended consequences of last night's results is that Sen. Jack Reed won't be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Chalk that up as a loss for RI."
Pam Gencarella
Head of Ocean State Taxpayers' Association
"Trump’s win means that his signature issue, illegal immigration, could have a big impact on RI, hopefully reversing our course as a sanctuary state and saving the state taxpayer millions of dollars. While we agree with his 'repeal and replace' Obamacare stance, we have no idea what that means to the RI debacle known as UHIP. It is not a stretch to believe that federal funding for this kind of system will be off the table so, will RI be stuck with this massively expensive system that still doesn’t work and that is expected to cost another $124 million to fix?
Trump's belief that there is significant fraud in the Food Stamp program and the policies that may come from that belief could have a negative impact on RI's local economy since there are businesses in certain cities that rely heavily on this program, fraud and all. On the upside, we may be able to ditch the UHIP program if there is significantly less need for processing welfare program requests (ie. Medicaid and food stamps) resulting from fewer illegal immigrants and less fraud. While we are ambivalent about his touted child care policies, if enacted, it may force our legislators to revisit the ever growing state cost of subsidies in this area and possibly reduce the fraud and abuse in this system."
Kay Israel
Professor at Rhode Island College
"With a Republican President and Congress, Rhode Island will probably be excluded from the 'fruits of victory."
The congressional delegation will be able to vocally make their presence felt, but in the long term it's more symbolic than substantive.
For Rhode Island it's a matter of holding on and waiting until '18 or '20 and a surge in Democratic influence."
Jennifer Lawless
Professor at American University
"The RI congressional delegation just became even less powerful than it was. With unified government, Trump doesn’t need to quell Democrats’ concerns or acquiesce because he’s worried about a Democratically-controlled Senate.
His appointments will reflect that. His executive orders will affect that. And the conservative policy agenda he puts forward will affect that."
Len Lardaro
Professor at University of Rhode Island
"Well there's a few things -- because there's not going to be gridlock, that's a big difference if it had been Hillary and a GOP Congress, in which nothing would got done. We'll at least get a half a billion in infrastructure that's going to pass which will have an impact.
I think you'll see there will be reduced reliance on government nationally -- and that's where we'll stick out like sore thumb. We've relied way too much on government -- and our government is highly inefficient and ineffective. Maybe, just maybe, in this who cycle of things we might be forced to be small and more efficient for once.
A couple of other things -- interest rates jumped. The one to follow is the ten year government bond rate -- which is tied to mortgages. It went from 1.7% to 2.05% in one day. The point is -- if the ten year stays high, mortgage rates will start going higher -- and in the short time people will run to re-finance.
That's the short term impact -- but then if rates stay hight, that will make mortgages more out of reach. And we just passed a bond issue to limit open space -- housing has limited upside here.
The next thing -- the Fed Reserve will go ahead with tightening next month. A strong dollar will hurt manufacturing. When the dollar is strong our exports become more expensive overseas.
Our goods production sector -- manufacturing and construction -- in the near term will do a little better, but as time goes on will be more limited. But something you won't hear, is there are lags in fiscal policy, of six months to year. So we won't really see the effects until the third our fourth quarter of 2017, going into 2018."
Mike Stenhouse
RI Center for Freedon and Prosperity
"As the unbelievable turned into reality this morning, it struck me that the presidential election was not really all about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. It was about a fed-up people, revolting against a corrupt system - the "beast" - that relentlessly favors insiders. Hillary personified the beast, while Donald personified the slayer.
Sadly, based on election results in our state, Rhode Island's version of the beast lives on. I fear our political class has not learned the lessons from the Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump movements - and will continue with their government-centric, anti-family, anti-business status quo."
Kristina Contreras Fox
VP of Young Democrats of America
"A Trump Presidency means the validation of the ugliest part of America. In RI, as with the rest of the country, the hammer of his hatred will fall hardest on minority communities. Being a blue state doesn't make us immune from this danger.
Trump won over 35% (39.5) of the vote here! We need to look in the mirror, and not lie about what the reflection shows us. No more hiding underneath a blue blanket. I expect those who claim Democratic values to be true to those values. The gulf between words and actions have turned into fertile ground for Trump's message to grow here in RI. If you call yourself a Democrat, if you claim to stand in opposition to Trump, now is the time to prove it. Show up and fight back."
Enjoy this post? Share it with others.
Translation service unavailable. Please try again later.