Letters: Trump in Syria

President’s all talk

Re “What is President Trump’s strategy in Syria?” (Editorial, April 8): Should we have responded to the chemical weapon attack in Syria? Absolutely. But it should have been a shared response, coordinated with allies, and inflicted long-term damage to Assad.

That this Syrian airfield was usable immediately after the Tomahawk bombing indicates lack of mission success. But it won wide press coverage. Like all things Trump, the statement was huge, the result not so much.

Strike was illegal

I may not agree with many of Rep. Tom McClintock’s ideas, but I do agree with his statement that “the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons is an atrocity.” Like him, I also am “deeply concerned that the president is preparing to order acts of war against the government of Syria without congressional authorization.”

What will the ramifications of America’s actions be, and how should we respond to our president’s lack of respect for our Constitution?

No doctrine there

We’re hearing a lot about “the Trump doctrine,” as if there were such a thing. As he careens from one extreme to the other on every major policy decision that comes before him, all that is clear is that his reactionary mind has no core belief that would allow a doctrine to develop.

All about Trump

Trump’s outrage at Assad’s latest evil appears more about his own ruffled sensitivities than about forming strategies to protect Syrian civilians. Despite the 59 Tomahawks, the little airport still operates. If the past provides example, Trump is soon likely to turn his gaze and be drawn to the next shiny object.

 

Sign up

Get on The Take. Read the influential voices on California and national politics and issues. Sign up here.

This story was originally published April 10, 2017 at 1:43 PM with the headline "Letters: Trump in Syria."