Author: Siegrid Tuttle

How to Organize a School Walkout

Image: Missoulian

Students across the United States are rising up to demand stricter gun control laws after the Parkland shooting took 17 lives. How can you take part in the movement? The Parkland students have some ideas. One powerful way you can join the movement is by organizing a walkout. Just because March 14th has come and gone, it doesn’t mean that you can’t still get in on the action. Ignore what Tucker Carlson says, we are citizens and we have a say! Try using this handy guide for organizing a walkout at your own school:

Step 1: Research

Create a document showcasing why we need gun control. Have your argument for the cause clearly laid out. There is lots of information out there, here are some articles to check out first,

Step 2: Get a Team

Get together a group of supporters. Supporters can be a teacher, your friends or other kids who are interested. Start working on an action plan; decide exactly what you’re doing, how you will spread the message, when will you hold the walkout (the official walkout days are March 14 and April 20) and try to gauge how open your school administration will be to this idea so you can prepare for the next step…

Step 3: Talk to the Administration

Email your principal or talk to teachers and other people who work in your school about whether they would be open to a walkout. In my school the administration was very supportive of students walking out, however not all schools have been so happy about students taking part in political action. If they are not supportive that doesn’t mean you can’t walk out, remember schools can’t suspend a whole grade and may not bother trying with the threat of legal challenges. Also, many prestigious colleges have said they will not count a suspension caused by political action against prospective students when they apply, so continue without fear!

Step 4: Get the rest of your school on board

Either the hardest or easiest step. It seems like it would be hard to get a big group of high schoolers to do anything; especially if you don’t have the administration’s blessing and it could lead to punishment, but there have been reports of random walkouts with very little organization working very well. If you do not have the administration‘s blessing, try spreading the word through friend groups and social media. Make sure everyone knows exactly when it will be to avoid confusion. If you have the administration’s blessing make announcements and hold an assembly if you can.

Step 5: Alert the media

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody sees it or hears it, did it fall? Yes. But nobody cares. Your walkout doesn’t mean anything or make any effect if nobody sees it. Send an email to your local news channels and newspapers telling them when the walkout will be, who organized it and your reasons for walking out, also make sure you have a student documenting the experience. While you’re at it, register! Tell the movement you’re supporting that you’re having a walkout so they count you. You can register for the March 14 walkout here.

Step Six: Walk Out! (Try not to forget this part)

Bonus: Repeat

Now that you have some experience and a group of supporters, find a new cause you’re passionate about and do it all again!

Now We Burn Art

Mansoor Adayfi, a freed prisoner from Guantanamo, said:

Everyone who could draw drew the sea(…) the sea means freedom no one can control or own, freedom for everyone.

The John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York City has put up a controversial art exhibit called “Ode to the Sea” that features 36 paintings, drawings and sculptures, all stamped with the words “Approved by US Forces.” The art was made by prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and the exhibition gained worldwide news coverage due to its artists. In November, the government stopped releasing any art from Guantanamo Bay, reportedly in response to the exhibit. Art from Guantanamo was already censored. No art that revealed anything about Guantanamo or that portrayed the United States negatively would be released, and the art was inspected by experts for secret messages. The US government gave no explanation for its change in policy. Apparently, it doesn’t have to, because, according to the Army, the government owns art created in Guantanamo, despite the fact the artists were held there without trial—against their will. Because of this policy, the government can do what it wants with the prisoner’s art. Prisoners cannot take their art with them when they are freed, so instead, the army burns it. A lawyer representing three Guantanamo Bay prisoners said, as quoted by the New York Times, said:

One of my clients was told that, even if he were ever to be released, that he would not be able to take his art with him, and that it would be incinerated.

Art in Guantanamo has never fared well. It has been forbidden, censored, and now it will be burnt.

The Third Reich hated modernism (what it called degenerate art). They deemed it insane and insulting to morality and society. The Nazis removed over 20,000 pieces of art from German museums and put them in a special museum created to mock the art. The “museum” showed the art as corrupt, evil, and nonsensical. Some of the art the Nazis sold, but much of itthey burned. Art made by Jewish artists faced the same fate. The Soviet Union also practiced strict censorship against art, it had a whole office dedicated to deciding what books and paintings the Soviet public could or could not see. Religious art and the books or paintings of people the government had killed or exiled were banned. More recently, ISIS has destroyed tons of art in order to destroy messages they don’t agree with. They burned books from libraries in Mosul that they believed promoted infidelity or disobeyed Allah and destroyed statues they believed promoted following false idols.

Governments destroy and censor art in order to get rid of its message. The Nazis hated modernism because it didn’t focus on an idealized image of Anglo-Saxon society. It blurred the lines between good and bad. It scorned the absolutes that the Third Reich was built upon. The Soviet Union censored any art that criticized the government or didn’t perfectly fit communist ideals. ISIS destroys art that promotes anything but following their beliefs. Governments also censor art because it connects and humanizes people, making it much harder to demonize an enemy. Nazis mocked and burned Jewish art, the Soviet Union banned the art of exiles and religious people, ISIS destroys the art of so-called sinners.

The United States government is censoring the art of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay for the same reasons. First, the United States didn’t release any art they didn’t agree with. Now, no art can leave their island “dungeon.” Our government would rather burn art made by prisoners than let it leave Guantanamo because it proves that the prisoners are humans—not monsters. Because the art depicts the views of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners and humanizes them, it makes the public ask questions about Guantanamo thatthey couldn’t when the prisoners were just “the worst of the worst.” The government has no good answers. 779 people have been kept at Guantanamo—forty-one remain. The Trump administration has freed none. Eight have been convicted in illegal military commissions. Of these eight, these three were completely overturned, and one was partially overturned. Only one prisoner was found guilty in a legal court case. Lawrence Wilkerson, a former senior State Department official, declared:

There was no meaningful way to determine whether [the prisoners] were terrorists, Taliban, or simply innocent civilians picked up on a very confused battlefield or in the territory of another state such as Pakistan.

The government offered thousands of dollars to anyone who brought in a person they said was a member of ISIS, and some prisoners weren’t even vetted by any Americans before being sent to Guantanamo to be tortured. Wilkerson testifies children as young as twelve and thirteen years-old were shipped to Guantanamo alongwith men in their 90s.In Guantanamo, prisoners were beaten by guards, forced into ice baths, and waterboarded. No communication with families was allowed, even for prisoners who had been found innocent and were just being held—sometimes for years—until a country would take them. Even with extreme security measures and constant supervision, seven prisoners managed to commit suicide. Yasser Zahrini was taken to Guantanamo when he was sixteen. He committed suicide at twenty-one, becoming the youngest person to die at Guantanamo. Many other prisoners attempted suicide, Majid Khan reported trying to commit suicide by chewing through his own arteries because the conditions at Guantanamo were so bad. On top of that, according to a Senate committee investigation, torture was a completely ineffective means to gain truthful information, and the CIA lied about the about gaining helpful information from torture.

The United States committed war crimes, now it is demonizing its victims. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners’ art is their best way to connect with the public, but our government would rather burn their art than let it reach the eyes of American citizens.

The First Thanksgiving… and Diplomatic Empathy

Image: Faith and History

In late September or early October 1621, the Pilgrims hosted a celebration of their first harvest. The Native American tribe, Wampanoag, that had helped them through the spring came with twice as many people, making it an overwhelmingly Native American celebration. While there was turkey, deer was the main course, it was a multi-day affair and there was not enough tables nor chairs to seat everyone. This celebration has been heralded as the first Thanksgiving, despite the fact, Puritans defined a Thanksgiving as a period of prayer and devotion to God, not a meal or celebration. Every year, Thanksgiving is held throughout America with a turkey dinner on the fourth Thursday of November commemorating that celebration. Despite the historical fallaciousness, the sentiment shines through. In modern America, Thanksgiving is a time to be thankful for what you have, the first Thanksgiving was the Pilgrims celebrating their first harvest and possibly was their way of thanking the Wampanoags. The Pilgrims owed the Wampanoags not only for single-handedly saving the Pilgrims lives that wretched first year but also for the political connection to the Native American tribes that allowed the Pilgrims to be active diplomatic players in North America and would continue to help them for years to come. The political bond formed between the Wampanoags and Pilgrims was an incredible feat given the huge cultural difference between the groups and that the Wampanoag’s past experiences with white settlers had been overwhelmingly negative. In fact, the Wampanoags and other Native American tribes had at very least discussed killing the Pilgrims when they first arrived. In the end, the Wampanoags helped them out of their own necessity. They were a small tribe, weakened by diseases and increasingly threatened by the stronger more populous tribes surrounding them. They decided to become allies of these new settlers who brought technology the Native Americans were familiar with but didn’t have a source for. For the Wampanoags, it was a risky bet that they hoped would have a high political and financial payout.

The Pilgrim-Wampanoag alliance was an extremely beneficial one. They both benefited in trade and were much safer than they would have been alone. Amazingly this alliance lasted nearly 50 years, and so did peace between the Pilgrims and Wampanoags despite the fact that everything about the culture of Native Americans and Pilgrims was different, their languages, their traditions, their religions. The alliance was an incredible feat of diplomacy between the two groups, created primarily by mutual necessity and opportunism but also an incredible amount of empathy. The Pilgrims came from Europe in the 17th century, where people were seen as less for having a different religion or race, but in this new world, the Pilgrims couldn’t afford to be intolerant. The two peoples coexisted in a way future settlers wouldn’t even be able to imagine. The Pilgrims hired Native Americans, stayed in their Wigwams during diplomatic meetings and a few Native Americans even lived with the Pilgrims. The Pilgrims treated Native Americans and their ways with respect, they were even subdued in their Puritan evangelism. Possibly the best account of how much respect the Pilgrims had for the Native Americans was a trial. In 1638 four European settlers robbed and killed a Native American. The Pilgrim’s court found the settlers guilty and executed them. The Pilgrims saw a Native American life as equal to a European’s.

Leading up to King Philip’s war in 1675, the European settlers became less and less empathetic to the Native Americans. Missionaries began converting tribes to Christianity, a religion Philip, the new leader of the Wampanoags, was increasingly wary of. More Europeans poured over from Europe and they bullied the Wampanoags into giving up more land than the tribe could survive without. The Europeans provoked the Wampanoags more and more until one event finally sparked King Philip’s war. Three of Philip’s men were accused of killing a European educated Native American. The three were found guilty despite the fact only one witness had seen the alleged events and the law required two witnesses. The Pilgrims hung the three Native Americans, the last of the three hangings failed because the rope broke and the Pilgrims forced a confession from the third Native American after already hanging the other two, securing their second witness. It was a demolition of justice and started the war Philip had already been preparing for. A war that the Europeans had forced upon the Native Americans by trying to take over and bully them. The Pilgrims had treated their neighbors as subhuman. The result was a war. One that the Europeans won, but not without paying a heavy price. One in ten soldiers on both sides was killed and 1,200 homes of colonists were destroyed. The colonists lived in terror during the war and felt its financial effects long after.

That war might have been inevitable for America due too the number of Europeans coming in who needed to take land from someone and the natural clash between government and cultures, but if the Pilgrims had been more respectful, diplomatic and empathetic with their neighbors they could have left that war for another group of colonists. As it was, they put themselves in a similar situation to the one they had been in 55 years prior, months before the first Thanksgiving when they were low on supplies and terrified. That Thanksgiving was the Pilgrims reaping the benefits of a win-win alliance they created with the Wampanoags when they had been in that dark desperate situation. In the modern world, our countries need win-win solutions. Life is better in a peaceful world. Any conflict, whether physical, economic, or political, hurts civilians. Also, bullying may have worked for America’s forefathers but the world is different today, the United States can’t force Mexico to pay for a wall, or North Korea to give up its weaponry or China to stop building islands, we need diplomatic win-win solutions and we need people who have empathy, who can look at thing from other people’s point of view, to create those win-win solutions.

This Thanksgiving let’s be thankful for the leaders around the world working in governments, nonprofits, and privately to make the world safer. Let’s be thankful the UN exists, as an organization that is dedicated to creating diplomatic solutions. Let’s be thankful the United States and any other country that signed the UN charter into law must seek diplomatic solutions before starting a war. Let’s be thankful the world has come a long way in diplomacy since 1675.

Terror in Barcelona

Image: Gone Fishing

Fifteen people have been killed in a terror attack on Las Ramblas avenue in Barcelona on the 17th of August. Over 80 others were injured. An attacker drove a large white van down Las Ramblas Avenue, a pedestrian street packed with tourists and Barcelonians, plowing through crowds of people, killing and injuring many while causing mass chaos and a mini stampede. The attack happened before 5 pm Central European Time (11 a.m. Eastern Standard Time), and the Police acted quickly, evacuating the area and closing nearby Metro and train stations while getting aid to the victims.

The attackers reportedly had fled on foot. Four men were arrested for their alleged involvement in the attack. Also, police found another van they believe was going to be used as a getaway vehicle and found Moroccan passports. Driss Oukabir, one of the arrested suspects, claims his documents were stolen to rent the vans. Adding to the confusion, a hostage situation was reported by the media, but it is unclear whether it actually happened. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the attack, but this does not mean that the attackers have any direct ties with ISIS. Furthermore, an explosion the day before that killed one person and injured 6 has been linked to the attack. Our hearts are with Barcelona, the victims of this callous and unwarranted attack, and the law enforcement and medical staff dealing with its fallout.

Many politicians and famous people tweeted their support. President Macron of France, Prime Minister Trudeau of Canada, President Vladimir Putin of Russia and many other world leaders also issued statements or tweets expressing their solidarity with Barcelona, including our own President, Trump. Trump originally told Barcelona to “be tough & strong, we love you” in a kind, heartfelt tweet of solidarity, but then proceeded to tweet a bizarre statement mentioning a claim he made on the campaign trail about an American General in the Philippines during the early 1900’s dipping bullets in Pig’s blood before shooting 49 captured terrorists and sending the 50th back to report what had happened. Trump said it stopped terrorism for 35 years in his tweet. First of all, this piece of made up “history” has been debunked, and second of all, let me recount a bit of history to explain how truly atrocious and dehumanizing this urban legend is. When America invaded the Philippines, there were protests against it in America with supporters saying the invasion was cruel and unfair and supporters saying that we had to bring order and civilization to a “barbaric race,” in the words of a United States Senator at the time. The Muslims we were fighting against were the native Filipinos who were trying to protect their country. We were the terrorists. We put people into “reconcentration camps” and killed somewhere between 200,000 and a million civilians in a war that only killed 16000 Filipino soldiers. It is possible Trump’s story is true, except we weren’t killing terrorists, we were committing an atrocity against a country and race based on racist stereotypes. The answer to Islamic extremism is not to make the West seem barbaric or aggressive towards Islamism or people in general. Trump has been inadvertently helping ISIS recruit with his aggression and insulting speeches towards all Islam (and humanity) instead of violent Islam, even having been featured in ISIS recruitment video.

Refocusing on the attack, this is the ninth vehicle attack in Europe. Seven previous vehicle attacks were committed by ISIS affiliated attackers and one was committed by an extremist who drove into a group of people outside of mosque saying “I want to kill all Muslims.” There was also a vehicle attack on the home front in Charlottesville just this Saturday. White Supremacists had gathered for a rally protesting the taking down of a Robert E. Lee statue, their chants and messages couldn’t possibly be misconstrued as not hateful, with chants like “Jews will not replace us” as they held Hitler signs. Counter-protesters formed a line in front of them, refusing to let them pass. The protesters violently charged through them, and the two groups broke out into fighting. Luckily, police were there to disperse the two groups. While the governor of Charlottesville called it a state of emergency. Nobody had yet gotten killed or seriously injured and both groups were leaving. Then, a white nationalist drove a car into a group of counter-demonstrators, killing one and injuring nineteen. When the attack happened, the groups of protesters and counter-protesters had already split up, there was no violence or skirmishes going on between those groups at the time of the attack. In a statement after the attacks, our President refused to condemn the White Supremacists, even when asked direct questions about his view of them, instead, he blamed violence on “many sides.” Two days later, Trump claimed that he didn’t support the KKK or White Supremacist groups in a scripted speach, however, on Tuesday, he had undone the comments that he had made on Monday by going as far as defending the white supremacists. By any account, his statement of condemnation came too late and was too ambiguous. White Supremacists took his failure to condemn them as support, and it seemed a lot like support to everyone else as well.

As a nation, and as a world we are left with these facts; vehicles are easy to get and large groups of innocent people are easy to find. Having one group of crazy extremists inspired by ISIS to attack people was scary enough, but now because of the amount of xenophobia, fear and hate that has been caused by ISIS and how our countries have handled ISIS, anti-Muslim extremists and white supremacists are also attacking innocent people in their twisted war on people who are different.

There is no sign this is going to get any better. The leader of the KKK said of the attack in Charlottesville “we’re going to see more stuff like this happening at white-nationalist events.” He could absolutely be right. As more terrorist attacks happen, charged by different groups all of whom are growing and possibly becoming more violent, we need a leader who’s going to condemn all people who kill innocent civilians or attempt to whether they are White Supremacists, Muslim extremists or anti-Muslim extremists, without insulting any groups who did not kill innocent civilians. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has demonstrated how he is completely incapable of confronting many of his base supporters.

Illegal Immigration- 11.1 Million Lives in Limbo

Image: The New Yorker

There were 11.1 million undocumented immigrants in the United States in 2014 according to the Pew Research Center. They made up 3.5% of the U.S. population and one-fourth of the US immigrant population. Since 2009, the population of undocumented immigrants has stabilized, meaning that the percentage of the US population that are undocumented immigrants has stayed the same (or very close to it). Therefore, the most important question in immigration policy today is what should the United States do with the undocumented immigrants already here.

Undocumented immigrants are problematic for various reasons. They often have to commit crimes like using a counterfeit driver’s license because they have no social security number. They also haven’t gone through the screenings that legal immigrants in our country have. Another problem is that employers could potentially take advantage of their vulnerability—they may be put in unsafe conditions and paid less than minimum wage, but they can’t report their employer to the authorities because they risk deportation. This is obviously a problem for the immigrants, but it also means documented immigrants and American citizens can’t compete for these jobs. Undocumented immigrants live in fear they will be deported which means they are less likely to work with the police and other authorities.

There are two solutions to this issue: deport all of these undocumented immigrants or give them a path to citizenship. Recently, the Trump administration has endorsed the idea of mass deportation. Marielena Hincapie, an immigration advocate, told NPR:

In my many years of practicing immigration law, I have not seen a mass deportation blueprint like this one. Trump is saying that everyone is now a priority. He is governing by fear, not by what’s best for the American people or for aspiring Americans.

As she points out, Trump’s new plan targets basically all undocumented immigrants, not just criminals. He has already looked at adding 15,000 officers to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) and blocking federal funding from sanctuary cities.

Sixty percent of undocumented immigrants have been in the US for more than ten years, which gives reason to assume that they have become integrated into their community. In fact, one-third of illegal immigrants over age 15 live with a child who is a US citizen. CNN reported the story of Garcia de Rayos, an illegal immigrant with two American children, who was deported February 8, 2017. Her deportation sparked protests as her children spoke against it. She was checking in with ICE when she got deported. A few years before, she had been caught using a fake Social Security number and lost her case. Since she was not a priority to be deported, instead of deporting her, ICE just did check-ins. She went to seven meetings with ICE and followed all the instructions they gave her. There did not seem to be any reason to deport her but, as the lawyer of another woman in the same situation stated, “When you have a blanket deportation policy you don’t need to have specific reasons, you just say no.” Garcia De Rayos’s situation is a common one, and now that Trump is in charge, all of these people who weren’t in danger of being deported because they were not a priority are now in danger of being deported. Critics say this policy does more to rip families apart than to keep America safe. The government is supposed to work to make American’s lives better, but deporting parents of US citizens is working against that goal. These children, who are US citizens, may be put in the care of an older sibling, sent to an unsafe or impoverished country, or landed in foster care.

Some children were not born in the United States, but were brought here at a young age as undocumented immigrants by their parents. Obviously, they had not been the ones to decide that their family would move to the US, but they have grown up knowing the United States as their only home. DACA stands for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. It is an executive order signed by President Obama to grant undocumented immigrants who were brought into the country as children (dubbed “dreamers”) amnesty and work permits. Roughly 750,000 undocumented immigrants are protected under the program. These are people who were taken to the US before they turned 16. Some don’t even remember their native country. Even Trump has sympathy for their case; he has promised to keep DACA in place and says “it’s a very, very tough subject” because “you have some absolutely, incredible kids.” However, his word can’t be trusted. While he may be hesitant to undo the order due to fear of political backlash, he could just stop issuing work permits or deport people based on misdemeanors or find another way around the order. Kamal Essaheb from the National Immigration Law Center told CNN:

We cannot at this time offer a confident assessment of whether anyone—including those with DACA—are protected from enforcement.

Sadly, Trump definitely holds the power to deport the “dreamers” if he really desired to do so. This just seems cruel, especially since DACA only applies to law-abiding undocumented immigrants brought to America as children.

Logistically, a mass deportation just doesn’t make sense. The American Action Forum found removing all the undocumented immigrants in America would cost between $100 billion and $300 billion dollars, take 20 years, and shrink the GDP by $1.6 trillion. According to National Farm Workers Ministry, six out of ten farm workers are undocumented immigrants. If all those workers are deported, food prices in America might skyrocket as employers struggle to fill those positions and have to pay workers more. A shrinking GDP and higher food prices create difficulties for all Americans, and, remember, this is all to deport people who aren’t dangerous or causing problems.

Deportation is not as easy [or cheap] as it may sound. Some people are hard to deport. Only about half of the undocumented immigrants in America are from Mexico. 268,000 are from China, one of the twenty-three countries that do not cooperate with deportations, which means there is literally nowhere to deport these people. Deporting people from other countries like India, Korea or even El Salvador can be costly because they would have to be flown back to their countries of origin.

Now let’s consider the other solution, giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship. This plan would allow undocumented immigrants to apply for citizenship and would probably include temporary amnesty as they go through the process. It would mean safety for the families currently in danger of being ripped apart and the “dreamers” and every other undocumented immigrant who now has their life here and hasn’t broken any major laws. A change in administration would no longer decide whether parents can stay with their children or whether someone is shipped off to a country they haven’t seen since they were five, and if there are fewer people too afraid of deportation to report their bosses, employers in America would have to comply with American safety and minimum wage laws. Money would still have to be spent on border control and removing dangerous criminals, but less would be spent on deporting people. Some people claim giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship would encourage more people to come to America illegally. There is no data to back up this claim and logically the possibility, after living in America illegally for years, that you might get amnesty and begin the process to become a citizen is a weak pull factor when compared to the other push and pull factors involved with illegal immigration. These people are leaving their countries to escape extreme poverty, violence and in some cases oppressive governments. They come to America to get a steady income to support their families and a safe place to live. Simply giving these people a path to citizenship seems to be the best option regarding most of the undocumented immigrant population in America. For now 11.1 million people’s lives hang in the balance while the Trump administration tries to decide what to do with them.

Another Atrocity In Syria

 

Image: VOA News via AP Images

On the fourth of April, the Assad regime attacked civilian targets in Syria. A doctor in a hospital near the attack told CNN, “Today around 7:30 a.m., about 125 … arrived to our hospital. Twenty-five of them were already dead, 70% to 80% of the wounded people were kids and women.” He went on to describe symptoms indicative of a sarin gas attack. More than eighty-six people died in the chemical attack on Khan Sheikhoun, a small town in Syria. The main hospital in Khan Sheikhoun was bombed as well. Neither of the attacks seemed to have any counter-terrorism purpose. In response, Trump fired fifty-nine missiles at the air base responsible for much of Assad’s bombing in Syria.

In 2013, a similar attack by Assad happened with very different results. Over a thousand people were killed in a sarin attack by the Assad regime in 2013.  The attack was investigated by the United Nations and was a human rights scandal even though Assad had attacked his citizens with chemical agents before in much smaller attacks. In Syria’s six-year civil war, Assad’s regime has been accused of torture, sieging cities and starving innocent citizens, chemical warfare and other war crimes. Assad’s government is in a fight against rebel groups that include ISIS but is also an oppressive regime that has repeatedly targeted civilians instead of rebel groups and terrorists. Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, even conceded that Assad’s regime used chemical warfare. America’s previous policy did include removing Assad from office, but Trump’s air strike was the first American attack on the Assad regime.

Because it is backed by Russia and stands between ISIS and complete control of Syria, attacking the Assad regime could lead to a disastrous international fallout. This is why Assad has been able to use chemical warfare on civilians without fear of being attacked by a superpower. By attacking Assad, Trump attacked an ally in the fight against ISIS. America has supported rebel troops trying to overthrow Assad while Russia has supported Assad claiming that ISIS will take over Syria without his leadership. Opponents of Russia’s viewpoint claim ISIS has taken over much of Syria because the Assad regime was not stable enough to fight back well.  If America continues to attack and possibly overthrow Assad, it would be up to the rest of the world to create a stable government fast enough to stop ISIS from taking over. It is also worth noting that citizens may be less likely to join ISIS or Al-Qaeda if they feel the West is doing something to stop the bombing and terror that comes with daily life in Syria.

Russia has already responded to the attack on its ally in a joint statement with Iran that says, “What America waged in an aggression on Syria is a crossing of red lines. From now on we will respond with force to any aggressor or any breach of red lines from whoever it is and America knows our ability to respond well.” This means if America attacks the Assad Regime again it might start a war with Russia and Iran. Once again the world may be teetering on the edge of a world war. But at the same time, how can America and the rest of the free world continue to allow a brutal and repressive government to abuse its people?

Trump added more frightening dimensions to the story by not getting congress’s approval before issuing the air strikes. This could be illegal and shows he is willing to attack countries without going through the necessary diplomatic steps. When Obama considered bombing Assad in 2013, he got congress’s approval, yet Trump neglected to go through the fundamental procedure. Trump has been criticized for his flippant statement on nuclear weapons while on the campaign trail; he even asked why we were making nukes if we weren’t going to use them, demonstrated minimal to no knowledge of the nuclear triad, and refused to promise not to nuke Europe. He also said we had to be unpredictable with nuclear power and said he was okay with countries such as South Korea and Saudi Arabia getting nuclear power.  In some cases, he even encouraged it. He has also been criticized for suggesting that America should torture the families of terrorists and commit other war crimes. Because of these statements, it is especially worrying to see him bomb Assad without going through congress, in a move that can be seen as having little foresight. Next time, he may decide to drop a bomb on a city instead of an air base. Also, the decision has been criticized because it makes little sense strategically in that it did little more than anger Assad. Planes started taking off from the airbase America bombed less than 24 hours after it was bombed. Comedian John Oliver had made a joke, saying, “Delta passengers experience more significant delays on a daily basis.”
Thomas Friedman had said, speaking of the Syrian crisis, “If there were a good, easy solution it would have been found already.” The decision to fight Assad or let him do as he pleases without fear of retaliation is foreign policy at its most treacherous. Both choices have a very real human cost and a million repercussions, but to some extent, they also come down to how much Americans care about Syrians being slaughtered and living in terror. Enough to risk the lives of Americans? Enough to let them into our country? Enough to send money and aid? 

As for the air strikes, many human rights advocates are just thankful a foreign power is finally standing up for the civilians of Syria. These people are being attacked by ISIS, other rebel groups and their own government in a brutal civil war. They face a perilous and often deadly journey to a refugee camp if they decide to leave. Whether you agree with Trump’s retaliation or not, keep the people of battle torn Syria in your thoughts.