So President Trump authorised a strike of around 60 missiles against Syrian air force assets, after their air force used chemical weapons.
This is a pretty normal response to a situation like this. Even Nancy Pelosi is supporting it. Hillary Clinton in fact called for action against Assad. The fact Trump gave the orders excites lots of people, but it is a pretty conventional and proportionate response to a brutal dictator’s use of chemical weapons.
It will of course solve nothing, but it isn’t meant to. Perfect is the enemy of good. Or a better saying is it was the least bad option. Doing nothing would have consequences also, as having no consequences for use of chemical weapons would give some bad incentives.
There are risks. It could drag the US further into the conflict and while Assad is bad, arguably ISIS is worse. And weakening Assad may help ISIS. So is this a one off strike of an active attempt to regime change, which could encourage Russia to get more involved.
Ironically many have said Trump is in the pocket of Putin, yet his first major foreign policy and decision is to strike at a Russian ally.
The Greens of course have said no action should have been taken with UN Security Council approval. While in an ideal world that would happen, it was clear that Russia would never ever allow this, So the Green position is that there should be no consequences for the use of chemical weapons on children unless Putin agrees!
I am no Trump fan, to put it mildly. But reassuring to see a reasonable and proportional response to Assad, which makes the Trump presidency seem a little less scary.