Throughout his campaign, and in his first months as president, Donald Trump repeatedly rejected the idea that America should continue to play a leading role on the world stage. The strike on Syria last week, writes Elliott Abrams, represents a welcome departure from such rhetoric:
[T]he strike at Syria had at its heart precisely that kind of global leadership, to enforce the century-old ban on chemical warfare in the interest of decency and peace. . . . This strike will save lives—in Syria, by preventing Assad from daring to use chemical weapons again, and in unknown future conflicts where the losing side will be tempted to employ chemical weapons, and will think twice and not do it. Donald Trump saved more lives in Syria by his action this week than Barack Obama did in all his years in office. . . .
Trump’s decision may [also] create an opportunity for negotiations over Syria. The talks have never been serious because one can never achieve at a conference table what one has failed to achieve on the battlefield. But the battlefield may look a bit different now; it may be worth a try. Trump is right in saying that there were earlier opportunities in Syria and that he inherited a mess, but perhaps some kind of real cease-fire or truce is attainable this year. He has certainly boosted the chances.
The president has obviously not solved the problem of war in Syria, or that of Islamic State, or al-Qaeda, or a rising China and an aggressive Iran and a hostile Russia. Of course not. Moreover, he may waver in the coming months, and lead analysts to wonder if the Syria strike was a one-time emotional response to the sarin-gas attack. But he has put us back on the map in a new way; he has created some new space.
Read more on Weekly Standard: http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-strike-at-syria/article/2007579