Apparently, the U.S. has no problem launching another attack on Syria in case another chemical attack takes place.

“I spoke to the president this morning, and he said, ‘If the Syrian regime uses this poisonous gas again, the United States is locked and loaded,’ ” said Nikki Haley, United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

Although I am completely against the chemical attack, and any similar attacks, and I think that Assad’s government is corrupt, I don’t believe increased violence was the best way to deal with the situation. Here’s why I think the missile attack was a bad idea.

First, the attack was not approved by Congress. This is a potential violation of the Constitution and of international law. Unless responding to an imminent attack on the U.S., the President is required to get congressional approval in order to involve the U.S. army in another country.

Second, it is uncertain whether or not Assad and his associates are actually responsible for the alleged chemical attacks. There is a possibility the chemical attack was carried out by other terrorist or rebellious groups in order to provoke the U.S. and other western countries. Also, Assad has no incentive to provoke the U.S., especially because Trump previously launched missile attacks on Syria to oppose Assad’s violence.

Third, attacking Syria poses the risk of empowering Syria’s current, most powerful terrorist organization, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham. Foreign military involvement radicalizes locals and breeds violence. For example, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the creation and empowerment of ISIS. Additionally, the creation of Hezbollah terrorist group in southern Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip supports the claim that such foreign involvement breeds terrorism.

Fourth, the missile attack will deteriorate the already unstable ties between the U.S. and Russia. Whether Russia decides to involve its military in the Syrian dilemma or not, the icy tensions between Russia and the West will worsen. No one needs another world war.

Finally, I question the intentions that spurred the missile attack. Trump claimed the missile attack was a moral imperative in response to the unacceptable chemical attacks on Syrian citizens. The claim highly contradicts his policy that does not allow Syrian refugees into the U.S. and the passing of new laws that make it harder for immigrants and refugees to survive within the States. If he truly wanted to help Syrian civilians living in dangerous conditions, there are several other ways he could give aid without launching dangerous missiles.

I am not a political analyst and I am unsure of an ideal solution, but fighting violence with violence in order to stop violence is, in my opinion, a vicious cycle that will only worsen matters. Peace has never and will never stem from violence.

Photo courtesy of Hassan Ammar/AP. 

As second lady of the U.S. under the Reagan Administration, Bush took on her first political project to increase literacy rates among youth, establishing the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy. Sparked by her son Neil’s diagnosis of dyslexia, Bush quickly began to realize the importance of literacy, referring to it as the “most important issue we have.”

As suggested by her literacy organization’s name, Bush recognized that literacy was about much more than education. Bush emphasized the importance of education and youth literacy and literacy’s importance in the family unit. Literate parents are able to read to their children, which provides both a bonding opportunity as well as an opportunity to learn about family history through documents and letters passed down through generations.

Bush acknowledged that illiteracy is not an isolated issue with a single source, and literacy became a springboard for numerous political issues from educational funding to fighting homelessness. By promoting the intersection of illiteracy and other socioeconomic disadvantages, she made literacy one of America’s most discussed problems and developed alternative educational programs for illiterate adults to give them a chance at a better life. During the remainder of her life, Bush stayed true to her devotion to literacy. Her husband acknowledged her devotion to literacy at her funeral with his socks.

Bush was also involved in HIV/AIDs advocacy. The Republican Party and, more specifically, Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush received criticism for their silence on the growing AIDs epidemic. Choosing not to follow their lead, Bush visited those suffering with AIDs in a conscious effort to eliminate the social stigma surrounding the epidemic.

Bush made national headlines when she visited the non-profit organization Grandma’s House and closely held a young child infected with AIDs. She told the press it is perfectly safe to touch someone infected with the HIV virus and that infected individuals are people too. This humanizing effort showed that Bush, the first lady at the time, cleared a path for national acknowledgement of the AIDs epidemic and acceptance of infected people as victims, rather than untouchables. Bush’s actions and input on her husband’s political opinions possibly influenced George H.W. Bush’s passage of the Comprehensive AIDs Research Emergency Act, a bipartisan effort to help fund care for those infected with the HIV virus.

Photos courtesy of David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images and Twitter: Jim McGrath.

To supplement the order, President Trump tweeted:

“Our Border Laws are very weak while those of Mexico & Canada are very strong. Congress must change these Obama era, and other, laws NOW! The Democrats stand in our way – they want people to pour into our country unchecked….CRIME!”

Because the National Guard’s specific duties at the border are not clear, critics have raised questions as to the prudence of the president’s decision, calling the plan a waste of military resources.

The president made sure to include in his memo that his predecessors, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have implemented similar measures.

The Bush administration’s two-year-long deployment of troops to the border in 2006 cost around $1.2 billion and, plagued by ineffective communication and lack of preparation time, was mostly a failure.

The Obama administration’s deployment of troops to the border from July 2010 to Sept. 2011 cost around $110 million and was aimed at reducing human trafficking and drug smuggling, many deemed the operation unsuccessful.

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown of California pledged to send roughly 400 troops to the state’s border with Mexico. However, Brown qualified his participation on the grounds that the enforcement is not tied to immigration. Instead, the governor wants the troops to focus on controlling transitional gangs, as well as firearm and drug smuggling.

Trump, not willing to compromise, tweeted, “Looks like Jerry Brown and California are not looking for safety and security along their very porous Border. He cannot come to terms for the National Guard to patrol and protect the Border. The high crime rate will only get higher. Much wanted Wall in San Diego already started!”

The Republican governors of the three other border states, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, have readily embraced the plan.

Defense Secretary James Mattis said in an April 6 memo that the federal government will provide up to 4,000 troops at the border until Sept. 30. After that, increases in duration of deployments or the numbers of troops at the border will be decided on a state governors on a case-by-case basis.

Photo courtesy of Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images.

This threat has several severe consequences. The EMP has a destructive power similar in magnitude to that of an atomic bomb. The higher the detonation altitude, the more destructive it is. An EMP attack acts over a wide area up to hundreds of miles. Consequences of an EMP can include long lasting power outages in houses and health care facilities and damage to properties, including cars and stores. Sensors, monitors and other electronics that restart power after an outage would also be wiped out. The radioactive waves in an EMP can also kill up to millions of people, depending on its size. The radiation would also severely increase cancer cases.

“The biggest danger would be shorting out of the power grid, especially on the East Coast. Imagine a situation where large sections of the U.S. had no power. Imagine New York or Washington, D.C. with no power for just a week. The implications would be hard to fathom. The casualty rates would be off the charts,” said Harry Kazianis, Director of Defense Studies at the Center for the National Interest.

Despite the possible threat, little efforts have been made to address the issue. The federal government did not implement any recommendations to prevent power outages the EMP would cause. They also claimed that securing the power grid is not one of their current priorities. On the other hand Richard Schoeberl, a terrorism analyst, believes that an EMP attack is a possible threat that requires immediate action.

“Most of our East Coast grid has a lot of older equipment that could be vulnerable. We should work quickly to make the necessary upgrades to ensure North Korea can’t catch us by surprise,” Kazianis added.

“We are highly vulnerable to such an attack. Considering that if North Koreans are able to pack enough destructive power into such a nuclear device they could fry countless electrical grids and equipment. If they use a big enough device, the damage could be beyond belief,” said Schoeberl.

Photo courtesy of matti.frisk / Flickr.