It has been almost two weeks since President Donald Trump ordered the launching of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from a United States warship, directed at the Al Shayrat Airfield in Syria. The Al Shayrat Airfield housed warplanes that employed the recent chemical weapon attack on Syrian civilians, as approved by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

While the slaughter of civilians always ignites a feeling of disgust and rage, I feel hastily involving ourselves in yet another Middle Eastern conflict is sure to bring more pain and misery than would result if the U.S. decided on a hands-off approach. 

The first line of questioning critics of the airstrike have used is this: was the airstrike Constitutional? As someone who believes the Constitution is the ultimate decider of the legality of actions taken by the U.S. government, I will admit it is a bit gray in this area. 

The Constitution vests the authority of the military to the Executive Branch. It also states the Legislative Branch as the one responsible for making a declaration of war. The question thus shifts from “Was the airstrike Constitutional?” to “Where does the airstrike reside within the Constitution?”

Again, this is a large gray area, and is the subject of much debate within Congress. Some members of Congress believe the airstrike to be a military operation, while others view it as an act of war. Discourse over the topic is likely to be moot, however, due to a statute known as the War Powers Resolution.

The War Powers Resolution was enacted in 1973 to reign in the Executive Branch’s ability to engage in conflicts that can be construed as war. According Judge Andrew Napolitano, the resolution should be seen as liberating for the president, rather than restrictive. Napolitano claims the statute allows for a president to engage in war for up to 90 days before they have to seek congressional approval and funding for the continuation of the war. 

Many critics, including Judge Napolitano, question the constitutionality of the statute, but say we are unlikely to see it challenged. According to the Constitution, federal statutes cannot be challenged without “standing.” Standing is when an individual has been personally harmed by the statute. Clearly, none of us residing within these borders have been personally harmed by the resolution, and, unfortunately, the thousands of deaths overseas have no voice in questioning the legitimacy of the law according to the War Powers Resolution. 

The second line of questioning critics of the attack have used is this: how does this airstrike “put America first?” Trump campaigned on the promise of putting America first, and he often likes to say he is the president of the U.S., not the world. 

If this is the case, then why is he continuing down the path of his predecessors and furthering the role of the U.S. as the world police? History will kindly show anyone who desires to look that when nations choose to further their empires, they cause more harm and instability than good. This is true for the nations that fall victim to the empire, as well as the empire itself. 

Every time we engage in a conflict within the Middle East, it is usually under the guise of a humanitarian effort or putting an end to terrorism. Jeffery D. Sachs, professor at Columbia University, claims this is not usually the actual case. He said the reason the U.S. often chooses to engage in Middle Eastern conflicts is to further our own economic and political interests, not to establish a higher standard of life for those subject to the conflict. 

The U.S. chooses factions that are politically expedient to them, and then proceeds to back and fund the faction as they attempt to challenge the regime in place. The problem with this is, historically, regime changes in the Middle East have caused more harm and instability than good. Adding to these problems is the fact U.S. involvement in the Middle East often instigates terrorists. 

U.S. involvement in local Middle Eastern conflicts—especially in areas where American troops are stationed—is the biggest recruiting tool terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS utilize. They successfully market their efforts as an attempt to oppose the imperial foe invading their homeland. When one terrorist organization suffers a blow, another is ready to emerge and replace the former. It has been an endless cycle in the region and a thorn in the side of the U.S. for over 60 years. 

To close, I would like to propose that instead of choosing to act within the imperial apparatus, the U.S. chooses to promote change through diplomatic methods. We should choose to engage in dialogue and partner with other nations in an effort to foster peace and prosperity within these Middle Eastern nations suffering from endless civil conflicts, instead of adding to the conflict by getting involved in the wars. The Middle Eastern states existed and managed to settle their own disputes long before the U.S. chose to unsuccessfully get involved. 

Unless the U.S. is directly attacked, the best solution for resolving turmoil in the Middle East is diplomacy; not bombs, death, destruction or imperialism.