QUESTION #2: Some are saying that President Trump was lured into action that perhaps he shouldn’t have taken. What do you think?
“To be brutally honest, I can argue both sides of that. I think that there was an element of this that baited Donald Trump. Everybody’s wanting to see what he’s going to do, how he’s going to respond, and now the world knows. The issue for me is the use of the chemical warheads was so egregious we had to respond, and frankly I think it’s a very good thing that we responded. We needed to get back into the game in the Middle East, which is a very dangerous, very unstable portion of the world.
As we saw, we’ve had a lot of people for many years argue over whether or not the United States should be the world’s policeman. Frankly, as a member of the military and having many brothers and sisters in the military, we’re not anxious to go out and put our lives at risk, but what we can see and what we’ve seen clearly is when the United States withdrawals from an area the instability rises, the injustice increases, barbarism takes place, and the world becomes a much more dangerous place. I think that it was inevitable that we were going to have to get back into the Middle East.
I think we got back in the right way for the right reason. It was a just cause. I think that the results that people were looking for, which is to see how Donald Trump would respond, has been answered, and frankly I think he has surprised several people because he campaigned on a noninterventionist platform. Under significant provocation, and this was clearly provocation, he’s responded in a way that was bold leadership, it was a strong statement, it was a move that was a strong, calculated risk, and it’s delivered a message that desperately needed to be sent.
I think that the answer in the long term is this is going to involve us back in a region that is very dangerous but it is a place that’s desperate for American leadership and for that sense of justice that needs to prevail in a civilized society.”