The strikes on suspected chemical weapons sites were performed with French and United Kingdom allies, in response to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s alleged use of illegal chemical weapons against his own civilians. Syria is currently in a civil war between the Assad government and various rebel groups. Russia, Iran and the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah are supporting the Syrian government with military resources, and the U.S. is supporting some of the anti-government forces.

On April 7, the U.S. says 70 Syrian civilians were killed and 500 were injured in an attack using a mixture of chlorine and sarin barrel bombs that hit hospitals and businesses in the city of Douma. Though the use of chemical weapons has not been officially confirmed by the World Health Organization and was denied by Syria and its allies, reports from eyewitnesses and doctors, video and reports from the WHO all point toward it. This alleged violation of human rights and international law drew condemnation in word and action from leaders around the world.

Stefanik, R-Willsboro, partially blamed Russia for the chemical weapons attack.

“I think there should be absolute consequences to the heinous acts by the Assad regime,” Stefanik said. “Just the lack of humanity coming from Syria and from Russia when it comes to the slaughtering of [Syrian] civilians … this is an appropriate and measured response to deter Assad’s use of chemical weapons.”

The allied missile strikes hit a chemical weapons research center, storage facility and command post in Damascus, crippling the government’s capabilities by factors of years, according to Stefanik. Between the three nations more than 100 missiles were used, and though the Russian and Syrian media claim most were shot down, the U.S. and France both maintain that all hit their targets. Six Syrian soldiers and three civilians were injured in the attack.

—

Presidential powers

The War Powers Resolution requires Congress to review and authorize military force, but many members of Congress — including Stefanik, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee — learned of the strikes the same way civilians did: in the media. This is not uncommon, however, as every president since the resolution was enacted in 1973 has exempted themselves, claiming executive authority through Article II of the Constitution.

In President Donald Trump’s speech announcing the strikes, he mentioned how small amounts of chemical weapons can have widespread devastation and that it is in U.S. interests to deter the development and use of such weapons.

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to consult regularly with Congress until United States armed forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. Though Stefanik said she has been briefed by Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Gen. Joseph Dunford, Trump has not directly addressed Congress.

Stefanik said advisement in former President Barack Obama’s approach to Syria allowed the latest chemical attacks to occur.

“We are reaping the failures of the Obama administration having just a complete incoherent approach when it comes to the challenges we face in Syria,” Stefanik said.

She said a lack of tangible goals left progress in deadlock. In 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin promised that Syria would eliminate its chemical weapons arsenal, but when that promise was broken, there were no repercussions, Stefanik noted. When Assad crossed Obama’s “red line” of using chemical weapons in 2013, Obama was slow to respond, and after making a deal with Russia to eliminate 100 percent of Assad’s stockpile, Assad apparently kept some.

Stefanik also recalled that in one of her first hearings on the committee, an Obama official from the Department of Defense could not answer “basic strategy questions” about Syria.

Stefanik said a no-fly zone should have been designated over Syria and that Russia should not have been allowed to prop up the Assad regime for so many years. She said a comprehensive Syria strategy relies on setting a timeline for Assad to step down from power, enforced by countries like Jordan.

“I believe the future of Syria is one without the Assad regime,” Stefanik said.

No-fly zones are controversial solutions. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Trump both proposed some sort of aerial restriction over Syria while running for office, but retired Army colonel and military historian David Fitz-Enz, of Onchiota, said it is more likely to be talked about in the media than in international diplomacy.

He likened a no-fly zone to a naval blockade and said most countries, especially Russia, would consider the action to be an act of war. There are two ways to enforce a no-fly zone: ordering planes to land, or shooting them out of the sky. Since the majority of aircraft using Syrian airspace are Russian, this would likely spawn conflict.

Tom Flanagin, Stefanik’s communications director, said she does not consider a no-fly zone to provide safety for Syrian civilians to be an act of war.

Fitz-Enz noted how Trump has not used the “regime change” terminology used by Obama when talking about Assad. He said that when Assad crossed Obama’s red line with no consequence, the U.S. “lost relevancy” in the war.

—

Russian reaction

In Trump’s speech he implored Iran and Russia to reconsider their relationships with Syria, singling out Russia in a request to join France and the United Kingdom as allies.

“Russia must decide if it will continue down this dark path or if it will join with civilized nations as a force for stability and peace,” Trump said.

Russia, which has long supported the Syrian government, shows no signs of changing heart. Defense committee head Alexander Sherin called Trump “Adolf Hitler No. 2 of our time,” and others compared the strikes to the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003.

Russian state media has presented the narrative that Syria was near peace as the U.S. strikes happened and has vehemently rejected the idea that Assad used chemical weapons. Stories from RT and Sputnik cite doctors denying the use of chlorine or sarin gas, claim videos of the attack were staged and cast doubt on U.S. evidence of chemical weapons.

“I think those accusations are disgusting, and they are an example of the propaganda and fake news that Russia pushed around the world,” Stefanik said. “I believe Russia is on the wrong side of history when it comes to its role in Syria.”

She said she considers Russia to be an adversary to the U.S. and said the country’s undermining narratives of truth and humanity is “dangerous.”

Stefanik agreed with Trump in his speech that “America does not seek an indefinite presence in Syria under no circumstances.” She said U.S. action should be quick and effective, unlike conflicts in the past. As a final strategic move, she said the military needs to make sure Islamic State militants cannot take advantage of a power vacuum in the region.