The dust has barely settled from President Trump’s swift attack on a Syrian airbase last night, a response to alleged chemical weapons use by Syria’s president Assad only days ago, and already long time Trump supporters are questioning what motivated the president’s sudden actions.
It’s no secret that Trump had spoken out frequently against Barack Obama’s involvement in the Syrian civil war as well as him unilaterally launching military strikes, leading some of Trump’s supporters to criticize the rapid turnaround in the president’s policies.
The question on everyone’s mind is how will Trump’s base react to his decision to launch 59 Tomahawk missiles against Syria, a move that seems to be at odds with many of his supporters and their reasons for voting him into office.
First, let’s examine which parties are raving in support of the president’s actions.
Ironically, the same politicians and officials who have opposed Trump from the very beginning are now praising his actions in Syria, which has given some of electoral supporters pause. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and even Nancy Pelosi have all endorsed Trump’s attack on Syria.
Those who support the air strikes;
- Chuck Schumer
- Nancy Pelosi
- John McCain
- Lindsey Graham
- Mainstream media
- Neo-cons
- ISIS— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 7, 2017
Trump’s strike even got some of Obama’s key advisors cheering him on. “Finally he has accepted his role as a leader of the free world,” the Weekly Standard wrote, a notorious “Never Trump” publication. However, many of Trump’s voters did not vote for him to be leader of the free world, they voted for him to put America First.
During Trump’s campaign, many of his supporters judged his caliber by which politicians were speaking out against his policies, since many of them were the same people who held damaging, anti-American policies of their own. “Trump has all the right enemies,” was a frequent mantra of his supporters during the election. If that’s true, then what does it say when those same enemies are now supporting Trump’s decisions.
Even ISIS and Islamist extremists fighting to topple Assad’s regime in Syria appear to be voicing their support of President Trump’s attack in Syria. It makes sense, as they certainly wouldn’t be sad about one less airbase for Assad to launch his assaults against ISIS.
Radical Islamists Cheer Trump Administration’s Missile Strike https://t.co/3p1Oo8vomo
— Alex Pfeiffer (@PfeifferDC) April 7, 2017
Now that we have established those who are firmly in support of the president’s Syrian attack, let’s examine those who are speaking out against it.
Hall of Fame conservative talkshow host and bestselling author Michael Savage, who claims that during his meeting with the president that Trump credited him for playing a significant role in winning the election, has fiercely opposed any military action against Syria and made his views clear on Twitter last night.
SAVAGE WARNS ON WAR WITH RUSSIA: ‘WHO GOT TO YOU, MR. PRESIDENT?’ https://t.co/7nQILw7anL
— Michael Savage (@ASavageNation) April 7, 2017
Nigel Farage, also known as “Mr. Brexit”, campaigned for Trump at one of his rallies last year and met with the president after his election victory, but he also expressed reservations about last night’s attack.
Many Trump voters will be worried about this military intervention. Where will it end?
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) April 7, 2017
Another one of Trump’s long time supporters and a very loud voice in conservative media, Ann Coulter, was beside herself with disappointment.
Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV.
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 7, 2017
Christians who live in Syria are terrified of what will happen if Assad is gone.
— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 7, 2017
Paul Joseph Watson, another very prominent voice in the alternative media and conservative movements, went as far as to say he was officially off the “Trump Train”.
I guess Trump wasn’t “Putin’s puppet” after all, he was just another deep state/Neo-Con puppet.
I’m officially OFF the Trump train.
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 7, 2017
It’s been fun lads, but the fun is over. I’ll be focusing my efforts on Le Pen, who tried to warn Trump against this disaster.
— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 7, 2017
The question remains, how will Trump’s base respond to his rapid “flexibility” in doing a complete 180 in his Syrian Civil War policy?
Currently a poll on the Drudge Report shows support for Trump’s attack at 66%, 21% are against his actions and 12% are undecided.
Despite the majority agreeing with the Syrian strike in this poll, if Trump were to lose even 10% of his base, which would equate to roughly 6 million voters based on the results of last year’s election, it could spell serious trouble down the road.
People promoting “Assad is targeting/gassing civilians” story are same Leftists & Islamists who claim Israel targeting Palestine civilians.
— Michael Liu (@spyguy8080) April 7, 2017
The fact is, Donald Trump could not have won the election without the significant support of the conservative media such as online news sites like Brietbart, Drudge Report and his very active support group on Reddit (The_Donald). Conservative talkshow hosts such as Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham also played a significant role in Trump’s success, reaching millions of voters through their vast influence.
If even a handful of these media hosts or news outlets turn against Trump if he ends up accepting neocon Bush era policies, then we are looking at a 1-term president with absolute certainty.
However, this is only a single event in Trump’s history of successfully following through on his promises to voters and although the attack on Syria may have come as a shock to many of his staunch supporters, it is impossible to judge the long term impact this situation will have on America’s foreign policy.
Is this part of a larger plan on the part of Washington elites to push Trump away from his base and into the arms of the establishment Republicans, the very politicians which the president had railed against during his campaign and even in his inauguration speech?
Or, is this yet another 3D chess move on the part of President Trump which in the end will prove to be a great benefit to America and the movement he started almost two years ago? Some even say that Trump’s objective wasn’t to start a war, but rather to send a message to America’s enemies around in the world, since his attack was a very measured response resulting in limited casualties, which would be proven true if Trump ends up pivoting and turning his sights on the more serious threat of North Korea.
Time will tell after emotions simmer and Trump takes further political actions, but for now the approval of the president’s decision seem to be up in the air within conservative circles.