READ: Dan Rather’s Statement About Donald Trump’s Missile Attack On Syria
Legendary journalist Dan Rather continues to be one of the most vocal critics of Donald Trump. And after Donald Trump ordered missile attacks on Syria yesterday, Dan Rather issued a statement via his facebook page that “truly great presidents understand that knowing when NOT to act is as important as knowing when to act.” A clear swipe at what seems to be Donald Trump’s ability to be so easily swayed into using military force.
Of course, despite the use of force in Syria, it is not yet clear whether Trump has any broader strategy for resolving the Syrian slaughter.
Rather noted that “It is a whole lot easier starting wars than finishing them. And there are many historical examples of where a promise of limited engagement quickly metastasized into something much bigger.” Rather is clearly pointing to Trump’s lack of strategy for Syria.
Rather also criticized the press for its clear glorification of Trump’s use of military force. Rather said, “The role of the press is to ask hard questions. There is ample evidence that this Administration needs to face deep scrutiny.”
Here is Dan Rather’s full statement:
The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief. It is an awesome responsibility. Committing the use of force and American men and women in uniform is about as serious as it gets. But the truly great presidents understand that knowing when NOT to act is as important as knowing when to act.
It is a whole lot easier starting wars than finishing them. And there are many historical examples of where a promise of limited engagement quickly metastasized into something much bigger.
There is a tendency to rally around the flag, and a President who takes on a war footing can see a boost of support. It is often transitory. There are arguments to be made that President Assad in Syria has crossed a line that demands U.S. military interference. Whether this should have been a unilateral action is something we all must consider. Whether President Trump has a plan for what comes next must be debated. Whether there is a coherence to this missile strike fitting into a larger foreign policy strategy is a question that should give us all pause.
The role of the press is to ask hard questions. There is ample evidence that this Administration needs to face deep scrutiny. The lies we have heard, the chaos in governance, and the looming questions about ties with Russia – itself a major player in Syria – demand that the press treat this latest action with healthy skepticism. Perhaps it was the right thing to do. Perhaps a strong and wise policy will emerge. But that judgement is still definitely hanging in the balance.
The number of members of the press who have lauded the actions last night as “presidential” is concerning. War must never be considered a public relations operation. It is not a way for an Administration to gain a narrative. It is a step into a dangerous unknown and its full impact is impossible to predict, especially in the immediate wake of the first strike.
