Dan Rather spoke out about Donald Trump’s missile strike in Syria on Friday, critical of media figures who were quick to say that the strike was a presidential move.
“The number of members of the press who have lauded the actions last night as ‘presidential’ is concerning,” Rather said in a Facebook post.
“War must never be considered a public relations operation. It is not a way for an Administration to gain a narrative,” Rather continued. “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.”
Rather’s post came after several media figures, including CNN host Fareed Zakaria said Trump’s missile strike in Syria shows him displaying the same qualities as America’s past leaders.
“I think Donald Trump became president of the United States last night,” he said Friday on CNN’s “New Day.” “I think this was actually a big moment.”
“For the first time really as president, he talked about international norms, international rules, about America’s role in enforcing justice in the world,” Zakaria, the host of CNN’s “GPS,” said of Trump’s remarks explaining the military action late Thursday.
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.