Justifying US bombing of Syria in the wake of the Syrian civil war, President Trump argued

Consider this hypothetical scenario:

Justifying US bombing of Syria in the wake of the Syrian civil war, President Trump argued

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act.

Having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Assad a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Assad declared he would show “no mercy” to his own people. We knew that if we waited one more day, Damascus, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.

How would a realist, liberal, and anti-imperialist view President Trump’s arguments (both his claim about the historical role of the US as an advocate for human freedom and the decision to intervene militarily in Syria based on humanitarian arguments)? Which perspective do you agree with most?

Be sure to cover following material:

• Explain the main assumptions of realism, liberalism, and anti-imperialism. Be sure to apply the information to the prompt at all times; do not just explain the perspectives on their own.

• Provide at least one historical example from each of the main time periods discussed: Founding-pre-WWII; WWII and immediate aftermath; Early Cold War (1950s-1960s); Late Cold War (1970s-1980s); post-Cold War Era (1990s-current).

find the cost of your paper