Nothing gets the blood up like a president deploying his hot throbbing Tomahawk cruise missile. Even CNN’s Fareed Zakaria seemed to get all dreamy-eyed over just how presidential Trump’s tone was in his speech justifying the attack. The New York Times also seemed to be going with the Grinch-growing-a-heart narrative of how the Bulbous Doofus was moved to act after seeing video of suffering Syrian children after Assad’s sarin attack. Malevolent Mastermind Theory would point out that this attack has little chance of changing the overall course of the war (though it could deter further use of sarin, which ain’t nothing), but a much greater chance of accomplishing several political objectives: increase the president’s dismal approval ratings by appearing, you know, potent; counter the Russia collusion narrative by showing that he doesn’t mind pissing off Moscow (as opposed to, say, paying prostitutes to piss in Moscow); and distract from the investigation of that collusion (as well as other palace intrigue). The conspiratorially minded have suggested that the whole operation could have been a sort of hoax in which the US warns the Russians in time for them to remove their assets, Putin makes a show of outrage, and our miraculous weapons manage to leave the airbase operational anyway. Bumbling Dimwit Theory, on the other hand, would suggest that flipping a major element of your foreign policy because you saw something bad on TV might not be the most prudent approach to governing. The fact that Trump is completely incapable of maintaining a consistent, principled point of view has also come as somewhat of a surprise to his band of rah-rah pundit-trolls like Ann Coulter… “Your winnings, Sir.”
Of course, the irony of attacking an airbase in Syria while denying entry from Syrian refugees is presumably lost on the president. Still, support for refugee advocacy can be an approach we take. In addition to RefugeeOne (which I’ve mentioned before), here’s Jezebel’s list of organizations that help immigrants and refugees.