**TL;DR – The airstrikes ordered on February 26 demonstrated that Joe Biden is being held to a different standard by his own party compared to former president Trump who was praised after he ordered airstrikes in 2017. This can be both good and bad in the long run.** Whether you think the airstrikes authorized by the Biden administration are lawful or not, one thing is clear, he will not receive the same type of support that Trump got from military intervention. The retaliation against Iranian-backed militias on February 26 is comparable to the attacks authorized by then-President Trump in April 2017 against Syrian targets. The majority of the general public reacted positively to the Syrian airstrikes in 2017 with the majority of news outlets writing favorably towards the military attacks [1] while most of Trump's base in Washington praised his hardline attitude. Even Democrats like Ben Nelson praised the president saying "I hope this teaches Assad not to use chemical weapons again" [2]. On the other hand, Joe Biden’s airstrike authorization triggered criticism from his base. Senators like Tim Kaine and Chris Murphy calling the attack unconstitutional, and others threatening to repeal the president's war powers [3]. Although polling data from the general public is not available, we can predict it’s not favorable considering I couldn’t find a positive reaction or any article in favor of Biden's airstrike (I may be wrong about this). The easiest way to explain this difference in treatment is conservatives generally approve of bold foreign policy moves while liberals (and libertarians) are against military actions. Regardless of whether you agree with the airstrikes or not, military intervention (even if it's authorized by Congress) is sometimes needed to combat terrorism and to protect interest abroad. It has both benefits and downsides, but this does not mean the president carrying the strike is a Warhawk if a threat requires this sort of intervention. Like every other topic in politics, foreign policy decisions have been more polarized. Military options carried by Democrats like Clinton and Obama are not likely to be supported by Biden's base. Considering that most Trump supporters don’t like Biden, and most liberals don’t approve of intervention, the lack of public support may deter Biden and future Democratic presidents to use military options. [1] Out of 47 Major Editorials on Trump’s Syria Strikes, Only One Opposed https://fair.org/home/out-of-46-major-editorials-on-trumps-syria-strikes-only-one-opposed/ [2] A Polarized Political Response to Trump's Syria Strike https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/syria-reaction/522252/ [3] Biden’s Syria Strikes Fuel New Debate on War Powers https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/26/biden-syria-middle-east-strikes-new-debate-sanders-kaine-democrats-war-powers/

**The socioeconomic environment surrounding military intervention sets the standard, not political affiliation.** Entering into a war is arguably the greatest example of military intervention a nation can take. To determine if involvement does in fact sway towards the Democratic Party, let's review the [most notorious wars](https://www.thoughtco.com/american-involvement-wars-colonial-times-present-4059761) that the U.S. has been a part of, the president at the time of each, and the political party they associated with. → [Civil War](https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/brief-overview-american-civil-war): President = Abraham Lincoln (R.) → [WWI](https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i): President = Woodrow Wilson (D.) → [WWII](https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii): President = Harry S. Truman (D.) → [Korean War](https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/a-short-history-of-the-korean-war): President = Dwight D. Eisenhower (R.) → [Vietnam War](https://www.historynet.com/vietnam-war): President = Lyndon B. Johnson (D.) → [Gulf War](https://www.britannica.com/event/Persian-Gulf-War): President = George Bush (R.) It’s an even split. Therefore, it’s all relative to circumstance. A president may feel more pressure to make a call to arms, but it's dependent upon the time, current societal views, the economic climate, etc. Another pressure inducing tool used for subtle manipulation popular during wartime is [propaganda](https://www.sfcg.org/Documents/DME/bratic_peace_oriented_media.pdf). There are certain presidents in the past who have excelled at utilizing the media to gain a following and general acceptance towards their decisions on military involvement. However, wielding the media as an instrument for the promotion of war still doesn't reflect a political party preference, either. There are a variety of contributing factors, many of which are much more influential than political affiliation.