The first major missile strike in Syria by the U.S. occurred on April 7 in response to a gas attack by ISIS that killed 80 civilians. The second attack on ISIS took place in Afghanistan on April 13 when we dropped what was considered the “mother of all bombs.”

The intentions of the U.S. when they decided to attack were to help defeat ISIS and prevent further attacks on civilians. While I understand the intent of Trump’s aggressive approach was to protect innocent civilians, I strongly believe there is another solution.

My first thought when I found out about the bombing was this: if we can afford to be launching a massive bomb, why can’t we afford to take in the refugees?

The first missile strike cost the U.S. government $1.59 million and the “mother of all bombs” cost $314 million. It costs the federal government approximately $19,884 to settle in and help each refugee. Therefore, with the money we used to launch missile strikes, we could have saved 15,779 refugees from bombings made by ISIS.

While 15,779 is only a small fraction of the many refugees in danger, it is better than not bringing in any refugees at all. I think it is easy to forget that the refugees are people looking for safety. Every single refugee has a story, has a family, and it is our moral responsibility as humans to help if we have the means to.

There is no guarantee that if we bomb one of ISIS’s several bases that we will fix the problem, but by bringing innocent people to America, we can protect them if the problem does persist.

I cannot come to imagine the pain that is felt by the broken families and victims of attacks by ISIS. Footage of suffering people and dead children are broadcast on the news frequently, and as a country we are being bystanders.

I saw a video of a man cradling his two dead babies as if they were alive, mourning their death, and that was when I realized that the value of each individual life is being lost among the argument.

If we have the money to launch airstrikes and bombs, we have the money to save these refugees.

While the attacks on ISIS are better than not doing anything at all, they’re still not the safest solution. Another thing that concerns me is the possibility of making a mistake when attacking Syria, an event that has already happened and I worry that if the attacks progress, there will be more mistakes.

On March 17, the U.S. launched bombs on Syria that accidentally destroyed a mosque, killing 40 innocent people and injuring dozens.

Emanuelle Grinberg from CNN writes about the event and what may have caused it.

“A new report suggests American forces failed to take necessary precautions to avoid dropping a pair of bombs on a Northern Syria mosque full of hundreds of worshipers….The US said the bombings targeted a meeting hall hosting al Qaeda terrorists,” Grinberg said.

Another incident occurred also in early April when a U.S. drone mistakenly fatally struck 18 members of a Syrian force that the U.S. is allies with.

There are also reports that the rising number of civilian deaths in Iraq and Syria may be caused by the Trump Administration’s aggressive actions to “stop ISIS” as explained by Ishaan Tharoor from the Washington Post.

“Analysts think this surge in deaths may be a product of a shift in the anti-Islamic State campaign under President Trump, who has called for more unfettered action against the jihadists and memorably promised to ‘bomb the s— out of ’em’,” Tharoor said.

The danger in resorting to weapons to solve issues is that there is the possibility of several drastic mistakes that could harm innocent people.

I understand that actions need to be taken, but this issue is so complex that we can’t just “bomb the sh–t out of ‘em” and expect the problem to be fixed. Removing innocent people from the situation and allowing them to seek refuge here would protect them more than “punishing” ISIS.