At The RAND Blog Samuel Charap and Jeffrey Martini make an observation highly relevant to the meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin:
Over the past four years, the United States has enjoyed a luxury in Syria that will soon disappear: The top U.S. priority (defeating the Islamic State in the eastern part of the country) was compatible with the Syrian regime’s top priority (defeating insurgents in the western part of the country). In practical terms, this meant that Damascus acquiesced to U.S. operations and de facto control in the east while Washington — gradually under President Barack Obama and then quickly under Trump — gave up on the opposition in the west. However, this unwritten arrangement is now coming undone as both sides shift their objectives.
Many analysts assumed that the Assad regime only cared about “useful Syria,†a term that refers to the populated western spine that runs from Daraa in the south through Damascus, Homs, Hama, and north to Aleppo. Seven years into the conflict, it turns out that Assad and his allies actually care a lot about water, agriculture, electricity, oil, and control over borders — all of which are found in the country’s east. The assault on the southwest over the past few weeks is a preview of what can be expected east of the Euphrates River, where the United States supports the Syrian Democratic Forces as the authority on the ground.
The situation right now is that the influence of both Russia and the United States in Syria are at their acme. And both of us want to get out. It’s clearly time to negotiate a settlement that gives all of the major parties what they want. Assad gets to keep his country. Russia retains an ally and access to a Mediterranean port. The U. S. doesn’t need to worry about a rising DAESH in Syria. Iran retains a partner that’s beholden to it. What’s missing? Regime change.
First, the US does not want to get out of Syria. The Pentagon has stated that it wants permanent bases in Syria for Syrian and regional security.
Second, the US has never seriously attacked ISIS. Right now, ISIS is operating in plain view in the American controlled area.
Third, various rebel groups, especially in the south, but also in the Kurdish zone are realigning themselves with Assad. Several Arab and Kurdish groups in the American zone are calling for the expulsion of the US and Turkey. There has been at least one IED attack against American troops in the Kurdish zone.
Our position in Syria is falling apart. We need to get out before there is a full-blown insurgency directed against us.
The Russians probably want out, too, but no one is hassling them.
American conduct in Syria is a good example of Robert Conquest’s Third Law of politics: the behavior of any bureaucratic organization can best be understood by assuming that it is controlled by a secret cabal of its enemies. We’ve been supplying Al Qaeda, holding out for regime change even when it was obvious that doing so just reduced our ability to influence events, and blustering endlessly and needlessly.
BTW think of Conquest’s Third Law when reflecting on the FBI’s behavior lately and you won’t be far wrong.
Another factor missing, a US domestic faction making electoral waves by seeking a withdrawal from Syria and/or consistently interested in US military death tolls.
One of the things that was learned during the Aughts is that the American people have a tolerance for a certain level of casualties—right around two per day. Below that they’re just disinterested.
So much of this is why I like Trump, not a democracy everywhere dreamer like G.W.B, not an American apologist like B.H.O. People say, how can he shake hands with autocrats? Simple, because that’s the way the world is. Trump’s not trying to change the world, but simply to improve OUR nation’s position in it.
I suspect that we end up leaving troops in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan which is pretty disappointing. One of the few good things about Trump is that he seemed to kind of convey the idea that he didn’t want us to occupy everywhere.
Steve