Read this article at the Washington Post by Aaron David Miller and Richard Sokolsky:
But it should have been clear by now to Graham, Rubio and anyone else that Moscow and Tehran had long ago won the strategic fight for Syria. Russian military intervention in 2015 saved Assad and secured long-term military basing rights for the Russian military. As Steven Cook observed in July, Syria is “the centerpiece and pivot of Russia’s strategy to reassert itself as a global power.†Iran, in its long-term effort to gain regional power and further its proxy war against, among others, rival Saudi Arabia, has lent Assad the assistance of the Iranian military and Iran-backed Shiite militias. Though a predominantly Sunni country like Saudi Arabia, Turkey shares Shiite-dominated Iran’s goal of thwarting anything that bolsters Kurdish autonomy, including close military cooperation between the U.S. military and Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq.
To achieve their ends, Russia and Iran have been more willing to devote resources toward keeping Assad afloat than the U.S. has been prepared to either remove him from power or stand behind the assorted elements in Syria who’ve tried and so far failed to overthrow him. There are valid reasons for U.S. reticence, but Americans should let go of the idea that we were ever trying very hard to win.
and explain to me why we should be building up our forces in Syria let alone keeping them there.
Trump gets to make the policy decision, period. For better or worse. If Mattis disagrees, fine. If he found the policy decision to be intolerable then he did the correct thing by resigning.
What is disheartening is the reflexive notions of politicians, media pundits and faux pundits that if Mattis opposes, along with others, then that’s simply correct. As if no other conclusion can be reached. Your citation is just one of many showing this not to be correct. Most disheartening is the reality that many oppose the decision not on its merits, while invoking wild notions of national fear, Russian bootlicking or mental instability, but simply to criticize Trump.
This is just another example showing the lowest character resides within politicians and media types.
“What is disheartening is the reflexive notions of politicians, media pundits and faux pundits that if Mattis opposes, along with others, then that’s simply correct.”
Of course when Obama initially opposed the increase in troops in Afghanistan those same people, and maybe even you, criticized him for not listening to the generals. To be clear, I think leaving both places is a good idea, but it is still OK to criticize for doing this ineptly.
Steve
It seems to me, steve, that the adult question to ask is whether this 2000 man force served to signal to our enemies that we were watching and prepared to intervene. The cost was the random loss of two guys here, three guys there. That’s a big cost.
If enemies, say the Iranians, overstep their bounds and we find it in our interests to re-engage my understanding is we could do it almost immediately. Therefore I come down on the side of getting our guys out and letting the locals fight their own battles. I don’t see any great strategic loss despite the political howls on a CNN, or the personal interests of generals and contractors.
As for execution, I don’t believe a word I read these days on goings on. Not a word. Further, the way opposition voices strategically leak, who would follow the script? It’s a sad byproduct of the Washington culture.
“when Obama initially opposed the increase in troops in Afghanistan ”
What are you talking about? Obama campaigned in 2008 on the notion that the Bush Administration had taken its eye off the ball in Afghanistan with the war in Iraq and on the promise that that he would change that focus. I believe he also mentioned the idea of increasing the troop committment in Afghanistan during the campaign.
Once he became President, the question wasn’t whether to increase troop levels in Afghanistan, but how much to increase them by. It’s true that he didn’t accept the initial recommendation of General McChrystal regarding the level of the increase, but he did increase the number of troops in Afghanistan during his first term. And, of course, during his second term he frequently slowed down the withdrawl of forces.
Afghanistan (thrice), Egypt (coup), El Salvador, Grenada (UK!), Guatemala, Haiti (tntc), Honduras, Iraq (twice), Libya, Nicaragua, Panama, Somalia, Sudan Syria, Turkey (attempted coup, long-term ally), Ukraine (coup), Yemen…
There is the problem. Over 17 invasions, attacks and coups by America in only some 30 years. The US has become the main cause of terror, death, destruction and forced migration on the planet. We have actually wrecked the MENA. Killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims and others and driven millions into exile.
By the way, under international law, all 17 plus invasions, attacks and coups were wars of aggression and constitute war crimes. The US is governed by war criminals every bit as much as was Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany or Hirohito’s Japan. “Mad Dog” Mattis is a good example, and good riddance.
I’ll grant you two attacks for Russia, Ukraine (after our coup) and Georgia. But both were in response to perceived threats against ethnic Russians, and both occurred on Russia’s border, in territories that were historically Russian up to a generation ago.
China hasn’t attacked anyone since the end of the Vietnam war, and that was under a very different regime. The artificial islands hardly count, and there were historical disputes over ownership anyway.
So you are saying you are not a Max Boot fan, Bob?
I would not stand in Max Boot’s way were he to strap on a rifle, hire a plane, and parachute into Syria to fight DAESH. I am less enthusiastic about his urging others to battle practically everywhere in the world.
Process matters, how you do things matters.
I’ve thought for a long time that we need to get out of Syria (and Afghanistan) ASAP but this is not the way to do it. I can clearly see why Mattis, one of the greatest military thinkers of his generation, would resign over this.
Yes, Trump gets to make the call, but this isn’t an f’ing business deal, the stakes are far different from what Trump is accustomed to. Yes, GTFO of Syria, but do it deliberately, in the right way, and for the right reasons, not this half-assed BS where Erogan rolls him over.
What if the alternatives are between Trump doing it the wrong way and other presidents deciding to stay forever?
Sadly, those are the alternatives, but that doesn’t mean I will refrain from criticizing poor decisions regardless of who makes them.
I think we’re better off leaving Syria and Afghanistan for the wrong reasons than staying for the wrong reasons.
Just some observations.
1). Support for intervention in Syria is broad but narrow. We had the negative vote in the U.K. and aborted vote in Congress when Assad was accused of chemical weapon attacks. Despite Iran being a boogeyman for the right and Russia being the boogeyman of both left and right; neither involvement in Syria galvanized opinion. Turkey is still a formal ally. It is broad in that fighting ISIS has broad support; especially after the attacks in Paris, Berlin, Nice, Orlando, etc. That’s probably why no one important made an issue about US involvement in Syria; but significantly no one has taken the risk of asking Congressional authorization for the action.
2) Recently, the fight against ISIS seems to have faded in the background; Bolton wanted troops in Syria while Iran had troops there. Mattis mentioned it was important to have someone be a buffer between the Turks and the Kurds. Mission creep.
3) The US has had success against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, in bringing down the Taliban in 2001, in bringing down Iraq in 2003, and bringing down Libya in 2009. The US has failed in creating a new government in Afghanistan after 2001, Iraq after 2003, Libya after 2009. It’s fair to conclude the US can win fighting against enemies that are states or behave like a state; but it’s not good against insurgencies. ISIS has lost most of its land and is switching to insurgency tactics.
4). The US has not been able to prevent the Turks going after the Kurds; the Turks took the city of Afrin from the Kurds and apparently did some ethnic cleansing there. Asking the question would the average American be willing to sacrifice US soldiers to protect Kurds from Turks is to answer that point.
5) Why did Mattis plan for Syria assume troops would stay forever. Trump had already publically signaled he wanted troops out in March; through as it often happens Trump was persuaded to give the status quo more time. But as shown by the Jerusalem embassy, the Iran nuclear deal, tariffs, more time does not mean Trump will not follow through. This is unprudent planning on Mattis’s part; and the withdrawal will not be as smooth as it should have been.
6) Mattis must have smoked something saying he would stay for 2 more months after that letter. Anyone familiar with resignations (voluntary or otherwise) know that your manager would give you the customary 2 weeks or longer if and only if it will not cause disruptions to the organization or him.
I will end by saying Mattis is an honorable man and it is hard to serve under a President Trump. But to resign over this is a miscalculation. There are very prudent reasons for leaving; the way the US leaves will leave something to be desired since no planning went into it even by those who should know better.