All of the interventionists, neocons, and anyone else promoting the advancement of American interests through war over the period of the last 30 years have been condemning the announcement that the U. S. would be withdrawing its small force from Syria. The editors of the Washington Post are pretty typical of the lot:
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S sudden move to yank U.S. troops out of Syria undermined at a stroke several foreign policy goals he has championed. The president promised to finish the job of destroying the Islamic State, but the withdrawal will leave thousands of its fighters still in place. He vowed to roll back Iran’s aggression across the Middle East, but his decision will allow its forces to entrench in the country that is the keystone of Tehran’s ambitions. He promised to protect Israel, but that nation will now be left to face alone the buildup by Iran and its proxies along its northern border.
as are the editors of the Wall Street Journal:
Mr. Trump inherited a mess in Syria, and by the time he took office it was far more difficult to enforce a no-fly zone to protect opponents of the Bashar Assad regime. But the U.S. presence in northeastern Syria amounted to a de facto no-fly zone that allowed the Kurdish and Arab Syrian Democratic Forces to clear out as many ISIS cells as possible. Keeping 2,500 forces in northeast Syria to continue this work is hardly an exorbitant commitment. It is not nation-building.
The stakes are also larger than ISIS. Mr. Trump made his withdrawal decision soon after a phone call with Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has been threatening to attack the Kurds in Syria. Trump officials insist they aren’t abandoning our allies, but the SDF will now have to make its own survival calculations in striking deals with Mr. Erdoğan, Mr. Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers.
Withdrawing U.S. troops greatly reduces U.S. influence on a diplomatic solution to the Syrian civil war. The U.S. can complain at the United Nations, and it can block money for rebuilding the country, but facts on the ground count for far more. That’s especially true for Iran, which is turning southern Syria into a forward operating base against Israel.
while those who are more skeptical of spreading democracy at the point of a gun are holding their peace. Those who have argued we have a grave moral obligation to remove a criminal like Assad have a better case but I note, perhaps pettily, that their sense of obligation does not extend to taking up arms themselves or foregoing other goals they desire in the interest of that obligation. My own view is that however criminal Assad and the Alawite regime he represents, every other real alternative is worse. If your interest is the people of Syria, you should want the conflict there to end as quickly as possible which means either aiding the Russians and Iranians or simply standing aside to let them complete their task.
Those concerned for the Kurds in our absence should recognize that the Turks are not our friends and have not been our friends for 15 years. No Islamist government should be considered a NATO member and how anyone could think anything else astonishes me.
And the automatic assumption that our withdrawal will create a power vacuum the Iranians will easily fill. Sunnis will not welcome Shea power.
The tribal nature of the people in this region makes it so difficult to rule that any power trying to finds itself resorting to more and more draconian measures. That’s what happened to Bashar Assad. He wanted to be an eye doctor, he was called to rule after his older brothers death, and found that it took terrible measures to maintain that rule.
As to the USA staying to eliminate ISIS, they keep having sons as fast as you can kill them. If we stay, we become like Assad.
As I’ve written before movements like DAESH or Al Qaeda are endemic in any sola scriptura religion without a magisterium and Islam is no exception. Were we willing to be ruthless enough we could keep them down but we can never stamp them out.
And neither can anyone else. Which was my point about a power vacuum. I think getting more involved here will only add to the woes of the Mullahs of Iran.
This is a trial to the big one – withdrawal from Afghanistan.
As for the Kurds; I think they will do okay. There is a deal to be had between them, Russia, Iran, and Assad.
Let’s hope he follows through. A good chance he just thought of this and sent out a tweet and will be talked out of it or see something on Hannity which will change his mind.
Steve
Mattis has resigned so, interesting times ahead. I gather he preferred a peace treaty in place before leaving. However, lets face it, none of the parties wants to negotiate over a table preferring open sights and rule 7.62 of the Rules of Order.