Donald Trump was perfectly fine, it seems, with the idea of abandoning the Kurds when he abruptly announced the United States would clear out of Northern Syria, paving the way for a deadly Turkish incursion. “We never agreed to protect the Kurds for the rest of their lives,” Trump said last week. But while the president has been remarkably cavalier about hanging an American ally out to dry, the administration apparently cannot similarly abide the notion of leaving the country’s oil fields vulnerable to takeover by an Islamic State that seems poised for resurgence thanks to the president’s reckless order.

On Friday, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper announced that, contrary to a Trump tweet the same day saying American troops were coming home, some forces would remain in Syria. “We are...considering how we might reposition forces in the area in order to make sure that we secure the oil fields,” Esper said. Reflecting Trump’s desire to “keep the oil” in the region—a callback to his wish to “take the oil” in Iraq—Esper said that while the withdrawal remains in progress, the U.S. would maintain a presence in Syria to “ensure that we can deny ISIS access to the oil fields.” The Wall Street Journal reported that up to 500 troops may continue to be positioned there.

The confusion around the extent of the U.S. military presence in Syria is consistent with the mixed messaging that has followed Trump’s sudden withdrawal announcement. Faced with bipartisan criticism for betraying the Syrian Democratic Forces, he initially imposed sanctions on Turkey, then lifted them earlier this week with the promise to reinstate them if “something happens that we are not happy with.” He reassured Twitter that the U.S. military would move suspected ISIS militants to a secure location before retreating, only to have those captives escape due to lack of foresight. And after he announced that “Our soldiers have left and are leaving Syria for other places” followed by, “then COMING HOME!” it was reported that troops were actually headed to Iraq.

Throughout the process, Trump has defended his strategy as the fulfillment of a campaign promise: “After all of the precious blood and treasure America has poured into the deserts of the Middle East, I am committed to pursuing a different course,” he said in a televised address Wednesday. “One that leads to victory for America.” Ultimately, all the confusion may benefit him. Though his ineptitude has been obvious from the get-go, the back-and-forth could make for a distraction. Of course, no matter how the president spins it, the whole situation is an unmitigated disaster. “We don’t want these resources to get in the hands of terrorists or others,” the president’s former counter-ISIS envoy Brett McGurk said last week. “But maybe Trump should have thought about this before he basically made a decision that unraveled the tapestry that had been working relatively well.”

More Great Stories from Vanity Fair

— How one industry is bleeding Wall Street dry of talent

— Ronan Farrow’s producer reveals how NBC killed its Weinstein story

— Ivanka’s $360 million deal is raising eyebrows at the FBI

— The big turn for Elizabeth Warren’s campaign

— Why a leading neurocriminologist left Joker completely stunned

— The Fox News movie’s uncanny depictions of the network’s drama

— From the Archive: The real-life story of the security guard turned bombing suspect at the heart of Clint Eastwood’s latest movie

Looking for more? Sign up for our daily Hive newsletter and never miss a story.