Blog Post

AEIdeas

In tried and true fashion, President Donald Trump announced abruptly on Twitter today that “we have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.” Pentagon sources confirmed to multiple reporters that the US will rapidly drawdown some 2,000 troops on the ground working with allies in Syria. Recall that mere days ago the president’s own special envoy, Ambassador James Jeffrey, seemed unaware of any change to Syria policy, or to what he stated were the administration’s three goals in Syria: “ensuring the lasting defeat of the Islamic State, rolling back Iranian influence, and achieving a political solution to the crisis.”

Needless to say the administration has met, notwithstanding protests to the contrary, none of its three goals. The Islamic State, while certainly on its heels, has by no means seen a “lasting defeat.” As Barack Obama may or may not have learned in Iraq, such groups lie in wait for the United States to decamp, often returning in force. Only when the security and political situation is stabilized can we really begin to contemplate “lasting defeat” of ISIS or al Qaeda or its cohort. Similarly, Iranian influence in Syria has neither been “rolled back,” nor in any way curtailed. To the contrary, Syria is for all intents and purposes an Iranian vassal state, alongside Lebanon, which is now completely under Iranian/Hezbollah sway. And then there is the “political solution to the crisis.” What is that, Mr. Trump? Even if he were comfortable with the notion of a Tehran-ruled Syria, surely even someone as uninterested in details as Donald Trump must have noticed there is still a war going on there? And that Bashar al Assad still rules? That does not make for a “political solution.”

Never mind that Donald Trump is no national security mastermind; both his policies and his personnel have been sober and committed. In many ways, Trump has until now been the anti-Obama — talking a foolish game that masks a serious policy. In addition, Trump’s National Security team — Pompeo, Mattis, and Bolton — are serious people who understand completely what is at stake in Syria. They too were reportedly blindsided by the president’s tweet.

For those who immediately applauded the president’s “decision” — like Senator Rand Paul, who tweeted that he was “happy to see a President who can declare victory and bring our troops out of a war. It’s been a long time since that has happened” — keen observers will note that Paul, an isolationist, said “declare victory,” not “achieve victory.” Because the United States is a long way from victory in Syria, whether against ISIS or Iran. Others more versed in the realities of national security like Lindsey Graham and Adam Kinzinger were quick to condemn the move. And even the president’s beloved “base” will neither applaud nor decry his decision to take 2,000 troops out of the Middle East. Far from clamoring for a withdrawal, they’re more focused on the faltering economy . . .

Let’s be absolutely clear here: The disaster of Syria policy was born under Barack Obama, and was ameliorated by Donald Trump with a serious and effective commitment to Kurdish allies fighting Assad and terrorism. They are not ideal allies by any standard; but unless we choose to commit hundreds of thousands of troops, we need allies and must go to war with those available. And the Kurds have proven effective, with staying power beyond many in the region. But of course, Turkish strongman Recep Tayyip Erdogan has no desire for a Kurdish enclave on his flanks, and has single-mindedly sought to have Washington abandon that alliance. He seems to have gotten his wish (and, by coincidence, just chatted with DJT last week).

What can we expect from this stunning reversal of what was once a decent if not great policy from the Trump administration? Applause from Russia and Iran. Even as Trump has the Islamic Republic on the run with a sanctions regime that has been stunning in its effectiveness, he has given them a lifeline in Syria, their all-important ally. He also undermines Iraq, which has been inextricably tied to the fortunes of Syria, and will again be at risk from fighters flowing between the two countries. He has handed Russia carte blanche in Syria, a more solid grip on a port in the Mediterranean, and given Putin a reason to believe that his adventures in the region pay off. He has opened the door to the resurgence of ISIS, because without the United States there to balance power within Syria, there should be little doubt that ISIS and others will return. He has abandoned US allies to whom we made a commitment. And he has doomed any political solution to the Syria crisis, which by its nature requires a credible threat of force to keep the parties to any bargain sealed.

Far from “ending” any war a la Obama, Trump, like his predecessor, has ensured a continued threat to US interests and a victory for Tehran and terrorists. As the president himself might say, this is WEAK.