In the past month or so there have been growing signs that the Trump Administration wished to extricate itself from the Syrian civil war. Though some raised early concerns that Trump would escalate following his strike on the Syrian airbase, the administration was fairly adamant it didn’t seek a wholescale intervention. Other signs ranged from a recent ceasefire plan to talks of ‘joint operations’ with Russia against ISIS. Now the Washington Post reports that the CIA is ending its program to arm Syrian rebels. There has been a slow, but steady pull back in US efforts to undermine Assad.

The reality on the ground is that the Obama administration split the baby and left Trump with the cleanup. Caught up in the Arab Spring, Syria experienced mass demonstrations calling for democracy. After initial toleration, the protests were soon put down with force and the conflict, defined by its sectarian nature, escalated quickly. Rather than directly intervene or stand aside, the Obama administration began quietly arming the opposition, though the majority was through regional allies given an implicit nod of approval. The civil war turned hot and fomented chaos, leading to the rise and expansion of ISIS. Further US dithering and the Obama led withdrawal in Iraq allowed ISIS to conquer much of Western Iraq, including major cities such as Mosul, with very little resistance. As the Syrian dictator came under pressure, his allies intervened directly on his behalf. This came in the form of Iranian supported Hezbollah acting as ground troops and Russia’s direct air support and arms sales. Russia’s entry dramatically limited the ability for the US to slowly ratchet up pressure against Assad, eliminating such options as a ‘no fly zone.’ However the fight with ISIS took center stage in the West, thanks in part to the organization’s demonic propaganda. Belatedly begun by Obama and then ramped up dramatically under Trump, serious efforts have been made to dislodge ISIS from its strongholds. As progress has been made, the death toll has risen, and this has led to the question, what next?

The end result will likely be that a mass murdering dictator indebted to two US geopolitical adversaries, Russia and Iran, remains in power. With over half a million dead and millions more displaced, it is a complete and utter nightmare. Unfortunately there are few alternatives. A continued shadow intervention drawing out the civil war would lead to only more dead with little hope of success, whatever the definition of success is. An escalation would embroil the US in another war in the Middle East, this time including a potential conflict with a nuclear power in Russia. There are good arguments that Assad in power in a peaceful Syria is superior to Assad and his allies expending resources to fight a civil war. There are decent arguments of the reverse as well. However there are few arguments supporting the idea that a politically embattled president should directly involve the US in another ground war. Though likely not to please regional allies Israel and Saudi Arabia, this is looks to be in the US’s best geopolitical interests. The threat to the US is not from Syria, but from its backers in Russia and Iran, which, I would argue, are less concerning than China and North Korea. The US cannot afford another costly ground war in the Middle East when the military needs to be focused on next age warfare rather than rooting out indigenous insurgencies. The cold truth is that sometimes the bad guys win. The lesson to be learned is that half measures sow chaos, see Libya, and full measures require decade long commitments of force, see Japan/Korea.

Follow me on Twitter @parks_dept