President Trump said that the U.S. would be leaving Syria. White House national security adviser John Bolton, speaking for the president, revised that message. The message is supposed to reassure the Kurds, currently threatened by our NATO ally Turkey. But the only message to come across is that Washington is a fickle ally.

During a phone call, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told Trump that he was planning an operation against U.S.-backed Kurdish forces in Syria but needed American troops out of the way. Trump readily agreed and within a week announced that troops would quickly be leaving Syria.

That announcement was met with widespread criticism — including from within his own administration: The Kurdish forces that Trump was so ready to throw under the Turkish guns were key allies in the fight against the Islamic State; they were trained, supplied by, and allied with U.S. forces; ISIS was not actually defeated; pulling out would hurt Israel; and Iran and Russia would quickly take over.

Those criticisms championed by Bolton, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and others seem to have convinced Trump — at least a little. He is no longer calling for an immediate withdrawal or saying that ISIS is defeated and has offered support for a no-timeline withdrawal.



The Failing New York Times has knowingly written a very inaccurate story on my intentions on Syria. No different from my original statements, we will be leaving at a proper pace while at the same time continuing to fight ISIS and doing all else that is prudent and necessary!..... — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 7, 2019



That’s the message that Bolton took on the road first to Israel and now Turkey to try to map out just what pulling troops means for the U.S. and its allies. That’s a fine line to walk as Turkey, despite clear desires to attack U.S.-aligned Kurdish forces, is also a U.S. ally and NATO member.

Speaking in Israel on Sunday, Bolton outlined conditions for U.S. troops to leave, and key among them was protection for U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish fighters.

When he landed in Ankara, Turkey, Erdogan made clear that was an unacceptable condition.

Erdogan, who was initially supposed to meet with Bolton but canceled, called the plan to protect the Kurds a “very serious mistake,” adding “the message that Bolton gave in Israel is unacceptable. It is not possible for us to swallow.”

Erdogan backed his objection with a threat: “Very soon, we will take action to neutralize terrorist organizations in Syria. We have completed our preparations for the operation to a large extent.”

That adds to the headache as Turkey had already promised violence against the Kurds, which it has classified as a terrorist group. Indeed, shortly after Trump announced that U.S. forces would be leaving Syria, the Turkish foreign minister said in reference to Kurdish forces building fortifications against ISIS, “whatever they dig … when the time comes they will be buried in the trenches.”

But for all of that militant posturing, the whiplash of U.S. foreign policy has left Turkey guessing where Washington stands, amounting to a stalemate on a withdrawal based on Bolton’s conditions. Undoubtedly that does little to strengthen U.S.-Turkey relations and to build a workable solution that leaves the Kurds protected, if and when troops finally do leave Syria.

For our Kurdish allies, who have had to read the news to learn their fate, just what the U.S. plans to do remains a mystery. Facing an ongoing threat from ISIS, renewed threats from Turkey, and rising tensions as Iran and Russia look to assert their power if the U.S. does leave, that uncertainty is an untenable position. The Kurds, not eager to be left out to dry, have already been looking for other arrangements — including a partnership with Bashar Assad, the draconian president of Syria accused of war crimes in the ongoing Syrian Civil War. Although by no means an ideal ally, facing the prospect of abandonment from Washington, that unsavory alliance is better than the alternatives: promised death from Turkey or the Islamic State.

The upshot of the whole mess, of course, is that all of this uncertainty is the needless product of incoherent foreign policy.

The president and his representatives speak for the country when they meet with and talk to foreign leaders. When the messages vary widely depending on the day and the messenger, that leaves everyone guessing. As promises and policy change, the only thing that seems certain is inconsistency. When it comes to the complex web of alliances in Syria, that uncertainty spells chaos — the very outcome that Washington has expended so much effort to combat in the form of ISIS.

And for the U.S., that ultimately hurts our interests both with Turkey and the Kurds.