Preparing to withdraw U.S. ground forces from Syria, President Trump should pay attention to what happened after former President Barack Obama’s hasty 2011 withdrawal from Iraq. Because Obama’s withdrawal led to the increasing influence of Iran over Iraqi politics and thus invited Shia sectarian policies targeting Sunnis. In turn, these policies helped foster the rise of ISIS and led to Obama being forced to return forces to Iraq.
At the time, Obama’s 2011 decision represented the short term preference of domestic political calculations (Obama being able to run on a platform of “I got us out of Bush’s war”) over national security imperatives (consolidating a multi-sectarian Iraqi government that would deny terrorist groups from using its territory as a safe haven).
Unfortunately, it seems Trump might be about to make a similar mistake. Speaking in Ohio on Thursday, President Trump declared, “We’re knocking the hell out of ISIS. We’ll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon, let the other people take care of it now.”
Don’t get me wrong, I recognize why Trump wants to be out of Syria. The president ran on a campaign message of putting U.S. interests first and avoiding what he regarded as the disastrous foreign policy adventures of former presidents. Yet Trump should remember that he’s no longer the campaigner in chief, he’s the president. His primary responsibility is to put national security interests first.
Moreover, there are five compelling rationales for keeping U.S. forces in Syria for the time being, which the Trump administration itself has identified.
First, the restraint of destructive Iranian influences in Syria; second, the removal of Bashar Assad from power; third, the disarmament of Syria’s chemical weapons program; fourth, the return of displaced peoples to their homes; and fifth, the durable defeat of ISIS, al Qaeda, and other transnational terrorist organizations.
All those priorities are important to U.S. national interests.
When it comes to displaced peoples and chemical weapons, the Trump administration has shown moral leadership in confronting Assad’s poisoning of the nation. Withdrawing U.S. forces from Syria would send a message to Assad that the U.S. is now okay with him killing his people. Thousands more would die.
Similarly, if we care about a durable defeat of ISIS and al Qaeda, we cannot simply pack our bags and leave. ISIS is currently reconstituting and has shown a remarkable ability to rebuild in conditions of absent external pressure.
Does Trump want to be the president who defeated ISIS and allowed it to rise from the ashes? What about leaving Assad in power? His sectarian stench on the political structures of Syria will remain a profound obstacle to any future political arrangement that isolates terrorist influences. U.S. forces matter greatly here because they help influence the Russian government towards the conclusion that their puppet, Assad, be replaced in Damascus.
His sectarian stench on the political structures of Syria will remain a profound obstacle to any future political arrangement that isolates terrorist influences. U.S. forces matter greatly here because they help influence the Russian government towards the conclusion that their puppet, Assad, be replaced in Damascus.
As a side point, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government would also seek advantage from any U.S. withdrawal in order to crush the Kurds in northern Syria. At present, the U.S. military is a blocking force that deters him.
Finally, there’s the U.S. ground presence’s influence in obstructing Iranian efforts to carve out a contiguous arterial supply line between Tehran and southern Lebanon. If the U.S. leaves, our absence would give the Ayatollah’s minions free hand to continue destabilizing regional politics and posing an ever escalating threat to Israel.
As I say, Trump must ask himself if his campaign rhetoric is more important than ensuring U.S. priorities are protected. As he does so, he should also remind himself that as with the U.S. forces in Iraq in 2011, U.S. casualties are few and far between.
Yes, on Friday, we lost one American near Manbij. But that serviceman’s sacrifice speaks to the essence of this article: our presence matters for its potential power and its political effect just as much as its military operations.
Manbij, after all, is a crossroads for the concerns America has at stake in Syria.
