December 16, 2024 - 3:00pm
Donald Trump was mostly correct in his recent social media post on Syria, in which he argued in block capitals: “This is not our fight. Let it play out.” The United States “should have nothing to do with” Syria’s mess, at least in a military sense. Leaving US forces there, whether or not Bashar al-Assad’s fall ends the civil war, is pointless and dangerous.
But the question remains whether the President-elect, this time around, will enact foreign policies consistent with his sensible rhetoric. His record on Syria, after all, is typically unpredictable. As president, he famously announced in 2018 that he was pulling out troops.
But he backtracked after howls of outrage, including from his own defence secretary, who resigned. Trump then gave in to arguments from other hawkish subordinates, including national security advisor John Bolton, that he should keep forces there to protect Syria’s oil fields and evict Iranian forces. He claimed to be a peacemaker in his campaign this year but ignored the unauthorised US war there. Even in his recent post, he blamed Syria’s trouble on Barack Obama being insufficiently committed to making war there — not bombing over Syria’s chemical weapons use, as Trump later did.
The reason Trump gave six years ago for wanting out of Syria was simple and correct: the US had achieved its mission to destroy the Islamic State’s “caliphate”. Its remnants were scattered and no longer a threat to America, if they ever were. The Kurds, the Assad government, Iranian-backed militias, and Russia were lining up to attack what little of Isis was left. The idea that the US had to be at the front of the queue never made sense, and American forces did not require local bases when they struck directly at terrorists there. Having bases in such places, while it can offer slight logistical convenience, arguably generates more terrorism through blowback. It certainly gives local extremists something American to shoot at.
Nor did Trump buy the additional reason typically given for leaving US forces in Syria, which was to protect the Kurds, primarily from Turkey. He was perhaps too callous about the Kurds’ fate, but he was right that the United States, having defended the Kurds against Isis, did not have to repay some debt by backing their autonomy and protecting them in perpetuity. Geography says the Kurds will have to have find accommodation with the new Syrian government and Turkey sooner or later; the United States cannot move them to safety.
Trump’s rejection of these arguments when he was last president probably means he won’t accept them this time, much as people will try to convince him. And the argument that the US should keep its small force posture in Syria to maintain order there — a kind of nation-building lite concept — almost certainly will not fly with the new administration.
Still, Trump could elect to keep troops in Syria. Even though there isn’t much oil in Syria and the revenues of its sale do not go to Americans, the President-elect still seems to believe in the virtue of “keeping” it, as he puts it, by having US troops nearby.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“ trying to manage its problems with US military forces is a fool’s errand”
True, unless you have devastated the country to the extent that people will do as they’re told and accept that their revolutionary, religious militarism were misguided. Japan and Germany post 1945 spring to mind. Of course many citizens are silent accepters of the violent approach to domestic and foreign policies; but their presumed neutrality does not mean they are innocent of accepting the governance they have. War is terrible; the only excuse for it is the threat of violence; Islamists boldly state their violent intent towards the West. It’s inevitable, sadly.
The nice thing about Islamists is they will eventually turn on each other. Like any radical ideology, the purity test get more exclusionary.
Syria is indeed a mess that we should stay out of. No one knows how it will turn out, me least of all, but I suspect the rule of Bashar al-Assad was probably, bad as it was, better than what is to come.
I think all these movements within a couple of months or weeks since the election seem to suggest that this is an effort to tie Trump’s hands and keep him occupied, preventing him from addressing domestic issues. I don’t think it will work, but I’m keeping an open mind.
The issues in the Middle East seem far less significant compared to Europe, which still appears to be in conflict like third-world countries at times.
ISIS is down but not out. The world owes a huge debt to the Kurds for being the main force that eliminated ISIS and that is still keeping tens of thousands of former ISIS confined in camps. Once the US gone, Turkey will unleash its air force on the Kurds, ISIS will be able to recover, and we will be back to square one, with the US and Europe again threatened by ISIS terrorism. This will require a new intervention. So keeping 900 troops in Eastern Syria and continue giving air cover to the Kurds seems like a small price to pay to keep a lid on things.
Israel could establish a presence there as a proxy for the US. I don’t know if they could do a deal with Turkey for joint supervision of these muhajideen characters but it would be highly desirable for the defence of both powers.
If people are really serious about pursuing terrorists, they should go after the zionists and the state they control. Doing anything else is hypocritical adventurism.
Wahaay! What a great example of Godwin’s law : (ie whatever the topic the discussion will will very quickly turn to blaming the Jews).
I think we should stick to jihadis.
It seems to me that the Russian withdrawal from Syria is one side of deal, the other half of which involves fairly large concessions to Russia in Ukraine. I therefore somehow doubt the US is going to pull out of the Middle East.
It really is the almost laughable threats by the US to pull out of Europe! Whether Europe wants it or not, it isn’t going to happen!