Trump Gets It Right, with Collateral Damage

Today, in a letter to a bipartisan group of US Senators, Donald Trump announced his commitment to maintain up to 400 US troops in Syria to assist with ongoing operations against the remnants of ISIS and with peacekeeping in the region. This policy is a reversal of Trump’s prior decision to remove all troops from Syria announced in late 2018.

That controversial determination – which spurred the resignation of Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis in protest – was made in conjunction with the decision to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan should certain conditions be met.

For anyone who recalls the kerfuffle about the earlier Syria and Afghanistan withdrawals, those in support of complete withdrawals of US forces for both nations intentionally obfuscated two different situations (lumping the debate about Syria and Afghanistan together). The US has been in combat in Afghanistan in what has been, since significant initial success, a costly stalemate now spanning an astonishing 17 years. There is little dispute that US involvement in a country which no longer shelters Al Qaeda must end, preferably under favorable but in no way ideal circumstances. Frankly, it should be expected that, after the US leaves, Afghanistan will remain the same fractured and unstable country it has been for more generations prior to US intervention.

However, the Syrian withdrawal would have involved a much different situation. US ground forces have only been in Syria a few years, and have enjoyed dramatic success in supporting the largely Kurdish-led destruction of ISIS operations there (as well as in northern and western Iraq). In fact, Kurdish forces, with American help, are presently in the process of overtaking the final major ISIS holdout in the eastern Syria city of Baghouz. American and Kurdish success in destroying ISIS – achieved after the near complete failure of President Obama’s ISIS policy – is arguably President Trump’s greatest foreign policy success. A total withdrawal in Syria would have not only alleviated some of the pressure on ISIS but exposed America’s longstanding Kurdish allies to recriminations from Turkey (which has used its own military forces against Kurdish-held areas in northern Syria).

As such, President Trump made a well-advised decision to maintain American troop presence in Syria, even if it was a reversal of his problematic and ill-advised “complete withdrawal” from this country. American boots on the ground here will help to ensure that ISIS is fully neutralized, will maintain stability in parts of a war-ravaged Syria, and will assist our battle-hardened Kurdish allies from attacks by their own enemies (particularly Turkey). But due to the initial misstep in announcing a total withdrawal, it cost him James Mattis’ service in his administration. Ultimately, the right decision was made, but getting there required unnecessary collateral damage.