|
On Sunday, in an eminently predictable move, President Donald Trump ordered the remainder of US troops pulled from Syria. In so doing, he contradicted members of his team who had said some troops would remain; he betrayed the Kurdish forces that had been carrying the heavy burden of counter-ISIS fighting in Syria; he enabled the liberation of hundreds of ISIS fighters who had been held in what was secure territory. I could go on; this was an epically poor decision, on a par with Barack Obama’s failure to enforce his “red line,” worse that the 1991 George H. W. Bush betrayal of the Kurds of Iraq, whom he had encouraged to rise up, only to see them slaughtered by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Worse yet, this mindless decision comes in the context of a series of other fails in the Middle East, including the failure to respond to Iran’s brazen attack on Saudi oil facilities. It has been said more than a few times over the last weeks that those who have looked to the United States, especially after the dark years of the Obama administration, have realized that Donald Trump is a less well-spoken iteration of his predecessor, a retrencher, a retreater, a man with little vision about either the US’s role in the world or the threats that will inevitably come to roost at home. Repeating what is well known in foreign policy circles is cathartic but almost pointless. Even the resoundingly true comparisons with the (utterly hypocritical) Obama cast of enablers is little more than sniping.
Strangely, several people have asked me whether this Syria move is going to be the last straw, the end for Trump, or at the very least for those who continue to serve the president. I don’t get that. Trump, like Obama, said he wanted to end wars. What he meant was that he wanted to lose wars, but “end” sounds better. Twitter is full of speculation about various blocs now recoiling in disgust from the GOP. Come on; apart from anything else (which survey put Syria policy at the top of voter priorities?), it’s not as if the Democratic candidates for president are promising a full-scale repudiation. Au contraire. Even US allies and partners in Europe and the Middle East who have mouthed outrage at Turkey’s wanton and murderous incursion into Syria don’t actually want to do anything.
What’s to be done? First, we must recognize that this is a failure of leadership. Yes… the leadership of people like me and those like me who believe that the world is a better place when America leads; who believe that “never again” once meant something; who think that we must build the foundations of democratic transformation and human freedom. We must persuade our leadership, our policymakers, and the public that it is always cheaper to try to solve problems overseas before they become wars, but we haven’t done so. Second, we must set aside the left-right anger that is only deepening between us. The true adversary on the American political scene is the isolationist, the do–nothing, the one who believes “nation building here at home” is somehow mutually exclusive from leadership abroad. The problem to confront is the one that suggests that anyone who wants a foreign policy and a strategy to confront dangers is a warmonger determined to sacrifice blood and treasure.
For every person on twitter sharing their outrage over Syria, bemoaning Trump’s perfidy, I challenge you to determine the right strategy, to support that strategy in the face of catcalls from your base, and to do the right thing. If you’re a voter, ask yourself whether your representative cares about where our nation’s foreign policy is going, or just cares about scoring off his political opponents. What is the right strategy? Various strategies have been suggested by my colleagues Michael Rubin and Fred Kagan and our colleagues at the Institute for the Study of War. Anything will now be harder, but even a small number of troops on the ground could have kept the fragile peace that has now been shattered.
This is a failure of leadership. We must persuade our leadership, our policymakers, and the public that it is always cheaper to try to solve problems overseas before they become wars, but we haven’t done so.
|
