I was wrong last month when I wrote that, when finally making a strategic policy choice on troop withdrawals, President Trump would not prefer a legacy in the Middle East as the President who vacated leadership in that region to Russia, Iran, and ISIS. Only days after I wrote he made what I consider to be the worst decision of his presidency when he gave the order to abandon Kurdish allies by withdrawing all remaining troops in Syria, supposedly in fulfillment of a campaign promise to withdraw from “endless wars” in the Middle East. This “come home America” call sent all the wrong messages to friend and foe alike in terms of what can be expected from U. S. foreign policy and related commitments and the criticism came fast and heavy, including a Congressional resolution condemning the decision that was adopted by a vote of 354-60! Of course, as usual, days later came the tempering of the decision by adjusting the troop withdrawal to accommodate an escape route for Kurdish troops.
But the damage had been done, and what we’re learning about Trump is that, contrary to our previous assessments, he is deeply ideological about foreign and military policy. And this is reflected in his commitment to the Rand Paul/Tucker Carlson/”come home America”/isolationist wing of the Republican Party and its demands for withdrawal from conflict overseas and any semblance of “policing”. The volatility of this decision process and its impetuous delivery, of course, are vintage Trump, but this leadership style has particularly negative consequences in the world’s diplomatic circles and leaves the impression that all is not well in the West Wing. Further, as the Wall Street Journal has noted in an editorial, it is not unreasonable to conclude that Mr. Trump’s foreign policy can be distilled into two tactics–sanctions and tariffs–as substitutes for diplomacy. This does not bode well, realistically or politically, and the President needs to take stock of this vulnerability going into the 2020 election season.
But leave it to Trump to have a comeback, and that he did by ordering a successful raid resulting in the killing of the leader of ISIS and the world’s most notorious terrorist, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a major victory in the war on terror. This doesn’t end the war with ISIS, but it did serve notice that, despite the obvious volatility in the West Wing, the White House is occupied by a leader who will make tough decisions and will not hesitate to extend American military power. A very timely event and major victory for Trump and the country, but, of course, don’t expect his political opponents to acknowledge it in any form or fashion. In fact, on a day conspicuous in its impact on our war with radical Islam, the American left and their fellow travelers still found it impossible to see anything positive in the successful raid. In their total derangement they can find nothing, however positive for the country, that will warrant commendation of this President. The rule seems to be if it benefits Trump it’s bad, if it hurts him, it’s good. I’ve avoided this conclusion for three years until now, but I am now drawn to the obvious—the left and their media colleagues hate Trump more than they love the country.
The Baghdadi raid should have reminded us that the U. S. remains as the indispensable country–no other country has the reach or capabilities to lead such an attack. So to think that America has an option to vacate the Middle East is a pipe dream; we cannot avoid the fact that this region as well as certain others around the world still matter a great deal to U. S. interests and will for the forseeable future. The problem is with the volatility of policy, which is confusing to friends and foes alike and, unfortunately, might just be business as usual with this President.
“The rule seems to be if it benefits Trump it’s bad, if it hurts him, it’s good. I’ve avoided this conclusion for three years until now, but I am now drawn to the obvious—the left and their media colleagues hate Trump more than they love the country.”
Amen
Your words always express my exact beliefs so well I look at them and wonder whether I had written them but of course, I would not do it so well. The same was true in your book “The Texas Pilgrim” which I just finished and strongly recommend as in your columns you combine cleareyed common sense with an intellectual bent.
Thanks as always, Vern, and for the kind review of my book. JMW
I regret to observe that your view is limited in its scope. No one has abandoned our Kurdish allies. The so-few (<1000) US troops served as a trip-wire in a hotbed of swarming nominal and actual US enemies-Iran, Russia, Turkey and Assad's Syria.
We are not correctly tasked with protecting the Kurds. The PKK, a Kurdish organization that seeks a Kurdistan in eastern Turkey, is formally designated as terrorist by our State Dept.
The US blew it under Bush I by failing to conquer Iraq and then divide it into Kurd, Shia and Sunni separate countries which would check one another. Bush II also blew it.
So now there is de facto division of Iraq into tres partes. But geographic Iraq is ruled by the Shia which are effectively allied with Shia Iran. Northwest Iraq is a Kurdish sanctuary, a Kurdistan.
Iran seeks a Muslim crescent from Constantinople to India, and Erdogan is becoming ever more Islamist in response. So the ayatollahs are well on their murderous way.
And you want an American troop trip-wire?
No doubt it would be great if we could go back to the Versailles Treaty in 1919 and restructure it and all the betrayals since, but that is not going to happen. So we live with facts on the ground. The “trip wire” cop out is a false option. Do you really think that Erdogan would risk a confrontation with the U. S. over even 50 troops? What I want is an American presence that prevents what you describe, that honors our commitments to allies in the region who have fought ISIS with us, and send the message to our enemies and others who do not wish us well that we will stand firm for our interests in the region.
Erdogan, the head of a NATO member country, has recently purchased a missile system FROM RUSSIA against which US Navy ships in the region have no defense.
Please let us not kid ourselves. The US has no allies in the mideast save Israel, and the Democrats are increasingly anti-Israel. We’ve surrendered our strategic interests in the region, especially under Obama. Russia now has a permanent Mediterranean naval base and an air base in Syria.
We have Incirlik in central Anatolia, an airfield with 50 nuclear bombs, surrounded by many thousands of Turkish square miles. We are not going to do a nuclear war with Russia, so we should pull them and destroy that base.
Perhaps you count Jordan an ally but it is uninvolved in Syria though it is a hangout for various Islamist factions still.
Turkey: an ally in name only, with a very long border with Russia, thus every reason to be cozy.
Russia: an ally not!
That leaves Iran! And Syria! And Lebanon, run by Hezbollah! Shia-run Iraq brings us to the end of the list.
Unfortunately, thanks to Obama we have surrendered our dominant position in the region, but not our strategic interests there, nor should we. Obama left Trump a mess, but the answer is not to vacate the field to Russia and Iran, and by the way, we’ll get help from the Saudis with Iran. Also, Turkey may not be our best friend in the region right now, but legally they are an ally and subject to NATO Article 5, and despite Erdogan’s drift and duplicity and I don’t believe he wants to threaten that status. It’s complicated, but if we came home we would be back in five years or less.
The Saudis cannot defeat the Houthis, an Iranian surrogate force in Yemen, despite a recent missile rain on the Sauds from those Houthis using Iranian missiles (!). We cannot look to the Sauds to project strength elsewhere in the region when SA cannot handle its own backyard problem.
The cat is long out of the bag with Iran. We have been defeated and regionally expelled. Iran practices asymmetric warfare against us with a smile. What can we do except heed Sen. McCain’s chant of “Bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran” with nukes? The answer is nothing. We cannot strangle its oil output; Europe would collapse without it.
You think you can sue Turkey to live up to its NATO obligations in a court of law? NATO has long been a sham. See the chronic Euro underfunding of their national treaty obligations. What has the US been able to do about that? Zip, nada, zero!
“We have been defeated and regionally expelled”? “NATO has long been a sham”? Broad sweeping generalities subject to empirical analysis. I think we have reached the point of agreeing to disagree. I would simply close by saying that for the U. S. to vacate the Middle East would be a monumental mistake for which we would pay dearly in blood and treasure.
You do not respond to some of my major points, Jim, but I’ll close with this link to today’s WSJ-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/battle-for-syrian-town-pits-turkey-against-assad-regime-11572895584?mod=djemwhatsnews
Thanks. Key phrase: “….rival forces seek to fill the void created by President Trump’s decision to withdraw U. S. troops from areas Turkey covets.” Key word: “void”.
Dear Jim and K. Tom:
I think that you are both correct on some issues but not on others. I have a younger relative who has won many medals, served six tours, and may have fought/worked with many, many Kurds (we do not know where he has been) possibly against IS in the last three tours. I believe that his perspective on the Kurds is different from yours. To him and his teams, the Kurds are real people with families, hopes, and dreams. The betrayal of the Kurds has “made our job much harder.” He says that he has lost many friends with Trump’s strategic blunder.
Jim — You’re right, it’s complicated, and there is some truth to the adage that “one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter”. JMW
The military’s evaluation has my vote. You don’t desert the Kurds, who have had our back.