President Trump has announced that US forces are leaving Syria. Is that the right move now? The answer depends on what one sees as the proper US role in the Middle East.
There are two big reasons given by opponents of this move. First, there remain a small remnant of the ISIS forces, and we shouldn't leave until they have been wiped out. Second, an American exit from Syria leaves that country more open to Iranian and Russian influence.
ISIS -- There is no question that there are still ISIS forces in small pockets in eastern parts of Syria. There doesn't seem to be much of an effort at the moment to destroy those remnants. If an action is launched to attack those remnants, the biggest US participation would be the use of air power to attack them. The withdrawal of US forces from Syria won't change that so long as US forces are in neighboring Iraq (from which the planes would have come anyway.)
Iran/Russia -- The US presence in Syria provided protection for various Syrian factions from attacks by the Assad regime, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia. Our departure will remove that protection and it will also make it easier for Iran to send material overland to forces confronting Israel. This move will strengthen Russia and Iran while weakening our local allies. This is a simplistic view of a much more complicated situation, but it is, nevertheless, correct.
So the question boils down then to this: should the USA have forces permanently in Syria for a geopolitical confrontation with Iran and Russia? In his campaign, Trump made clear that he didn't think inserting US forces into conflicts around the world made sense. He said that he would defeat ISIS, and that has been done. He also made clear that he wouldn't embroil us in other fights. This latest decision is in line with his campaign promises.
Despite being true to the campaign, the President, in my opinion, has made a strategic mistake. I'm not worried about Russia having a foothold in Syria. The Russians do not have the ability nor the stomach to make much of this. It is the Iranians who worry me. Syria is a Sunni Arab country (about 75%) with a tiny (12%) Shiite minority. The Shiites have ruled for decades, though, under the Assads. Iran is the main supporter of the current Assad, and they will use Syria as a base for more of their attempts to control the region. Iran is aggressive and is not deterred by casualties suffered by its forces. If we want to bring Iran to actually stop its nuclear program, we need to apply pressure to the Iranians across the board, not just with sanctions. A US presence in Syria was one way to apply that pressure. I do not think that it made sense to remove those forces.
There are two big reasons given by opponents of this move. First, there remain a small remnant of the ISIS forces, and we shouldn't leave until they have been wiped out. Second, an American exit from Syria leaves that country more open to Iranian and Russian influence.
ISIS -- There is no question that there are still ISIS forces in small pockets in eastern parts of Syria. There doesn't seem to be much of an effort at the moment to destroy those remnants. If an action is launched to attack those remnants, the biggest US participation would be the use of air power to attack them. The withdrawal of US forces from Syria won't change that so long as US forces are in neighboring Iraq (from which the planes would have come anyway.)
Iran/Russia -- The US presence in Syria provided protection for various Syrian factions from attacks by the Assad regime, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia. Our departure will remove that protection and it will also make it easier for Iran to send material overland to forces confronting Israel. This move will strengthen Russia and Iran while weakening our local allies. This is a simplistic view of a much more complicated situation, but it is, nevertheless, correct.
So the question boils down then to this: should the USA have forces permanently in Syria for a geopolitical confrontation with Iran and Russia? In his campaign, Trump made clear that he didn't think inserting US forces into conflicts around the world made sense. He said that he would defeat ISIS, and that has been done. He also made clear that he wouldn't embroil us in other fights. This latest decision is in line with his campaign promises.
Despite being true to the campaign, the President, in my opinion, has made a strategic mistake. I'm not worried about Russia having a foothold in Syria. The Russians do not have the ability nor the stomach to make much of this. It is the Iranians who worry me. Syria is a Sunni Arab country (about 75%) with a tiny (12%) Shiite minority. The Shiites have ruled for decades, though, under the Assads. Iran is the main supporter of the current Assad, and they will use Syria as a base for more of their attempts to control the region. Iran is aggressive and is not deterred by casualties suffered by its forces. If we want to bring Iran to actually stop its nuclear program, we need to apply pressure to the Iranians across the board, not just with sanctions. A US presence in Syria was one way to apply that pressure. I do not think that it made sense to remove those forces.
No comments:
Post a Comment