Yesterday, there was an attack in Syria on a restaurant. A bomb exploded that killed people including four Americans who were holding a meeting there. ISIS has claimed responsibility. It's a sad thing, but the reaction to it is bizarre. All sorts of people are blaming President Trump for the deaths of these Americans because of his announced policy that the USA is pulling its forces out of Syria.
Think about it. First, ISIS has been carrying out terrorist attacks in the portions of Syria it does not control for the last six years. Over that time, ISIS first conquered about a third of Syria but now has been pushed out of all but a tiny sliver of land along the border with Iraq. The caliphate has been dismantled. Even so, ISIS is still carrying out terror attacks. In that regard, yesterday's bombing was nothing unusual.
Second, all 2000 of the US forces that were in Syria are still there. The withdrawal is set to begin in the next few days. To the extent that the American presence stops ISIS from attacking, those Americans are still there, yet we had the attack anyway. Clearly, the attack can't be the result of a withdrawal that hasn't yet occurred.
Third, if the attack can't be the result of the withdrawal, then -- or so the critics say-- it came about as a result of the announcement of the withdrawal. ISIS has been invigorated by that announcement, or so we are told. Huh? ISIS has been badly beaten in the fighting. It is facing a well armed coalition that hasn't lost a battle to ISIS since President Trump has been in office. The argument of invigoration is roughly the equivalent of saying that after the allied victory in WW II, the remnants of the Nazis in Germany were invigorated by the withdrawal of US forces from Europe.
Fourth, let's assume that ISIS has been invigorated -- even though it hasn't. Wouldn't ISIS wait for a few months until all American forces were gone before launching an attack? The leadership of ISIS that remains would understand that it will be much harder for the USA to bring troops back to Syria than to delay the withdrawal in order to stomp out the remnants of ISIS.
I don't mean to minimize the loss of the people killed by the bomb. It is important, however, not to use that bomb to spin a fantasy to criticize the withdrawal policy. And to be fully clear, my own view as expressed on this blog was that it was premature to withdraw. Even so, the bombing is not the result of the policy announcement.
Think about it. First, ISIS has been carrying out terrorist attacks in the portions of Syria it does not control for the last six years. Over that time, ISIS first conquered about a third of Syria but now has been pushed out of all but a tiny sliver of land along the border with Iraq. The caliphate has been dismantled. Even so, ISIS is still carrying out terror attacks. In that regard, yesterday's bombing was nothing unusual.
Second, all 2000 of the US forces that were in Syria are still there. The withdrawal is set to begin in the next few days. To the extent that the American presence stops ISIS from attacking, those Americans are still there, yet we had the attack anyway. Clearly, the attack can't be the result of a withdrawal that hasn't yet occurred.
Third, if the attack can't be the result of the withdrawal, then -- or so the critics say-- it came about as a result of the announcement of the withdrawal. ISIS has been invigorated by that announcement, or so we are told. Huh? ISIS has been badly beaten in the fighting. It is facing a well armed coalition that hasn't lost a battle to ISIS since President Trump has been in office. The argument of invigoration is roughly the equivalent of saying that after the allied victory in WW II, the remnants of the Nazis in Germany were invigorated by the withdrawal of US forces from Europe.
Fourth, let's assume that ISIS has been invigorated -- even though it hasn't. Wouldn't ISIS wait for a few months until all American forces were gone before launching an attack? The leadership of ISIS that remains would understand that it will be much harder for the USA to bring troops back to Syria than to delay the withdrawal in order to stomp out the remnants of ISIS.
I don't mean to minimize the loss of the people killed by the bomb. It is important, however, not to use that bomb to spin a fantasy to criticize the withdrawal policy. And to be fully clear, my own view as expressed on this blog was that it was premature to withdraw. Even so, the bombing is not the result of the policy announcement.
No comments:
Post a Comment