If you're wondering why President Trump would abruptly and without consultation with administration advisors or international allies pull 2,000 U.S. troops out of Syria, I'm glad to have your company.
Syria has been a disaster for years, and many U.S. decisions only made matters worse. President Obama threatened the Syrian government against use of chemical weapons but then did nothing when the Assad regime murdered its only citizens with poison gas. Obama allowed Russia to take the lead in Syria and take advantage of the lack of a clear strategy for the U.S. coalition fighting ISIS and other groups.
Trump's rationale (if you can call an irrational person's thoughts a rationale) is that ISIS has been defeated, so our troops should come home. As military and diplomatic officials have pointed out with great alarm, it's not that simple. ISIS has been pushed back by U.S. allies as well as the Russians and Syrians, but it hasn't disappeared and can swiftly regain enough footing to carry out devastating terrorist attacks.
Who benefits from Trump's rash decision? Syrian dictator Assad, sure, but also Vladimir Putin's Russia. By salvaging Assad, Putin has gained great leverage in the area and a foothold on the Mediterranean. Trump's sudden decision to withdraw troops directly benefits Putin in both the short and long term. It's a decision that could more logically come from the manipulative, conniving Putin than from anyone who cared about U.S. strategy and prestige. Abandoning besieged allies, as Trump is doing in Syria, will cast all U.S. promises into doubt with terrible long-term consequences.
There has been no reporting that I've seen linking Trump's announcement to Russian suggestions or messaging, but if I were Robert Mueller, I would ask for White House visitation, phone and email logs just to make sure the seed of this strategy wasn't suggested by the Kremlin.
Showing posts with label Assad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Assad. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 25, 2018
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
A no-winner war in Syria
Secretary of State John Kerry has declared it "undeniable" that Syria used chemical weapons against the anti-government rebels in a suburb near Damascus. So now the world awaits the reaction from the United States and other Western powers who have declared the use of chemical weapons a tripwire for their intervention in the Syrian civil war.
No one defends the use of chemical weapons, but we shouldn't pretend that they have been off limits since World War I, when chemical weapons killed thousands and left thousands more wishing they were dead. Survivors suffered horrible problems, including disfigurement and scorched lungs that robbed victims of oxygen.
The World War I experience prompted nations to ban chemical weapons, and the ban has been largely effective, with chemical bombs used only in a few conflicts since 1918. But Syria has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons that can be used against rebels, or, perhaps worse, can fall into the hands of the Islamist fighters eager to find new ways to terrify their enemies and kill more "infidels."
What can the United States and its allies do? If they intervene in Syria's civil war with direct combat against the Assad regime, they will sink their fortunes into Syria's cesspool of hatred and intrigue from which there is no easy escape. The United States badly misjudged the cost in time, money and lives of its intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, so claims of an easy and simple intervention in Syria is not reassuring.
Western sentiments are with the populist Syrian rebels, despite the fact that al-Qaida fighters are a large segment of the rebel forces, and against the despotic and brutal Assad regime. Regardless of which side ultimately prevails, there is no positive outcome from the West's perspective. If the rebels win, a fractured, sectarian regime allied with Islamist terrorists is likely to emerge through years of violent infighting. If Assad prevails, he will rule over a country shattered by years of war and economic catastrophe, and he will have even more reason to oppose Western principles.
The United States cannot win in Syria, no matter who prevails.
No one defends the use of chemical weapons, but we shouldn't pretend that they have been off limits since World War I, when chemical weapons killed thousands and left thousands more wishing they were dead. Survivors suffered horrible problems, including disfigurement and scorched lungs that robbed victims of oxygen.
The World War I experience prompted nations to ban chemical weapons, and the ban has been largely effective, with chemical bombs used only in a few conflicts since 1918. But Syria has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons that can be used against rebels, or, perhaps worse, can fall into the hands of the Islamist fighters eager to find new ways to terrify their enemies and kill more "infidels."
What can the United States and its allies do? If they intervene in Syria's civil war with direct combat against the Assad regime, they will sink their fortunes into Syria's cesspool of hatred and intrigue from which there is no easy escape. The United States badly misjudged the cost in time, money and lives of its intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, so claims of an easy and simple intervention in Syria is not reassuring.
Western sentiments are with the populist Syrian rebels, despite the fact that al-Qaida fighters are a large segment of the rebel forces, and against the despotic and brutal Assad regime. Regardless of which side ultimately prevails, there is no positive outcome from the West's perspective. If the rebels win, a fractured, sectarian regime allied with Islamist terrorists is likely to emerge through years of violent infighting. If Assad prevails, he will rule over a country shattered by years of war and economic catastrophe, and he will have even more reason to oppose Western principles.
The United States cannot win in Syria, no matter who prevails.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
