The Syrian Civil War has been a thorn in U.S. foreign policy since it started in 2011. Since then, the U.S. has been involved in Syrian affairs in one way or another. Last month, President Trump did something that shook the Washington establishment: withdraw American troops from Syria. It is no surprise that many thought it was a mistake that will adversely contribute to regional instability. Did Trump make the right decision or not?
Not backed with congressional authorization. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare war. Both the Obama and Trump administrations have ignored this constitutional provision. Unless Congress can make a declaration of war, the U.S. has no business stationing troops in Syria.
What about ISIS? Trying to stop ISIS was the only remotely justifiable argument for the U.S. to be in Syria. Even then, ISIS was threatening the U.S.' Middle Eastern allies, not the U.S itself. While Syria is a humanitarian tragedy, Syria had not been a critical threat to U.S. national security. Fast-forward to the present: ISIS is greatly incapacitated. With the U.S. withdrawal, the Syrian government and other parties involved (e.g., Russia, Iran) have a major incentive to make sure ISIS doesn't reemerge. At the end of the day, it is not practical to try to stall every conceivable calamity that could befall the region. The United States has many allies in the region: Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia. Perhaps they could do some more of the lifting (especially since they are closer and have greater cultural understanding) instead of having the U.S. try to fix everything.
We can't counter Iran or Russia. As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace detailed, the U.S. already lost in Syria because Russia and Iran have much more influence than the U.S. was able to acquire. As the Brookings Institute brought up, it was never clear as to how the U.S. troop presence was going to shift the region's military balance.
As a matter of fact, the 2,000-plus troops were not capable of engendering the political reform necessary to stabilize the region. The situation in Syria favors Russia and Iran, so why should we spend millions more on a lost cause? Russia is now the broker of the conflict. Putin gets the joy of trying to manage Turkey, Syria, and Iran at the same time while making sure Russian interests are secure in Syria. Not saying it's impossible, but Putin can have fun trying.
Plus, there are two other things to consider. One, Syria not an appropriate place to contain Iran. Two, further attempts to sway things in a country where the U.S. is not wanted (whereas Iran and Russia were invited) would risk a proxy war with Russia.
Postscript: It is true that the withdrawal was not coherent because Trump did not coordinate with other countries or even his advisors. At the same time, our presence is not currently merited, which is noteworthy since the U.S. has already spent $54 billion in Syria (Brown University). Our presence would have been mission creep that would have perpetuated the U.S.' presence in the region for decades to come. In spite of me criticizing Trump on such topics as international trade and immigration, I will give him credit where credit is due. I'll let the Foreign Policy Director at the Cato Institute sum it up: "Absent achievable goals and a strong national security imperative backed up by congressional authorization, the U.S. presence in Syria is illegitimate and better off wound down."
1-6-2019 Addendum: A senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace summarized five reasons why Trump was right to pull out of Syria.
No comments:
Post a Comment