The president’s pullout of Syria is essentially an effort to force an end not only to our engagement in the area, but also to the basic credibility of the neoconservative worldview- as well as efforts in the future to shape global democracy and influence world order. There are plenty of Republicans who see this approach as heresy, and there are plenty of Democrats and media outlets who relish the blood-on-blood infighting to come (and who will strangely express their outrage at a decision they would have lauded once merely because the opposite of the administration’s policy is their policy), but the reality is much more nuanced.
On the surface, the president’s motivation is driven by polling. Our commander in chief is a populist at his core- not an idealist. Most Americans (many in both parties) don’t favor extending the war in Syria. This is quite simply because we aren’t able to do what it takes to win. Assad’s forces are backed by Russia; there’s no way to build real stability in the region without a heavier hand than we are willing to take or through regime change, and there seems to be no way to force regime change short of open war with Russia. Further, as China increasingly begins to flex in the pacific and begins to highlight our “meddling in the affairs of others” -including Syria- as China launches their own massive campaign for development, seeking access to the natural resources of sub-Saharan Africa, the president is mindful that it’s from China where we face the greatest long term security threat, and it’s China who benefits most from our distraction to a protracted entanglement with Syria and Russia. Further, while the timing of Iran was the president’s doing, it’s also clear that they are a much greater threat to global security in the near term. Our security interest in Syria is that someone accountable to the UN controls and regulates the area- whether it be Turkey or the US, either will make certain that it isn’t ISIS. We really can only do so much.
But that’s only part of the story. Turkey’s interest in Syria isn’t focused first on restoring peace to Syrians. The Kurdish forces we have used since the beginning of the war in Iraq have fought with us because they are a people without a land. Spread throughout Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria, this proud, ethnic population descended of Saladin is at odds with each of those nations as they seek to restore some autonomy. They have been capable allies because they have more than 1,000 years of history fighting for their own survival. Walking away from them when we are done will be a public betrayal that the Chinese and Russians will hold up as the true nature of “American Imperialism.” They will say that Americans come with high ideals, but leave when it’s no longer convenient. To Bush-era neoconservatives, it’s unthinkable; to Trump and his “America First” agenda, it’s a way to cross the bridge back from nation-building and burn it behind him.
In the long term, this may be the better move. The people of Vietnam, the people of Iraq, and increasingly the people of Afghanistan have come to realize that Americans come and Americans go. If we fool no one, and if we do really lack the resolve (and quite possibly the ability) to build regimes and promote democracy in the aftermath of conflict, then it is possible that the sooner we go the better. This may also help us usher in a day when America accepts that it is no longer the sole global hegemon and must share global military and economic influence with both China and Russia once again. If pulling back now gives them space we would have needed to cede eventually through direct conflict, it may increase stability in the long term also.
But in the short term, it’s a lot of bad taste. To those who can’t bear to see America as anything but a beacon of light that can dictate the ways of the world, it looks like a retreat. To those focused first on human rights, it’s a turnover of power to another heavy-handed imperial force that will bring another wave of increased violence before it can hope to bring local stability. While the president’s motivation may be no deeper than extending a political olive branch to a growing, centrist plurality of the American public focused on their own economy, anxious to make a trade deal in China and not willing to subsidize stability of the Kurdish population (so long as there’s someone on the ground containing ISIS), if America is a truly is a shrinking power, in 50 years this may be seen as a thoughtful and pragmatic preservation of resources.
Similar Read: The Trump Doctrine: What Ukraine Says About Trump’s Foreign Policy