Among
those objecting most loudly to an American withdrawal from the forever wars of
the Middle East are those who were the most enthusiastic about plunging us in.
The backstage struggle between the Bush interventionists and the
America-firsters who first backed Donald Trump for president just exploded into
open warfare, which could sunder the Republican Party.
At
issue is Trump’s decision to let the Turkish army enter Northern Syria, to
create a corridor between Syrian Kurds and the Turkish Kurds of the PKK, which
the U.S. and Turkey regard as a terrorist organization.
“A
disaster in the making,” says Lindsey Graham. “To abandon the Kurds” would be a
“stain on America’s honor.”
“A
catastrophic mistake,” said Rep. Liz Cheney.
“If
reports about US retreat in Syria are accurate,” tweeted Marco Rubio, Trump
will have “made a grave mistake.”
“The
Kurds were instrumental in our successful fight against ISIS in Syria. Leaving
them to die is a big mistake,” said ex-U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley, “we must
always have the backs of our allies. ” But of our NATO ally of almost 70 years,
Haley said, “Turkey is not our friend.”
Sen.
Mitt Romney called it a “betrayal”:
“The
President’s decision to abandon our Kurd allies in the face of an assault by
Turkey is a betrayal. It says that America is an unreliable ally; it
facilitates ISIS resurgence; and it presages another humanitarian disaster.”
Trump
tweeted this defense of his order to U.S. forces not to resist Turkish
intervention and the creation of a Turkish corridor in Syria from the eastern
bank of the Euphrates to Iraq:
“The
Kurds fought with us, but were paid massive amounts of money and equipment to
do so. They have been fighting Turkey for decades. … I held off this fight for
… almost 3 years, but it is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless
Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home.”
When,
in December, Trump considered ordering all U.S. troops home from Syria, Defense
Secretary James Mattis resigned in protest.
Behind
this decision is Trump’s exasperation at our NATO allies’ refusal to take back
for trial their own citizens whom we and the Kurds captured fighting for ISIS.
The
U.S. has “pressed France, Germany, and other European nations, from which many
captured ISIS fighters came, to take them back, but they … refused,” said a
Sunday White House statement. “The United States will not hold them for what
could be many years and great cost. … Turkey will now be responsible for all
ISIS fighters in the area captured over the past two years.”
Have something to say about
this column?
Visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments….
Visit Pat’s FaceBook page and post your comments….
What are the arguments interventionists are using to insist that
U.S. forces remain in Syria indefinitely?
If
we pull out, says Graham, the Kurds will be forced, for survival, to ally themselves
with Bashar Assad.
True, but the Kurds now occupy a fourth
of Syria, and this is not sustainable. We have to consider reality. Assad, the
Russians, Iranians and Hezbollah have won the war against the Sunni rebels we
and our Arab friends armed and equipped.
We
are told that the Kurds will be massacred by Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan,
who sees them as terrorist allies of the PKK.
But
the Turks occupied the Syrian border west of the Euphrates and the Kurds
withdrew without massacres. And how long must we stay in Syria to defend the
Kurds against the Turks? Forever?
If
we depart, ISIS will come back, says Cheney: “Terrorists thousands of miles
away can and will use their safe-havens to launch attacks against America.”
But al-Qaida and ISIS are in many more
places today than they were when we intervened in the Middle East. Must we
fight forever over there — to be secure over here? Why cannot Syria, Iraq,
Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States deal with ISIS and al-Qaida in
their own backyard?
Why
are ISIS and al-Qaida over there our problem over here?
“This
will throw the region into further chaos,” says Graham.
But
if Trump’s decision risks throwing the region into “further chaos,” what, if
not wholesale U.S. intervention, created the “present chaos”?
Consider. Today, the Taliban conduct more
attacks and control much more territory than they did in all the years since we
first intervened in 2001.
Sixteen
years after we marched to Baghdad, protests against the Iraqi regime took
hundreds of lives last week, and a spreading revolt threatens the regime.
Saudi
Arabia is tied down and arguably losing the war it launched against the Houthi
rebels in 2015. Iran or its surrogates, with a handful of cruise missiles and
drones, just shut down half of the Saudi oil production.
Crown
Prince Mohammed bin Salman is awakening to his nation’s vulnerability and may
be looking to negotiate with Tehran.
Among
those objecting most loudly to an American withdrawal from the forever wars of
the Middle East are those who were the most enthusiastic about plunging us in.
And, yes, there is a price to be paid
for letting go of an empire, but it is almost always less than the price of
holding on.
