President Trump’s announcement of an impending withdrawal of American forces from Syria has been one of the most puzzling episodes to occur in the course of the country’s conflict. Trump has stated his intent to pull out all US military and civilian assets—it came as a bit of a shock to both the diplomatic and defense establishments of the federal government, and could very well prove to be one of the most consequential events for the Syrian civil war. The announcement itself and subsequent statements emanating from the White House have been strange and disjointed, to say the least.
First came the reports of the meeting between Trump and his national security team, including the joint chiefs, the Department of Defense, and intelligence community heads. The meeting was reportedly “uncomfortable,” with the president allegedly demanding an abrupt and complete pullout from the country in a matter of months. According to anonymous participants of the meeting, Trump opened with a “tirade” about the “wasted” American men and treasure invested in the Middle East over the past seventeen years that have amounted to no lasting results.
The idea of an immediate pullout was received with unanimous opposition by aides. Those in the Situation Room responded to the president’s demand with some alternatives, mostly gradual scale-downs with a reasonable timeframe. Secretary of Defense James Mattis, for instance, countered with a one-year plan to withdraw from the country. After being bombarded by aides on the unfeasibility of a walking away from Syria so abruptly, Trump relented—but only slightly, telling his generals and intelligence chiefs they could have up to six months to complete the mission to destroy the Islamic State and then get out. On April 4, the day after the meeting, the White House released the statement that the US military mission in Syria was coming to “a rapid end” but did not offer a specific timeline.
There are a few things to call out the president on regarding how he’s handled the shift on Syria policy.
Giving Away the Plan
The White House statement publicly and loudly revealed to the world that American leadership is wary of Syria and desperate to get out. Trump himself repeatedly lambasted his predecessor for announcing war strategy, and correctly so. Setting time limits on US missions and then broadcasting them to the world was indeed a very compromising move committed by the Obama administration on several occasions, especially when it came to American involvement in Afghanistan. Now Trump has committed the very same sin in regards to Syria.
Disregard for Allies
The US has partners in Syria, that participate both directly and indirectly with American forces operating in the country. A major policy decision in the country, like pulling out completely, will have major consequences for these partners. Consider, for instance, the US relationship with the Kurds, who have been a vital ally in combating extremism all across the region, from Syria to Iraq.
The alliance with Kurds in Syria has been based on the coalition of fighting groups led by Kurdish militias that operate in tandem with some 2,000 American servicemen. Kurdish leadership has been left perplexed by Trump’s announcement—it has been another blow to the Kurds’ position in the country following the devastation they incurred from Turkey’s recent invasion of Syria targeting Kurdish fighters, an invasion the US did not oppose. “They want us to finish what’s important to them, but they won’t concern themselves with what’s important to us,” said a senior Kurdish figure who has liaised regularly with US officials.
Trump’s desire to leave Syria in a hurry has also reportedly become a point of contention with Israel, a country with myriad interests in the outcome of the current civil war, not the least of which is Iran’s rapid intrenchment in the country. Israeli media reported that a phone call between Trump and prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu “grew tense” on the subject of the withdrawal, a move that would facilitate Israel’s enemies in gaining a further foothold in a neighboring country.
A statement by Israel’s defense minister, Avigdor Liberman indicated that America did not consult with Israel about an impending withdrawal before the White House dropped the news. “President Trump didn’t ask me,” Liberman said when asked during an interview with Israel Radio.
An ISIS Rebound
The fight against the Islamic State has made tremendous headway in the past year. The American-led coalition dislodged militants from their primary strongholds in the region, namely Mosul in western Iraq, and their declared capital in Raqqa, Syria. Despite these milestones and assertions by the administration indicating that the group has been defeated, the group is very much still at-large in the region. Even as ISIS began to lose its grip on its capital city of Raqqa and the surrounding areas of northern Syria in the Summer of 2017, some of its most senior figures were relocated to a string of towns nestled along the Euphrates River in Syria’s eastern Deir Ezzor Province near the Iraqi border.
The Kurdish militant group YPG and opposition fighters of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) backed by US special forces and drone strikes, were on a clear trajectory to close in on this last ISIS stronghold in the country. Turkey’s incursion put a halt to that, however, as a large percentage of Kurdish forces were diverted to assist their brethren in meeting the invasion of the north.
As of now, the Pentagon officially classifies the effort to crush ISIS in Deir Ezzor as in a state of “operational pause.” Completely removing American assets from Syria at this critical time could give the Islamic State the breathing room it needs to regroup and regain its strength.
Indeed the potential for an ISIS rebound in Syria was one of the primary objections Trump’s aides had during the above April 3 meeting. Officials argued that an immediate withdrawal could be catastrophic and was logistically impossible to pull off in any responsible way, without risking the return of the Islamic State. This, in turn, would open the door for the comeback of ISIS and other terrorist groups in liberated territories.
Compounding the fear of a re-emergence of ISIS as a dominant force in Syria are the latest reports from Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR) indicating that strikes geared toward keeping militants in the region at bay are as high as ever. In the last week, CJTF-OIR reported eleven engagements with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, including strikes targeting supply routes between the two countries, a clear indication the group is attempting to bolster its forces in Syria.
To be fair, the White House statement announcing the imminent departure from Syria did add the US continued commitment to “eliminating the small ISIS presence in Syria that our forces have not already eradicated,” and “to work toward peace and ensure that ISIS never reemerges.” However, this commitment is lacking in credibility against the backdrop of Trump’s apparent rush to abandoning the country completely.
Creating the Vacuum
Trump’s announcement came on the very day the three big foreign stakeholders in Syria completed a summit to coordinate on the future of the country. Russian President Vladimir Putin, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan came together in Ankara to plan a “lasting ceasefire” in Syria. At the end of the conference, the three leaders reiterated their commitment to both drive “terrorists” out of Syria as well as find a political solution to the seven-year-old conflict.
The fact these two incidents coincided could not have been more poignant. America’s three biggest competitors in the Middle East walked out of their meeting as the administration signaled its intent to leave the field wide open.
As Trump’s commitment to a specific plan of action remains ambivalent, there may yet be time for the administration to backtrack a bit from its rash announcement. Recent reports of Assad using chemical weapons against civilian populations in the Ghouta region may be the impetus for that backtrack, and could even trigger an increase in American intervention, at least in the short term. Trump himself has already alluded to this possibility.
Any practical strategy for Syria will have to weigh America’s own interests along with its regional concerns, as well as facts on the ground. But such a plan will not be formulated overnight.
