Is It Possible For The United States To Withdraw From Any Foreign Engagement?
/Suddenly, in the blink of an eye, the news cycle seems to have shifted away from IMPEACHMENT!!! and over to TRUMP IS ABANDONING OUR KURDISH ALLIES IN SYRIA TO A CERTAIN SLAUGHTER!!!!
On Sunday the Trump administration announced plans to withdraw most or all U.S. troops from the Northeastern part of Syria. There are currently about a thousand U.S. troops in the area, working with allied Kurdish forces.
Within hours, the official talking point — that Trump was abandoning the Kurds to be slaughtered by Turkish forces, and thereby sending a dangerous message to all U.S. allies everywhere — had taken universal hold.
From the Washington Post: “Trump abandoning Kurdish partners in Syria sends a chilling message to every other American ally. . . . President Trump’s erratic foreign policy gives allies good reason to doubt America will follow through on its security commitment.”
From the New York Times: “The Kurdish forces in the area, part of the Syrian Democratic Forces, or S.D.F., have been the most reliable American allies in the region for years, a critical element in recapturing territory once controlled by the Islamic State.”
From Business Insider: “Trump's decision to abandon the Kurds in Syria sends a dangerous message to US allies around the world.”
Even a collection of Republican Congresspeople got in on the act of accusing President Trump of abandoning one of our best allies.
But wait a second. It’s a given that every single one of the various U.S. foreign engagements — whether it be Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Niger, or wherever — comes with allies on the ground in that jurisdiction. These could range from fighting forces like the Kurds in Syria or militias in Iraq to various employees and vendors like translators and the people who supply the U.S. troops with food. As long as the U.S. maintains forces in such a place, a type of peace (probably not very stable) gets maintained.
But the next question is inevitable: What happens when the U.S. leaves? The answer will always be the same: When the U.S. leaves, the adversaries that have been suppressed by the presence of U.S. power will roar back. And our former allies on the ground will be seen as having collaborated with the enemy. They will suffer the consequences.
So then, is it ever possible for the U.S. to withdraw from any foreign engagement?
Put aside Syria for the moment, and consider Afghanistan. The U.S. has been fighting there for around 18 years now, ever since the 2001 terrorist attacks in New York. As far as I can determine, the economy of Afghanistan consists almost entirely of two things: (1) growing opium poppies, and (2) working for the U.S. government in one form or another (Afghan army and security forces — paid for by the U.S.; the Afghan government — substantially supported by U.S. aid payments; translators, informants, food vendors, cooks, construction workers, drivers, etc., working for the U.S.; other beneficiaries of U.S. aid like education and healthcare providers; and so forth). All of these people have become a sort of nobility in Afghanistan, because they are undoubtedly paid much more than you can make doing just about anything else. Growing the opium poppies is the business of the Taliban.
When the U.S. leaves Afghanistan, the Taliban will roar back. And all those people who worked with and collaborated with the U.S., and made a good living doing so, will be hated and resented. What happens to them?
I don’t have a perfect answer to this, and I don’t believe that a perfect answer exists. But I do know one thing: It can’t be that once the U.S. sends troops anywhere, they must stay forever, in order not to put at risk the people who worked for them. At some point they have to leave. The most important question at any time must be: Are these troops providing service to U.S. interests that is necessary and is commensurate with their cost? If they are not, it is time to end the mission.
I’m not saying that the fate of our erstwhile allies in some jurisdiction should not be considered. By all means, appropriate steps to mitigate their fate should be taken. Those steps might include granting priority on asylum in the U.S. for key and highly vulnerable people like informants and translators. In the case of the Kurds in Northeastern Syria, those steps might include assistance in evacuation to Kurdish areas in Northern Iraq. Or they might include threats to Turkey that sanctions will follow if there is a bloodbath among the Kurds. There could be many other such mitigation steps. Undoubtedly, none of them will be perfect.
But it can’t be that U.S. policy regarding military interventions is going to be run on the sole principle that all such engagements once undertaken must continue forever in order to protect those who helped us. What is remarkable is that I can’t find anyone out there in the news cycle addressing the issue from this perspective, that is, that at some point each of these U.S. military engagements must end, and that there will be at least some inevitable negative consequences to allies. Instead, it’s all WE’RE ABANDONING OUR ALLIES THE KURDS!!!! Obviously, that’s the talking point perceived as most damaging to the President. Foreign policy cannot be run that way. What we’re seeing is just the prioritization of attacking the President for whatever he does over even considering what is the right thing for U.S. policy. Figuring out the right thing requires balancing many pros and cons, of which effect on our allies is only one.