US Withdrawal From Syria a Betrayal of Kurds and Bad Policy

US Withdrawal From Syria a Betrayal of Kurds and Bad Policy

The presence of American troops in Northern Syria constituted a deterrent factor against ISIS and against Turkish aggression against our allies. The Kurdish militias gave their soul and their lives to fight ISIS. By appealing to the principle of “ending the endless wars,” the United States gives the appearance of being fearful of military confrontation. If we decide, as the major superpower in the world, to abandon our allies and withdraw from world affairs, the Russians and the Chinese will step in. the U.S. isolationist approach will have repercussions not only in the Middle East but in other places such as Asia and Latin America. “Patriotism over globalism,” “America First,” and “Ending the endless wars” could mean precisely the opposite and this is dangerous for our image, for our national security, and for our domestic and national well-being.

Autor

US Withdrawal From Syria a Betrayal of Kurds and Bad Policy

Luis Fleischman

During the United Nations General Assembly last month president Trump in his speech pointed out that, “The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots.”

In this speech, Trump’s message was that each country should worry about its own interests. This, however, seems out of keeping with a major policy reversal that followed a couple weeks later which appears not at all to be in the best interests of the United States.

In a phone call with President Erdogan on October 7, Trump abruptly changed course and agreed to withdraw the small contingent of American troops in Northern Syria.

This left our allies, the Kurds, who helped defeat ISIS in Syria, in a situation of dangerous vulnerability as Turkish troops proceeded to move into the area. Consistent with his speech at the UN, Trump justified his withdrawal from Northern Syria by pointing out that the step is aimed at ending endless wars. He added that “going into the Middle East is the worst decision ever made in the history of our country” dismissing not only the war in Iraq but also the entire American involvement in the Middle East, which preceded the war in Iraq by half a century.

With this step, Trump doubled down on the Obama Administration’s policy of disengagement from the Middle East. Indeed, both Obama and Trump share the view that the U.S. has been too involved in the Middle East. Thus, the Obama Administration allowed the Russians to take over Syria thinking that the Russians would be the ones heading into a quagmire. The Trump administration claims that the U.S. now has achieved energy independence by producing its own oil and thus we no longer need Middle East oil. Therefore, we don’t need to be involved in the Middle East. This is a misconception because our involvement in the Middle East is a way to protect the West and, in addition, as the events of 9/11 have shown, there are groups in the Middle East that export terrorism and thus threaten U.S. security and U.S citizens. The number of Salafist groups based in the Middle East is large.

The presence of American troops in Northern Syria constituted a deterrent factor against ISIS and against Turkish aggression against our allies. The Kurdish militias gave their soul and their lives to fight ISIS. American casualties have been minimal but its presence has been very important. The Administration’s move is a gift to Turkey, whose Islamist government has displayed contempt for NATO and NATO allies, has allied itself with Russia and Iran, and has developed dangerous hostility towards Israel. Turkey should have been expelled from NATO. Instead it was rewarded with a medieval sacrifice of an ally.

The move is also a gift to the Assad regime, Iran, Russia, and ISIS.

By appealing to the principle of “ending the endless wars,” the United States gives the appearance of being fearful of military confrontation. In the eyes of our adversaries, the U.S. is seen more and more as a paper tiger whose deterring force is meaningless. Our adversaries may then come to believe that whatever they do against U.S. interests will go unanswered. Likewise, it raises serious concerns among NATO members, and ally countries such as South Korea, Israel, Japan, and Taiwan.

Trump’s “America First” and anti-global view could result in a situation that may come back to haunt us and then “America First” would turn into “America Last.”

If we decide, as the major superpower in the world, to abandon our allies and withdraw from world affairs, the Russians and the Chinese will step in.

Russia and China are increasingly involved in world affairs and not necessarily in a benign way. They have supported every anti-American regime. In the Middle East, they are supporting the Assad regime as well as Turkey and are firmly standing by Iran as it comes under U.S. pressure. At the same time, Russia, Iran, and China have courted the weak Iraqi government while we are standing by, watching and doing nothing except licking our wounds over the war in Iraq. We could well be working with the government not only in expelling Iranian influence but also helping support their democracy. As I pointed out elsewhere, China like Russia is strengthening authoritarian regimes all over the world. Not every authoritarian regime is anti-American, but they more often than not are.

Thus, the U.S. isolationist approach will have repercussions not only in the Middle East but in other places such as Asia and Latin America. In Latin America, which is a large U.S. neighbor and of strategic importance to us, Russia and China have exponentially increased their involvement by supporting rogue and mafia states, regimes such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, and by investing in infrastructure projects in these countries.

And there is more: The recent Iranian attack on Saudi oil facilities with highly precise and sophisticated missiles shows that we can be equally vulnerable if Iran launches these missiles from a “friendly” country such as Venezuela or Cuba into our territory.

Therefore, “Patriotism over globalism,” “America First,” and “Ending the endless wars” could mean precisely the opposite and this is dangerous for our image, for our national security, and for our domestic and national well-being.

Published by newsmax.com on October 14th, 2019

“The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author”

Luis Fleischman is a professor of Sociology at Palm Beach State College, the co-founder of the think-tank the Palm Beach Center for Democracy and Policy Research and an advisor on Latin America for the Center for Security Policy. He is also the author of “Latin America in the Post-Chavez Era: The Threat to U.S. Security.”

The Interamerican Institute for Democracy is a non-profit organization under regulation 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS.) Contributions are suitable for corporate matching. We receive contributions (tax-deductible within legal limitations) from persons, foundations, and business entities.