The Chickens Come Home to Roost in Syria
SOURCE: WASHINGTON POST
BY: JENNIFER RUBIN
On Wednesday, a suicide bomber killed four Americans in Manbij, Syria, which “matched the largest number of deaths from hostile fire in a single incident overseas since Donald Trump became president,” The Post reported. “The killings, in a suicide explosion claimed by the Islamic State, came less than a month after Trump declared the militants defeated and ordered that the 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria be withdrawn.Since then, the administration’s strategy has been thrown into confusion, as Trump’s defense secretary resigned in protest.”
The only surprising aspect to this horrendous incident is the speed with which the Islamic State reportedly decided to strike, boldly demonstrating its aggression and capabilities in a region soon to be devoid of U.S. troops.
Last December, Adam Garfinkle wrote in American Interest:
Of course ISIS is not sustainably defeated. Estimates run from about 12,000 to 14,000 fighters and supporters on the ground in Syria and Iraq. Losing its territorial dimension certainly hurts ISIS in terms of reputation and recruiting capability. It also lost a lot of people. But it is capable of recouping territory in a relative vacuum at least temporarily by using swarm techniques, and it is certainly capable of wreaking terrorist havoc all through the Middle East and Europe. Doctors tell you to take all of the antibiotics in a prescription even if you’re feeling better, and they’re right. The same thing applies to rooting out terrorist organizations: You have to finish the medicine, in this case dishing it out instead of taking it yourself. …
Local allies are reassured to know that a great power patron has their back in case their security liabilities grow beyond their capacity to manage them. That reassurance frees them to take useful risks than can redound to the advantage of the greater power. The absence of that reassurance does not necessarily mitigate any risk-taking; it can just as easily result in their taking excessive or foolish risks in the panic-driven interest of self-help (think the origins of recent Saudi policy in Yemen). These non-kinetic elements of alliance relationships go far to define how they actually work, but these elements are matters of nuance, and this very American President doesn’t do nuance. He does not understand the concept of non-zero sum relationships, of which alliances are a prime example.
Aside from reneging on assurances to the Kurds, and the deleterious example of such abject betrayal, the move to bug out was fraught with danger, not to mention eerily reminiscent of the Obama administration’s early pullout from Iraq and queasiness about intervening in Syria. We seem to have forgotten that creating vacuums of power in the region leads to disastrous results. (“The removal of U.S. troops from Syria, especially if the air canopy is removed with them, will encourage the Syrian and Iranian regimes in their murderous ways, and it will tell the Russian government all it needs to know about U.S. verve generally.”)
Instead of reversing Obama’s stance toward Syria, Trump doubled down. Opposition to a complete pullout without conditions came from military commanders, outside Syria and Iran experts (those not carrying Trump’s polluted water) and Israel, which in fact reacted with alarm when Trump abruptly ordered a pullout. David Adesnik, for example, warned: “The pursuit of an Obama 2.0 policy toward Syria would also be a valuable gift to Iran, which can barely afford to prop up the Assad regime while its own citizens protest their immiseration. Without U.S. troops in the way, Tehran will be able to complete its land bridge from Iran to the Mediterranean and deliver with greater ease advanced weapons to Hezbollah, its partner in the quest to wipe Israel off the map.” Likewise, the Brookings Institution’s Ranj Alaaldin cautioned, “A U.S. withdrawal from Syria could allow ISIS’s resurgence in both Syria and Iraq, create a vacuum that will most likely be filled by the Assad regime and Iran, and abandon Kurdish (and Arab) allies on the ground.”
Now, fast forward to this week. The Islamic State’s claim of responsibility for the suicide bombing made a mockery of Trump’s claim that the Islamic State is dead. In an echo of Iraq, where hard-fought capture of territory held by militants in places such as Fallujah was thrown away (and had to be recaptured), “’Manbij was captured two and a half years ago,’ when a U.S.-armed and trained ground force, composed largely of Syrian Kurds, expelled the Islamic State with the help of withering U.S. air attacks, said Robert Ford, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria.”
We will soon find out whether the pullout of U.S. troops has unleashed Islamic State forces, which will gain in adherents, confidence and boldness as the United States departs. We already know Moscow, Damascus and Tehran are celebrating. Whatever investment Russia made in Trump’s election surely paid off in the Middle East.