President Trump's most recent whim is removing American troops (roughly 2200 of them) from Syria, proclaiming that ISIS has now been 'defeated'. While this seems to come out of the blue, actually Trump has been saying he'll do this since he first got into office, so are we to assume that this time he will actually do it? Or is he just continuing his empty rhetoric?
The American position in Syria has always been precarious because outside of getting rid of the Assad regime (to be replace by....?), we've never really had any clear sense of what we want in/from Syria. Syria has never been in the American sphere of influence, outside of occasionally sticking up for the Kurds, so we've never known what to do there.
The emergence of Daesh (ISIS) gave the Obama administration the opportunity to weasel our way into Syria and with the dissolution of any consistent Syrian culture due to ongoing civil war, that was quite a clever grab at influence, I thought. Obama's policy in the Middle East was to steadily remove forces and hand the whole mess over to Russia, which seemed like a bad idea to me at the time but I've very much come to embrace it. I believe that our foes and allies alike in the Middle East share the fundamental American desire: to get oil out of the ground and into markets around the world. Since we're all on the same page, what is the need for American force there any more?
Except for one thing: the Kurds. The Kurds are one of many ethnic minorities in the Middle East and though they are arguably the largest stateless population in the Arab world, they have been divided by the 20th century drive to impose strict borders on nation-states. So there are four distinct blocks of Kurds rather than one unified people.
The Iranian Kurds are a relatively safe population, their place within Iran is minor but well-established and they are more or less left alone as long as they don't enter the political discourse (which they've been doing more than usual lately). The Iraqi Kurds are a large portion of the Iraqi population and while they have had clearly delineated territory for decades, they have long lived in fear of Sunni-dominated Baghdad and seem to have already given up on finding a Shia-dominated Baghdad any easier to deal with (though I suspect as Shia factions battle each other, the Kurds may find succor if they chose wisely). The Turkish Kurds have been at odds with the Turkish polity since...well, since Ataturk, meaning they've been perceived as terrorists and malcontents since the very formation of modern Turkey (they've had forays into mainstream politics and radical violence in equal measure during that time). The Syrian Kurds are perhaps the weirdest of the bunch and given the current state of Syria's civil war, violence is looming in their future.
The Americans relied on the Syrian Kurds to fight Daesh and the two were willing accomplices against these Iraqi Sunni foes. But now that Trump considers Daesh 'defeated' (*), he is willing to forego our Kurd allies and take Americans out of harm's way. Getting out Syria is, for whatever reason, one of the core tenets of Trump's hardcore base (worth noting that Trump's base is paranoid of Muslims more than anything in the world and worshipful of American military power first and foremost...but wants to avoid war in the Middle East at all cost...?) and Trump has been saying he'll do this for well over a year. And the Americans have left the Kurds high and dry before, so by now they have learned that the Americans are fair weather friends at best.
But I think this is a bad move. I think the Kurds are America's best ally in the Middle East and aiding them should be a top priority there.
What Trump doesn't want is a fight with Turkey. I'm not really sure why this is. Trump has happily thrown Erdogan under the bus whenever it suits him (though always properly respectful of Erdogan's ghoulish grip on power) and has happily presided over the ruin of Turkey's economy (largely through the Fed's recent interest rate increases). Until recently the Americans have fought with the Syrian Kurds against Daesh and protected them from the Assad regime and the Turks. But with the Russian-Turkish negotiated cease fire in Idlib, the battle has been moving away from the Turkish-held areas of Syria in the west to the Kurdish-held areas of the east (Erdogan's plan all along). The Americans have been providing cover, less through its 2200 soldiers in country than through the American flag perched on each soldier's uniform: killing even one American potentially brings an apocalyptic wrath. But if the Americans just turn around and leave, the Kurds will be as naked as the day they were born.
Turkey has endured mostly nothing but bullshit from her Western allies over the last 30 years or so. Since the end of the Cold War, Turkey has been patiently awaiting an invitation to join the European Union, jumping through all manor of economic and cultural hoops that the Europeans have largely ignored (though it seems now like the Turks dodged a bullet as the EU is rapidly eroding). Turkey was marginalized through all of the Americans' various shenanigans in Iraq during this period even though those NATO airbases in Turkey would seem like the perfect bases of operation, but because Turkish troops streaming into Kurdish territory would have been even more of a nightmare than Saddam or Daesh the Turks had to be pushed aside. Turkey has been dangerously near the conflict between Russia and Ukraine (**) with little help from her NATO allies. Is it any wonder that Turkey has turned inward and suspicious of her traditional western friends? (This alienation stands to get a lot worse as Turkey pursues energy claims in the eastern Mediterranean, the claims that Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Israel and Egypt are salivating over)
The American rationale for hanging around in Syria has been to thwart the imperialist ambitions of Iran. Apparently the American view of Turkish imperialist ambitions has suddenly changed and letting the Turks thwart Iran, stifle the Assad regime and fight what remains of Daesh now seems to be the plan. The Kurds are collateral damage in this equation as they will not be able to hold their positions without American fortification. This will lead to either immense bloodshed or a Kurdish refugee influx into Iraq (and probably both). If the Syrian Kurds and Iraqi Kurds find common cause (maybe but not necessarily), the long run result could be a boon for Kurdish positions in Iraq but a bloodletting will come first.
Iran's economy is in turmoil and the population seems restless in the face of Iranian foreign policy outlays. Iran's imperial ambitions have generally been fed by finding allies in various parts of the Arab world and if Tehran chooses to pull back funding, then these ambitions go dormant. But they don't disappear completely: if/when Tehran finds the funds to reach out again, then the alliances in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, even over to Tunisia and Western Sahara, will reappear. Turkey is betting that Iran is waning and that they can slaughter some enemies (Kurds and Sunnis) and claim territory before the Assad regime can reclaim it first.
The Assad regime was pointing its efforts toward Idlib, a chunk of northwestern Syria that has been a rebel stronghold buffeted by Turkish troops to the north. Assad wants all of Syria back and as his grip on power gets ever so slightly stronger, he will eventually march on Idlib and then eventually on the Kurdish regions in the northeast. But he's not strong enough yet and as Iranian influence fades, his grip will get stronger as his territory gets poorer. For so long the Americans were unopposed and now the Turks are aiming to take up that position and hold it with force (whereas the Americans held power with just that flag alone). The war on the Kurds now bodes for war on Assad later (and war with Iran after that).
And what of Russia? I think they'll be eerily silent about all of this. Russia wants Syria for an airbase and Mediterranean port. Well...they have those. Assad was weak, Russia had what it wanted; as Assad gets strong Russia will still have what it wants. So why does it need Assad to get strong? Well...it doesn't. Turkey killing Kurds probably doesn't interest Russia and the farther future of Turkey fighting Iran is a joyous one for Russia. Russia and USA appear to be in agreement on this at the moment. (And what will China think of all this? They'll be fighting these wars eventually)
The American public likes to believe that pulling out of Syria and the recent Congressional action to cease activity in Yemen will bring a more peaceful world. This is far from the case. With minimal effort the Americans saved a lot of lives in Syria and had virtually no influence on Yemen (***). But without that minimal influence, Yemen and eastern Syria will turn back to bloodbaths. (And I wouldn't be surprised to see Israeli incursions into Lebanon, also to head off Iranian advances and/or take advantage of declining Iranian investment) Really what the American public wants is to go back to a time when foreign people used to kill other foreign people and it seemed like none of our business. With American troops out of harm's way, we'll soon be able to pretend like the rest of the world doesn't matter.
The Middle East is (and has long been) the battle of Turks, Persians and Arabians. In the days of the Caliphate (whether in Baghdad or Damascus) the Sunni Arabs and the Persian Shia fought for control. When that completely collapsed (due to raging hordes of Mongols), the Turkish Ottomans appeared on the scene and for a few centuries, the Middle East was as peaceful as it has ever been. But by the 18th century restless Russia began intruding and in the 19th the British appeared and then in the 20th came the Americans. But it was always about the fight between Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and it will be for the foreseeable future.
But the Kurds are the people USA should be fighting for. In Iraq, in Syria, even in Iran if need be. We've abandoned them before, I suspect we'll abandon them again before it becomes apparent that an independent Kurdistan is what the Americans should've been fighting for all along. The rationale of thwarting Iran worked just fine for me and 2200 troops is not a large presence (not enough to take and hold an Ohio State football game), but protecting the Kurds is what we were really doing and now we've given up the idea of protecting once again.
Idlib was to be the next big battle, but Idlib will wait for now. The Middle East may well change a lot before that finally happens.
(*) You can be sure to expect a variety of takes from the chattering classes about how defeated ISIS actually is. I will go ahead and embody both sides of the debate: as long as there are grumpy Iraqi Sunnis with nothing better to do there will always be the potential for a re-emergent Daesh; that said, unless they have major power support, they'll never be more than, as Obama said, the JV team. So the range of discourse then will be: a) we must be ever vigilant to b) they were never really that dangerous (both of which incidentally are true).
(**) Fun fact: Crimea has actually traditionally belonged to Istanbul. It wasn't until the 1750s that Russia wrestled it away from the Ottoman Empire and the 1950s that Krushchev gave it to Ukraine. In the sticky diplomatic world of what land belongs to who, Crimea goes right up there with Palestine, Kashmir, Nagorno-Karabach, Tibet, etc. (Woe is the day we add Texas, Hawaii, Yucatan, Haiti and Panama to that list)
(***) When Iran pulls out of Yemen, that won't be the end of the fighting. It will usher in a new fight between Saudi Arabia and UAE, with Americans supporting both sides. With or without the Iranians, with or without the support of Congress, Yemen is decades away from anything like peace.
