The View from Right Field

Donald Trump. Barack Obama. James Mattis. Syria and Afghanistan.

Donald Trump has unilaterally, and apparently without consultation with our local allies, decided to pull all of our forces out of Syria, where they were helping local Kurdish forces fight ISIS.  And to do so almost immediately.  We are doing this, President Trump says, because ISIS has been defeated in Syria, but then people say lots of things 

There are also reports that President Trump has decided to cut our presence in Afghanistan by up to half and, once again, to do so quickly.  This will take a little longer because Afghanistan is a NATO fight and we have to do some consultation with our NATO allies before pulling our troops out – unlike Syria where we can leave our Kurdish allies high and dry and tough luck on them.

Syria – Again. And Beyond.

It looks like more hell is coming to one of the places that has had so much of it over the last seven or eight years: Syria.  Bashar al-Assad, along with his Russian and Iranian allies, is ready to attack Idlib, the last major rebel-held enclave in Syria.  With three million civilians and tens of thousands rebel fighters, and nowhere to escape to, the outlook is almost beyond imagination.  While many seem to like to blame Donald Trump for just about everything that goes wrong in the world, this is not one to blame on President Trump.  Also, at this point, unfortunately, I am not sure there is much the United States can, or is at least willing to, do in Syria.

If the United States had wanted to do anything about Syria, we would have had to do it five years ago (or more).  But back then, Barack Obama decided it was better for the United States to not do anything.  After giving the world the impression he was going to do something about Syria’s use of chemical weapons (he had drawn a red-line against it), he did a 180-degree backward somersault, saying he had accomplished all he needed to do by getting Russia to agree that Syria would dispose of its chemical weapons.  Oops.  Oh well, not every decision works.  This one certainly didn’t.  I don’t know if President Obama is still defending this decision, but in 2016, when he was doing farewell interviews, he seemed proud of it.  I guess the decision worked in theory; it just didn’t work in the real world.  Ask the Syrians.  For that matter, ask the countries of Europe, who had to deal with the tide of Syrian and other refugees that started coming in 2015.¹

@realDonaldTrump’s Tweets About Syria Are Appalling and Irresponsible

It is hard to comprehend how bad President Trump’s recent tweets about Syria have been.  First, though, let’s go through the sequence.

April 8:

“Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price...

…to pay. Open area immediately for medical help and verification. Another humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever. SICK!”

“We’ll Be Coming Out of Syria, Like, Very Soon.” Not a Good Idea.

Donald Trump probably wouldn’t like being told that any of his policies are like Barack Obama’s, and former President Obama probably wouldn’t like it either.  But last Thursday, President Trump said, in what was apparently an unscripted aside, during a speech/campaign event in Ohio, that “we’re knocking the hell out of ISIS” and that “we’ll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon.  Let the other people take care of it now.”  All of which sounds an awful like President Obama’s policy in Iraq (and, especially with respect to the last part, Syria). 

President Obama never wanted to be in Iraq.¹  And so, once he got into office, he used the agreement George W. Bush signed with Iraq in 2008, which required the United States to get all of its troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011, as the reason (aka excuse) for leaving.  President Obama could have tried to get the agreement changed.  In fact, the expectation probably was that the United States would do so – and that Iraq would agree.  But President Obama didn’t really try.  He wanted out. 

The Dangerousness of Donald Trump’s Comments on Venezuela

What Donald Trump said about Venezuela last Friday was lost in all the news about what happened in Charlottesville on Saturday, and what President Trump has said about it, but I think it’s worth looking at what President Trump said about Venezuela:

“We have many options for Venezuela.  And by the way, I’m not going to rule out a military option.  We have many options for Venezuela.  This is our neighbor.  This is, you know, we are all over the world.  And we have troops all over the world, in places that are very, very far away.  Venezuela is not very far away, and the people are suffering, and they are dying.  We have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option, if necessary.”

Obviously, this statement will be a big help for President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela.  With things going absolutely horribly in Venezuela, because of President Maduro’s policies, what better distraction and what better way to deflect blame than a threat from the United States.  President Trump couldn’t have helped President Maduro any more, except maybe by sending him a billion dollars of food and medical supplies.

Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump

When Vladimir Putin moved into Syria in 2015¹ to prop up Bashar al-Assad’s truly terrible regime, Barack Obama said Russia would get “stuck in a quagmire.”  Last week, President Putin ratified an agreement, originally signed in January of this year, providing Russia with a 49-year lease on the Hmeymim air base, near Latakia, Syria.  (Russia also has a long-term lease for a naval base at Tartus, Syria.)

It was to get away from such naiveté in foreign policy that I was looking forward to the presidential election in 2016.  Unfortunately, the choice last November doesn’t seem to be any better.
----------
¹ I originally commented on Russia’s move into Syria here.  I was slightly off in what I said then, however.  Until President Obama, Russia/the Soviet Union had been kept out of the Middle East since the Nixon administration, not since World War II.

Syria – And Presidential Leadership

Well that was interesting – and different.  The President said Syria crossed a red line, “a lot of lines,” using poison gas to kill over 80 people, and then, the next day (if not the same one), he authorized a cruise missile attack on a Syrian air base.  No waiting for a 100%+ report from a UN commission; no debate at the Security Council ending with a veto by one nation or another; no weighing of the pros and cons for days/weeks on end.  Just: Assad did it.  We attacked him.

So, on one hand, we have a president who tweets, the day after meeting the German chancellor, that “Germany owes vast sums of money to NATO & the United States must be paid more for the powerful, and very expensive, defense it provides to Germany!”  And on the other hand, when somebody uses poison gas on kids (their own kids), he says lines have been crossed and then actually does something – immediately.

It’s an interesting question:  Which does the world prefer?  The president described above or his predecessor?
-----------
UPDATE (4/8/17 9:30 am):  My answer: George H.W. Bush.

You Aren’t Allowed to Know How Many Troops We Have Fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq

With everything happening, or not happening (in the case of the Republicans’ attempt to pass a new healthcare bill), in Washington, it is easy to miss things.  Here’s one from earlier this week. 

A spokesman for the U.S. Central Command, which includes the Middle East, announced that the Pentagon would no longer be announcing exact numbers of troops being sent into combat in Iraq and Syria.  Only general unit sizes would be provided.

The report didn’t give a reason for the change in policy.  Nothing was said, or at least reported, claiming the change was necessary for military reasons.  That can be true in some cases.  For example, during the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. military refused to give out information on the deployment of our troops, especially where they were located.  The news media complained about it at the time, saying it was censorship.  But it was important to keep this information secret back then.  It is hard to believe today, but 26 years ago, Saddam Hussein really didn’t know where our troops were located.  His air force had been destroyed, and he didn’t have satellites or other ways to find out where they were.  (He also didn’t have anybody who would give him the information, but then George H.W. Bush knew how to organize a coalition.)  When the land operations started, our troops were able to surprise Saddam’s forces by moving around their right flank, ending the fighting in 100 hours.

With Donald Trump Following Barack Obama, the U.S. Withdrawal from the World Continues

Talks to end the civil war in Syria are being conducted in Moscow among Russia, Turkey, and Iran.  Foreign ministers of the three countries are meeting in one place of the Russian capital, while defense ministers meet in another.  Meanwhile, while it really doesn’t matter, the United Nations Security Council adopted a French-drafted resolution on the Syrian civil war, calling for UN observers to play a role in supervising the evacuation of refugees from eastern Aleppo.

Missing in action in all of these efforts is the United States.  I assume President Obama is okay with this because, if he wasn’t, he could do something to change it.  But he hasn’t, so this must be fine with him.  It certainly is a good summary of eight years of Obama administration foreign policy: backing off and doing less, while the world becomes a more dangerous place.¹

John Kerry (and the Obama Administration) Get Played by Russia and Syria – Again

The Russian Defense Minister, Sergei Shoigu, has announced a suspension of bombing in Aleppo and the establishment of humanitarian corridors to the city. According to the Russians, the bombing suspension will allow humanitarian aid to reach the city, which is not the purpose, and militants to leave the city, which is closer to the purpose.

What the Russians and Syrians have been trying to do is to regain control of all of Aleppo for the Bashar al-Assad regime.  You can do that by either killing those in Aleppo who oppose the regime or getting them to leave.  There is a limit to the number of people you can kill by bombing.  Plus there are the public relations problems.  Eventually, even Russia cares a little about this, especially when the bad publicity threatens to carry over to other areas.  For example, the EU is considering additional sanctions on Russia because of the Aleppo bombing.