Trump's Syria pullout and Mattis's walkout
The 360 is a feature designed to show you diverse perspectives on the day’s top stories.
The facts: In a surprise announcement, President Trump said that he would withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, declaring that America had defeated ISIS. The decision spurred a backlash at home and abroad, and ultimately triggered the abrupt resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis, who (in what’s widely viewed as a sharp rebuke of the president) wrote that Trump should have a defense secretary with views “better aligned” to his own.
In an example of their divergence: In September, Mattis told reporters that U.S. forces would stay in Syria to assist local forces even after ISIS’s defeat. Leaving abruptly, he said, would potentially expose Syrians recently freed from ISIS rule to a resurgence in violence.
Lawmakers from both parties have criticized the decision. In a show of unified opposition, a bipartisan group of senators co-authored a letter urging Trump to reconsider. They called the move a “premature and costly mistake” that could “renew and embolden” ISIS, pave the way for Syria’s authoritarian government and create leverage for “adversaries” Iran and Russia.
Mattis is set to step down from his post in February, and in addition to the furor sparked over the Syria decision, his departure is widely viewed as a striking loss with broad ramifications — although there are also some who contend a break with the president equals dereliction of duty.
Perspectives
Mattis was right on Syria. The defense secretary has “walked a tightrope for the past two years between his training and his conscience, and the whims of his president,” the
New York Times editorial board wrote. “He kept his concerns mainly to himself, while slow-walking a number of Mr. Trump’s demands, like banning transgender troops and seeking a full-dress military parade down Pennsylvania Avenue.” But Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria, going against the advice of his own national security advisers, was the last straw. “No one wants American troops deployed in a war zone longer than necessary,” the Times added. “But there is no indication that Mr. Trump has thought through the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, including allowing ISIS forces to regroup and create another crisis that would draw the United States back into the region.”
A defense secretary must support the president’s policies. And Mattis often did not. “Many people who don’t like or support President Trump, and even some who do, thought having Mattis as the brake on Trump’s action-oriented nature was a good thing,” Jim Hanson wrote in an op-ed for
Fox News. “But we don’t elect presidents to have their subordinates stop them from implementing their policies. It is one thing to have a ‘team of rivals.’ It is unacceptable for the president to be prevented from leading the nation by Cabinet members not on board with his agenda.”
In U.S. foreign policy, Trump is alone. “Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’s resignation confirms that President Trump is now forging foreign policy essentially on his own,” Henry Olsen wrote in an op-ed for the
Washington Post. “Stemming on its face from Trump’s decision, announced on Twitter, to remove U.S. military forces from Syria, in fact Trump has signaled displeasure with Mattis and the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that he championed. In the months ahead, conservatives will increasingly be torn between loyalty to Trump and their longtime support for that consensus.”
Will Trump — and America — heed Mattis’s warning? “Donald Trump is at a pivotal moment,” David French wrote in the
National Review. “He can heed General Mattis’s warning — delivered publicly, firmly, and respectfully — or he can continue down his current, reckless path. [Mattis’s] letter represents America’s most-respected warrior telling the nation that he does not believe the president sees our enemies clearly, understands the importance of our alliances, or perceives the necessity of American leadership. We should be deeply troubled.”
“So long as Mattis stayed on the job, Republicans in Congress could indulge the hope that responsible people remained in charge of the nation’s security,” David Frum wrote in
The Atlantic. ”That hope has now been repudiated by the very person in whom the hope was placed. It’s James Mattis himself who is telling you that the president does not treat allies with respect, does not have a clear-eyed view of malign actors and strategic competitors.”
Trump’s decision is alarming. The
New York Times editorial board said Trump’s assertion that ISIS has been defeated “is absurd” and that there’s no indication that he has thought through the consequences of withdrawal, such as giving the terrorist group a chance to regroup and spark a fresh conflict that draws the U.S. back into the region.
Don’t repeat Barack Obama’s mistake … American retreats create power vacuums. The editors of the conservative
National Review argued that U.S. operations in Syria have been some of the most successful and cost-effective in the post-9/11 world. They said Trump should learn from “Obama’s reckless withdrawal from Iraq” that U.S. retreats often create power vacuums that are filled by America’s enemies: “Donald Trump is set to make his own version of Obama’s deadly mistake.”
Trump is ending a failed policy. In an op-ed for
Al Jazeera, Joe Macaron said the president’s decision shows “how detached Trump has become from his national security team,” and might widen distrust between the military and the White House. Nevertheless, Macaron argued that the U.S. had no clear strategy in the “failing” Syria mission and that Trump was putting it “out of its misery.”
Trump’s making the right move. Christian Whiton, a former Trump adviser, wrote for
Fox News that the U.S. “obliterated a jihadist force” — despite acknowledging the existence of ISIS stragglers — and that Trump is following through on his pledge not to “do nation-building.” He laments that Syrian President Bashar Assad is “in cahoots with Iran and Russia” but that it was “never our choice to make” whether he is taken out of power and that he’s proven “canny and resilient.”
Leaving is the lesser of two evils. John Glaser, the director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, wrote in
Axios that the U.S. doesn’t have achievable goals or a strong national security reason for being in Syria. He said the U.S. shouldn’t risk a protracted engagement with another Middle Eastern country and said American involvement is “illegal under international law.”
Conservatives shouldn’t rationalize Trump’s mistake.
Washington Post opinion writer Jennifer Rubin said that watching Republicans try to justify Trump’s decision illustrates how “unmoored to principle” they have become.
What’s at stake?
The surprising announcement demonstrates there have been either miscommunications or disagreements between Trump and his national security team. Echoing Mattis, the U.S. special representative for Syria engagement James Jeffrey said earlier this week that the troops would stay in Syria until the U.S. reached several major landmarks: the defeat of ISIS, stopping Iranian influence and reaching a political solution in Syria. National security adviser John Bolton has delivered a similar message. It remains to be seen whether Trump’s action will result in serious blowback and protest from within the military.
The impact of his actions will extend beyond Syria. The New York Times reported that America’s Kurdish allies in Syria are discussing the release of 3,200 Islamic State prisoners. “Top officials of the Syrian Democratic Forces, the Kurdish-led and American-supported militia fighting the Islamic State in eastern Syria, met on Wednesday to discuss the option of releasing about 1,100 Islamic State fighters and 2,080 relatives of the group’s members,” the paper said, citing a report from the Syrian Observatory on Human Rights. The SDF is reportedly considering the release of the prisoners because “the home countries of many of them had refused to take them back.” The allied force is also concerned that it will “need all of its fighters to defend against a possible Turkish military invasion, the report said — a prospect made more likely by a United States withdrawal.”
Mattis’s last day as defense secretary is Feb. 28. In his resignation letter, Mattis said Trump deserves to have someone in the role who shares his worldview. The question is, who?
