A counter-argument saving another 961 words: ISIS may not actually benefit from U.S. withdrawal from areas in NE Syria, if Washington manages to tighten its presence in the rest of eastern Syria & work closely with Turkey to ensure a sustainable formula away from the Afrin model.
Just for the record, I oppose the Turkish invasion of northern Syria and I see potential for a security vacuum that'll benefit ISIS.
BUT I also see potential for much-needed correction of the misconceived strategy that brought us to this moment
Thoughts:
BUT I also see potential for much-needed correction of the misconceived strategy that brought us to this moment
Thoughts:
First of all, much of the discourse about the US "withdrawal" seems to be cut-and-paste from the last debates about it when Trump wanted to leave Syria immediately in December.
This is NOT the same.
This is NOT the same.
Last time, the decision was too crazy. Withdrawal would've been disastrous because it was unknown which force would go where. This time, the US will abandon posts for Turkey to fill in.
Now, yes of course that's still problematic for multiple reasons, but less so regarding ISIS.
Now, yes of course that's still problematic for multiple reasons, but less so regarding ISIS.
Last time, I went against the consensus and said the US would not leave. The specifics on the ground made it clear the US withdrawal would ensure the US return the next day, even Trump would have to consider.
I even bet *steaks* on it, and I seem to have won it fair & square :)
I even bet *steaks* on it, and I seem to have won it fair & square :)
This was one of the things I said immediately after the news in December came out.
It was crazy to say then.
In the same spirit, I now think Trump's partial withdrawal today might prove wise.
It was crazy to say then.
In the same spirit, I now think Trump's partial withdrawal today might prove wise.
One reason why I'm making this counterintuitive argument also has to do with the reality on the ground.
A Kurdish force in control of all of these areas is no longer sustainable. I can't argue in favor of a Turkish invasion, but I see how this could work better in reality.
A Kurdish force in control of all of these areas is no longer sustainable. I can't argue in favor of a Turkish invasion, but I see how this could work better in reality.
Another reason for this argument is that the US, and its regional allies, now have a stronger reason to tighten its control on the rest of the areas south of the conceived Turkish zone. A set of motifs to work closely with Turkey & tighten its control of the remainder of areas.
Iran will be a clear winner, and the ayatollahs are most likely doing dabke (dancing) right now. Forget Iran's public "rejection" of Turkey's entry & its talk about Syrian sovereignty. That's a generic statement they (and Damascus) have to make, because they can't "approve" it.
The US motives for working harder to coordinate with Turkey are stronger for this and other reasons.
1. Iran
2. ISIS
3. Russia
4. Syrian Regime
5. Iraq security
6. Kurds
One by one?
1. Iran
2. ISIS
3. Russia
4. Syrian Regime
5. Iraq security
6. Kurds
One by one?
1. Iran: a clear winner if we leave
2. ISIS: failure to coordinate with Turkey ensures a security vacuum
3. Russia: Ankara & Moscow will otherwise get closer
4. (See next tweet)
5. Iraq security: border areas
6. Kurds: YPG is less motivated to focus on ISIS
2. ISIS: failure to coordinate with Turkey ensures a security vacuum
3. Russia: Ankara & Moscow will otherwise get closer
4. (See next tweet)
5. Iraq security: border areas
6. Kurds: YPG is less motivated to focus on ISIS
4. Damascus: economic strangulation.
Elaborating in next tweet...
Elaborating in next tweet...
If the US manages to coordinate with Turkey to prevent security vacuum AND to economically link northwestern and northern areas under Turkish control with eastern parts controlled by the US-backed SDF, that'll serve a central and stated objective of the Trump administration.
Another implication is that Turkish's entry into the formerly untouchable US-protected zone might change the reality for the SDF's internal structures in places like Deir Ezzor & southern Hasaka (bordering Iraq) & Raqqa.
How?
How?
These areas mentioned above might be in a better position to be ruled by their locals not the Kurds.
Even for the US, Turkish's entry could present an opportunity to address serious and stupid flaws in the way Obama team designed this strategy.
Even for the US, Turkish's entry could present an opportunity to address serious and stupid flaws in the way Obama team designed this strategy.
Here is an important requirement for that to work:
For this to work, the Trump team needs to manage its irreconcilable allies & assert a plan on the ground
1. Tell Turkey, "we gave you what you wanted, you need to do so & so"
2. Tell the YPG, "you still have areas & no need to go to war with Turkey, but fix internal structures"
1. Tell Turkey, "we gave you what you wanted, you need to do so & so"
2. Tell the YPG, "you still have areas & no need to go to war with Turkey, but fix internal structures"
This is 100% correct. Fully agreed.
Realistically, and knowing what the US is willing to do & not do, yes I believe this will likely offer an opportunity for ISIS & help it carve out new space for itself in that critical region. But it's not as straightforward/cut-paste as many argue it: 1/2
From a policy perspective, this move could work. It could turn out to be a positive move. But without doing what it takes to make so, then yes of course it'll benefit ISIS. The latter is contingent on the former.
