I keep reading assertions that the "balance of power" in Syria has shifted and Trump gave away "leverage" and wondering where these writers have been for the past eight years. Did they all just awaken from comas? Do they think Syria is only 40 miles wide?
The "balance of power" in Syria was irreversibly tipped during the Obama administration. Russian and Syrian government troops are currently marching into the 5 percent of the country they don't occupy. There is 0.0% chance of overthrowing Bashar Assad.
What was the long-term game plan for a handful of U.S. troops policing a small plot of Syrian land? As SecDef Esper just pointed out, we never promised the Kurds we would help them declare an independent state or protect them from the inevitable Turkish attack if they did.
If you don't like what Turkey is doing in NE Syria right now, you really don't want to see what they would have done if an independent Kurdish state dominated by the YPG/PYD suddenly appeared on their border. We'd have to commit to all-out war to stop them.
If the Turks didn't invade, eventually Assad would have come for that portion of Syria in force. What was the long-term gain for the United States in shouldering the responsibility of protecting part of the Gas-Spewing Monster's country for him?
It's grimly hilarious to watch the Euros suddenly mumbling about how international forces should be patrolling NE Syria, not the Turks and Russians. Where the hell were you guys for the past five years? Oh, that's right - content to saddle the U.S. with the job forever.
That's the problem with the traditional Beltway foreign policy model: we're always dealing with other parties that are acutely conscious of their own national interests but told we must forever sacrifice our own. We get all the pain and cost but it's sinful to ask for benefits.
Here's a thought for the suddenly hawkish brain trust in Europe: why the hell didn't you people patrol NE Syria starting after the fall of ISIS and ensure Turkey's security concerns were addressed so they had no causus belli for an invasion? 50 American soldiers can't do that.
I'll tell you one of the reasons why, besides the usual "make the Americans do it" laziness: because nobody wanted to take a close look at what the Syrian Kurds were actually up to. They wrote Erdogan off as a blustery gasbag (which he is, but his nation also has legit concerns.)
Obama desperately needed the Kurds to "degrade and ultimately destroy" ISIS. No close examination that would mess up his precious media narratives could be tolerated, just as DNC Media wasn't going to examine the Free Syrian Army carefully when Obama needed them against Assad.
Maybe the Kurds could have worked out better arrangements with Erdogan and Assad if they didn't think U.S. tripwire troops were going to stand there forever and make it unnecessary. Maybe it wasn't helpful for them to see the World Community refusing to take Erdogan seriously.
Syria "moving into Russia's orbit" because of Trump? Don't make me laugh. Syria has been orbiting Russia since Barack Obama's re-election. The Syrian Kurds aren't a nation-state and their quasi-independent status could not be sustained with happy thoughts.
Assad and his Russian patrons inevitably needed to deal with both Turkey and the Syrian Kurds. Artificially delaying that process with a token presence was not sustaining any real U.S. interest. Allowing it to proceed costs us nothing because we HAD nothing. /end
Addendum: The idealists won't like it, but the oil fields in NE Syria ARE a tangible interest and are arguably worth deploying a credible combat force to protect. They're a real asset of strategic and economic significance. You can draw a believable red line around them.
