Error occured during this request! Please try again later.
US President Donald Trump's notorious tweet announcing a precipitate withdrawal of American troops from Syria shocked many, given possible negative consequences for Kurds in Syria as well as the Kurdistan Region, which could face a further influx of refugees from Syria. And the fear that withdrawing even this small number of American Special Forces could boost Daesh [ISIS], which has not disappeared – it carries out about 75 attacks in Syria and Iraq every month.
We could adopt the Robert de Niro doctrine that "Trump is basic. He's just a guy who thinks he can rattle off his mouth and say anything." But there is more to it than this. Trump's tweets have a purpose in seeking to appeal to his base, disrupt and gain advantages, and sometimes distract attention.
Thankfully, the announcement has been finessed and now seems to mean that withdrawal will take time and on conditions that are better for the Kurds in Syria. But Kurds and others have good reason to be on their guard for further shocks in early morning tweets from the White House and a Troops Out mentality elsewhere.
Disengagement has deep roots in an America that doesn't want to bear most of the burden. In the late 1980s I joined a researchers' delegation to NATO headquarters in Brussels where an American diplomat complained that the Americans cooked the dinner while the Europeans just did the washing up. The disproportionate American burden was causing ructions decades back and is keenly felt by Trump and his supporters.
I remember meeting a bemedalled veteran at a demonstration in Boston well before Trump became President. He was furious about the blood and treasure expended by America in Iraq and elsewhere and just wanted someone else to do the job.
But American interests are global and while they can reasonably oppose freeloading by their allies, they need stability to thrive. This conundrum is one of the oldest in American politics where there has often been a desire to avoid foreign entanglements with recurring seesaws between isolation and engagement.
The US Marine who escorted me and European guests around the Pentagon in 2002 pointed out the memorial to the fallen of the Second World War from, he said, 1941 to 1945 before theatrically correcting that to 1939 to 1945. American involvement only began with Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the Germans declaring war on America.
The case for continuing global American engagement was powerfully made by a moderate with the curious nickname of Mad Dog – Jim Mattis the Defence Secretary who quickly resigned in protest at the decision to quickly quit Syria.
Mattis' resignation letter to the President will echo for many years and the key paragraphs are:
"One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO's 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.
“Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model - gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions – to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.
“My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances."
My hope is that Trump will not abandon the Kurds in Syria and make life more difficult for the Kurds in Iraq. It would parallel President Obama's premature withdrawal from Iraq which helped create the conditions for Daesh.
Other countries should take up the slack for their interests and that of the Kurds. French President Macron said the right things but how did Trump's Troops Out tweet go down in Britain? Senior UK ministers were critical but I noticed a significant silence on the British left, despite its praise for the radical and egalitarian claims of Syrian Kurds.
Maybe this is because Brexit is the only show in town now, but such silence on a major security issue bodes badly for friends of the Kurds who believe that they deserve political, economic, diplomatic and occasionally military support from the UK, whichever party is in power.
Fears about the reliability of its allies provide further reasons for Kurdistani politicians to batten down the hatches – agree a new government, make lasting deals on the key issues with the new team in Baghdad, and thoroughly reform the economy and politics in Kurdistan so that it is as resilient as possible. The original Trump tweet and the wider salience of insular Troops Out notions on left and right in the West warn us not to count on a 7th cavalry waiting in the wings.
Gary Kent is the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
We could adopt the Robert de Niro doctrine that "Trump is basic. He's just a guy who thinks he can rattle off his mouth and say anything." But there is more to it than this. Trump's tweets have a purpose in seeking to appeal to his base, disrupt and gain advantages, and sometimes distract attention.
Thankfully, the announcement has been finessed and now seems to mean that withdrawal will take time and on conditions that are better for the Kurds in Syria. But Kurds and others have good reason to be on their guard for further shocks in early morning tweets from the White House and a Troops Out mentality elsewhere.
Disengagement has deep roots in an America that doesn't want to bear most of the burden. In the late 1980s I joined a researchers' delegation to NATO headquarters in Brussels where an American diplomat complained that the Americans cooked the dinner while the Europeans just did the washing up. The disproportionate American burden was causing ructions decades back and is keenly felt by Trump and his supporters.
I remember meeting a bemedalled veteran at a demonstration in Boston well before Trump became President. He was furious about the blood and treasure expended by America in Iraq and elsewhere and just wanted someone else to do the job.
But American interests are global and while they can reasonably oppose freeloading by their allies, they need stability to thrive. This conundrum is one of the oldest in American politics where there has often been a desire to avoid foreign entanglements with recurring seesaws between isolation and engagement.
The US Marine who escorted me and European guests around the Pentagon in 2002 pointed out the memorial to the fallen of the Second World War from, he said, 1941 to 1945 before theatrically correcting that to 1939 to 1945. American involvement only began with Pearl Harbor in 1941 and the Germans declaring war on America.
The case for continuing global American engagement was powerfully made by a moderate with the curious nickname of Mad Dog – Jim Mattis the Defence Secretary who quickly resigned in protest at the decision to quickly quit Syria.
Mattis' resignation letter to the President will echo for many years and the key paragraphs are:
"One core belief I have always held is that our strength as a nation is inextricably linked to the strength of our unique and comprehensive system of alliances and partnerships. While the US remains the indispensable nation in the free world, we cannot protect our interests or serve that role effectively without maintaining strong alliances and showing respect to those allies. Like you, I have said from the beginning that the armed forces of the United States should not be the policeman of the world. Instead, we must use all tools of American power to provide for the common defense, including providing effective leadership to our alliances. NATO's 29 democracies demonstrated that strength in their commitment to fighting alongside us following the 9-11 attack on America. The Defeat-ISIS coalition of 74 nations is further proof.
“Similarly, I believe we must be resolute and unambiguous in our approach to those countries whose strategic interests are increasingly in tension with ours. It is clear that China and Russia, for example, want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model - gaining veto authority over other nations' economic, diplomatic, and security decisions – to promote their own interests at the expense of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why we must use all the tools of American power to provide for the common defense.
“My views on treating allies with respect and also being clear-eyed about both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues. We must do everything possible to advance an international order that is most conducive to our security, prosperity and values, and we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity of our alliances."
My hope is that Trump will not abandon the Kurds in Syria and make life more difficult for the Kurds in Iraq. It would parallel President Obama's premature withdrawal from Iraq which helped create the conditions for Daesh.
Other countries should take up the slack for their interests and that of the Kurds. French President Macron said the right things but how did Trump's Troops Out tweet go down in Britain? Senior UK ministers were critical but I noticed a significant silence on the British left, despite its praise for the radical and egalitarian claims of Syrian Kurds.
Maybe this is because Brexit is the only show in town now, but such silence on a major security issue bodes badly for friends of the Kurds who believe that they deserve political, economic, diplomatic and occasionally military support from the UK, whichever party is in power.
Fears about the reliability of its allies provide further reasons for Kurdistani politicians to batten down the hatches – agree a new government, make lasting deals on the key issues with the new team in Baghdad, and thoroughly reform the economy and politics in Kurdistan so that it is as resilient as possible. The original Trump tweet and the wider salience of insular Troops Out notions on left and right in the West warn us not to count on a 7th cavalry waiting in the wings.
Gary Kent is the Secretary of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG). He writes this column for Rudaw in a personal capacity. The address for the all-party group is appgkurdistan@gmail.com.
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Rudaw.
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment