Secretary of State Tillerson spoke at Hoover on Wednesday and told the audience that we would leave a residual force in Northern Syria to prevent the reestablishment of ISIS. Where is the outcry? Occupy another Muslim country without even being asked? I wonder how the other players will react. Make a list... starting with Russia, Syria and Turkey, all the players will go nuts, ISIS will be gleeful. Another American Crusade, the US against the Muslims? Or is it to further threaten Iran, leading to War. Start the Protests, NOW!
9
Israel's very own Oded Yinon plan (go ahead google it) American military making the Middle East safe for Israeli expansion.
10
Obama's announcing the time of our withdrawal from Afghanistan was a disaster. Trump administration is wise not to repeat it.
Mr Trump has his hands full cleaning up the messes Obama created in the Middle East, in Asia. Let's hope he will do better as he can't possibly do worst.
3
What if this piece had found the current US policy to be reasonable and flexible in light of US and Western interests in the region. In that narrative direness and accusation against the administration would be lacking; therefore, it would be unsuitable for the New York Times, let's be honest. There are certain elements that must be in a Times opinion-report.
4
How conveniently The Times forgets Obama's "red line in the sand" statement about Syria and its dictator Assad. Obama capitulated on his promise to react to Syria's use of chemical weapons, and he turned the country over to Putin and the Russians. Now The Times blames Trump who has been in office for less than a year. What pure, partisan bunk.
7
Yes Putin took over from the impotent invertebrate in the Shite House at the time and rescued the area from chemical weapons. Then we both United to continue the utter destruction of the country killing tens of thousands of innocents via bombing. Speaking of collusion. A partnership in mass murder accomplishing nothing.
But wait, I'm so confused.
How can Syria be Trump's war? We already won the war in Syria and ISIS is completely destroyed. How do I know? Mr. Trump said so, and so did many conservative columnists in various publications, and so did gazillions of Trumpetistas on comment threads in other publications and this very New York Times.
Gosh, you mean they weren't telling the truth and that we're still at war in Syria? How shocking!!! (Tongue firmly in cheek.)
7
Hey, he said he knew more about ISIS than any general, so maybe he can fix Syria and everyone will be happy.
"Syria Is Now Mr. Trump’s War"
It became "Mr. Trump's war" on 1/20/17. Granted, he is the inheritor-in-chief.
1
For the U.S. and Israel, war is a business.
15
While it was Obama's war, too many hundreds of thousands were exterminated for it to ever become anyone else's war. There simply aren't enough people left. Obama just about wiped the field clean.
3
Yep, and the reason why the war in Syria hasn't ended is "it's the Red Line" stupid.
2
" The American people deserve a real answer. "
You have to look for the answer in Israel.
3
Enough money for the military. Their current budget is nearly more than the world's nations combined. It is their time to restructure and put to better use what they have. How about real diplomacy and sharing with other nations the policing of the world.
2
We wouldn't be in Syria at all if it weren't for the bungling under the Obama administration. Trump is simply not making the mistake Obama did by withdrawing troops from Iraq prematurely.
2
The "real answer" that the American people deserve is that, over 30 years ago, in Palo Alto, California, and around the world, 40,000 concerned citizens, politicians, scientists and businesspersons examined the institution of war and determined, unequivocally and without a single dissenter, that war - all war, had become obsolete. War just doesn't work anymore. Civil war. Conventional war. Nuclear war. All war. All obsolete.
The only reliable resource for security in the world today is RELATIONSHIP. When relationships are healthy, you don't need any military to protect you. When relationships are unhealthy, the largest military in the world won't keep you save. Relationship is the master organizing principle of the cosmos. Relationship will work. War is a waste of time and money. And it has been, ever since the unleashed power of the atom, as Einstein said, "changed everything." (circa May, 1946).
If we spent even 1/10 of 1% of our massive military budget building inclusive relationship-based connections with all 200+ nations of the world, we would have a lasting peace, founded in mutual protection, and perpetuated by a global community with a culture that works for the benefit of all life.
This is where our mental and journalistic energy should be. Not on war itself, but it superordinate successor: Relationship.
22
Syria is not Trump's war, it's America's war. And once again the decision for waging this war is referred to as "asking congress for authorization and funding."
Ever since Vietnam presidents have expanded their power to wage war so that the clear constitutional requirement that congress and only congress be empowered to declare war has become a dead letter.
The court have been of little help. They either find these issues yo be "political questions" or simply defer to the legislative branch which has allowed presidents to take emergency action on the assumption that these are going to be brief defensive actions, not ongoing occupations.
The results have been countless wars and now an endless war. We are in fact at war with Syria without a declaration, without congressional hearings or findings and without authorization from the people through their representatives.
Obama like Trump ran on a platform promising to reduce these entanglements. Instead he expanded them. And now Trump, a far less careful military leader than Obama has done the same.
It's time for an editorial to say ENOUGH!
This is is our war and I for one didn't instruct my representative to vote for it, I'm tired of having our children fight and die in it and I don't want to waste billions of dollars on it.
I'm also tired of the blind eye our media takes on the massive human rights violations that are carried out in our name. Give Syria back to the Syrians, END THIS WAR NOW!
20
Logistics. Supply. The thing that bedeviled players of the old Avalon Hill game called Battle of the Bulge. So much easier to play without those rules. On a game board. (Actual combatants remember better)
While a couple thousand troops is no big deal, perhaps, if we expand the analysis to the Kurd forces in Iraq and Syria (and Turkey), of which our troops form a par,t a simple fact jumps to the fore:
Kurdistan is surrounded by Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey. It has no ports, all roads and air corridors run through either Iran friendly powers, who do not share the goals Matthis announced, and Turkey is likely to militarily act against the Kurds (and if they do the Kurd forces in the farther south will move north to meet them, with orders or on their own initiative...leaving Syrian troops to fill the void rapidly).
Of course the failure to play the Syria rebellion game without considering supply is at the heart of this failed intervention/regime change. Syria controlled the roads in populated areas, and the skies. They could supply and shift forces. Except along borders, rebels were stuck in pockets, relying on a doctrine of shock attacks, that if forced to extend longer than a handful of days ran out grenades and bullets, collapsing in retreat.
Same old same old here it seems.
Well, I'm not sure it matters, but I've completely lost count: how many total contradictions of what Trump told the suckers back during the campaign are we up to now?
1
The editorial board wrote that “There is no question that the United States should work to curb Iran’s malignant activities” and confused editorial comment with propaganda. Many, if not the majority, of the U.S. would agree that the Iranian government is harsh and restrictive. But if that is malignancy what term are we to use for a country that has destroyed nations and people’s in that region for sixteen years and has announced its intention to continue. Don’t we share a common bit of wisdom about the mote in our own eye. Gentlemen, you are a malignancy. You cloud our vision with hypocracy.
6
Before the Syrian crisis and war erupted, Assad's Syria was very friendly to Iran. If that alignment was tolerable to us before the war, it will just have to be managed now. The relative strength of Iran, and the Shia populations it tends to back, began with the US overthrow of Saddam.
The attainable goal for post war Syria may be to oblige Iranian troops and Hizbollah fighters to disarm or withdraw, once security is restored. This can be achieved by joining a process that will involve Iran, Russia, Turkey, the US, and other stakeholders and may also feature power sharing and decentralization of Syria, allowing more power to the Sunni Arab majority.
1
The people of Syria and Iraq, with Russia's help, are doing a good job of ridding the region of ISIS. They would also like to rid the region of the U.S. Our presence is an irritant. Imagine China, nervous over our president's ill-considered taunting of North Korea, stationing troops in America, to promote stability and protect their national interests...
6
The major mission that the USA undertook is less than half completed!Israel is. Now the paralyzed regional super power ,
Phase one, with diminishing American Israeli prospects of a New iddle East and Iran is now not only an obstacle to American Israeli regional
Plans but a major power both fear and would rather not draw them to war.
This seems as the pen ultimate outgrowth of American Israeli designs and ambitions with Iran , not Israel, as the final outcome!
1
As the Jerusalem recognition shows, the Trump administration is capable of stating the obvious if anything else. Considering Syria, the accomplished facts are that this country-as-we-knew-it is done for.
It is a matter of great strategic importance for NATO (minus Turkey) that the newly emerged Kurdish-Arab region holds as an independent, free country.
Selling out the Kurds and free-Arabs to the murderous gang of mr. Assad would be the worst betrayal since the infamous one by mr. Judas Iskariot.
2
Hey, it”s a known “thing” that a war rallies the public behind the Administration. And as a Plan B if war with N Korea flubs, Iran is good. And also we have already Syria and the Kurd-Turkey animosity where we’re right in the middle.
Lots of room for escalation. Domestic issues can take a hike.
4
Anyone who has followed the news is aware that regime change in Syria was on the U.S. agenda for years, Even Gen. Wesley Clark included Syria along with Iraq, Iran and others in his widely seen video from several year back. It is murky how ISIS fits into the agenda of regime change but it appears ISIS was the ticket into Syria by the Coalition in 2014. When Russia entered the Syrian war around a year later, they were bombing the ISIS oil tankers that were crossing the Syrian desert and other ISIS targets. Seems there are several disputable statements in this editorial.
4
I have not seen any battlefield reporting regarding ISIS or Syria. It seems that there is no public knowledge of what goes on in the field any more.
4
Trump has indeed bought himself another war, but our policy remains undefined. Tillerson has no credible line of communication with the President. Why would we believe that anything he says today will actually reflect tomorrow's policy? The conflicting Tillerson vs. Trump Korean announcements are proof of that.
Surely there will be mission creep. For Trump there is an overriding desire to "win" every fight he gets involved in. When he discovers he is not "winning" in this week's perception of Syria, we'll have expansion of that war.
Tillerson's explanation of "conditions based" policy means no policy at all. Trump will do whatever he feels like with this week's whim. The overriding goals of regime change for al-Assad and total elimination of ISIS and Al-Qaeda from the vast desert regions of Syria will never end and ultimately require much more effort than reflected by 2000 troops.
6
President Obama knew the Middle East was in flux and that it will take years! for the conflicts to shake out. He was right to limit the engagement in Syria to defeating ISIS. The US should only get involved in the Middle East if it directly affects our interests. Trump has no knowledge or understanding ( and doesn't seem to want to learn) of the complexities underlying the Middle East conflicts--- that does not bode well for the country. The majority of American citizens do not want to become more entangled in Middle East conflicts.
4
A total withdrawal from the Middle East is indicated. 9/11 wouldn't have happened were it not for our presence and interference there. Our response? We engaged in the Afghan and Iraq wars which we have lost in addition to destabilizing Libya and aiding Saudi in Uemrn. We have sown the seeds of our own destruction
4
Yes European colonialism lit the flame and the US has poured gasoline and fanned the flames big time. All presidents responsible from Ike to Trump.
1
Apparently, there is a renewed attempt by the neocons, both in and out of the administration to lock President Trump into a war confronation policy toward Russia, in contrast to his campaign promises to the contrary. The change in policy toward Syria, the attempt to put a damper on the promising negotiations in Korea, and the blind eye toward renewed aggression by the Kiev regime are all very disturbing. Hopefully the President, who seems finally to be freeing himself from the "collusion" scandal, will not follow in that direction and will keep his focus on US economy.
3
odd, the evidence of collusion is mounting, my friend not abating and we know only a small fraction of what Mueller does. and Trumps. promise to stay out of Syria is as good as his one to get Mexico to pay for the wall
1
Thank you for reporting on this. It seemed for a while that only Trump's voters had some idea that we were going after ISIS in a different, more aggressive way than Obama did, so at least now we know what information these voters were getting. Make no mistake; Trump's voters think this is great.
1
We often hear Republican claims that echo this statement in the editorial - “ The administration says it wants to avoid what it considers mistakes by Mr. Obama, who withdrew troops from Iraq only to see extremists re-emerge “. This is, essentially, a lie and the Time’s fails to make this clear. It was George W. Bush who signed the Status of Forces Agreement in December, 2008 (after Obama was elected) which called for a phased and total withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. Obama was stuck with the agreement. To be fair to Bush, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki could not (or would not) gather enough political support to allow US Forces to remain. Further, after the end date for the agreement, US forces would have been protected from Iraqi law. The editorial should not have repeated the Republican mantra.
3
"The United States initiated military action in Syria to confront ISIS..." which was dismissed as "junior varsity" by trump's predecessor, whose "gift" was gloss, which was not even on the radar his predecessor, who started the shooting and whose military training, should he have shown up, might have taught him a thing or two about radar...so NOW is indeed "mr. trump's war" because he is commander-in-chief, just as north korea is his problem, add the slumping GDP, the immigration mess, etc., and you have the sum of his charge.
however, the constant barrage of blame and personal attack demonstrates the lack of concern the press holds for these matters, its priority being to punish trump for winning the election (not to discount its near blindness to the flaws of the candidate who hijacked the party of the people and ran it off the road which, if it persists, could mean more trump to come).
This is not a war in any conventional sense and it won’t be fixed by military superiority. The entire region is in a climate caused drought. Syria fell into chaos when wheat farming collapsed due to drought. Today there are still too many mouths to feed and not enough resources especially fresh water. This is the situation that Russia is exploiting. Changing the dynamic starts with finding more water or desalination ocean water. It’s doable and not too expensive if renewable energy is part of the equation. Step one is for all parties to suspend military ops. This condition will become increasingly common over time and we need to prototype a universal solution. Time to get started.
5
All I want is for the US to help Rojava. The Turks have been bombing Afrin on the edge of the Rojava region for a few days and threaten to invade. Afrin is one of the self-governing cantons of Rojava in northern Syria. Rojava is the de facto autonomous Democratic Federation of Northern Syria that was and is right now in Abu Kamal important in the fight against Daesh (IS). IS was beaten off in northern Syria by the active resistance of the Kurdish, Arab and Christian populations in Rojava (as well as volunteers from the West who support the ideals of Rojava). Destruction of the democratic structure in this region, where Christians, Muslims, Yazidis, Kurds and Arabs live together peacefully would be tragic. Erdogan seems to want the West to believe that Rojava is only Kurdish and that their YPG (men) YPJ (women) fighters are terrorists when in fact their taburs are often diverse. (The tabur I know most about was half Kurdish and half Arab with one or two French, an American, and a Yazidi commander.) All these mostly very young men and women fighters seek to do is protect their towns and villages, achieve peace, maintain local, feminist, governance, and build a future for their children free of a strongman ruler on their land. And, they adhere to the Geneva Conventions even when they capture Daesh fighters. I also thought at one time it was too good to be true.
2
"The United States initiated military action in Syria to confront ISIS, which overran huge areas of Syria and Iraq in 2014."
The threat of US military action entered the fray in 2011 long before 2014 when Obama said Assad "must go," putting Assad himself and his regime in a fight for their lives. Then Obama drew a line in the sand re chemical weapons but did nothing when it was crossed.
Obama's remarks precipitated the dissolution of the Syrian state, which opened the door for ISIS to join the fight.
We'd love to have Obama back in the White House but let's give "credit" where credit is due. His Sec. of State bears some responsibility as well.
The NYT editorial board has never masked its disdain for Trump but let's not conveniently elide the full historical context and then "innocently" pile on.
Estimates of the death toll during the civil war range between 300k and 460k. Refugees are estimated at 5 million having left Syria and another 6 million or more internally displaced. These numbers are the horrendous outcomes of a civil war the US fomented and then bungled.
Yeah, Trump's jerk and worse, perhaps, but whenever the NYT criticizes Trump for the debacle in Syria, the "paper of record" should feel obligated to set the record straight.
Obama, Clinton must be made to own up to some of the blame. It's still their war even though Trump and Co. must now deal with it.
2
Armed conflict in the mid-east goes back as far as recorded history and will continue on and on and on. We have been part of it going back at least to before WWI. I see no end in sight. Perhaps we should just pull out like Russia did in Afghanistan. Oops, that will not work either cause the world is so integrated now that the political butterfly effect is very real. Sorry, wish I had a positive perspective to offer.
2
A couple of things to remember. America has been stuck in that part of the world since 9/11. Our role expanded after George W Bush decided to nation build in Iraq. I think it is totally arrogant and unpatriotic for Trump to say he, and he alone, is defeating Isis. He is just playing clean up. Kind of like a relief pitcher in baseball, after coming into the game in the 9th inning with a sizeable lead, secures the win and states the previous pitchers and the rest of the team had no involvement in the victory. Using the UN as the lead negotiator is a bit disingenuous after Trump has done nothing but bad mouth the UN. And I wonder if Syria, backed by the Russians, tell Trump to get US troops out, as Iraq told Obama, is Trump going to say I refuse? That might get a little messy. It is so easy to criticize your predecessors when you leave out the details and the context of their actions. Remember future presidents will have plenty to work with in this administration in repaying the favor. I, for one, am totally in favor of giving him his unconditional release after one season. Maybe he could catch on as a board member in a steel town or something. You know, the minors. And never to be heard from again.
2
These are Deep State wars and they will not end until there is only power.
Clueless Americans champing at the bit for this country's next excursion into a senseless quagmire of a war, while blaming Obama for doing nothing, have now gotten their wish with Donald Trump's so-called "mission" in Syria and increased military spending.
And like every other half-baked idea that flies through this president's head, there's no plan.
If anything Syria, like Afghanistan, will become another Vietnam, except that this promises to drag on much longer.
You call this winning?
4
It is not "our mission" it is Israel's mission, I think we really do need to recognize that fact. Tillerson talks as though we own the region, more regime change? Haven't we done enough of that to have learned our lesson?
3
Another war. Another trillion dollars or so. Countless more deaths and displaced people. When will the American people speak out and say "enough is enough"?
3
And the oil ? Where is the oil ?
1
The U.S. bled the Soviets dry in Afghanistan and many other places until its humiliating collapse. Reap what you sow, what goes around comes around, sic transit gloria etc., etc. Rinse and repeat.
1
Candidate Trump and President Trump cannot be compared with the exception of his own facts, his lies, and his constantly changing his colors like a chameleon.
Re Syria, and other 127 places where we have been fighting even when Barack Obama was President, he too on occasions let the Generals lead him. But Donald Trump has essentially delegated his powers the Generals and they would do what they are trained to do – fight. If they do not find a conflict then they create one. Syria is one of those where they can fight the Syrians, Russians, and Iranians at the same time. They do not have to have three separate fronts, they can do it on one front.
The US Congress has abrogated their responsibility and are not protecting the US Constitution as they are the only body that has the power of declaring war on behalf of the people of United States and can allocate funds to fight it. Currently we do not have diplomats in the US State Department so the diplomacy of US is done with guns and by blackmailing other countries as we are doing with UNRWA.
Syria is a complex problem, we started it in Homs, but as the fighting is getting lopsided in favor of the Government of Syria, the Militias would start fighting amongst themselves and like Afghanistan and the removal of Taliban in 2003- 15 years later we are still there and fighting- this is our military.
It is time for the Congress to hold a debate about our offensive actions throughout the world and rein them in.
PEACE must prevail
3
Which side are we on?
Which side is he on?
Just asking.
1
Contrary to what the NYT claims, the catastrophe in Syria began when the US and its Arab allies funneled weapons to Syrian government opponents in an attempt to topple the government. There was the usual insane assumption that we would be able to finesse a happy ending and that is if you charitably grant that our intentions were good. In fact there was little chance that genuine democratically inclined forces would come out on top and the notion that you funnel weapons to a vicious proxy war so that you will be able to negotiate a peace evidently appeals to our foreign policy establishment— the hundreds of thousands of dead we then blame entirely on the Assad government and its allies. The welfare of Syrians was never our main concern. We just wanted to remove Assad, who is an ally of Iran and Russia and a foe of Israel and the Saudis. The NYT editors do not oppose proxy wars on principled grounds— instead they go along with the charade that our intentions were good, as though that could justify the bloody chaos our intervention helped cause.
4
Ok gang, let's go over it again what history including Abraham Lincoln taught us.
Only go into a war if America is attacked or about to be attacked, otherwise stay clear of it.
If war crimes occur like genocide, mass starvation, mass torture get involved but only in a multi lateral way and get The Hague War Crimes Tribunal geared up, otherwise stay out of it.
2
A rational, just and stable political resolution in Syria is as nebulous and distant today as it was under Obama. The most that can be said is that if you have no chips in the game, you're not really relevant to it: 2,000 military personnel hardly is an immense stack of chips, but it IS a stack. In the end, we may not prove relevant to an end-game, if ever there is one; and then again we might, even if those 2,000 must become 20,000. I suspect that most Americans will support Trump's balanced and moderate actions in Syria, relative to the threats to our national security that still exist there and again could intensify if left unanswered.
But I'm curious. This editorial quoted some but didn’t really articulate an editorial position on our role in Syria. Tillerson’s comments were reasonable and sufficient to explain why we have 2,000 people in Syria – Trump was not remiss in explaining the strategy. Are the editors seeking to articulate a position on that strategy? Or are they just using our moderate presence there as a pretext for attacking Trump generally?
Certainly, if it’s all about campaign promises, he’s done a lot to redeem them when they concerned domestic matters that are more controllable by Americans. However, in wars, we’re not the only ones who have influence and we don’t control the ground. Beyond that, he HAS been instrumental in clobbering ISIS, and that WAS a campaign promise redeemed.
The expressed notion that 2,000 troops makes Syria “Trump’s war” suggests that the motivations here aren’t other than purely political.
It's important to remember that Trump has not merely continued our involvement in Syria from previous Presidents. He has EXPANDED it. We now have 155mm artillery units firing fast and furiously in Syria. His campaign promises here are worth no more than his repeated campaign promises for a beautiful health care system that gave everyone excellent care, with lower premiums and lower deductibles.
21
It seems that Rex has a vision for Syria but can't quite put it in words that make sense or provide any sense of comfort for the people of the U.S. How long these wars proceed, without a realistic strategy, is the essential question. A fundamental question must be answered: What are the limitations of power in 21st century warfare given the realities of international affairs? One that is perhaps too complex for Trumpian scope.
7
Pretending to fight the common enemy in the form of ISIS and al-Qaida, yet all the major world powers and their regional proxies are actually fighting an unending war of establishing geopolitical dominance in the Middle East to ensure their respectively favoured regimes in power. It's purely a game of thrones being played there at the cost of native lives and the domestic resources of each contending nation with or without any stake. If the stake issue is stretched further, between the two contending alliances if Russia and Iran could still claim that they are there to protect the Assad regime in Syria against the Western threat and the rebels, the US is fighting the Syrian war without any stake and allies now. For, given the heavy crackdown from the Russia-Iran backed Syrian forces the US could neither keep the rebels safe and united, nor in the face of Turkey's opposition could it realise its dream of carving out an autonomous Kurdish enclave between the Syria-Turkey border. Trump's all the military missions abroad thus could be simply to divert domestic attention from his governance failure, and to keep the US war machine well oiled and running.
30
And keeping Israel safe.
1
“How does this not become an unending war?” Senator Tom Udall, Democrat of New Mexico, asked Mr. Satterfield, who replied with some political buzzwords. The American people deserve a real answer."
A real answer? How about an unending war being good for business, that is the business of the Pentagone and the military industrial complex President Eisenhower warned us about?
78
“How does this not become an unending war?”
By the Congress taking back its responsibility to declare war. We have not declared War on anyone since 1942, yet American troops have been sent into various countries to die many times since then. If the Congress would refuse to allow ANY president to commit troops on anything but a short term emergency basis without a declaration of war, we could have a debate on how we want our troops to die.
2
"But Mr. Tillerson described an agenda that suggests an alarming eagerness to confront Iran, perhaps even militarily."
I wish the "resistance" media would get its stories straight.
If Trump is colluding with Russia, and did so during the presidential campaign, why is he aggressively confronting Moscow's allies in Syria when Obama permitted Vlad to establish a Russian military base on the Syrian coast, and basically decimate the USA-funded Syrian non-ISIS resistance, permitting Vlad's friend, Bashir Al Assad, to continue murdering his citizens?
Moreover, Trump is selling anti-tank missiles to the Ukraine in an effort to confront Russian expansionism, when Obama refused to do so, selling them only "night vision goggles."
To those perplexed by these events, and "America's continuing wars," you might note that the "free world" is only such because of the USA. This is why Norway can afford "cradle to grave" welfare.
Iran is a threat to our allies, and to the region, and is a leading sponsor of state terrorism. Besides the fact that Hezbollah murdered over 200 American marines in Beirut in 1983 on the orders of Iran, not including the countless G.I.s who died and are maimed for life due to Iranian IEDs in Iraq.
But I do agree with Obama-era appeasement and the paying of ransom for hostages. And setting "red lines" while permitting those lines to be breached by dictators who then murder their own citizens with banned chemical weapons.
Iranian nuke deal=peace in our time.
8
Absolutely spot on!
1
The business of the USA seems to be selling arms: we are the largest arms dealer in the world. Also, the most gun-happy country in history.
So how does this benefit the general populace? Have we turned the Middle East into freedom-loving democracies yet? Have huge military expenditures made us safer (think 9-11)?
Is the USA the safest country in which to live?
How come Trump has not enforced the sanctions related to Russian interference in US elections which were passed by Congress and reluctantly signed by Trump? BTW- Sending troops to Beirut " wasn't sensible and didn't serve a purpose. It was goofy from the beginning" --Colin Powell.
Syria is definitely Trump's war, very much like Afghanistan was Obama's war. I have little respect for President's who have no sons, daughters or grandchildren in the armed forces, let alone actual combat. To me, they're nothing but push-button Washington warriors.
20
In all fairness, Obama's children were just that--children--when he occupied the White House So were G.W.'s, when he entered the WH.
Neither Obama nor Trump eradicated ISIS. The people of Syria and Iraq with support from Russia and Iran eradicated ISIS. They paid a high price and it is their victory, not ours.
The Syrian people do not want the US in Syria. Nor do they want Turkey in Syria. It is a violation of the UN Charter.
Syria will rebuild if we leave Syria alone. They are digging up mass graves and finding Israeli weapons in ISIS weapons depots. They are also finding poison gas depots that ISIS used against Syrians. These are not reported in the NYT.
We have done enough damage to this once beautiful country. Time to get out and keep the Israelis out, too.
47
"Neither Obama nor Trump eradicated ISIS." - John
But ISIS is NOT eradicated and it (or its offshoot) will never be eradicated as long as generations of devout muslims follow the commands of the 'holy koran'. It's fruitless fro the US to champion 'freedom' in an islamic country. They have evolved their own definition of the term, and its not compatible with our definition.
So, the Trump administration which disparages the UN at every chance and has withheld funds from the body now wants it to take the lead in diplomacy in Syria? Good one.
70
What will our troops in Syria do? Help maintain an enormous Kurdish enclave.
What will this Kurdish enclave include? A disproportionate share of Syria's energy, power and water resources.
So?
This is bound to be much more successful than the Kurdish "enclave" we sponsored in Iraq. Sure that too had a disproportionate share of Iraq's energy resources. This will be different. Trust me.
Kurdish and non-Kurdish Iraqis may have gone to war and have been placed in a perpetual state of tension and instability by our policies. But again, this will be different.
Turkey is a factor in Syria too. Facing unending domestic terrorism by Kurds, Turkey has indicated it will not stand for a Kurdish enclave in Syria (regardless of how many photos we show of pretty female Kurdish "soldiers"). See, I told you this would be different.
What with the Turks, Kurdish Syrians and non-Kurdish Syrians in perpetual conflict, what chance does ISIS have for a resurgence? There'll be more bloodshed and horror than even ISIS can imagine. I told you, is this different or what?
And then?
Then we say success. Remember the Trump doctrine. If you say it enough times, no matter what "it" is, people will believe it. Are you listening Clinton (Bill)? Learn your lesson, man. There is a master at work here. And if he views (which he is bound to) the "master" reference in terms of "master and subject," then he is bound to be blushing in gleeful pride. It is different. Everything is different!
4
Turkey is our mortal enemy and should not be in NATO.
6
More than 15 years have passed from the start of the Iraq war and the American occupation of that country. This means that there is an American stable, military presence in the Persian/Arab Gulf and in the core of the ME region. And there is no sign of USA military quitting, because of the ISIS and Al Qaeda threat. Although, one wonders why there was no ISIS threat before the Iraq invasion!
The American long term strategy of keeping military forces in Iraq and Syria is a choice made by the USA long time ago and systematically pursued by every POTUS, Republican or Democratic.
According to the same words of a former US Under Secretary of State, Mr. Burns, speaking to PBS when he quit the George W. Bush Administration in 2008, the USA are in the ME with an historic mission to "stabilize the entire region". The stabilization of a region, which was already stable, meant pushing for a change of the local hostile regimes towards US friendly ones.
That foreign policy and military strategy is still operative, whichever the costs.
25
US and NATO sponsored the thousands who landed in NATO Turkey and were allowed to cross the border to wage jihad against Assad. I guess the success has to be retained. Why leave when NATO and US have successfully captured a large area of foreign land.
3
Syria is now Trump's war, but the economy is still Obama's.
14
Yep. Obama limited action in Syria, Trump is and will escalate. Obama stabilized the economy, after the worst recession in history. The economy is CONTINUING to grow because of Obama' policies.
3
Trump is still operating under the authority of Congress given to Bush following 911. That was well over 16 years ago. We are now conducting operations so-far removed from that Saudi-sponsored event that we are literally wandering in the desert, untethered to reality and ignorant of any real objective. We have taken on the role of World Police. The problem is that we have a bigoted and fearful segment of the population that thinks military spending is the only true function of government.
38
Giving too much military decision making to Bush, and continued under Obama, was a serious mistake. Trump will abuse this power, as is already evidenced in the Syria decision. Congress needs to take back their constitutional responsibility was making war decisions. And that is what this is about...don't let anyone tell us it is "police-like action".
14
Congress is too cowardly, and dysfunctional, to take ANY responsibility for ANYTHING. Case in point: our very own government is now shut down!
1
Certainly Syria would be better off without Assad, but is that our job to take him out. Regarding Turkey, are they really an ally? Aren't there some requirements member nations not be authoritarian dictatorships? Come to think of it should we still be allowed in NATO? I have my doubts.
15
NATO has no such requirements. See: Portugal, as a founding member of NATO, Greece in the 1970s, and Turkey's repeated rounds of military dictatorship since it joined.
The Board asserts that " Military operations under President Barack Obama and the Trump administration liberated more than 98 percent of the territory previously controlled by the Islamic State and freed over 7.5 million people from brutal rule."
Really? Why pick out the relatively small portion of Syria territory controlled by ISIL? From here it looks like the Syrian Arab Army, supported its allies Russia, Hezbulah and Iran liberated most of Syria and also contributed much more than "2%" to ISIL's defeat.
And their victory over the rebels was also over the foreigners who supported them, namely the US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and various other NATO members.
11
While I agree with the general thrust of the article I must point out several inaccuracies or weird ambiguous formulations. The US started intervening in 2006 sending weapons and money to groups opposed to the Assad régime through its allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The weapons ended up int he hands of jihadist groups. The so-called "democratic opposition" was overrun or infiltrated by terrorist groups.
Isis was in large part created in the Bucca camp in Iraq where Al Qaeda and former Saddam Hussein military officers were imprisoned. The Assad régime seemed on the brink of collapsing before Russia intervened. Victory over ISIS therefore cannot be attributed only to the US.
The key question here of course is whether the clueless and ignorant President can in any way devise policies. Maybe it's all McMaster and/or Mattis but it is as disastrous as if the "master of disaster" (Naomi Klein) had planned it. The US is once again embarking upon a murderous, costly and open-ended disaster as if Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya were not enough.
Syria needs cooperation between former enemies, the US, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran. Tough, but more war can only mean more devastation and also it means the US shooting itself in the foot. The recent US wars have already cost more than $5 billion. Does the US want to become poorer and weaker?
Re-building Syria and eventually getting rid of Assad the criminal should be the aim of all parties.
10
Pierre: I believe you meant to say the wars have cost U.S. taxpayers five “trillion” not billion, actually perhaps more, much more and when factoring in the human suffering and incalculable damage to Europe and Britain’s “safety nets” the cost of our M.E. Folly in support of our “allies” turned aggressors(read Roger Cohens excellent article today) and the rightward swing brought about thanks to the strain on Europe from the Bush/Cheney/Blair War. Also, in my humble opinion, getting rid of Assad wouldn’t accomplish much as one would think people had learned by now. Unfortunately the fractured, tribal states in the M.E. don’t want nor are they ready for our brand of Democracy, dictators seem to be the only ones capable of keeping a handle on the caldron that is the M.E., as if the invasion of Iraq and the total destabilization resulting from it isn’t proof enough. Ironically Iran, with their young, educated youth has probably the best chance to emulate the American model if we would stay out of their affairs.
4
Wonderful.
A neophyte diplomat with ties to Russia is negotiating terms for military action in a region where Russia is the source of much of the unrest under the aegis of a President who may be compromised by Russia.
What could possibly go wrong?
20
How is Syria Trmp's war? The Syrians have suffered enough. They need peace not war. They need to cease ISIS from returning back to Syria. They need safe homelands not a search for new lands, The Syrian war began and raged during the Obama years and Trump just ended it and wants to stay there to keep ISIS from repopulating it and preventing Asaad from gassing its own people and fighting the Kurds. These humanitarian goals pursued by Trump does not make Syrian civil war Trump's war. The editorial board should not try to hang the Syrian albatross on Trump by expanding the goals any more than they need to be.
2
We lag behind the rest of the developed world in education and healthcare. Each year we slip further behind. Our infrastructure is crumbling and our deficit continues to grow but sure let's get involved in another failed attempt at nation building abroad rather than fixing our own country.
This is how Republics fail. They spend all their capital abroad and neglect the home front. At what point do the concerns of the tax payers become a priority.
Our politicians from both parties are out of touch. They're stuck in the thought process going back to Truman that the US is the police force of the world. WWII made sense because we were attacked by the Japanese but everything since then with the exception of 9/11 has been a war of choice rather than necessity.
The middle east is complicated. We don't understand the culture and our meddling has made things worse not better. The United Nations and the Arab states need to take the lead on Syria. We need to focus on nation building in our own country for a change.
39
From 1945 to the present the purpose of America's world-wide military deployments was to assure a stable global market for our goods. Now Trump has withdrawn from TPP and threatens withdrawal from NAFTA. Make no mistake, US military might was never for democratic change. Trump's support of the military is unhinged from its real purpose, global economic stability.
1
Ami: Thank you, very well said.
This all stems from the horribly misguided Bush-Cheney adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, which left power vacuums in those countries, emboldened Iran and enabled ISIS. All of it was done with no clue about a realistic end game of benefit to the U.S., besides enriching the arms and military support industries in which they and their constituents held interests.
15 years, thousands of American lives, millions of Middle Eastern lives and trillions of dollars later, we still have no achievable goals or realistic plan for success in that region.
There is no positive outcome in sight to the quagmires that now, including Syria, number three. Our country learned less than one would hope from Vietnam.
62
And to think I lost friendships because of my stance on invading Iraq. I'm not brilliant, but absolutely knew it would end this way.
1
Trump is in a bind here, not least because he's completely ignorant on Syria, military tactics, history, and dozens of other subjects vital to understanding this conflict. But I don't think there are easy answers in Syria regardless, and this is coming from someone who really thinks the absolute worst of Trump.
We could stay, and terrorism will continue, or we could leave, and terrorism would continue. We could throw 500,000 soldiers into Syria, and terrorism would continue; worse would be nearly certain conflict with Russia which might result in nuclear war.
The causes of the strife in Syria are religious and environmental. Fundamentalists will war against opposing fundamentalists until they are completely separated or there is only one side left. And the continuing dehydration of Syria and the surrounding area makes everyone there more desperate, and likely to commit violence. A starving human is not concerned with ethics, usually.
So, fundamentalists are fairly incapable of negotiation, and killing them just makes their family and friends more prone to violence. We can't bomb our way out of this conflict, or talk our way out.
I think the real answer to "how does this not become an unending war?", is that it is an unending war. The solutions are the obliteration of one of the main two sides in the conflict, ie: genocide (not a palatable solution), or the peace that will come when the land is uninhabitable. I wish I could see a better answer.
6
Omitted in this editorial is all mention of our and our allies attempts to overthrow the Syrian government. Displeasure with Damascus did not begin with the Asads—in the 1950s we attempted to remove the leaders in Damascus. Nor is this the first time Syria became a battleground for rival powers—Hashemite v Saud and Nasser v conservative oil monarchs.
Today’s antagonists are Iran and its allies against Saudi Arabia and its friends over the control of oil and regional political leadership. Without outside help, al Qaeda nor ISIS would have had the ability to carve out Syrian power zones. Every effort by the Saudi side to remove Asad was met by countermeasures by the Iranian side. US covert aid was offset by Russian support.
Endless war in Afghanistan and the continuing debacle in Iraq taught us nothing about intervening in nations in order to create friendly regimes. Shattering Iraq released the very demons we claim to be fighting—so too in Syria.
Our continued presence and interference in Syria has no legal basis. It only contributes to prolonging the suffering. US foreign policy over the last twenty years has led us to establishing some 800 military bases as well as stationing our forces in 149 of the 193 countries of the world. This weakens our claim of defending ourselves and strengthens the accusation of us imposing our will on the world.
11
Its shocking that President Trump seemed to promise no more nation building wars making it a major reason I voted for him now goes against those promises. When will America stop imposing its culture on others that do not share our beliefs. Even the Democrats are seemingly have really gotten pro interventionist in these anti-Muslim civil wars. Looks like Rand Paul is the lone wolf talking about these unconstitutional.wars.
2
The Syrian regime of Bashar Al Assad not only is far worse than ISIS, that same regime also added and abetted the creation and genesis of ISIS by releasing its leaders from jail, buying their oil, not engaging it in combat and allowing it to define the opposition against the regime. ISIS is a regime strategy and it's alarming to see how the NYT editorial board so completely fails to address that. Most Syrians know it full well.
2
Interesting that Mr. Tillerson is calling for the United Nations to lead in resolving the conflict in Syria. Isn't this the same administration that wants to cut off funding for the United Nations and has essentially said that if they don't do it his way, the US won't play. Sounds like his domestic policy is taken from the same play book, too.
14
Syria is one arena in which Trump keeps saying he wants to collaborate with Russia. No mystery of whether Russia is impartial to how the Syrian conflict ends. So maybe Syria is now 'Mr. Putin's war.'
By now we know, at the very least, that candidate Trump said anything and everything that fueled rage in his base and that President Trump (still can't put those two words together without quivering) will say, and do, anything and everything that is beneficial to himself and his family.
So, my only question now is whether or not Trump has properties in Syria. And, will he be negotiating for properties whose value will balloon when the fighting subsides.
How can we forget Dick Cheney raking money via contracts to Halliburton? That was then. Now it is hotels and other properties.
This editorial contains lots of criticism without offering any better solutions itself, perhaps influenced too much by the emotional Iraq debate. There are many reasons for leaving US troops in Syria. Ensuring ISIS doesn't reemerge is a valid point. So are limiting Iran's, Russian and Assad's influence. Handing the country over to Assad would be a bad idea. Mant Syrians wouldn't accept his rule, after what he has done. And what message would having an 'end date' give to the Kurdish allies, or Iranians. This wouldn't be a message of strength, for sure. Constant threat of disengagement wouldn't add influence in determining Syria's future.This is not the time to look at the Syrian situation only through prism of US internal politics.
The real answer is that an American presence will in Syria for a very long time, as well it should be.
We still have troops in Europe so why should this be different?
There is no end game in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria. No prospect for stable, consensual governments, let alone democracy, no reliable internal allies, no reasonable prospect for anything but permanent civil war. We could be in each country for 50 years or more with no likelihood for progress on our terms, with trillions spent in the process. The best course for us is to contain the conflict and instability, save our soldiers lives, and save billions.
Why is there no mention in this editorial of the fact that my (US) Government is fighting a war in Syria without the consent of the Syrian government, in support of "Syrian rebels" who are partially if not mostly non-Syrians, and in blatant violation of the collective security provisions of the UN Charter (which as a US treaty is under our Constitution "the Supreme Law of the Land")? Perhaps as a Korean War veteran -- who (like all US veterans) took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" -- I am somewhat old-fashioned, but just where along the way did our Government (and our press) cease examining whether our nation may be engaging in the "supreme war crime" (quoting Chief Nuremburg Prosecutor and Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson) of aggressive (non-defensive) war? As Mr. Justice Jackson remarked at Nuremburg, the concept of war crimes has no meaning if it does not apply to the victors and well as the vanquished.
2
1. If US troops leave at this crucial time, I believe we will witness a re-emerging ISIS, because the political & social atmosphere in Syria & Iraq didn’t change. In other words the elements that helped ISIS to exist are still there.
2. Assad won over the rebels, & what once was a revolution, transformed to a security threat to the world & an existential threat to the state of Syria, the people acknowledge this loss, but like 82 will never stop waiting 4 another chance for freedom. (Here i should note that people are terrified of future cleansing: victory brings revenge not peace).
3. Leaving the stage to the Iranians, will fuel GCC countries’ worries & embolden the IR National Guard
In the region (There is a serious concern over Bahrain & Kuwait) sectarian tension is over the record. The US is in someway a guarantor for the Arabs that Iran can’t do more to threaten their security.
In fact there are many good reasons for the US to keep its troops in Syria & most of them is not related to the Syrian war itself. The US alliances & its state as a superpower manifest in many complex obligations & the troops in syria is just part of the picture.
Thx
Erdogan is no democrat and has made many mistakes in Syria; however, it is understandable why the Turks are outraged by the Americans' support for Syrian Kurds who present a direct challenge to Turkey's security and territorial integrity.
Until 2014 the Americans were acknowledging the links between the outlawed PKK (designated as a terrorist organization by Turkey, EU, and US) and the Syrian Kurdish factions. In 2014, Americans decided to use the Syrian Kurds as their foot soldiers and started training them as well as supplying heavy weaponry. And now Tillerson is saying the Americans will create an army out of those Kurdish factions in Syria. In other words the Americans are overtly and openly training and arming with heavy weaponry an organization that commits terrorists acts inside Turkey, attacks Turkish security forces, and through the PKK directly threatens Turkey's territorial integrity.
It seems to be a conscious decision by the Americans to be on a collision course with a fellow NATO "ally". Americans and Israelis (which was the only country openly supporting Iraqi Kurds' misguided independence referandum in September) have long had a strategic interest in creating a Kurdish state in the middle east, taking parts of Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and even possibly Iran. NATO has become obsolete and Turkey's importance as a buffer between the West and Soviet Union is no more. US and Turkey have diametrically opposed interests in Syria (and also in Iraq).
Well, Russia supports PKK directly, and Turkey still buys AA guns from them. The USSR even helped creatr PKK.
Iran is close to Syria, Assad is its client, and Iran's influence cannot be curbed by the U.S. with paltry local allies and negligible direct involvement. America's reach is well short of its regional goals, a mismatch guaranteed to produce humiliation and retreat.
"As of last month, there were about 2,000 American troops in Syria — up from 500 a year ago"
This statement is inaccurate. The only difference between 2,000 and 500 is in how short term rotations are counted.
There was no Trump surge in Syria, as implied above. The US configuration was in place during the Obama Administration and steadily ground away at ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and Iraqis and Syrians did the actual fighting and dying.
The article also fails to mention Russia, which is allied with Assad and Iran in controlling Syria. In spite of Trump's rationalizations for cozying up to Russia, US and Russian efforts in Syria are anything but cooperative or stable and may embroil Israel, Turkey and Lebanon.
If you wonder how the US ended up with 800 bases in 70 countries, this is how it happens.
If you wonder how the US military spends $639 billion a year, more than the next 9 nations combined, this is how it works. (there is also $79 billion for veterans, much deserved)
And then we hear Trump tell us our military is degraded and starved of funds, troops and nuclear capacity.
Global threats are real but the US seems to be following the pattern of the British Empire, which didn't end well.
As for global terrorism, Europe is closer and more entangled with the hot spots of the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.
Calls by Obama and Trump for a more effective NATO organization are very appropriate, though not measured by spending alone.
21
With the complexity of the Syrian civil war with many combatants involved and the fact that troops are still within Iraq and Afghanistan, the US’s focus to stabilize Syria, rather than focus all resources on ISIS, through the creation of a cease-fire between the Syrian government and rebels. Although ISIS can still be difficult to combat as all armies that use guerrilla tactics tend to be, ISIS’s influence has been diminished with the loss of “98%” of their territory. Thus, there should be a focus to rebuild in a certain region to counter any future power vacuums for any radical group, whether former enemy such as Al Qaeda or current ally such as the Kurds, from gaining power and causing international tensions. Such a power vacuum that could form again would be the civil war between Al-Assad and the Syrian rebels where another third party could take advantage of the situation and claim territory for itself when both factions are weakened. To keep territory under the control of Syrians rather than foreign powers, both the rebels and government should focus on defending the territory they have, with the common goal of keeping the territory inside Syria’s borders Syrian. Despite working with a dictator, the US would weaken ISIS’s influence, keep local factions with resources intact to help with nation-rebuilding, and have more time to work with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other involved parties to focus on rebuilding rather than continue the destruction.
4
And Trump talks about war with North Korea and Venezuela, of all places. It looks like we're going all over the world if Trump gets his way. The sun will never set on American wars.
87
Dear Linda,
Since WWII, the sun hasn't set on American wars, really. Trump won't end that streak, but it will end. Either America will stop feeling the need to go to war abroad, or America will end.
3
"Mr. Tillerson called for more diplomacy" while, simultaneously, overseeing the decimation of the diplomatic corps, refusing to fill top diplomatic posts and making the 2,000+ military presence permanent. He might as well have called for more "irony".
140
You forgot to mention the war in Yemen, which US is actively engaged in.
3
I wonder whom Rex thinks should replace Assad ? The government shuts down and the Dotard golfs ! Yes this is a chaotic government .. no knowledge of anything ..
1