The political smart set and mad-lib pundits would have Americans believe President Trump’s decision to remove troops from Syria proves he’s a threat to our security and sovereignty – because Defense Secretary Mattis resigned and Russian President Putin approved. Such a binary worldview is wrong: Jim Mattis isn’t always right, just as Vladimir Putin isn’t always wrong. The Middle East requires more circumspection. Ever since the 1973 OPEC oil embargo, it is increasingly obvious Arabs and Muslims have complicated our national security.
Keep the Mattis resignation in perspective. The discussion to withdraw 2,000 troops from Syria on Tuesday included President Trump, Secretary of State Pompeo, National Security Advisor Bolton, Joint Chiefs Head Dunford and Mattis. It appears Jim Mattis resigned because his advice was not heeded. Apparently, after Trump’s decisions about joint military exercises in South Korea, transgender service members, and sending troops to the southern border, the defense secretary could not work with this president.
My admiration of Mattis is genuine, but he was not elected by we the people. In fact, I believe the founding fathers were wise to place a civilian atop the military, because a Trump error is preferable to rule by junta. Perhaps it is time to re-consider Senator Paul (R-KY), who has long opposed military intervention in the Middle East. His argument is simple: don’t listen to generals who have fought the wars of the last seventeen years. I cannot predict the consequences of Trump’s decision, but he did include two generals and two experienced advisors in the discussion.
I am at a loss over the mad-lib obsession with Vladimir Putin, when there are more pressing matters of national security. Add some nuance to the Russian threat, beginning with an anemic economy the size of South Korea’s (source: IMF). Furthermore, Trump has been crystal clear that, as a matter of national security, Russia comes after the southern border, China, North Korea and Iran.
Mattis did not share Trump’s belief that Putin is a European problem. Even though Trump has been critical of Russian transgressions, he is not willing to go to war over Crimea or the Ukraine. Rather, Trump wants Putin to bring stability to the war against ISIL. In turn, Putin wants to preserve a naval base in Tartus, prop up a friendly Assad regime, and fight Islamic jihadists (a war that goes back to 1970s Afghanistan).
Trump slammed Obama for telegraphing his moves; therefore, suddenly removing 2,000 troops from Syria is consistent with Trump doctrine. Even the mainstream media agrees ISIL is in shambles, suggesting now is the time to reduce US military in the Middle East. Therefore, I challenge interpretation of this decision as an irresponsible act. I still support the war on terror, but I see few demonstrable benefits after seventeen years of war and $6 trillion spent on the Middle East (source: Brown University’s Watson Institute). In other words, the USA should re-think its Middle East strategy.
Since 1979, American investment in Persia launched a state sponsor of anti-American terrorism, US support of an Iraqi dictator launched an oil-grab in Kuwait, and Trump befriended a Saudi prince who sanctioned a barbaric assassination of a Washington Post journalist. When George C. Marshall advised President Truman to stay the h*ll out of the Middle East, he argued that Islam was incompatible with advanced civilization and predicted tribalism would make alliances too unpredictable. His advice was clearly prescient.
Trump’s decision could be wrong. After all, he is a civilian commander in chief. What is wrong here is two-faced condemnation by Washington’s smart set that shares one core belief: Trump is the root problem of all the world’s problems. The same anti-war liberals, who applauded troop removals from Vietnam and Kuwait, have flip-flopped. Because Jim Mattis was “the only adult” around Trump, 2,000 troops must be essential to national security.
Establishment hawks have refused to admit the Middle East is a bipartisan widow maker akin to the Vietnam War. The Graham and Bush campaigns argued for Syrian intervention, and Clinton’s campaign argued for Assad’s removal; all to no avail. Sanders (left) and Trump (right) supporters, a majority of the electorate, wanted out of the Middle East. In contrast, Washington has produced little but hot air.
Republican hawks (like John McCain) blamed failure on a lack of skill: citing President Obama’s $500-million plan to train 5,000 Iraqi rebels that would fight ISIL – a 2015 program that only produced five soldiers. Democrat doves (like Bernie Sanders) wanted to divert defense dollars to single-payer healthcare. Libertarians (like Rand Paul) wanted to divert defense dollars to pay down the national debt. Lost in Washington’s kerfuffle have been the human consequences.
Venture into red-county America to see households in forgotten communities that provide a disproportionate share of today’s US military. Because gainful employment no longer awaits high school graduates in post-industrial small towns, and under-employed parents cannot afford college tuition, the best life option is enlistment and a GI-bill college education.
Unfortunately, these forgotten households often welcome wounded or opioid-addicted children back home. To these families and their friends, Mattis and his national-security concepts (“credibility with our allies” and “emboldening our adversaries”) are what they have read about in the newspaper, but Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom are what they experienced up close and personal.
This is Hillbilly Elegy America, where it is not reckless for a president to curtail a military expedition that has cost 6,954 American lives, returned 52,679 wounded warriors, created 68,000 opioid addicts, and spent $353 billion annually (source: Department of Defense). I’ll agree with CNN that President Trump is not the military equal of Jim Mattis, if they report truthfully on the man who has the forgotten American’s back.