The 'adults' in the White House aren't getting us out of wars. They're keeping us in them.
Why won't Trump's military advisers let him leave Syria?
This week President Trump reiterated his desire to see American troops exit Syria. Will his civilian and military advisers ever let him?
"I want to get out. I want to bring our troops back home. I want to start rebuilding our nation," Trump told reporters, echoing his "America First" rhetoric from the campaign trail. This came shortly after the president interrupted an "Infrastructure Week" speech to unexpectedly announce, "We're coming out of Syria very soon."
But from the Pentagon to the White House, much of the rest of our government insists those troops are staying in Syria for the foreseeable future. In November, officials vowed American forces would remain past the apparent defeat of ISIS. By February, that was modified to indefinitely and without congressional authorization.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders attempted Wednesday to square the circle between Trump's comments and the repeated statements from officials in the government he ostensibly leads. "The military mission to eradicate ISIS in Syria is coming to a rapid end, with ISIS being almost completely destroyed," she said in a statement. "The United States and our partners remain committed to eliminating the small ISIS presence in Syria that our forces have not already eradicated."
If that won't cut it, the United States is committed to staying in Syria to counter Iran. Or Russia and Turkey. Or whomever.
There is just one small problem: Did anyone ask the president's opinion? Trump was apparently "persuaded" by his national security team to keep Americans in Syria longer, even though he "wasn't thrilled about it, to say the least."
The adult supervision we are constantly reassured professional public servants provide to keep our inexperienced president in check may yet keep us out of wars and other catastrophes. So far, however, it does seem to be keeping us involved militarily in more places than Trump himself would prefer.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
"My original instinct was to pull out — and, historically, I like following my instincts. But all of my life, I've heard that decisions are much different when you sit behind the desk in the Oval Office," Trump said in announcing yet another increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Indeed, Trump's advisers convinced him not to just attack ISIS in Syria but also to launch strikes against the country's President Bashar al-Assad — a loathsome dictator who had used chemical weapons against his own people, but one of many competing murderous villains in the kind of conflict that seemed to cause Trump to swear off "regime change" on the campaign trail.
It's all to the good that Trump, a governing amateur with a thin grasp of his office's proper boundaries, appears to (reluctantly) take professional advice. Yet we seem to have allowed his numerous faults to blind us to the long-term downsides of rooting for appointees and bureaucrats to thwart the policy goals of the elected president they are employed to serve.
Whatever your views of the Electoral College versus the popular vote system, literally nobody elected any of the people contradicting Trump's Syria directives. Encouraging a climate in which a president is so easily overridden by his or her subordinates is at least as corrosive to democratic and constitutional norms as any of Trump's daily outrages — and certainly worse than most of his Twitter meltdowns.
Much of our political class also seems to be blundering into more hawkish positions than they would otherwise take concerning Syria, Afghanistan, Russia, and other trouble spots in the world simply as a reaction against Trump.
If this appeared likely to produce a successful foreign policy, it might be easier to justify. But what has staying in Afghanistan longer than the U.S. fought World War II accomplished that wasn't already achieved by George W. Bush's second term? What have our various nation-building exercises — or in the case of Libya, regime change without even bothering — really wrought?
In Syria we have a tiny force with much less ability to influence outcomes than other countries with much more at stake. We could easily get sucked into a civil war in which no side with a realistic chance of victory advances U.S. security interests or values, at the suggestion of people who have regularly been wrong about these matters.
Of course, that is where Trump has invited the mess in which he now finds himself. He has assembled a team that disagrees with his best foreign policy instincts and caters to his worst ones — bellicosity and a fear of looking weak — in order to preserve the status quo.
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
W. James Antle III is the politics editor of the Washington Examiner, the former editor of The American Conservative, and author of Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?.
-
The drive behind Germany's pro-Israel political consensus
Under the Radar Belief that Israel's security is a 'raison d'etre for the German republic' is under growing pressure
By The Week UK Published
-
'The House under GOP rule has become a hostile workplace'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By Harold Maass, The Week US Published
-
The Shohei Ohtani gambling scandal is about more than bad bets
In The Spotlight The firestorm surrounding one of baseball's biggest stars threatens to upend a generational legacy and professional sports at large
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Ukraine's unconventional approach to reconstruction
Under the radar Digitally savvy nation uses popular app to file compensation claims, access funds and rebuild destroyed homes
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Will Ukraine's leadership reset work?
Today's Big Question Zelenskyy hints at ousting of popular military chief, but risks backlash amid dwindling munitions, delayed funding and Russian bombardment
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Imran Khan sentenced to 10 years: how powerful is Pakistan's military?
Today's Big Question The country's armed forces ignore country's economic woes, control its institutions and, critics say, engineer election results
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
What is Iran's endgame?
Today's Big Question Tehran seeks to supplant US and Saudi Arabia as dominant power in Middle East while forcing Israel to end Gaza war
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Israel proposes two-month pause in Gaza war in exchange for all Hamas hostages
Speed Read Deal doesn't include an agreement to end war, but might be 'the only path that could lead to a ceasefire', said US officials
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Nato official warns of all-out war with Russia in next 20 years
Speed Read Civilians must prepare for life-changing conflict and mass mobilisation, says military chief
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
Rishi Sunak visits Kyiv to announce £2.5 billion in military support for Ukraine
Speed Read Surprise trip comes amid increased Russian bombardment and escalation of Middle East crisis
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
How Islamic State bombings in Iran could escalate regional war
The Explainer Terrorist group claims responsibility for deadly blasts on 'irredeemable foe' but Tehran likely to ramp up anti-US rhetoric
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published