In early October, President Trump made what seemed to most an abrupt decision to withdraw 50 U.S. troops from northern Syria. About 1,000 United States soldiers had been in the area since 2014 fighting against ISIS with the help of the Kurds, who ran terrorist detention centers with the backing of U.S. troops. The prisons held over 10,000 men, and the Kurds also operated camps holding about 70,000 family members displaced by the conflicts. The Kurds served as staunch U.S. allies in containing the terrorists, and the presence of U.S. troops proved beneficial to the Kurds’ safety.
The Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world lacking their own state. They primarily reside in southeastern Turkey, northwestern Iran, northern Iraq, and northern Syria. Turkey, bordering where many of the Kurds reside, perceive them as an enemy and even label them as “terrorists.” Despite the animosity between Turkey and the Kurds, the United States allied with the Kurds to fight extremists, even though Turkey is a fellow NATO member. The U.S. presence in Syria prevented the Turks from entering Syria for quite some time. Balancing relations between the two groups has been quite difficult. A few months ago, the United States persuaded the Syrian Kurds to get rid of defenses and soldiers on Turkey’s border in order to appease the Turks.
Turkey hosts about 3.5 million Syrian refugees who fled there around 2013 as a result of the Syrian Civil War. After a call with President Erdogan of Turkey, President Trump called for the withdrawal of troops from the region, claiming that he was fulfilling his campaign promise to end what he perceived to be endless wars. This reasoning, however, is questionable since the troops did not come back to the United States; rather, they were moved to Iraq. The war was not ended––it was simply moved.
Erdogan was being pressured to solve the refugee crisis, so he decided the best way to solve it was to create a safe zone. He resolved to create a 20-mile safe zone to which the refugees could start returning. This safe zone was to be established in the area that the Kurds occupied, so once President Trump declared that the U.S. would leave the area, they were left in a very vulnerable position––especially after they had been convinced by U.S. to essentially disarm the border. The Kurds felt blindsided by U.S. abandonment and feared for their lives. Vice President Mike Pence was able to negotiate a five-day cease-fire with Erdogan for the Kurds to retreat. Over 150,000 had to flee their homes, and it is estimated that hundreds have died. As a result of the sudden threat to their lives, the Kurds had no choice but to abandon the Islamic State prisons they had been guarding.
President Trump faced fierce bipartisan criticism following his decision to withdraw from the region, with some accusing him of enabling genocide by allowing Turkish military action. About 100 detainees are estimated to have escaped by now––a result that seems averse to ending a war. After all, Al Qaeda prisoners who escaped Iraqi prisons created ISIS. The escaped prisoners in Syria could face a similar outcome if history repeats itself. Trump made sure to take the worst of the detainees out of the prisons in order to ensure they would not escape. This action seems to show that he anticipated prisoners would be able to escape following U.S. withdrawal, which begs the question of why he would do something that could result in such dangerous consequences.
The only possible reason I can think of for why he would betray the Kurds and tarnish the U.S.’s reputation––for being reliable to its allies, that is––is that President Trump was trying to get into President Erdogan’s good graces. Regardless, it’s unfavorable for any president to follow actions that will knowingly permit terrorists to escape from Syrian prisons. And after long-held support and alliance with the Kurds, abandoning our allies in a time of need certainly reflects poorly on our nation as well as on our alliances going forward. The United States left the region knowing that there would be serious repercussions against the Kurds. This seriously undermines our legitimacy as an international force.
This less active role in foreign affairs does not coincide with Trump’s typical active role in the world. By sitting back and simply letting things occur, Trump is not staying consistent with his generally hawkish foreign policy approach. There are two primary approaches to international relations. One is active and plays a diligent role in affairs––which is what the United States typically does––and the other basically lets things happen passively and acts accordingly. President Trump claims that being thousands of miles away from the occurrences prevents the U.S. from being primarily responsible for some of the fallout from the withdrawal. However, this line of thought conflicts with the United States’ common approach, and being far away from the origins and planning of terrorist groups has never stopped the U.S. from acting before. Trump taking an inactive role is inconsistent with the attitude the United States takes and with much of his own foreign policy approach. By taking an inactive role, the U.S. also risks the Kurds allying with unfavorable people such as the Russians and the Assad regime.
Withdrawing from Syria of all places also seems quite sudden. The Kurds have consistently and adequately helped the United States in fighting the Islamic States, and to turn against a reliable ally seems unwise. And to withdraw from what was one of the better-functioning and less aggressive areas containing Islamic terrorism can hardly be looked at as fulfilling a campaign promise; I doubt this is what anyone had in mind.
There must be some incentive for President Trump to side with Turkey, who seems like an otherwise risky ally. President Erdogan is unpredictable and is not someone who can be trusted. Last January, after his first official meeting with President Trump, Erdogan returned to the Turkish ambassador’s residence in D.C. People were protesting Erdogan and his regime, so he ordered his guards to attack them––on U.S. soil, nonetheless. This does not seem like something a friend of the United States would do. President Trump failed to acknowledge the incident, taking what was an unusual silent stance for him. There must be some reason why he is careful not to upset Erdogan. Perhaps it has something to do with trade, as Turkey and the United States are consistent trading partners.
Nevertheless, abandoning one ally for the sake of appeasing another seems to be poor foreign policy on President Trump’s part. Siding with those who act hostile and adverse to the United States and its values reflects poorly upon the U.S. Abandoning the Kurds, who have been reliable U.S. allies for a regime that remains obstinate, further undermines the U.S. as a trustworthy global power. Jeopardizing America’s reputation among allies is a dangerous move and may prove to be a mistake. To cause something like this to happen, Erdogan must have something that President Trump wants; otherwise, it seems completely nonsensical to make such a large statement by deserting an area that required little attention.