National Post (National Edition)
U.S. TROOPS TO REMAIN IN SYRIA
Day after Trump says he wants to retreat
U.S. troops will remain in Syria for now to finish off ISIL, the White House said Wednesday, a day after Donald Trump said he wants to get out of the seven-year civil war and “bring the troops back home.”
The U.S. remains “committed” to defeating the small number of Islamic State fighters “not already eradicated,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement. However, Sanders said the mission “is coming to a rapid end” and that countries in the region must help ensure ISIL does not re-emerge in the future.
The statement offered no timetable for U.S. withdrawal of its 2,000 troops. It also didn’t suggest Trump has yielded in his opposition to staying in Syria to stabilize the country and counter the influence of Russia and Iran, allies of President Bashar Assad who has all but sealed victory in his war against rebel forces.
Trump has made public his desire to “get out” of Syria, even suggesting that Saudi Arabia should pay if they want the U.S. to remain involved.
On Tuesday, the president said the military mission is “close to 100 per cent” complete.
“I want to get out, I want to bring our troops back home. I want to start rebuilding our nation,” Trump said in a press conference. He added: “It’s time. We were very successful against (ISIL), we will be successful against anybody militarily. But sometimes it’s time to come back home.”
Trump said the U.S. had got “nothing except death and destruction” from the trillions of dollars it has spent in the Middle East in the past 17 years.
He also said his message to King Salman of Saudi Arabia on Monday was: “If you want us to stay, maybe you’re going to have to pay.”
Trump’s comments conflict with views of his top military advisers, some of whom spoke at a separate event in Washington on Tuesday about the need to stay in Iraq and Syria to finish off the militant group, which once controlled large swaths of territory in both countries.
Gen. Joseph Votel, the head of U.S. Central Command, made clear that he sees a continuing role in Syria, which has become a global battlefield beset by troops and militias backed by countries with different agendas, as well as Islamic State and al-Qaida.
“A lot of very good military progress was made over the last couple years,” Votel told the Washington conference on Tuesday. “But again, the hard part I think is in front of us, and that is stabilizing these areas, consolidating our gains, getting people back into their homes, addressing the longterm issues of reconstruction and other things that will have to be done.”
A complete U.S. withdrawal would be seen as a victory not just for Assad but for his allies. Russian President Vladimir Putin met his Turkish and Iranian counterparts in Ankara on Wednesday for their latest summit on Syria’s future. Russia and Iran have provided crucial support to Assad’s forces, while Turkey has backed the rebels seeking to overthrow him.
The anti-ISIL campaign, led by U.S.-backed local Arab and Kurdish militias, has been largely suspended since mid-February, after the Kurdish fighters left to defend the city of Afrin from a Turkish assault. With the operation in disarray and no clear stabilization plan, there is a risk a resurgent ISIL could take advantage of the vacuum.
“Largely speaking, the Russians and their Iranian partners are going to win,” said Cliff Kupchan, chairman of the Eurasia Group, a New York-based risk consultancy.
But “if the Americans aren’t in the east, the Iranians will be,” he said. And control of that oil-producing part of Syria gives the U.S. leverage to pursue other goals: pressing Moscow to insist on at least some power-sharing by Assad, and cultivating differences between Russia and Iran. “That logic, in a close call, will prevail over cut-and-run.”
While Russia is calling for American forces to withdraw, it hasn’t sought a complete break with the U.S. In Moscow’s preferred scenario, Assad would regain control of the whole of Syria; his rule would receive international assent through United Nations peace talks; and the wealthy West would chip in to finance reconstruction.