Trump vs. Trump administration

The following is an excerpt from an editorial in the New York Times:

It was less than three months ago that John Bolton, the national security adviser, declared an expanded objective for U.S. troops in Syria.

The goal is not just defeating the Islamic State but also ensuring that Iranian forces leave the country, he told reporters. Only, as is so often the case with Donald Trump’s chaotic presidency, it apparently wasn’t. On Wednesday, Trump summarily overruled Bolton and the rest of his national security team. He ordered the withdrawal of all 2,000 U.S. ground troops from Syria within 30 days. That abrupt and dangerous decision, detached from any broader strategic context or any public rationale, sowed new uncertainty about America’s commitment to the Middle East, its willingness to be a global leader and Trump’s role as com- mander in chief.

Sending conflicting orders to soldiers on the battlefield, as Trump and his administration are doing, not only hampers morale and undermines allied forces like the Syrian Kurds but also risks getting U.S. soldiers killed or wounded for objectives their commanders had already abandoned.

No one wants U.S. troops deployed in a war zone longer than necessary. But there is no indication that Trump has thought through the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal.

It’s hard not to wonder whether Trump is once again announcing a dramatic step as a way of deflecting attention from bad news, in this case a torrent of legal judgements tightening the legal noose around him. That would be the worst rationale for a commander in chief sworn to protect the nation and honour the men and women who serve in uniform.