The other month saw the Syrian conflict explode once again, with President Trump making the momentous decision to pull US troops out of Syria, abandoning Americas Kurdish allies and jeopardising the fight against the Islamic State. This move backfired spectacularly, with Turkey launching an offensive into Kurdistan and driving the Kurds right into the arms of Assad and the Russians. Trump’s move has been called irrational, and has been met by widespread condemnation, even from inside the Republican party. However, Trump’s decision is in line with long term American Middle Eastern grand strategy, and while it certainly was a bad move, Trump was most certainly acting rationally.
American long term strategy in the Middle East stems from the beginning of the Cold War. Superpower competition with the Sviet Union over global hegemony dictated that the US would compete for hegemony within the important strategic region of the Middle East. The US has long aimed to maintain and increase its influence to prevent another power from achieving regional hegemony. Truman was the first US President to realise this long term strategy. The Truman Doctrine saw the US use military and economic assistance to countries devastated by the Second World War to prevent the spread of Communism. This crucially involved backing the Turks during the Turkish Straits Crisis. Subsequent American presidents would endeavour to create anti-Soviet regional alliances (Nixon with Saudi Arabia and Iran) or would directly funnel money and supplies to anti-Soviet non-state forces in the region (Carter and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan). However, the end of the Cold War did not see a change in long term US grand strategy, but instead saw a continuation. The 1991 Gulf War saw the US build a regional coalition to contain the perceived threat in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Iraq was a perceived threat due to their army size and their hostile takeover of neighbouring Kuwait, and the US acted to ensure their hegemony over the Middle East continued.
The September 11 attacks in 2001 appeared to represent a fundamental shift in American engagement with the Middle East, but in terms of American grand strategy, there was no major change. Instead of communism and the Societ Union, Islamic Fundamentalism and state sponsors of anti-American terrorism needed to be contained. A ‘War on Communism’ shifted to a ‘War on Terror’. The Bush Jr Administation sought to destroy non-state organisations such as al-Qaeda and destroy state sponsors of terrorism (which was claimed to be Iraq). Iraq had shown a large potential to threaten American interests in the Middle East. The Iran-Iraq war of 1980, the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction and the continued support for terrorist organisations (not al-Qaeda) represented a very real potential threat.
To eliminate Iraq as a regional threat, the US first turned to regional powers, but there was no state willing to act against Iraq. Instead, Bush Jr turned to unilateral military intervention and invaded Iraq. The failure of the United Nations to control Saddam Hussein, as well as the fear that Iraq possessed both nuclear and chemical weapons of mass destruction that could be used against American forces essentially left the US with no choice. In essence, the suspicions and fear of a military powerful Iraq forced the US to rely on pre-emptive actions. Bush’s move was a radical mistake and resulted in years of asymmetrical warfare and led to the rise of even more terrorist organisations such as the Islamic State. Nevertheless this decision was rational and reflective of long term US grand strategy.
Why is this important? Because bad decisions and foreign policy can still be rational and reflective of long term foreign policy goals. The current president of the US, Donald Trump appears to act irrationally, especially with his policy towards the Middle East and his recent decision to pull troops out of Syria. However, this decision, despite backfiring dramatically, was a rational one and still represents a continuation in US Middle Eastern grand strategy. With the Russian allied Assad regime all but guaranteed victory, US interests are threatened by a solidified Russian presence in Syria, especially at its naval base at Tartus, and the previous US allies of the Kurds were not strong enough to push back against Assad. Attempts to use direct intervention through military air strikes in 2017 and 2018 failed and were met with international backlash. Instead, the Turkish backed Syrian rebels, who are hostile to the Kurds, represented the only chance to contain Russian influence. Trump’s decision to pull out would have allowed the US to support the Turkish backed Syrian rebels and allowed the Turks to dedicate more military force to the region, giving the Syrian rebels even more firepower.
However, as the world has seen, the Turks invaded Kurdistan immediately after the US pulled out, resulting in a huge diplomatic mess for America and a stronger Assad and Russia. Further, the Islamic State may have been rejuvenated with hundreds of ISIS fighters breaking out of Kurdish prisons in the chaos. Nevertheless, the move was in line with long term US engagement with the Middle East, it just backfired spectacularly. It remains to be seen if Trump fix this mess he has created, or if this has jeopardized American interests in the Middle East.
