Both U.S. and foreign pundits are denouncing Trump’s Syria withdrawal decision as a catastrophe . It is most likely a bad decision, time will tell, but it is not a catastrophe. The departure of Secretary of Defense James Mattis points to the real catastrophe – the ascendance in the Trump national security team of those most aligned with his go-it-alone impulses. Their ascendance will affect U.S.-Turkish relations more than the long-desired yet abruptly announced withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria.
First, some terms need to be defined, and the carefully crafted letter of resignation must be kept in mind, for it reveals much from a close reading.
Within the U.S. national security community there are many points of view about how the U.S. should engage with others to enhance the security of the nation. In very broad terms, many are like Mattis or General David Petraeus (ret.) – coalition builders. They value allies and coalition partners for their particular contributions to collective security. They realise, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, that the only thing more difficult in fighting a war alongside many allies is fighting one without any.
The go-it-aloners like U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton and senior policy advisor Stephen Miller (who are not isolationists strictly speaking) see alliances and coalitions of the willing as constraining the freedom of action of the most powerful military and largest economic power in the world.
They are convinced that the United States can dispense with allies and coalition partners by using its economic power to induce or coerce other nations to follow the U.S. lead. They also eschew participation in multi-lateral institutions, which they realise, reduce U.S. leverage in a way that bilateral arrangements do not.
A struggle has been ongoing in the Trump White House between these two types. Mattis’ resignation letter clearly indicates that he, a coalition builder, has been supplanted by those more aligned with Trump’s go-it-alone impulses.
For two years, Mattis worked to keep the United States engaged with allies and partners to enhance U.S. national security. His departure heralds a time when Trump’s foreign relations impulses will enjoy freer expression. Make no mistake, Mattis saw value in alliances and partnerships because of their benefit to the United States, not because of some globalist vision of a borderless world with no regard for national sovereignty. He values coalitions of like-minded states because he knows collaboration in those coalitions enhances the security of his country. For him, coalition building in a dangerous world is a patriotic duty
Of course, most coalition builders assume that the United States should lead from the front, given U.S. worldwide security interests, economic resources, and military capabilities. Such an assumption of leadership does not, however, imply either disrespect for allies and partners or a willingness to have U.S. freedom of action constrained by those partners.
For example, President George H.W. Bush put together a coalition to include Arab states to liberate Kuwait. His decision to end the fighting before taking Baghdad was not evidence of constraint imposed by others, it was evidence of H.W. Bush’s leadership in determining that the coalition goal, liberating Kuwait, had been realised, and regime change would open a Pandora’s Box of unforeseeable consequences.
Trump has allowed U.S. forces to work with others against ISIS only as long as Trump saw threat from ISIS to the American homeland. Convinced as he is that the United States can secure its frontiers with travel restrictions, enhanced security technology, and physical barriers along U.S. borders , he no longer sees a need for the United States to remain in the fight against a threat to others. ISIS inspired attacks occurring in Europe (which Trump ascribes to the EU’s liberal refugee and migrant policies) are not a concern for him – let others protect themselves as the United States protects itself.
Unlike Bush, who understood the need to stand-up to naked aggression if one had the means to do so, Trump does not recognise that he sends a message of disdain and abandonment to allies and like-minded partners when he emphasises America First to such a degree that it becomes Only America. Authoritarian regime leaders in China, Iran, Russia, and increasingly Turkey, also hear that message.
President Trump in a cabinet meeting in October 2918. AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
Unlike Mattis, he misinterprets his patriotic duty to enhance the national security of the United States as rejecting coalition building as he fails to see the advantages that accrue from collaboration with other countries that share the liberal democratic and free market values on which American power rests.
Thus, with the threat from ISIS to the United States almost completely eliminated, Trump agrees with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to remove forces that he (Trump) has wanted to remove from the first day he took office. From his perspective, the troubles of others (ISIS inspired attacks in Europe and elsewhere) should be taken care of by others.
Trump does not see that staying engaged with like-minded partners to thoroughly eradicate the threat of ISIS, and thereby send a message of resolve against international terrorism to the whole world, enhances U.S. national security. He is wrong about that, but myopia on Syria and ISIS is less worrisome than the ascendancy of those who eschew coalition building for U.S. solitary action.
Turkey’s pliant press is touting Trump’s decision as a success for Erdoğan’s tactics of threatening speeches and anti-American rhetoric, portraying him as having bested Trump. To paraphrase Churchill again, after feasting comes the digestion – Erdoğan may find his invasion of or incursion into Kurdish-held northeast Syria not as easily accomplished as he claims it will be.
It would be out of character for Trump to have agreed to pull U.S. forces from Syria to placate Erdoğan without having received some promises in exchange. Whatever they might be, Trump will expect those promises to be fulfilled, as Erdoğan will soon learn if he does not deliver.
Unlike the compliant press and parliament in Turkey, U.S. media and Congress will not quietly accept Turkey’s pounding of erstwhile U.S. battlefield allies, the YPG/SDF. As seen in the Khashoggi murder case, the U.S. Congress may not be able to reverse Trump’s courses of action, but it certainly can bring to light many matters the administration would rather be kept in the dark. Turkish efforts to induce the extradition of U.S.-based Turkish preacher Fethullah Gülen outside normal channels, plans to purchase Russian S-400 missiles, non-compliance with sanctions against Iran are just three areas in which Congress can express its displeasure with Erdoğan’s actions
Finally, Mattis valued NATO Allies. Like the Special Representative for Syria Engagement , Ambassador Jim Jeffrey, he valued Turkey ’s membership in NATO and a close U.S.-Turkey relationship. With those who are more aligned with Trump’s impulse s to go it alone apparently in the ascendancy, Turkey may find fewer voices in the White House calling for toleration of Erdoğan’s ongoing anti-American rhetoric and hostility toward liberal democratic and free market values.
