In a perverse way it was a fitting end to another year of Donald Trump.
A decision seemingly out of the blue that no doubt had them cheering in Ankara, Tehran and certainly Moscow, but left them jeering on Capitol Hill.
“We’ve won,” announced Mr Trump in a video statement speaking about his decision to withdraw US troops from Syria, insisting that the jihadists of the Islamic State (IS) group had been defeated and no longer posed a threat.
It was all very reminiscent of that previous “mission accomplished” claim by former US president George W Bush in the wake of the war in Iraq, except that in Mr Trump’s case it was not delivered from the deck of an aircraft carrier. Mr Trump, after all, has never been in a conflict zone.
Add to this Mr Trump’s decision to drawdown troops from Afghanistan and the scene is set for a resurgence of Islamist inspired terror.
Those who have had combat experience, among them his Defence Secretary Jim Mattis, a former US Marine Corps general, saw Mr Trump’s decision for the reckless strategic blunder that it is and duly resigned.
To say that the events of the last few days will have profound repercussions in the Middle East and beyond would be a gross understatement. On that fact alone, military and intelligence analysts, diplomats, and even some of Mr Trump’s staunchest Republican allies, are near unanimous.
All know that the US withdrawal from Syria effectively hands IS a get-out-of-jail card while simultaneously giving Turkey, Iran and Russian greater leverage in Syria.
Putting aside the issue of whether US troops belong in Syria in the first place, the military realpolitik of the situation necessitates their presence if IS are to be contained and the regional ambitions of other players not given free rein.
That said we are where we are and two pressing questions are now worth considering. The first regards the crucial aspect of the timing of Mr Trump’s decision. The second is just who stands to gain or lose from the US withdrawal?
To take the question of timing first, there are two considerations here.
The first is that right now, at home, Donald Trump faces unprecedented pressure as US Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe to uncover any ties between Russia and the Trump presidential campaign begins to dig deep.
Who knows then what deals Mr Trump might have made with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to help protect himself in exchange for allowing the Russians more breathing space in Syria.
The president too is under a cascade of other legal investigations and, true to form, Mr Trump has again timed his grand gesture move to act as a headline distraction.
What better way to do this than giving the American people the early Christmas present of “bringing our boys and girls home”.
There is, though, another aspect to this question of timing, especially when viewed from a strategic perspective on the ground in both Syria and Afghanistan.
In this respect Mr Trump’s timing of the troop pullout could not be worse. Which brings us to the second question of who stands to gain or lose in Syria?
The obvious winners here are the jihadists of IS. Only a few weeks ago in The Herald, I outlined how in both Syria and Iraq IS fighters are making a comeback.
Right now it’s not their numbers that are of concern, though estimates say there are still as many as 20,000 to 30,000 operational. Rather, it’s the way they have returned to their insurgent roots and re-emerged as a guerrilla force carrying out a rising number of kidnappings, killings and bombings.
Indeed it was the US Department of Defence own report that recently detailed how an “effective, clandestine IS organisation appears to be taking hold,” with counterterrorism officials speaking of an “atomised, clandestine network of cells with a decentralised chain of command.”
The same goes for Afghanistan where IS now have a stronger foothold than ever alongside their Islamist counterparts the Taliban.
But if the jihadists stand to gain from the US troop departure so too to do major power players.
The benefits for Russia are obvious, with Moscow now having unfettered access free from a US military presence.
Likewise Iran’s support of the Damascus regime through the Lebanon based Shi’a Islamist political party and militant group Hezbollah will no longer have Washington breathing down its neck to the same degree.
But by far in regional terms it is Turkey that that will feel most released from US oversight. It’s now almost certain that Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan will send the country’s military into northeast Syria to target America’s Kurdish allies the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
While the US has seen the SDF as valued partners in the fight against IS, Turkey considers them to be a component element of a Kurdish group that has launched terror attacks inside Turkey for decades.
Earlier this year while in northern Syria I saw for myself how the US military presence there has served as a buffer against Turkey and the Kurds along the border and in the city of Manbij.
Which brings us in turn to the ultimate potential losers from Mr Trump’s decision – the Kurds. Yes those same “incredible fighters” and “great people,” that the US president heaped praise on at the Nato summit earlier this year look likely yet again to be left to their own fate. Prey to IS or Turkish forces.
All of which will only make it harder in the future when Washington goes back in search of allies to sort out new crises in the region, as it will almost inevitably have to do.
On the face of it pulling US troops out of Syria might not seem like such a bad thing and the US president no doubt hoped it would be seen that way, even if the reality is very different.
“Trump is very capable of doing intelligent things in very stupid ways,” said Ian Bremmer, of the strategic analysts Eurasia Group.
How true that is. While the president might be bringing US troops home, he is almost certainly unleashing other new dogs of war, over which he has no control.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel