T. Belman. The US can’t have it both ways. The more she gets out of the ME, the less influence she will have. The more she stays in the ME, the more influence she will have.
By David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt, NYT
The agreement, announced by Vice President Mike Pence, may stop the killing in the Kurdish enclave in northern Syria. But the cost to American influence is expected to be high.
WASHINGTON — The cease-fire agreement reached with Turkey by Vice President Mike Pence amounts to a near-total victory for Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who gains territory, pays little in penalties and appears to have outmaneuvered President Trump.
The best that can be said for the agreement is that it may stop the killing in the Kurdish enclave in northern Syria. But the cost for Kurds, longtime American allies in the fight against the Islamic State, is severe: Even Pentagon officials were mystified about where tens of thousands of displaced Kurds would go, as they moved south from the Turkey-Syria border as required by the deal — if they agree to go at all.
And the cost to American influence, while hard to quantify, could be frightfully high.
In the 11 days between Mr. Trump’s fateful phone call with Mr. Erdogan and the trip to Ankara by Mr. Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Thursday, the United States has ceded ground in Syria — including American bases — to the Russian-backed Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad. And it has shaken the faith of American allies that, in a time of stress, Washington will have their back.
“This just looks like a complete cave-in by the United States to everything the Turks demanded,” said Eric S. Edelman, a former ambassador to Turkey and a senior Defense Department official in the George W. Bush administration. “I don’t see what the Turks gave up.”
In fact, if the sanctions imposed against Turkey by the Trump administration are lifted, as Mr. Pence said they now would be, the Turkish leader would pay a far lower price than Russia did for its annexation of Crimea in 2014. The sanctions imposed on Moscow then are still in place.
But there are other winners in addition to Mr. Erdogan, who has routed the Kurdish groups he views as terrorists who were living in an American protectorate.
Chief among them is President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who gains vast influence in a strategic corner of the Middle East where, until 2015, he had almost none. Now, he is a player, and already is filling the territorial and political vacuum that Mr. Trump left after he agreed to get out of the way of the Turkish invasion of Syria, which a small contingent of American Special Operations forces were there to prevent by their very presence.
Iran was also a winner. It has long used Syria as a route to send missiles to Hezbollah and flex its muscles across the region. That, in many ways, is the most perplexing part of the president’s decision to withdraw, because it runs so counter to his “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran’s clerical leaders and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
And Mr. Assad, who was barely clinging to power after the Arab Spring in 2011, and whose military facilities Mr. Trump bombed in the opening months of his presidency in 2017, has a new lease on life. The Americans are gone from the one corner of his country they once occupied.
Mr. Trump has a different view — no surprise, given the bipartisan critique of his failure to stop Mr. Erdogan during their phone conversation, or threaten sanctions before the invasion, rather than after the facts had changed on the ground.
“I’m happy to report tremendous success with respect to Turkey,” Mr. Trump told reporters after his vice president and secretary of state announced the deal. “This is an amazing outcome. This is an outcome, regardless of how the press would like to damp it down, this was something they were trying to get for 10 years.”
Mr. Trump’s joy may reflect a very different worldview than that of his military, his diplomats or the Republican leaders who say he has damaged America’s reputation and influence. While his party, and Democrats, accused him of betraying allies and aiding Russia, Mr. Trump insisted he was simply making good on a campaign promise to bring troops home from “endless wars.”
On Wednesday, as Mr. Pence and Mr. Pompeo were flying to Ankara, Speaker Nancy Pelosi was challenging the president on whether there was any strategic logic to his withdrawal from Syria — especially if it resulted in freeing detained ISIS fighters who might now attack in the region or on the United States.
On Thursday, recounting her heated discussion with the president at the White House the previous day, she said she asked him how his strategy fit with his announcement last Friday that nearly 3,000 more troops were being deployed to Saudi Arabia. The president responded that the Saudis were paying the cost of that deployment — suggesting that Mr. Trump was happy to commit troops to the highest bidder among American allies, rather than make an independent judgment about their strategic importance.
Republicans also challenged the agreement reached in Ankara.
“The announcement today is being portrayed as a victory. It is far from a victory,” Senator Mitt Romney, Republican of Utah, said on the Senate floor Thursday. “Given the initial details of the cease-fire agreement, the administration must also explain what America’s future role will be in the region, what happens now to the Kurds and why Turkey will face no apparent consequences.”
And Mr. Romney noted, “The cease-fire does not change the fact that America has abandoned an ally.”
At the Pentagon on Thursday afternoon, senior officials scrambled to understand how they were supposed to carry out the agreement Mr. Pence and Mr. Erdogan had negotiated.
Several civilian and military officials complained that the broadly worded deal left large policy and logistical gaps to fill, with many questions about how to carry out commitments by the two sides that appeared to contradict the fast-moving situation on the ground.
With the withdrawal of about 1,000 Americans already underway, the officials asked, how would those departing forces conduct counterterrorism operations with the Turkish military, as Mr. Pence insisted they would? Would the Syrian Kurds fully comply with a pullback agreement they had little say in drafting, and in which they were the clear losers?
Their questions did not stop there. How large and how deep is the buffer area inside Syria that was supposed to give Turkey a safe zone between its border and the Kurdish fighters? The original safe zone that the United States and Turkey envisioned was 75 miles long and roughly 20 miles deep. But it was upended by Mr. Trump’s acquiescence to the invasion, and now Turkish forces have pushed beyond that.
And what about Mr. Assad’s forces and their Russian allies — to whom the abandoned Syrian Kurds reached out to after the American abandoned them?
It also remains unknown whether Turkey will be required to withdraw all or some of its forces sent across a sovereign border into Syria. (One official said a reason Turkey agreed to the deal on Thursday is because the Kurds have put up more resistance, and Turkish forces could not advance south any farther as a result.)
Several Pentagon and State Department officials and military officers who have worked on Syria policy or deployed to the country’s northwest expressed shock, outrage and disbelief at the administration’s second major capitulation to Mr. Erdogan in less than two weeks.
These officials said Mr. Erdogan was the big winner, and appeared to have gotten everything he wanted.
Military officials said they were stunned that the agreement essentially allowed Turkey to annex a portion of Syria, displace tens of thousands of Kurdish residents and wipe away years of counterterrorism gains against the Islamic State.
David E. Sanger is a national security correspondent. In a 36-year reporting career for The Times, he has been on three teams that have won Pulitzer Prizes, most recently in 2017 for international reporting. His newest book is “The Perfect Weapon: War, Sabotage and Fear in the Cyber Age.” @SangerNYT • Facebook
Eric Schmitt is a senior writer who has traveled the world covering terrorism and national security. He was also the Pentagon correspondent. A member of the Times staff since 1983, he has shared three Pulitzer Prizes. @EricSchmittNYT
Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) is made up of Assyrian Christians, Moderate Sunni Muslim Fighters, Kurds including the People’s Protection Forces (YPG) were the USA allies against ISIS who lost 11,000 fighters.
These people started and ran an independent autonomous zone for Kurds the last six (6) years in Syria. Turkey supported Islamist fighters who are completely like ISIS in belief and brutal nature. Turkey helped ISIS fighters from around the world get to Syria and did business with them buying their oil. They also allowed them save havens inside of Turkey from which to recruit. Since they are similar to Turkey Islamist and Sunni.
Turkey wants no autonomous areas of Kurds as it has been trying to destroy any Independence of Kurds inside Turkey or out for countless decades. The Turks call the YPG terrorists which objectively is complete false. They say they are PKK which is false. The YPG does not operate with the PKK nor are they organized together. The YPG are not communists but as fellow Kurds have similar outlook on the brutal and barbaric acts of Turkey towards the Kurds.
All of a sudden the YPG are bad guys since the USA decided they had no more need for them and walked away from providing them air cover against the Turks or anyone else. They were the SDF on the day before the USA decided they had no more need for them and YPG on the day after. Defining the YPG as per the Turks command as terrorists.
It is amazing how ignorant and gullible some people are when fed propaganda and not even aware it is the propaganda of Islamist Turkey and their dictator Erodgan.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
I will read the Front Page article as you suggest, Sebastien. I think that the characterization of them as terrorists is unfair because they have rarely if ever targeted civilians. They have targeted the Turkish military and paramilitary police forces. But I think that they have some grounds for considering them as combatants in the war against the Kurds. Certainly both the Turkish military and police have targeted Kurds, in fact driving them out of an area the size of New England, according to a New York Times article several years ago.
But I don’t claim to know the whole story.
@ Adam Dalgliesh@yahoo.com:
You’ve read the articles to the contrary by Front Page Mag, Caroline Glick and others, published here. Why do you believe that the YPG and PKK don’t deserve their State Dept. terrorist designations?
@ Sebastien Zorn: True, Sebastien. Let’s not forget that.
I don’t think Trmp was in the wrong to pull U.S. troops out of Syria. Contrary to what many analysts say, I don’t think there were enough U.S. troops there to have much of an impact, if as appears to be the case from what many “experts” on Turkish politics say, Erdogan was absolutely determined to invade regardless of what the U.S. did. Erdogan did make barely veiled threats to bomb U.S. positions if Trump didn’t remove them from the path of the Turkish invaders. And he revealed to the Turkish press the exact locations of all U.S. troops in Syria.
I am more critical of Trump’s pro-Turkish and anti-Kurdish remarks after he had announced the withdrawal of the troops. Possibly, he was relying on thins that Erdogan told him. Erdogan can be charming and persuasive when he chooses to be. Couldn’t have risen to power and remained in power so long otherwise.
But he was also, I think, relying heavily on information and advice from his American advisors–both those he had appointed, such as Mark Esper and the new chairman of the joint chiefs (named Vinney? Or something like that) as well as the permanent civil service people at DoD, State Dept and the CIA, who undoubtedly advise Trump’s appointees.
Esper and Vinney made it very clear in a series of interviews they have given that they think the PKK is a terrorist organization (it is apparently on the USG’s official list of terrorist organizations, although I think this is unfair and untrue). They also undoubtedly told him that, as reported in many press sources, the Syrian Kurds are aligned with the supposedly terrorist PKK, and that both are “Marist-Leninist” organizations alligned with the Turkish and Syrian Communist parties. That would certainly have prejudiced Trump against the Kurds, because he has always been a staunch anti-Communist.
Trump has never pretended to be a Middle East ‘expert” himself. He is well informed about Israel and the security threats it faces. But I don’ think he knows all that much about the other Middle East conflicts, which are incredibly complex and involve constantly shifting alliances. What the great English political philosoper Thomas Hobbes called the ‘universal war of all against all.) It was natural, then, for him to follow the advice of people in his own government who are, or claim to be, experts about these matters.
In a series of interviews with the press,Esper has made it clear that he and many others in the Department of Defense consider it an American security interest for the U.S. to maintain its alliance with Turkey, a NATO member. He expressed reservations about the propriety of thethe U.S. siding with the Kurds, with whom the U.S. has no formal treaty of alliance, against a fellow NATO member.
Esper also pointed out that he had ‘jaw-boned Erdogan not to invade for four days before Erdogan sent his army accross the border. He claims that several American generals talked to their Turkish counterpoarts over this same period and urged them not to go forward with the invasion. Esper implied that when all this jaw-boning of the Turks failed to dissuade Erdogan from going through with his aggressive plans, they (the Pentagon people) advised Trump that he had no choice but to remove the U.s. troops from the invasion path and give Erdogan the “green light” had been demanding for over a year.
I think that T rump should have left U.S. sanctions on Turkey that he had imposed a few days in place when the Turks invaed Syria. And he should have continued these sanctions, especially the cut-off of military aid and arms shipments to the Turkish Ministry of Defense. But I also believe that Esper and all of the senior Pentagon generals and civilian officials, advised him to tread softly with the Turks, and he decided it was both in the national interest and his personal interest to accept their advice.
@ Adam Dalgliesh:
He threatened the Turks with sanctions.
@ Laura: I am certain that Washington would not approve of our long-term alliance with Turkey, which has continues for decades after it had any possible use to the United States. And while he was open to temporary, pragmatic alliances with countries in which there was some degree of the rule of law, governmental power dispersed among many people rather than dictatorship of one man,,and some popular representation in the government (countries like England and France,), it is diffiicult to imagine him condoning an alliance with a brutal tyrant like Erdogan. Erdogan.
He might have supported a temporary alliance with the Kurds as a means of defeating Erdogan and perhaps Assad. But I don’t think he would have supported a permanent alliance with the Kurds, although he would have been sympathetic to their plight. He clearly believed that there were limits to U.S. power overseas, and that we should concentrate on developing outr own continent and its vast resources.
I think that it still a valid policy today. It is clear that the age of an American “Empire” is over. I disagree strongly with Trump’s criticism of the Kurds, and his expression of sympathy for the Turks. But I agree with him that it is no longer feasible for the U.S to be the “international policeman” and unilaterally guarantee the security and independence of the Kurdish people, or any other foreign people . Trump’s request that the Europeans must “step up to the plate” and join the U.S. in peacekeeping efforts in Syria and elsewhere is legitimate. He is right that the Europeans are not doing their share.
@ Laura: @ Sebastien Zorn
Comparing the fledgling USA or the world of George Washington’s time to power it is now is not relevant in my mind.
If the USA vacates its power in the world the void will be filled only by potential enemies such or actual enemies such as Iran and Russia.
The USA then becomes vulnerable to being attacked by these enemies when it vacates power and shows weakness.
Which does not mean the USA has try and place huge armies on all potential places of trouble or permanently place soldiers in all locations on earth.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
https://rightwingnews.com/democrats/george-washington-said-to-avoid-entangling-alliances%E2%80%A6-or-did-he/
We have to point out, that Washington never used the words “foreign entanglements” in his farewell address. That has been a decades-long misconstruction of his last letter to the nation. He did ask why we should “entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition,” but he never used the exact words “foreign entanglements.”
Here is the key section of his address:
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
To warn Americans against “permanent alliances” really should go without saying. Decades later a fast friend of the United States basically said the same thing when he said there are “no eternal allies” and “no perpetual enemies” for any nation.
Washington went on to say, though, that sometimes we must form alliances. “Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture,” he wrote, “we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
Obviously he understood that always staying neutral — as Paulites and liberals maintain — is not possible.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Okay you are against the US being in foreign wars sort of the Rand Paul approach. You have right to your view, naturally.
I differ with your statement:
First sanctions can may hurt a country financially such as Iran economically and impact them. They are not stopping them from getting nuclear weapons and developing their missiles. Nor is it modifying their violent behavior. So they are not crippling.
Iran getting nukes plus expanding their missile range and accuracy make the US vulnerable in the homeland. The US responding softly to their attacks on the US drone and locations within Iraq plus against US allies has encouraged Iran to continue and they will expand their attacks.
Only two things can stop Iran regime change or bombing the hell out of the IRGC, and their nuclear infrastructure. Sanctions are not doing it and in fact they have openly speed up their nuke program and attacks since sanctions were reimposed. Trying to solve the Iran problem with sanctions is waiting on an Islamic Hittler like regime to gain their strength at which time they will attack. They must be stopped in advance before the damage will be catastrophic. Then it is unlikely an isolationist will agree with me. Correct me if I am wrong please!
As long as U.S. sanctions can cripple any country’s economy, we don’t need boots on the ground to have a deciding influence except where we are being specifically targeted. And special forces can go in and out. Trump knows that. We don’t need to fight other people’s wars. It’s not even effective. Nation-building has always been a disaster from the Civil War to World War I to Iraq, Afghanistan, LIbya, Syria. We don’t have the staying power to finish the job. World War II was the exception. Until the end of WWII, we maintained a skeleton military between wars. It goes against our national character. “Beware of Foreign Entanglements.” – George Washington. We have to respect our strengths and our limitations.
Article is on the mark if the Agreement actually sticks and takes hold it is a:
TRump is going around happy saying this was a great achievement. Maybe in his mind it was as his goal is to get out of the mid-east. I wonder if he realizes that the US influence will be wanning there and Russia’s and Iran’s will be on the way up