by Nomad
The Depreciating Value of American Handshakes
Brett McGurk, Payne distinguished lecturer at Stanford, a foreign affairs analyst as well as former Presidential envoy, had a few things to say about Trump's decision to pull US troops out of Northern Syrian. In short, he was livid.
Before leaving the Trump administration in December, McGurk had served under Bush (as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Iraq and Afghanistan) and Obama ( as Special Advisor to the U.S. National Security Council and Senior Advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq).
In interviews, McGurk has stated:
"The value of a handshake from the United States of America, whether from the president or from diplomats... is depreciating by the week. Nobody can believe anything we say... This major decision was taken without any consultation..."Elaborating on this, he tweets:
Regarding Syria and Turkey, there is some disinformation out there (including from the POTUS himself), so here is some background on what is admittedly a complex matter with no easy or magic formulas:
First: It was Trump (not Obama) that made the decision to
arm the Kurdish component (YPG) of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to take
Raqqa, then ISIS’s capital city. He made this decision after his national
security team developed options for his review.
The weapons provided were meager and just enough for the
battle against ISIS. (The SDF cleared IEDs by purchasing flocks of sheep.) They
were not “paid massive amounts of money and equipment” (as Trump said today).
Nearly all stabilization funding came from the coalition.
Second: the United States did not partner with SDF over
realistic alternatives. Both Obama and Trump developed and considered options
to work with the Turkey-backed opposition, which is unfortunately riddled with
extremists, many tied to al Qaeda.
Nonetheless, our best military planners spent months with
counterparts in Turkey across both administrations. The only available
Turkey-approved option in NE Syria would have required tens of thousands of
American troops. Two U.S. presidents rejected that option.
Third: the United States is not “holding” ISIS detainees in
Syria. They are all being held by the SDF, and barely so, given meager
resources. State and DOD Inspectors General have covered this in depth. Summary here
Turkish entry by force into NE Syria risks fracturing the
SDF, pulling its fighters out of former ISIS strongholds, abandoning ISIS
prison facilities, and making it impossible for U.S. forces to stay on the
ground in small numbers with an acceptable level of risk.
Fourth: It was the Trump administration that dramatically
expanded the Syria mission in 2018 beyond ISIS to include staying on the ground
until Iran left Syria and the civil war was resolved (meaning many years).
Another example of maximalist objectives for a minimalist POTUS.
Trump then (twice) abruptly reversed course after 1) a
foreign leader call and 2) without consulting his own military advisors. If
anyone still believes Trump cares about Syria, they’re mistaken. He doesn’t and
his erratic swings heighten risk to our personnel on the ground.
Finally: the U.S. leads a coalition that includes over 80
countries and nearly two dozen contributors to the military and/or
stabilization mission in Syria. Leading a coalition requires consultation with
coalition partners before major decisions are taken. This is elementary.
The consequences of such unreliability from the Oval will
reverberate well beyond Syria. The value of an American handshake is
depreciating. Trump today said we could “crush ISIS again" if it
regenerated. With who? What allies would sign up? Who would fight on his assurances?
Bottom line: These are matters of war and peace, life and
death. Our military personnel, friends and allies, deserve deliberation and
thought before decisions are made (the essence of “command”). Erratic swings
favor far more patient adversaries in Moscow, Beijing, and Tehran.
Here's McGurk speaking on the Rachel Maddow Show.