Risks of staying in Syria—and the benefits of leaving—should prompt a U.S. withdrawal; Americans value diplomacy over military interventions.
BRING THEM HOME
U.S. troops should withdraw from Syria—local actors can deal with ISIS’s remnants
Last week, the U.S. announced that more U.S. troops and military hardware are headed to eastern Syria to counter Russia. The deployment includes an additional 100 U.S. troops, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, radar trackers, and extra air patrols. [NYT / Eric Schmitt]
The deployment is a response to a recent clash between U.S. and Russian forces near Al-Malikiyah, Syria, which injured seven American soldiers. U.S. military officials called the event an “unsafe and unprofessional” violation of de-confliction agreements. [WaPo / Dan Lamothe]
Clashing with Russia in Syria, however, has nothing to do with the original anti-ISIS mission, a success that is now essentially over. Since the destruction of its territorial caliphate, ISIS has become a disorganized scattering of small groups hiding in caves and rural areas. [The Hill / Seth Frantzman]
Keeping U.S. troops in Syria today is unnecessary and risky. The costs of sliding into a wider confrontation with Russia, Iran, or the Syrian government far outweigh any benefit of retaining a military presence. [Business Insider / Christopher Mott]
Nor is using U.S. troops to guard Syria’s oil fields a valid rationale for remaining. Doing so, as may be occurring on a small scale now, would be a dangerous misuse of the U.S. military that puts American servicemembers in a vulnerable position for no real benefit. [Chicago Tribune / Daniel Davis]
No feasible mission justifies keeping U.S. troops in Syria, so they should be removed now. Local actors are eager and capable of hunting the remnants of ISIS, and a full U.S. troop withdrawal would decrease the possibility of a wider war. [DEFP / Gil Barndollar]
RESTRAINT IS POPULAR
On foreign policy, Washington is out of step with the American people [Eurasia Group Foundation]
After two decades of expensive and unwise overreach by Washington, the American people favor a more restrained foreign policy. In fact, the longstanding gap between what the American public wants and what many foreign policy elites in the nation’s capital support seems to be growing.
Americans are far more supportive of diplomatic engagement than they are of military intervention. A 44% plurality wants the U.S. to reduce its military presence in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East and transfer security responsibility to allies and partners.
Diplomacy with U.S. adversaries is often seen as taboo in Washington. But Americans believe negotiating with adversaries is a central component of effective statecraft—with nearly 60% supporting diplomatic engagement in order to avoid military confrontation.
Support for ending U.S. involvement in Afghanistan’s civil war has increased from the previous EGF survey. This is consistent with other polling on the issue; an April survey by Concerned Veterans for America found 73% of veterans and 69% of military households support leaving Afghanistan.
Americans also appear to favor shifting burdens within U.S. alliances. Nearly three-quarters of Americans support reducing or entirely removing U.S. troops from Germany, according to a new poll from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
While the case for restraint rests on how it makes the U.S. safer, the broad support for such policies among Americans is good news. It should spur the U.S. policy community into a long overdue reevaluation of U.S. spending priorities and overwrought foreign policy goals.
TRENDING
The 2001 AUMF was not meant to authorize U.S. strikes in Kenya
Competing militarily with China costs the U.S. at home
Russia is slashing its defense spending due to its slumping economy