The withdrawal of American troops from Syria marks a new stage in Middle East instable political stage particularly because of an inconvenient foreign military presence. Indeed, US have not achieved goals in terms of peace, not even on minimum standards of respect to IHL and certainly not on Mediation and counterbalance power. The situation gets to a point of no return that forced Trump to take decisions, even if that represents vulnerability for the groups supported by America -Kurds-. When foreign military presence does not empowered local people it leaves just a sense of invasion, therefore, chaos and more confrontation.
It is of general opinion that this decision is another of a long list of mistaken steps that current American administration is taking to pursue an isolationist goal.
A decision largely criticized by respectful and influential leaders as Guy Verhofstadt that has highlighted that it represents a “victory” for Iran. Despite been a big fan of Vershofstadt opinions, to see on US mistaken, invasive and inefficient military presence in Middle East a victory for the Western world is not logical in terms of peace goals for the region.
In the last decades US has represented and led a process of being the “police of the world”, creating more division by funding, training and influencing both sides of the conflict. We definitely conclude that US has not contributed for good in Middle East. In the end, foreign intervention has to be submitted to a results-driven focus and after decades of failing and no results it means that it needs to be changed.
United Nations is the organism in charge of keeping peace and all decisions in relation to “foreign military intervention” should be taken democratically, according to the level of violence or vulnerability in terms of human rights. That ´s the main reason for the urgent need to reshape the Security Council and transform it into an open and rotate authority. Too much power concentrated in a few countries with no results it’s a clear sign of a wrong focus on defending national sovereignties.
Is it not the same to make political-military intervention among a few countries than to a coordinated action from United Nations. Last alliances with France, UK, Spain, etc. are, above all, political and do not redounds into direct benefits for vulnerable countries but on their own commitments.
For helping Middle East chaos on Human Rights we need: Diplomacy, Negotiation and a strong and empowered humanitarian sector. Any military action must come from a truly international alliance that moves beyond interests but of a legal and legitimated action on peace.
Is time for America for seeing on “national security interests” also “global security interests” as their foreign-affairs establishment has been built through a tough and aggressive military presence. There are many ways and tools to be an influencer of current global chaos on armed conflicts. War in cities and used of tech armament cross a red line and demands a truly change and not just symbols of power. When there are populations as Yemeni that is driven into starvation, there is not room for other options rather than to change and “undo”.
For the Muslim world, American military presence has been associated as a threat and intrusion not even the mistaken intervention of Saudi Arabia is seeing as negative as US action. American is it now the burden that doesn’t allow moving forward. Taking into account that many of the so-called “terrorists” groups have been financing by the own American Government through decades. Is in this basis that I assume that Pres. Trump has felt legitimated to act and withdraw US troops.
Even this is a “victory” for countries as Iran for gaining power; we must accept that in a war when there are so many complex and contradictory interests from several parts we need to remove those elements that represent external factors from the conflict in itself. Clearly US have not contributed to build healthy relations and make a work on peacekeeping. There work has been based on “war keeping” focused on wining a war that do not belongs to them. The only logical reason to keep this establishment built by the Americans and supporting by their allies countries, is to help to get -as faster as possible- stability no matter which is the “winner”. Unfortunately keeping war alive its part of the goal at the service for other interests.
An empty space its left now by the withdrawal of 2000 troops from Syria but its definitely and act of empowerment for the local people and the region. However, it left the Kurds on a vulnerable position that needs also to be fixed. US must take responsibility for all done and the withdrawal needs to be gradually and according to the vulnerability of the groups that depend on America´s long presence in Syria.
The less intrusive the better position to make a difference. Supporting without invasion. International joint action basis. Key elements for a sustainable roadmap of US in Middle East.
On recent declarations Trump assures that “We have won against ISIS”, which is definitely untrue. The failure is clear and the withdrawal is it just an act of taking responsibility not of wining anything. Which is now a fact is that US hold responsibility towards global peace by contributing with humanitarian aid, funds, Diplomacy, Negotiation and all those tools that helps to see the conflict through different colors of a kaleidoscope of dark colors based on killing, torture and destruction.
If the goal of American military presence in Middle East has been to deliver peace and guarantees for the civilian population is it clear that the goal has not been achieved, by the contrary it has fueled more division. Last decades of funding, training and influence without results lead us to the only possible conclusion: American establishment must be changed towards a different presence in Middle East. This is the first step….
After Trump Administration, US becomes officially an isolationist country that even if in terms of global goals represents a threat, is it also an opportunity for changing current chaos generated after decades of a status quo built by Democrats and Republicans indistinctly.
Is it time for healthy contributions for US and the use of their power as a Mediator and Diplomat under a reshape Security Council vote system. A legitimated intervention from America comes from a joint action –not necessary global action- and not the same isolationist-tyrannical imposition of their own rules for a never-ending war.
Moving beyond current message of “winners/losers” in the region and having empowerment, solidarity and global peace as main drivers for intervention in sovereign countries. Diplomacy is the first tool and military presence, the last resource.
Not building US-Mexico border wall, not UNESCO withdrawal, neither migration policies were as truly acts of anti-establishment than the current one. The rest of decisions are more a matter of putting into action strategies that, with hypocrisy, were part of American policies over the last decades. The fact that the message has been inclusive and eventually global does not mean that US performs with inclusiveness. In fact, an isolationist focus goal of becoming a super power has lead them. Now, letting go their “hidden interests” in Middle East and settle new goals to be inserted in a global planet without invasion, is something that must be highly appreciated and welcome, even if it´s not the philosophical way for facing crises under a Global Goals framework.
Lets welcome this truly act of anti-establishment from Pres. Donald Trump that may contribute for good to deliver peace and stability to a region that its getting into dramatic levels of refugees, extreme vulnerability for civilians, systemic violations of IHL and in general democratic guarantees.
At least, eliminating one disturbing element –foreign military presence- we can hold the ambitious dream of reaching acceptable levels of peace and democracy through other channels rather than just being another part of the conflict.
Its legitimated to help those people that are trying to put an end to a brutal dictatorship, as well as to respect their sovereignty and stop funding aggressive military counterparts that in the end, it had not built peace but more confrontation and opportunity to develop private –and sometimes- hidden interests.
Withdrawal of US troops from Syria: the 1st –and only – truly act of anti-establishment from Trump
One thought on “Withdrawal of US troops from Syria: the 1st –and only – truly act of anti-establishment from Trump”