"Whatever his (Trump’s) terrible, horrible, no good, very
bad national security team told him, the US presence in Syria was never about
Daesh,” Washington-based political analyst James Jatras said in an interview.
"We are there as Uncle Sam's Rent-an-Army for the Israelis and Saudis to block
Iranian influence and especially an overland route between Syria and Iran (the
so-called "Shiite land bridge” to the Mediterranean),” he said.
"Thus the claim an American pullout will lead to a Daesh ‘resurgence’ is
absurd,” Jatras said, adding, "With US forces ceasing to play dog in the manger,
the Syrians, Russians, Iranians, and Iraqis will destroy Daesh.”
James George Jatras is Deputy Director of the American Institute in Ukraine, a
privately funded American NGO. Based in Washington, DC, he is a former US
diplomat and adviser to the US Senate Republican leadership.
The full text of the interview with Jatras is as follows:
Basirat: As you know, US President Donald Trump has recently decided to withdraw
all US troops from Syria. Given that Trump is a businessman and thinks only
about profit, what are the reasons behind this decision? What do you think about
the possibility of a total withdrawal? Would he keep US strongholds in Syria?
Jatras: In 2016, Trump made it clear he wanted (troops) out of Syria as well as
Afghanistan. However, the establishment’s national security team he installed
around him repeatedly talked him out of acting on his own impulses, claiming
they were "experts” who "knew better.” Why he decided to overrule them now is
unclear. Perhaps Erdogan’s threat to invade the YPG-controlled area whether
Americans were present there or not gave Trump the excuse he needed. In any
case, getting the people under his command to actually carry out his wishes will
be difficult. The entire establishment, including the otherwise pro-Trump Fox
News, are dead set against him. Senator Lindsey Graham is demanding hearings on
how to block the Syria pullout. Congress hardly ever quibbles with a president’s
putting troops into a country, where the Legislative Branch has legitimate
Constitutional power. But if a president under his absolute command authority
wants to pull them out – even someplace where they’re deployed illegally, as in
Syria – well, that’s not permissible. We are being told our getting out of Syria
and Afghanistan will be a huge "gift” to Russia and Iran. Worse, it is being
compared to Barack Obama’s "premature” withdrawal from Iraq (falsely pointed to
as the cause of the rise of Daesh) and will set the stage for "chaos.” By that
standard, we can never leave anywhere. It is an open question whether pullout
will take place, especially given the danger of another false flag chemical or
other provocation as we’ve seen in the past. (A provocation in Ukraine could
also be used as a reason not to "reward Russia” by pulling out of Syria.) It’s
possible that even if the US leaves the main YPG zone, there will be an attempt
to remain in the area around al-Tanf that is not being threatened by Erdogan.
Finally, there may be an attempt to leave behind covert intelligence assets or
private contractors as "leverage” over a settlement.
Basirat: Trump’s withdrawal plan has been met with widespread opposition inside
and outside the US. France's President Emmanuel Macron has said he deeply
regrets the controversial decision. "An ally must be dependable,” said Macron,
who reportedly called Trump to warn him against the plan. US Defense Secretary
Jim Mattis and the US envoy to the global coalition fighting the Daesh terrorist
group, Brett McGurk, resigned in protest over Trump’s decision. In your opinion,
why is Trump insisting on his decision?
Jatras: Mattis’s and McGurk’s resignations are one of the big bonuses from
Trump’s decisions on Syria and Afghanistan. If there’s any luck, Bolton and
Pompeo will go too. Trump’s claim that the US has completed its only mission, to
defeat Daesh, is being compared to George W. Bush’s "Mission Accomplished”
banner following defeat of Iraq’s army and the beginning of the occupation (and,
as it turned out, the beginning of the real war). But if it helps get us out,
who cares if Trump wants to take credit? Whatever his terrible, horrible, no
good, very bad national security team told him, the US presence in Syria was
never about Daesh. We are there as Uncle Sam's Rent-an-Army for the Israelis and
Saudis to block Iranian influence and especially an overland route between Syria
and Iran (the so-called "Shiite land bridge” to the Mediterranean). For US
forces the war against ISIS was always a sideshow, mainly carried on by the
Syrians and Russians and proportioned about like the war against the Wehrmacht:
about 20% "us,” about 80% "them.” The remaining pocket Daesh has on the
Syria-Iraq border has been deliberately left alone, to keep handy as a lever to
force Assad out in a settlement (which is not going to happen). Thus the claim
an American pullout will lead to a Daesh "resurgence” is absurd. With US forces
ceasing to play dog in the manger, the Syrians, Russians, Iranians, and Iraqis
will destroy Daesh.
Basirat: Some analysts say that the US withdrawal would be a victory for Iran.
What is your assessment of the Islamic Republic’s role in developments which led
Trump to take such a decision?
Jatras: Clearly, Iran’s cooperation with Syria and Russia, and intermittently
with Turkey (given the zigzags of Erdogan’s policy) have blocked the "regime
change” agenda of the Washington establishment. It needs to be kept in mind that
the whole conflict has been because we (the US, plus Israel, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, UAE, the United Kingdom, etc.) are the aggressors. We sought to
use al-Qaeda, Daesh, and other Salafist militants to effect regime change via
the tried and true method. It failed. Regarding Trump’s critics’ claim that he
is turning over Syria to the Russians and Iranians, Assad is nobody's puppet. He
can be allied with a Shiite theocracy but not controlled by it; Iran, likewise,
can also have mutually beneficial ties with an ideologically dissimilar country,
like it does with Christian Armenia. The Russians will stay and expand their
presence but unlike our presence in many countries – which seemingly never ends,
for example in Germany, Japan, and Korea, not to mention Kosovo – they'll be
there only as long and to the extent the Syrians want them. (Compare our eternal
occupations with the Soviets’ politely leaving Egypt when Anwar Sadat asked
them, or leaving Somalia when Siad Barre wanted them out. Instead of leaving,
why didn’t Moscow kill Sadat or Barre like we killed South Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh
Diem in 1963?) It seems that American policymakers become so hypnotized by their
own paranoid fantasies about the rest of the world – and it can't be
overemphasized, concerning areas where the US has no actual national interests –
that we no longer recognize classic statecraft when practiced by other powers
defending genuine national interests (which of course are legitimate only to the
extent we say so).