The Sudden Withdrawal from Syria.

In every country, the head of state is the commander in chief of the armed forces. Thus, Trump has the powers to command its troops. Just like other head of states, Trump can decide on whether to withdraw the troops from Syria or not (Schmitt and Maggie 31). However, there is a procedure in which the troops should withdraw, which will need some time. President Trump had agreed to allow the military to take four months to ensure that the two thousand United States troops withdraw from Syria. But, Trump recently changed his mind that the forces needed to pull out in a period not exceeding thirty days. 

As a result, the President received little credit regarding his decision. He indicated in his Twitter account that the military would pull out slowly, but protested that he was not receiving support after getting criticized by the retired general, Stanley McChrystal. Donald Trump added that he is a national hero based on what he has done in Syria, since his decision opted that the military should continue fighting the ISIS remnants as they get sent home slowly to their families (Seligman 3). Nevertheless, this decision to withdraw the troops in Syria created a rift between his civilian advisers and the military. The retired general termed his December 9^th decision to withdraw the troops in Syria as reckless. 

In the article ‘The Blob is Lying about Trump’ by Mark Perry shows how the decision made by Trump has become a surprise, despite the fact that the foreign-policy machinery of the United States had been preparing for it for a long time. According to the article, it is always difficult to change Washington narratives once determined (Perry 4). Perry shows that the recent decision of Trump to pull out military from Syria is a pristine example, which prominent people’s views as a risky and a betrayal of America’s Kurdish allies. The article suggests that experts argue that the chief executive of the USA needed to choose between a Turkish or Russian president. 

However, Perry claims that this narrative does not satisfy the reason why the president made the decision. The Pentagon and the state department officials had been given the responsibility to create a plan to eventually pull out of the troops from Syria. Additionally, the views of the foreign-policy commentator is true. The article shows the commentator claiming that the president made the decision without considering the interagency review process that develops appropriate options and takes time (Perry 4). Thus, there is a need to rethink the idea that the decision made by President Trump had surprised the foreign-policy machinery policy of Washington. To clarify this claim, Perry quotes the official in the senior state department stating that the decision by Trump was not a surprise since they have had discussions on the issue since 2018 March. Hence, Perry validates the argument that the narrative that the decision was a surprise is untrue since it is something that the state has been talking about for a long time. 

The article indicates the time the state officials started withdrawal discussions. It shows that they started discussing the issue immediately after receiving a directive from the white house in March 2018. The white house had passed the instruction through the state secretary Mike Pompeo, who stated that President Trump had directed him to design a plan upon which the state will announce the troops’ withdrawal. The state official suggested that they had to meet the September 2018 deadline, showing that the state department knew about the decision. 

According to the article, the state had not announced until December 2018 did not affect the timeline since for them they expected the president to make the announcement in September. Based on this argument it is evident that the decision by the president to order the military to pull out from Syria did not shock them since they had extra two months (Perry 4). According to Perry, the state officials complied with the wishes of the president. The article shows that at the beginning of April 2018, the secretary of defense and that of the state carried out separate tracks. The secretary of defense, Mattis was responsibly scaling the anti-Islamic military activities back in the region and secretary of the country, Pompeo had the role of shaping the diplomatic offensive that allows the USA to have a voice after the end of the civil war in Syria.

According to the article, Mattis aimed at ensuring that the military operations in Syria and Iraq had come to an end by 30^th April 2018 (Perry 4). Perry shows that the secretary of defense had privately admitted that there are less ISIS that the military needed to fight. Furthermore, the article connotes that the US government decided to change the language they used in describing the fight. Previously, the statement used by the government in explaining the war against terrorism was “bomb the hell out of them,” This language acted in favor of the public. However, they later changed that language suggesting that the ISIS fighters that left in Syria are in small pockets (Perry 4). The argument shows that the government previously viewed the ISIS as a threat but later considered as a no big deal. 

The article shows that the state department was responsible for the crucial part of the withdrawal plan (Perry 4). According to Perry the secretary of the state had given the department the role in administering the closely linked programs. The first initiative was the consultation with the Syrian Democratic forces. The department needed to inform the commanders of the SDF that the US was withdrawing its troops from Syria by the end of 2018 (Perry 4). However, the author indicates that the state department did not inform the commanders of the SDF that the withdrawal was imminent, even though there were clear warnings. Thus, claiming that the Kurds got shocked with the decision is not true, since they received a briefing. Hence, they were aware of the event. 

Additionally, the argument by the US that the remaining ISIS were less seems invalid, since the state department needed to persuade the Gulf states to offer fighters to the Kurds. If the number of ISIS remaining were insignificant, then the Kurds did not need any reinforcement. The article indicates that the second program that the state department got assigned was to influence the Gulf nations to offer support to the Kurds by providing them with fighters after the US troop had pulled out (Perry 4). However, the idea failed. Perry indicates that even though the Saudis were willing to offer some fighter, they did not get impressed with the idea. The text shows that some of the soldiers would be Sudanese, which the Kurds did not like. Hence they barred the idea, given that they never needed assistance from Arabs. Thus Perry seems right by saying that the concept had to fail since there was no way the Saudis were going to work with the Kurds. 

Another initiative tasked to the department was a diplomatic surge, which the department needed to implement while monitored by the secretary of the state himself. As a result, in April 2018, US had approximately ten diplomats taking care of the issue of Syria. Later, the number increased to twenty (). The idea of the secretary of the state to raise the number of diplomats was to emphasize on developing a strategy in which the US could deal the Syrian issue that involved discussing with Turkey and Russians on pushing back against the president of Syria to protect the Kurds. 

However, Jeffrey one of the diplomats has a perception that his role of finding out how the US could get back into the Syrian game was derailing the international process. Before Trump made the withdrawal announcement, on Dec 3^rd, 2018, Jeffrey stated that America had one mission in Syria. The objective was to ensure the defeat of the ISIS, however, for some factors he got off the idea, by stressing that America would withdraw if it meets its objectives, which comprised of pulling out of the forces commanded by Iran. Jeffrey was in the view that the United States was pushing for something that was not attainable and the president had not mentioned before.

The description of the decision of President Trump on the withdrawal of the troops from Syria develops from the concept of interest. The use of interest in political analysis requires the identification of the actors involved in the event. To be accurate, there is a need to identify the preferences of the actors involved and the availability of information to take action. In many cases, there are three categories of interest, which are economical, ideological goals and power and security. For example, nations always have an interest in power, security, ideology and wealth, on the other hand; individual politicians have an interest in policy goals, ideology, and elections. 

Thus, one can analyze the issue discussed in the article using the analytical interests’ framework. In the article the actors are presents, and also Perry shows their preferences and choices. The main actors in the issue described in the article are Syria and the United States, while the sub-actors include Turkey and Russia. The interest of the United States is to withdraw its forces from Syria, while Syria has an interest in fighting the ISIS to protect its citizens. On the preferences, the United States required its senior department to persuade the Gulf nations to reinforce the Kurds after they had pulled out. However, Syria did not buy the idea, since the fighters the Gulf nation were to provide included Sudanese, yet Kurds did not want any assistance from Arabs. 

In conclusion, the withdrawal of the United States from Syria was reckless as suggested by the retired general. Even though the government had claimed that the number of remaining ISIS terrorists were insignificant, the soldiers needed to accomplish the mission by ensuring that there were no remnants of such group. Furthermore, claiming that the remaining ISIS terrorist was less is invalid, since the State could not have directed the senior department to persuade the Gulf nations to offer reinforcement to Kurds.

Works Cited

Perry, Mark. The Blob Is Lying about Trump’s Sudden Syria Withdrawal. 4 Jan 2019. Retrieved from: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/04/the-blob-is-lying-about-trumps-sudden-syria- withdrawal/.

Schmitt Eric and Maggie Haberman. Trump to Allow Months for Troop Withdrawal in Syria, Officials Say. 31 Dec 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/31/us/politics/trump-troop-withdrawal-syria- months.html.

Seligman Lara. Trump’s ‘Compliant’ New Pentagon Chief. 3 Jan 2019. Retrieved from: https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/01/03/trumps-compliant-new-pentagon-chief- shanahan-mattis/.