What’s Behind Trump’s Syria Pullout Remarks?

- US President Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw his troops from Syria “very soon” has been making headlines on the world media in the past few days.

News ID: 437151

Date: 09 April 2018 - 23:04

RNA - On March 29, Trump, in a conference at the White House with the leaders of the Baltic nations said that the war in Syria did not bring about economic benefits for the US and that he wants the American forces to leave that country “very soon.”

“I want to get out, I want to bring the troops back home, I want to start rebuilding our nation,” Trump said Tuesday.

For many analysts and even American politicians the announcement marked a huge surprise as the they expected that the US has no short-term plan to pull out its forces, serving since 2014 when the US led a multi-nation military coalition to fight the ISIS terrorist group, from Syria. In their eyes, Washington would emerge the main loser of the West Asia region’s conflicts if it pull out its forces from Syria.

The possible early retreat of the US military from the Syrian territories should be linked to Trump’s mercantilist approach and a will to count the costs of every move. According to Trump’s foreign policy pathway, also labeled “withdrawal doctrine,” Washington seeks to withdraw from its various global commitments and treaties in an effort to make other parties shoulder the financial costs. Trump, especially when addressing his supporters during his presidential campaign, repeatedly addressed the US allies in Europe and East and West Asia, telling them that they should pay for their security. Some analysts do not rule out that the Syria exit plan is in fact directly affected by this Trump administration’s posture that the allies, particularly in West Asia, have to pay the bill if they want the US to secure them and safeguard their interests.

As substantiation to that, Trump’s recent remarks during his Ohio trip should be taken into consideration. Commenting on the costs of the war in West Asia, he said “We’re going to be coming out of there real soon. We’re going to get back to our country: where we belong, where we want to be,” he said. “But just think of it. We spent, as of three months ago, $7 trillion — not billion, not million — seven trillion-with-a-T. Nobody ever heard of the word a ‘trillion’ 10 years ago. We spent $7 trillion in the Middle East.” He added went on to say that “As you remember in civilian life for years, I was always saying keep the oil. But we did not keep the oil. Who got the oil? ISIS got the oil. That’s what funded their campaign.”

During hosting the presidents of Lithonia, Latvia, and Estonia on April 3, the American leader sent a message to the allies who wanted Washington to stay in Syria, asserting to them that they have to bear the expenses. He maintained that the priority of the Syria campaign was to destroy ISIS.

"We've almost completed that task [of defeating ISIS] and we'll be making a determination very quickly, in coordination with others in the area, as to what we'll do," Trump said during the meeting with the three presidents.

"Saudi Arabia is very interested in our decision, and I said, 'Well, you know, you want us to stay, maybe you're going to have to pay,” he continued.

According to Alwaght, he accentuated the high price paid for staying in Syria and maintained that US military presence in the war-torn country is advantageous to others. Additionally, the CNN news network, citing informed sources at the White House, reported that Trump made a phone call recently to a Persian Gulf Arab state’s ruler during which he warned that once the US leaves the region, they cannot hold power for a fortnight.

A focus on Trump’s recent remarks on the need for his forces to pull out of Syria delivers considerable enlightenment about the American president’s calculative and mercantilist decision that comes with two objectives and the Department of State and the US National Security Council should put them into consideration. First, Trump knows that in case of withdrawal from Syria, as his advisors tell him, the US will lose its strong foothold in the region to the archrival Russia. So, Trump was uncertain about the date of the pullout and only said “very soon” his troops will head home, leaving the case open to speculations. Meanwhile, what catches the attention most is the fact that the American leader very brazenly asked the Arab rulers to pay for the US army’s operations in the war-devastated Syria.

These remarks are reminiscent of his earlier comments in which he likened the Arab allies, on the top of them Riyadh, to cows that should be milked to the last drop. This means that Trump is not satisfied with the recent hundreds of billions worth of arms deals with the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies and that he wants to compel the naïve Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to shoulder the costs of the American military presence in the region.

The second reason behind the decision lies in the fact that Trump wants to put psychological strains on the Arab regimes and create a climate of opprobrium against the Arab leaders and allude to them that Washington could withdraw its support for them while the region is living its most critical times. The final aim is to put the Arab allies in front of one fact: If you wish the US to avoid that, you have to give away part of your oil money to Washington. Therefore, wresting as big money as possible from the Arab states using the Syria exit ruse can be regarded the key drive behind Trump and the State Department to make withdrawal-related comments.

847/940