I do not agree with the timing of the Presidentâ€™s decision to leave Syria. I know the goal is to bring troops home, however, in most cases we leave behind a small contingency. Leaving Syria has created a lot more problems for us as a military than if we would have stayed and continued to enable the Kurdish efforts. On one hand there is a struggle between helping our Kurdish ally and continuing to be a loyal ally to Turkey. On the other hand leaving an open door for Iran to establish military and political influence throughout the Tehran to Beirut access.During a speech in Cairo on 10 January 2019, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated that we will use â€œdiplomacy and work with our partners until every last Iranian boot is expelled from Syriaâ€. (â€œTehran Seeks to Secure,â€ 2019). Iâ€™m sure he was sincere in that statement, however, diplomacy currently is not one of our strengths as our own government is currently shutdown. I do know that as an Army we sure do know how to stomp around and make noise in other countries. This is why I believe we should stay and stomp around and let our foreign enemies know to back off.
I think that if the draw down is not rushed it could be successful. We run the risk of having a repeat of Iraq. Where we watched cities fall back into the hands of the enemy, which could be a reality in Afghanistan. In a Washington Post articleReduction of U.S. forces is likely to ease existing military pressures on al-Qaeda â€” and give it more space to rebuild for local and external operations. (â€œ If we are to draw down in Afghanistan the Rules of Engagement would need to loosen up for our military. Having violence to fall back on to prove a point in a â€œwar zoneâ€ is important, especially if there will be less assets to rely on
Tehran seeks to secure long-term influence in Syria. (2019 January 23) retrieved from