Washington Post Article Asfandyar 250 Word Replay
I do not agree with the timing of the President’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 “diplomacy and work with our partners until every last Iranian boot is expelled from Syria”. (“Tehran Seeks to Secure,” 2019). I’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 article Reduction of U.S. forces is likely to ease existing military pressures on al-Qaeda — and give it more space to rebuild for local and external operations. (“ 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 “war zone” is important, especially if there will be less assets to rely on
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp…
Tehran seeks to secure long-term influence in Syria. (2019 January 23) retrieved from