Donald Trump's high price of treason

There are several reasons why US President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw American forces from northern Syria and leave Kurds in the region vulnerable to neighbouring Turkey's military Inquisition was a terrible decision. Kurdish forces, in control of the region, had been the leading American partner in the fight against Islamic State (ISIS). Their abandon by Trump reinforced already existing doubts in the region and around the world about whether the United States remains a reliable ally.

The decision also created conditions that enable the release of hundreds and possibly thousands of ISIS terrorists in Kurdish-run prisons and that can resume their terrorist activities once opportunity is given. The question now is when, not if, American forces will have to return to Syria to fight with an I SIS rebuilt (most likely without a local partner to face the bad consequences of fighting). Meanwhile, Kurds have turned to the Syrian government for protection against Turkish forces, a move that has allowed President Bashar al-Assad's brutal regime (backed by Russia and Iran) to reaffirm its control over most of the country. For its part, the US has lost most of the mechanism in its power to influence a political outcome in Syria.

Trump's wrong decision seems to stem from his desire to do good based on his promise during the 2016 election campaign, where he promised to withdraw the American Army from Syria and the Middle East more widely. But this raises a bigger question: In view of the negative impact of this movement, why would he believe this would result in a popular movement in the country?

One explanation is that Trump is confusing the endless “wars” with an open military presence. This confusion is expensive. What the United States was doing in northern Syria was smart and efficient. Kurdish forces took most of the fighting role against I The SIS; the American contribution was modest and was mainly limited to consulting and providing intelligence support. Moreover, the presence of the United States restrained the actions of Turks, Syrians, Russians and Iranians. With the withdrawal of American troops, that restriction disappeared overnight.

More essential, Trump's decision enters an old American tradition of isolation dating back to the time of the Founding Fathers of America. During the time of the Cold War, this tradition was sleepless, but it has recently resurfaced, driven by “Intervention resolution”, caused by long and expensive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It gains momentum from popular viewpoint rather than many domestic needs from infrastructure to health care and education are not being met. A lack of emphasis on foreign policy and the world in American schools and media is also contributing to this internal turn.

Trump's slogan, the first “America, is based on the idea that the costs of American leadership in the world are far outweighing the benefits. The resources spent on domestic activism would, in effect, be better spent at home.

As attractive as such arguments may seem, the idea that the U.S. can turn its back on the world and still flourish even when global order falls is very wrong. Trump has repeatedly claimed that Syria is not critical for American security, noting that it is thousands of miles away. But Americans learned on September 11, 2001, that distance is no guarantee of security. Similarly, infectious diseases, the effects of climate change, and attempts to destroy elections do not stop at national borders.

The costs of America's global role are very significant. The defence budget alone now totals 700 billion dollars a year, and intelligence, foreign assistance, diplomacy and maintenance of a nuclear arsenal bring total expenditures to more than 800 billion dollars. But, as a percent of GDP, this is far below the average Cold War. History, however, shows that the American economy flourished with this high level of spending.

To be sure, the United States has many internal shortcomings, from public education to health care, but mainly these problems are not the result of lack of spending. The country spends more than twice the OECD average on health care, but Americans don't live long and do not live healthy lives. Similarly, higher education spending does not produce better results than in countries spending less. It's always more important how money is spent than the amount spent.

But such facts are almost insignificant when it comes to political debate. Many of the candidates seeking the nomination of Democrats to challenge Trump in the 2020 presidential elections share at least some of his insulating views, and polls reveal that the same is true of many Americans. Trump is a reflection of America's mood and a certain degree of Trumpism a desire to withdraw from global commitments in general and military commitments in particular is likely to continue to exist.

At some point things will change. History suggests that withdrawal periods often end due to a major geopolitical shock, followed by periods of strain. The problem is that such shocks tend to be costly in life and human resources. But, for now, and in a predictable future, America is unlikely to develop an external policy in proportion to its interests and strength. /Project Syndicate/In Albanian by: BIRN/