The White House announced last Sunday that troops would be removed from northeastern Syria in order to avoid the crossfire of a previously known military operation by Turkey in the area.
The U.S. has always tread lightly in this area, with its interest torn between an ally in the Kurds, an ethnic group that has been on the front lines of the battle with the Islamic State in Syria, and a NATO ally in Turkey, who sees Kurds as a threat to their national security.
But President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw failed to take this careful balance into account. As Reuters reported, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said the maneuver followed a call he had with Trump, capturing the one-sided and immediate nature of the decision that ultimately left Kurdish allies in danger.
In the immediate aftermath of the decision, Kurds were forced to invite official Syrian forces back into an area they had previously evacuated, in order to protect borders in the absence of U.S. military support. As a result, many now fear that weakened Kurdish forces may mean the redemption of both the Assad regime and ISIS in the area.
It is speculated that Turkey’s invasion will be aggressive and bloody and the turmoil that will result from the combination of Turkish, Kurdish, Syrian and extremist forces on the same battlefield will be immeasurable.
Trump’s move has obviously received intense backlash from his political enemies in the Democratic party, but unlike his other questionable policies and actions, Republicans have crossed the aisle to also criticize the president on this issue.
In addition to informal condemnation through tweets and interviews, the House passed a resolution Wednesday that received every Democratic vote and 129 from Republicans to criticize his decision and clarify that Congress does not endorse the move.
Most criticisms of the president rely on the central point that the Kurds bore the weight of the conflict with ISIS and were important allies in the U.S. war on terrorism. The Kurds have lost 11,000 lives to the struggle; the U.S. does not have that many troops in the entire country of Syria, and never has.
But a slap on the wrist by Congress is unlikely to shake a president that hasn’t flinched even in the face of an impeachment inquiry. It is important that Republicans cross the aisle to disagree with a president that the entire party has rallied behind when they feel he has done wrong, but only goes to show how the party picks and chooses its battles with Trump.
An issue like foreign policy, and especially this instance with seemingly no immediate effect on the U.S., is safe for Republicans to criticize Trump on. But if they were to go after him for, say, tax policy, the backlash from his large voter base could mean political trouble for lawmakers seeking reelection.
Trump has developed a reputation of being nearly untouchable by political scandal, as he has endured sexual assault allegations, campaign finance corruption charges and somehow still has not released tax returns. Republicans can pat themselves on the back for crossing the aisle to defend the war on terrorism this time, but it will have little to no repercussions for the president, and they know it.
If Republicans are so concerned with Trump’s foreign policy, they should take a look at his nightmare of a domestic strategy. Some may actually agree with him, but many have turned the other cheek in order to maintain important votes in their constituency.
This matter goes far beyond abandoning allies. It could mean the rise of ISIS, Assad and increased violence between two U.S. partners, Turkey and the Kurds. If lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, aim to separate themselves from the administration on this matter, they must do more than send him a mildly-worded resolution.
We know from the past three years of this administration that Republicans likely have no intention of punishing Trump, who they apparently need more than morals.
