Let’s start with a fact that the mainstream media has glossed over when criticizing Trump’s Syria decision: His decision is in compliance with U.S. and international law. The presence of U.S. troops in the Syrian civil war was never authorized by Congress. We are also violating international law by invading Syria without the approval of the United Nations. Before any administration official can advocate keeping troops in Syria to fight the Islamic State, Congress needs to offer authorization.
Trump also deserves credit for standing up to the war hawks within his own administration who started inventing rationales for remaining in the country: countering Iran and seeing an end to the Assad regime. That is the definition of mission creep. While Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is a brutal dictator and should be tried at the Hague for international war crimes, the United States should not militarily overthrow him.
There is no doubt Trump should have articulated a more prudent withdrawal strategy. He could have consulted beforehand with our allies and regional partners. One alternative to an immediate withdrawal in Syria is announcing a full withdrawal over the next few months. That would give us time to prepare local forces and to deploy intelligence platforms and networks that address potential terrorist threats.
We also cannot just leave without some consideration of our moral obligations to the Syrians that come from having engaged in war. We need to provide humanitarian assistance to civilians and accept our fair share of refugees. Trump should have used his leverage with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to ensure a cease-fire and guarantee protection for the Kurds. We should not sell Turkey Patriot missiles until we get that commitment.
Whether you agree or disagree with Rep. Ro Khanna, it’s a sound argument about International Law and Congress’ proper role in debating these military engagements...