Trump Says We Should Leave Syria Alone. He’s Not Wrong.

There is much irrational exuberance in Washington over the surprise overthrow of the Assad dynasty in Syria earlier this month. After all, Iran and Russia are down, Israel is up and Bashar Assad is out. But before we assume any great opportunities for the United States to insert itself into these momentous events, we should step back and reflect on U.S. interests in Syria – and the risks of getting involved in yet another morass.

While President-elect Donald Trump might have overstated it when he concluded during the rebels’ advance that “the United States should have nothing to do with” something that’s not “our fight,” it is worth considering how rarely productive U.S. involvement in Syria has been. And there’s no evidence to suggest this time would be any different.

After Washington sagely avoided deep entanglement in the country for decades, U.S. policy after 2011 – when the uprising to remove Assad started – has strengthened jihadists, impoverished ordinary Syrians and got the U.S. into a wrangle with Turkey, a NATO ally and guarantor of NATO’s southern flank.

Currently, the U.S. maintains a small force of 900 soldiers and Marines to battle the remnants of the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS, and protect the Syrian Kurds from their adversary, the Turks. The Kurds and U.S. forces fought shoulder to shoulder against ISIS, so the emotional link is understandable. But that is not enough of a reason to keep the U.S. involved in place if it hurts American interests.