Working with a NATO ally in Syria

In April, the Washington Post was adamant. In an editorial, it said, "Erdogan's thugs still need to be brought to justice." His henchmen had beaten up protesters during Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's 2017 visit to Washington.

The press denounced Erdogan as a bad man.

Then Jamal Khashoggi died likely at the hands of Saudi Arabia's government at its embassy in Istanbul. He had published a few op-eds in the Washington Post, which made him a Washington Post columnist. He also was a supporter of Osama bin Laden in the 1980s and had an uncle who was implicated in the Iran-contra deal.

Erdogan revealed the Saudi role in Khashoggi's murder.

The press praised Erdogan as a good man.

But President Trump has announced that the United States will bring home its 2,000 troops in Syria. Suddenly, Erdogan is a bad man again because the press believes he will kill the Kurds. And everyone knows the Kurds are the good guys because everyone says the Kurds are the good guys.

President Trump made a unilateral decision, the press said as though that is wrong. He is the commander in chief. The Constitution says so. As such he may consult anyone but ultimately the buck stops at the Resolute Desk.

The complaint is that the president is not working with our allies.

But Turkey is a member of NATO.

Besides, the Gulf States are there just in case the Kurds need help.

Nevertheless, the Associated Press reported, "President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw American troops from Syria was made hastily, without consulting his national security team or allies, and over strong objections from virtually everyone involved in the fight against the Islamic State group, according to U.S. and Turkish officials.

"Trump stunned his Cabinet, lawmakers and much of the world with the move by rejecting the advice of his top aides and agreeing to a withdrawal in a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan last week, two U.S. officials and a Turkish official briefed on the matter told The Associated Press."

What?

Trump ignored the talking points his underlings wrote?

Who is he to do that?

Oh wait. President. Commander in chief. People tend to overlook that. He is not some buffoon on TV, but rather a man who in his first political campaign beat the Clinton machine that had won the White House twice before, and which spent twice as much money to boot.

Critics also ignore how he built his business empire through the art of negotiation.

Paragraph 13 of the AP story said, "Erdogan, though, quickly put Trump on the defensive, reminding him that he had repeatedly said the only reason for U.S. troops to be in Syria was to defeat the Islamic State and that the group had been 99 percent defeated. 'Why are you still there?' the second official said Erdogan asked Trump, telling him that the Turks could deal with the remaining IS militants."

Erdogan made a good point.

Paragraph 14 said, "With Erdogan on the line, Trump asked national security adviser John Bolton, who was listening in, why American troops remained in Syria if what the Turkish president was saying was true, according to the officials. Erdogan’s point, Bolton was forced to admit, had been backed up by Mattis, Pompeo, U.S. special envoy for Syria Jim Jeffrey and special envoy for the anti-ISIS coalition Brett McGurk, who have said that IS retains only 1 percent of its territory, the officials said."

I do not think Donald Trump was surprised by this. I think he anticipated Erdogan's talking point and agreed. President Trump does not want U.S. soldiers dying around the world. He wanted assurances that Erdogan would not retaliate against the Kurds. Breaking his word could cost Erdogan's membership in NATO.

The press tells us we need to work with allies to defeat the Islamic State.

That is what President Trump is doing.

Happy?