Trump's military exit ramp

Art by Gabriella Turrisi

CNN and the New York Times reported on Monday that before he leaves office on January 20, President Trump will order the withdrawal of nearly half the US troops still serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, and nearly all who remain in Somalia.

If he follows through, this will be the president's final step toward ending the costly US commitment to fight terrorism and bolstering the stability of fragile governments in these countries.

The plan has drawn plenty of fire from within the US government. Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper not long after Esper had informed the White House that he and Pentagon top brass believed that security conditions had not been met for a troop drawdown.


In addition, Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell warned this week that "a rapid withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan now would hurt our allies and delight the people who wish us harm." He compared the idea with "the humiliating American departure from Saigon in 1975."

The debate over this plan gets at the heart of President Trump's attempt to redefine the US role in the world. Before 2017, all post-World War II US presidents had argued that an assertive US global leadership role serves the US national interest.

Trump has challenged this orthodoxy, both before and during his presidency. Too often, he's argued, his predecessors have pushed US soldiers into endless commitments to the security of other countries and allowed selfish "allies" to free-ride at the expense of US taxpayers.

There are strong arguments on both sides of this debate. Here are the most notable:

Against withdrawal

Critics of Trump's plan say that Bush and Obama administration drawdowns of US troops from Iraq (2007-2011) enabled the emergence of ISIS in Iraq and Syria, a problem that proved costlier and more dangerous than the US troop presence.

On Tuesday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned against a "premature withdrawal" from Afghanistan. In fact, the Taliban have become more aggressive in recent months, particularly against Afghan government forces, and October was the deadliest month for Afghan civilians in more than a year.

Abandoning the fight against terrorists in vulnerable countries signals to US allies (and potential allies) that Washington is not to be trusted.

For withdrawal

For how many years will withdrawal from these countries remain "premature?" Must US troops wait for the day when Afghanistan has a stable government capable of controlling all of Afghan territory? If the goal is more modest than that, why hasn't it been achieved in the 19 years that US and NATO forces have been there?

Must Washington wait until al-Qaeda and ISIS renounce terrorism, and Iran withdraws support for militias in Iraq? Or until Somalia becomes a stable country?

By remaining in these countries all these years, doesn't Washington allow its allies there to believe that they don't really need to prepare to function without US help?

In Somalia, much of the recent US military effort has focused on training and backing a Somali commando unit of 850 troops that has scored major wins against al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group. Critics of Trump's plan say this force can't function without active US involvement, but why should Somalis prepare to survive without US help as long as they believe the Americans will stay?

So why not withdraw all the troops? President Trump tweeted on October 7 that all US troops should be brought home from Afghanistan by Christmas. In Iraq and Afghanistan, a small number of remaining troops will allow the US to launch counterterrorism strikes from a single command center. US forces will also remain in Kenya and Djibouti, allowing for drone attacks on al-Shabab inside Somalia. The plan leaked to the press this week looks like a compromise.

Give Trump's arguments their due. Americans need to debate these questions, and past presidents have too often fallen back on bromides about "America's responsibility to lead."

What is America's proper role in the 21st century world? What do you think?

Emily Ademola lives in an area of Nigeria that has been attacked by Boko Haram militants in the past. Looking for water was very risky, and without access to water, the community – especially children – were at risk of waterborne diseases. Eni, in partnership with FAO, built a water well in Emily's community in 2019.

Watch Emily's first-hand account about how access to water "close to our doorsteps" has improved the quality of life for her community and her family.

There's never a great time to impose higher taxes on funeral services — but doing it in the middle of a raging pandemic is an especially bad move. Yet that was one of a number of measures that the Colombian government proposed last week in a controversial new tax bill that has provoked the country's largest and most violent protests in decades.

In the days since, the finance minister has resigned, the tax reform has been pulled, and President Iván Duque has called for fresh dialogue with activists, union leaders, and opposition politicians.

But demonstrations, vandalism, and deadly clashes with police have only intensified. Two dozen people are dead, 40 are missing, and the UN has criticized Colombian police for their heavy-handed response.

More Show less

While residents of wealthy countries are getting ready for hot vaxxed summer — COVID is still ravaging many low- and middle-income countries. The horrifying scenes coming out of India in recent weeks have gripped the world, causing governments and civil society to quickly mobilize and pledge support.

But on the other side of the globe, Brazil is also being pummeled by the pandemic — and has been for a year now. Yet thus far, the outpouring of aid and (solidarity) hasn't been as large.

What explains the global alarm at India's situation, and seeming passivity towards Brazil's plight? What are the politics of compassion?

More Show less

Paris-London face-off at sea: France and the UK are at loggerheads in the high seas this week over post-Brexit fishing access in Jersey, an island off the English Channel. Furious at regulations that they say makes it harder to fish in these lucrative waters, dozens of French fishing boats amassed near the Channel Island, threatening to block access to the port. In response, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson deployed two naval vessels — a move critics say was an unnecessary escalation, and an attempt by the PM to flex his muscles and bolster the Tory vote ahead of Thursday's regional election. France, for its part, sent its own naval ship and threatened to cut off Jersey's electricity supply, 90 percent of which comes from French underwater cables. Fishing rights was one of the final sticking points of Brexit trade negotiations, an emotive political issue for many Britons who say that they got a subpar deal when the UK joined the European Economic Community in the 1970s. Though an UK-EU Brexit agreement was finally reached in December 2020, it's clear that there are still thorny issues that need to be resolved.

More Show less

10: Joshua Wong was sentenced along with other Hong Kong democracy activists to 10 months in prison for participating in a vigil last year marking the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing. Wong is currently behind bars for participating in separate pro-democracy protests, and will only start this new sentence after that term concludes in November.

More Show less

What's the biggest foreign policy misconception that Americans have about the US's role in the world? According to international relations expert Tom Nichols, too few Americans believe that the US, in fact, has a critical role in the world, and that the things Americans enjoy, from cheap goods to safe streets, are made possible because of American global leadership. "Americans have become so spoiled and inured to the idea that the world is a dangerous place that they don't understand that the seas are navigable because someone makes them that way. They don't understand that peace between the great powers is not simply like the weather, that just happens," Nichols tells Ian Bremmer. Their conversation is featured on an episode of GZERO World, airing on US public television – check local listings.

Watch the episode: Make politics "boring" again: Joe Biden's first 100 Days

The cover story of The Economist declares that Taiwan is "The most dangerous place on Earth," because China might finally be ready to plan an invasion of the island. But are the consequences of such a move worth the many risks to China and its President Xi Jinping? Ian Bremmer breaks out the Red Pen to to explain why a US-China war over Taiwan is unlikely.

We are taking our red pen to a recent article from The Economist. The Economist, you ask, how could I? I love The Economist, I know, I know. But you'd lose respect if I give this piece a pass. In fact, it was the magazine's cover story this week, so I had no choice. The image and headline say it all. Here it is, Taiwan is now "the most dangerous place on earth" as US/China relations continue to sour in the opening months of President Biden's administration.

More Show less

Delhi-based reporter Barkha Dutt's decades of journalism couldn't prepare her for the horrific experience of covering the death of one specific COVID-19 victim: her own father. In a conversation with Ian Bremmer, Dutt recounts her desperate struggle to find an ambulance to take her father through Delhi traffic to reach the hospital, only for him to die in the ICU. Their in-depth discussion looks at India's struggle with the world's worst COVID crisis in the upcoming episode of GZERO World begins airing on US public television Friday, May 7. Check local listings.

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter, Signal

The GZERO World Podcast with Ian Bremmer. Listen now.

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal

Would China really invade Taiwan?

The Red Pen

India’s COVID crisis hits home

GZERO World Clips
The GZERO World Podcast with Ian Bremmer. Listen now.

GZEROMEDIA

Subscribe to GZERO Media's newsletter: Signal