Less Troops, More Stability

"You shouldn't have come here."
--Atto (Black Hawk Down)

After President Trump's announcement that the US military would leave Syria ahead of a conflict with Turkey, the 'war caucus' has predictably been on the warpath. The caucus has crafted a message, mindlessly regurgitated by the mainstream media, that the withdrawal of the small number of US forces in Syria exposes Kurds, our 'allies,' to senseless slaughter by invading Turks.

As Ron Paul observes, this is merely another ploy of the military establishment to "keep the 'forever war' gravy train rolling through the Beltway." This time around, of course, a large number of anti-Trumpers, sensing political opportunity, are piling on for good measure as well.

What the media is not widely reporting is that yesterday the Kurds signed an agreement with the Syrian government to put aside their differences and fight the Turks side-by-side.

One of Paul's most important observations is this:

"Once again, the politicians, the mainstream media, and the Beltway 'experts' have been proven wrong. They never understand that sending US troops into another country without the proper authority is not a stabilizing factor, but a destabilizing factor [emphasis mine]. I have argued that were the US to leave Syria (and the rest of the Middle East) the countries of the region would find a way to solve their own problems."

The Kurd/Syrian joint agreement offers an example of how pulling US troops out of the Middle East motivates voluntary cooperation that should improve stability in the region over time.