The great game never ends, but the American people are tired of playing. While members of the foreign policy establishment (or experts, as they prefer to be called) continue the work of empire, with its interests, alliances, and intrigues around the globe, the people they are supposedly working for want out. This divergence, exemplified by the debate over Syria, imperils the legitimacy, as well as the efficacy, of American foreign and military policy.

This is why the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis has been presented as a crisis. Losing a skilled, honorable man’s services due to irreconcilable differences with the president would be a blow to any administration, let alone one as chaotic as Trump’s. . .

The debate over our involvement and strategy in Syria is important in itself, but it is also a proxy for the fight over who has the authority to direct American foreign and military policy. Continued American intervention in Syria is being pushed everywhere from National Review to The New York Times. But whatever its merits as policy, it remains unpopular beyond destroying ISIS, which is largely accomplished.

Congress, sensitive to public opinion on this at least, declined to authorize the mission creep the ostensible experts favor. Although Congress has also fecklessly declined to do anything to restrain American involvement in undeclared wars, the Constitution still requires positive authorization for war, which is supposed to be declared and directed by elected officials answerable to the people.

Regardless of the wishes of the people, Congress, and even the current commander-in-chief, the foreign policy establishment has kept playing the great game, presumably on the theory that it is easier to ask forgiveness than to seek permission. These officials believe their policies are correct, and the broad strategy of maintaining American influence and protecting American interests justifies involvement in a particular crisis or hot spot. President Trump’s flaws provide them with a ready excuse for ignoring, and even subverting, political leadership. (Read more from “The Syria Controversy Is a Proxy War Over America’s Foreign Policy” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Defense Secretary Mattis never wavered on continuing the Obama administration’s short-sighted “only ISIS” strategy in Syria. And now Iran will emerge as the big winner of the Trump administration’s decision to fully withdraw troops and personnel from Syria.

On Wednesday morning, the Trump administration announced that the United States has almost completed its mission against the Islamic State terrorist group and will now “transition to the next phase of this campaign,” which appears to be a full withdrawal from Syria.

We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 19, 2018

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to observers of the U.S. strategy in Syria, headed by Defense Secretary James Mattis, which entirely ignored Iran’s expansion into the region. The “only ISIS” strategy pursued by the Defense Department under both the Obama and Trump administrations essentially paved the way for Iran and allowed the terrorist regime to connect its land and air bridge from Tehran to Beirut.

ISIS’ “caliphate” has indeed been obliterated. The jihadi group struggles to hold the large swaths of territory it controlled when President Trump came into office. Over the course of the year, the narrow focus of the U.S. strategy in Syria has largely failed to protect U.S. strategic interests in the region and has only emboldened other adversarial actors such as Turkey and Russia.

In recent months, there were signs of momentum for a strategic recalibration before the president pulled the plug on the Syria mission. In September, national security adviser John Bolton highlighted the important mission of denying the nuclear-aspiring Iranian regime’s expansion throughout the Middle East.

“We’re not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders, and that includes Iranian proxies and militias,” Bolton proclaimed while in New York for the U.N. General Assembly. This came on the heels of statements from Secretary of State Pompeo stressing the need to counter Iran.

Yet Secretary Mattis dismissed the idea shortly thereafter, reiterating his stance that U.S. troops were in Syria with the sole mission to take out ISIS.

“Right now our troops inside Syria are there for one purpose, and that’s under the U.N. authorization about defeating ISIS,” Mattis responded.

Secretary Mattis continued to strongly insist that the U.S. must remain in Syria in perpetuity until ISIS is completely defeated, which is largely an impossible logistical task. This approach created the groundwork for another endless engagement in a foreign war zone akin to the war in Afghanistan. And it was Mattis’s narrowly focused articulation of the war that ultimately led to the withdrawal of the U.S. presence in Syria. President Trump was told that we were there solely to defeat ISIS. He then concluded, given the approach presented to him by Mattis, that ISIS’ downfall can now allow us to withdraw from the region.

The Mattis-led U.S. strategy in Syria empowered Iran, Russia, and Turkey at the expense of our allies. A full withdrawal from the country will now accelerate that process. The Department of Defense and the bipartisan foreign policy class are infuriated by the decision to withdraw from Syria, but given their failed strategic approach to the region, they only have themselves to blame for the president’s decision to end the mission. (For more from the author of “Iran Will Be the Big Winner of U.S. Syria Withdrawal” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.