National

President Trump has decided to quickly withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria, against the advice of his most senior national security advisers. The move prompted the resignation  of Secretary of Defense James Mattis and sparked widespread concerns about an ISIS revival.   

The big picture: Aside from the results of the decision, the manner in which Trump made it was deeply problematic. By upending the public and private messages his own officials send, Trump disempowers and alienates his own diplomatic team. He also creates incentives that make his foreign policy agenda more difficult to attain.  

Trump reportedly agreed to the withdrawal during a phone call with Turkish President  Erdogan, and at Erdogan's suggestion. This is not the first time Trump has engaged in such sudden decision-making over the strong concerns of his own team.  

Earlier this year, he changed the penalties applied to Chinese company ZTE, after a direct request from Xi Jinping.  

At his Singapore summit with Kim Jong-un, Trump agreed to suspend joint military exercises on the Korean peninsula after Kim asked him to do so. 

Why it matters: Few countries will want to negotiate with officials from the White House or the State Department if they know they can get a better deal from the boss himself. This may be one reason Pyongyang has refused working-level negotiations over its nuclear program and instead focused on holding a new, leader-level summit. The temptations of personalizing diplomacy at the head-of-state level are great, but it persuades allies and adversaries alike to bypass the very officials hoping to execute the president's foreign policy agenda.

The bottom line:  Successful foreign policy requires the president to fully empower a team that speaks for him. If Trump continues to make on-the-spot course reversals, he will make it more difficult for his administration as a whole to achieve its goals.

Richard Fontaine is the president of the Center for a New American Security.

Trump's sudden Syria decision undermines his own foreign policy team

He's incentivizing other countries to bypass his diplomatic officials.

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis listens as U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions during a meeting with military leaders in the Cabinet Room 

Defense Secretary Mattis with President Trump during a meeting with military leaders in the Cabinet Room on Oct. 23, 2018, in Washington, D.C. Photo: Win McNamee via Getty Images

World

Syria

Expert Voices

Politics

President Trump has decided to quickly withdraw all U.S. troops from Syria, against the advice of his most senior national security advisers. The move prompted the <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="resignation of Secretary of Defense James Mattis" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/james-mattis-resignation-trump-foreign-policy-a5db44cd-5d02-449a-9e03-8759785731b7.html" data-vars-content-id="654f2d56-9ff3-461b-8a15-be212dc23f52" data-vars-headline="Trump&#x27;s sudden Syria decision undermines his own foreign policy team" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/james-mattis-resignation-trump-foreign-policy-a5db44cd-5d02-449a-9e03-8759785731b7.html" target="_self">resignation of Secretary of Defense James Mattis</a> and sparked widespread concerns about an ISIS revival. The big picture: Aside from the results of the decision, the manner in which Trump made it was deeply problematic. By upending the public and private messages his own officials send, Trump disempowers and alienates his own diplomatic team. He also creates incentives that make his foreign policy agenda more difficult to attain.

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

Today Jens Stoltenberg became the first NATO Secretary General to address a joint session of Congress, where he touted the alliance's success and emphasized the continuing need for unity.

The big picture: NATO has much to celebrate, having emerged successfully from the Cold War and engaged in numerous operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and the Mediterranean. Yet questions about the U.S. commitment to the alliance, Europe's willingness to shoulder more of the burden, and other sources of division hang over this week's 70th anniversary festivities.

Where it stands: Doubts continue to swirl as foreign ministers from NATO's 29 member states visit Washington, with events planned at the White House, Congress, the State Department and elsewhere. As Stoltenberg cautioned, "Questions are being asked on both sides of the Atlantic about the strength of our partnership."

Europeans wonder about President Trump's commitment to the mutual defense pact, and whether the United States would rush to their aid in a crisis.

As the Trump administration has stressed the need for allies to boost their defense spending, the number moving toward the pledged 2% of GDP has increased — a product of both Trump's rhetoric and worries about Russia. Most still haven't hit the target, however, and Germany's percentage appears set to decrease.

Creeping illiberalism in Turkey, Hungary and Poland threatens the democratic values that underpin NATO. Although the alliance has endured nondemocratic governments in its membership before, including Portugal and Greece, differences over such essential matters are presenting a new challenge to cohesion.

 Between the lines: Nevertheless, NATO is likely to survive, and if anything to become even more relevant than in recent years.

The United States and Europe must deter and defend against not only Russian conventional threats but also Moscow's attempts to interfere in key democracies. 

The allies are beginning to discuss the shared challenge of Chinese economic competition and the political influence that goes along with it. 

Threats on Europe's periphery — from North Africa to the Middle East — will provide fodder for common action. The migration crisis has had a profound effect on European politics and points to the dangers posed by failed states like Syria and Libya.

 The bottom line: It is shared interests, and not just democratic values, that glue NATO's allies together. Interests tend to endure. So too will the alliance.

Richard Fontaine is CEO of the Center for a New American Security.

NATO Secretary General sounds notes of caution for alliance

Yet it's likely to survive, and could become even more relevant in the years ahead.

Jens Stoltenberg addressing Congress, with Nancy Pelosi and Mike Pence seated behind him

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg addressing a joint meeting of Congress on April 3, 2019. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call

NATO

Today Jens Stoltenberg became the first NATO Secretary General to address a joint session of Congress, where he touted the alliance&#x27;s success and emphasized the continuing need for unity.The big picture: NATO has much to celebrate, having emerged successfully from the Cold War and engaged in numerous operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and the Mediterranean. Yet questions about the U.S. commitment to the alliance, Europe&#x27;s willingness to shoulder more of the burden, and other sources of division hang over this week&#x27;s 70th anniversary festivities.

President Trump's meeting with Kim Jong-un in Singapore was heavy on drama but ultimately light on specifics. Kim agreed to complete denuclearization, and the U.S. to provide benefits, but all without articulated steps or timetables.

What's next: For all the to-ing and fro-ing ahead of the summit, it may well turn out that the Trump-Kim meeting was the easy part. Now Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his North Korean counterpart must negotiate an actual plan that leads to complete denuclearization.

The work ahead will be hard and perhaps impossible. Pompeo's first task will be to demonstrate that there indeed is a shared understanding of what the two sides mean by "complete denuclearization," and to elicit a weapons declaration and lock in a timetable for their destruction. The administration should test the possibility that Kim is sincere about disarming without giving away tangible benefits ahead of true demonstrations of commitment. On that count, Trump's pledge to suspend joint military exercises with South Korea was a step in the wrong direction.

Throughout the process, the administration should recall that in Kim it is dealing with a true tyrant: a leader whose government virtually enslaves its population and keeps them in ignorance and poverty. Its terrible human rights record has no parallel in the world today. Presidents have met with — and legitimated — other brutal dictators when the benefits (Stalin fighting Hitler, for example, or Mao balancing the Soviets) were likely to outweigh the obvious costs. The key is to get something important in return. 

The bottom line: Until Pyongyang starts destroying its nuclear weapons, the United States will not have gotten that something. And so the difficult phase now begins.

The North Korean summit is over. Now for the hard part.

The U.S. needs greater assurances of Kim's sincerity before making tangible concessions.

Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump in front of flags

North Korea's leader Kim Jong-un and President Trump at the start of their Singapore summit on June 12, 2018. Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

North Korea

President Trump&#x27;s <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="meeting with Kim Jong-un" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/live-updates-president-trump-kim-jong-un-north-korea-summit-5970db4e-c0f2-467b-b158-67823e9b08f3.html" data-vars-content-id="8d4ee605-873e-4117-9ee5-ba146c326e18" data-vars-headline="The North Korean summit is over. Now for the hard part." data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/live-updates-president-trump-kim-jong-un-north-korea-summit-5970db4e-c0f2-467b-b158-67823e9b08f3.html" target="_self">meeting with Kim Jong-un</a> in Singapore was heavy on drama but ultimately light on specifics. Kim agreed to complete denuclearization, and the U.S. to provide benefits, but all without articulated steps or timetables.What&#x27;s next: For all the to-ing and fro-ing ahead of the summit, it may well turn out that the Trump-Kim meeting was the easy part. Now Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his North Korean counterpart must negotiate an actual plan that leads to complete denuclearization.

China is becoming the most formidable rival America has faced, and the risk of confrontation with Russia, North Korea or Iran still looms. Authoritarians are rising, the chaotic Afghanistan exit revealed the limits of U.S. power, and the pandemic, climate change and other critical challenges continue to pose grave threats.

Transatlantic solidarity appeared strained on day one of the NATO summit, as leaders parried rhetorical blows from President Trump, including his charge that U.S. allies "owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back."

Trump criticized countries spending less than 2% of GDP on defense, before making an unexpected call to boost the figure to 4%. He also said Germany was "totally controlled" by Russia, denouncing a planned gas pipeline that would link the two countries and yet speaking little about the Russian threats across Europe.

Yes, but: There have been meaningful policy and security agreements that risk getting lost amid the rhetoric.

The details: The 29 leaders — including President Trump — agreed on a "30-30-30" readiness initiative that would shorten the time necessary to assemble a force of aircraft, warships and land battalions. They condemned  Russia's annexation of Crimea as "illegal and illegitimate," and pledged not to recognize it — just before Trump's meeting with Putin in Helsinki next week. They made progress on counterterrorism and military mobility, and began to sort out NATO cooperation with the European Union.

The bottom line: For all the superficial battering the alliance may take, its underlying strategic logic remains sound. The transatlantic partners are likely to get through the present crisis as they have through ones before. In many ways, the alliance works. While the current friction is unwelcome and largely unnecessary, reports of NATO's death are greatly exaggerated.

Richard Fontaine is the president of the Center for a New American Security. 

Rhetoric aside, NATO's strategic logic remains sound

The group allies are likely to weather the present crisis as they have earlier ones.

NATO heads of state pose for group photo outside summit in Brussels

NATO heads of state in Brussels at the 2018 NATO summit. Photo: Julien Mattia/Barcroft Media via Getty Images

Transatlantic solidarity appeared strained on day one of the NATO summit, as leaders parried rhetorical blows from President Trump, including his charge that U.S. allies &quot;owe us a tremendous amount of money for many years back.&quot;Trump criticized countries spending less than 2% of GDP on defense, before making an unexpected call to <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="boost the figure to 4%" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/trump-nato-countries-increase-defense-spending-4-percent-e302a8d3-e5b6-402a-b149-a941a7d0ad52.html" data-vars-content-id="930b5203-2214-4eb1-875a-5210abec4625" data-vars-headline="Rhetoric aside, NATO&#x27;s strategic logic remains sound" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/trump-nato-countries-increase-defense-spending-4-percent-e302a8d3-e5b6-402a-b149-a941a7d0ad52.html" target="_self">boost the figure to 4%</a>. He also said Germany was &quot;totally controlled&quot; by Russia, denouncing a planned gas pipeline that would link the two countries and yet speaking little about the Russian threats across Europe.Yes, but: There have been meaningful policy and security agreements that risk getting lost amid the rhetoric.

President Trump's warm embrace of Vladimir Putin at their summit in Helsinki has rightly drawn sharp criticism from across the political spectrum. Though Trump leads the far stronger country, it often seemed as if he was on the defensive while Putin set the tone and agenda.

Why it matters: Following Trump's rhetorical attacks on NATO allies in Brussels last week, the summit will be remembered for normalizing an adversary while weakening transatlantic solidarity. And it stands to deepen the administration's highly contradictory approach to Russia.

In their post-meeting press conference, Trump challenged his own intelligence agencies' conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election. He blamed the United States for deteriorating relations with Russia, and was silent about Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, its annexation of Crimea and its military attacks on Syrian civilians.

While Trump waxes rhapsodic about the chances for U.S.–Russia partnership, the substance of his administration's policy has actually hardened, not softened. This includes targeted sanctions on top Russian oligarchs, the shuttering of Russian consulates and expulsion of diplomats, further military reinforcement of NATO’s eastern flank, the dispatch of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine, and the use of military force against both the Assad regime over Russian threats and objections and against Russian mercenaries when they moved on U.S. forces in eastern Syria.

While Trump said he didn't "see any reason why" Russia would have meddled in American elections, his own Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, pointed to "Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy."

The bottom line: Russian statecraft aims to divide the transatlantic allies, sow division in the United States and make both less capable of mustering the will to confront Moscow's depredations. For whatever reason, the President seems keen to play into that approach. By fracturing even the Trump administration itself, the Putin and NATO summits are bound to assist Russia's "divide and neuter" approach to foreign policy.

Trump deepens Russia contradictions at Helsinki summit

The meeting normalized an adversary while weakening transatlantic solidarity.

President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin arrive for a meeting in Helsinki.

President Trump and President Putin in Helsinki on July 16, 2018. Photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

Trump-Putin summit

President Trump&#x27;s warm embrace of Vladimir Putin at their summit in Helsinki has rightly drawn sharp criticism from across the political spectrum. Though Trump leads the far stronger country, it often seemed as if he was on the defensive while Putin set the tone and agenda.Why it matters: Following Trump&#x27;s rhetorical attacks on NATO allies in Brussels last week, the summit will be remembered for normalizing an adversary while weakening transatlantic solidarity. And it stands to deepen the administration&#x27;s highly contradictory approach to Russia.

Richard Fontaine

Stories

NATO Secretary General sounds notes of caution for alliance

Trump's sudden Syria decision undermines his own foreign policy team

Trump deepens Russia contradictions at Helsinki summit

Rhetoric aside, NATO's strategic logic remains sound

The North Korean summit is over. Now for the hard part.