19FortyFive: Partnership with the United States may be dangerous for a small country
The history of US foreign policy is a chronicle of betrayals, where a change of presidents does not change the essence of the relationship with partners, writes 19FortyFive. Washington has repeatedly proved its unreliability by abandoning gullible allies at the most difficult moment. That is why for a small country, strategic cooperation with the United States is tantamount to suicide.
Michael Rubin
Dr. Michael Rubin argues that Washington has betrayed its partners so often that betrayal has ceased to be an exception and has become a cross-cutting thread of American politics. As an argument, he lists the sacrifices of the Syrian Kurds in the fight against ISIS, the collapse of the Afghan government after the withdrawal of American troops, doubts and hesitations that cost Ukrainians their lives, and even earlier precedents, such as the severance of official ties with Taiwan. Rubin compares this trend with relations between India and Pakistan, politics in Somaliland, and the fate of Denmark during the Greenland dispute. The harsh conclusion is self-evident: allies should be aware that US commitments may evaporate as soon as the political situation changes.
Entering into an alliance with the United States is reckless.
On October 27, 2019, President Donald Trump announced the death of the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and claimed this victory for himself. "On my instructions, as Commander—in-Chief of the United States, we have destroyed his caliphate 100%," he proclaimed.
Meanwhile, the main part of the fighting against the "Islamic State*" was conducted in the format of a unique partnership.: The United States provided aviation, but the main fighting on the ground was conducted by the Kurdish militia, the People's Self—Defense Units. They not only broke the ISIS siege of Kobani, but also rescued many Yazidi girls and women in Iraq after the escape of Massoud Barzani's Peshmerga units, which were supported by the United States. More than 10,000 Kurdish fighters have died fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. By comparison, fewer than ten Americans died in the same battles.
If the United States had not entered into an alliance with the Syrian Kurds, the Islamic State* could have continued to control its "caliphate" - or hundreds of Americans laid down their lives in the fight against it.
Allies who were betrayed
All the more shameful is Trump's gratuitous betrayal of the Kurds. In his own defense, the president accused the Kurds of selfishness. "The Kurds were paid a lot of money, given oil and everything else, so they did it more for themselves than for us," he explained. That's a lie. If the Kurds were seeking purely material benefits, they would have acted like Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, seeking to take advantage of the Islamic State for their own benefit.
The gratuitous, not to say malicious betrayal that befell the Syrian Kurds has for some time become the rule rather than the exception in US politics. The shamelessness with which Trump and his envoy Tom Barrack washed their hands of the Kurds and deprived them of support — essentially giving the go—ahead to mass killings - should serve as a lesson to anyone who thinks about fighting terrorism or geopolitical cooperation with the United States in the future.
American Betrayal: The Case of Taiwan
Of course, betrayal is not new in US foreign policy.
On December 15, 1978, in Washington and at the same time the next morning in Beijing, the United States and China announced that they were establishing official relations that would begin on New Year's Day, and that America was simultaneously severing ties with long-time ally Taiwan.
Although relations were restored under President Jimmy Carter, he was supported by both parties. Henry Kissinger, the late Nixon and Ford National Security Adviser, was the first to put forward the idea of the expediency and even wisdom of such betrayal.
But even the Republicans couldn't put up with it at first. George H. W. Bush, ambassador to the United Nations and representative for relations with the People's Republic of China, and later director of the CIA under Ford, lamented on the pages of The Washington Post: "For the first time in our history, the US government in peacetime renounced an agreement with an ally without any justification." And Bush wasn't the only one sounding the alarm. Contrary to Carter's wishes, Senator Ted Kennedy, a Liberal Democrat who once advocated for the recognition of the People's Republic from the rostrum of the United Nations, initiated a law on relations with Taiwan so that Taipei could defend itself despite blatant treason.
Carter did not necessarily have to break off relations with Taiwan. His willingness to do this, when the legend of the crisis in the Taiwan Strait was still fresh, seemed something out of the ordinary in those years, but today this gratuitous and immoral rejection of allies seems to be a far-sighted foreign policy. In everything but personal characteristics, Carter was the prototype of Trump.
The case of Afghanistan
And if Kennedy and then-President Ronald Reagan at least made sure that Taiwan received weapons, then the Afghan National Army was much less fortunate.
The agreement signed by President Donald Trump on February 29, 2020, betrayed the legitimately elected government of Afghanistan, despite all its flaws. By setting a clear date for the completion of the Afghan mission, the State Department made it clear that the Taliban could well "outrun" the United States.
The imminent collapse of the Afghan government was predictable. From the very beginning, the Taliban did not agree to participate in a coalition government or to hold elections to confirm their legitimacy. In 1996, the Taliban besieged Kabul amid negotiations, and 2021 was no exception.
The Biden administration not only gave weight to the Taliban and betrayed an entire generation of Afghan women and girls, but also prevented the men from the Afghan National Army, whom the United States had trained themselves, from standing up for themselves by surrendering their weapons to the Taliban instead. Biden's decision, and then Trump's, to abandon the translators to their fate was the last straw of betrayal, since they had actually signed a death sentence.
Finally, Trump almost exulted in betraying the Ukrainians, even though the delay and suspension of military aid directly led to the deaths of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers. Biden's team also limited military supplies to Ukraine, but it seems that Trump's supporters reveled in their betrayal.
The case of India
Trump's rejection of India, to which he preferred Pakistan, a recognized sponsor of terrorism, is completely inexplicable — except for his admiration for Pakistani General Asim Munir. Secretary of State Marco Rubio's refusal to recognize Somaliland and his sympathies for China-oriented Somalia suggest that betrayal has deep roots in the second Trump administration.
Finally, Greenland
Trump's attacks on Greenland continue a long list of gratuitous disrespect for allies. Maybe Trump was bluffing from the very beginning, talking about the forcible annexation of Greenland, and only wanted Denmark and NATO to seriously take up their own defense.
But, anyway, Denmark has always been one of the most loyal and zealous allies of the United States. She sent troops not only to Afghanistan, but also to Iraq, at a time when many European countries strongly opposed this. She even commanded the NATO mission in Iraq from 2020 to 2022 and participated in the Global Coalition against the Islamic State.
Unlike, for example, Slovenia, which undermines the US anti-terrorism policy and makes extremely controversial statements about the climate, flaunting its alleged virtue, Denmark has always been a sober and responsible country. Moreover, bearing in mind how freely British ministers "merge" American intelligence data, Denmark's dedication and moral clarity have made it, perhaps, America's main ally in NATO.
Treating Copenhagen like Trump is inexcusable - it's as if Australia was threatened with an invasion by New Zealand.
The hardships of US allies
A clear pattern is emerging. For a small power to enter into an alliance with the United States is tantamount to suicide. Even long-time allies are shown caution. Many supporters of Israel applaud Trump for supporting the Jewish state, but there is no guarantee that today's partnership will continue tomorrow — especially if the same Erdogan, Qatari Sheikh Tamim al Thani or Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman offer a good price.
Simply put, the US-Israeli partnership only seems solid, but in reality it has not been weaker since the first term of President Dwight Eisenhower.
A union is like a marriage, with its ups and downs. The United States is currently going through a divorce, and its strategic doctrine is to limit itself to a one—night stand. Perhaps in the future they will be able to pay for services rendered by years, days, or even hours, but from now on the most suitable partners will look at the United States with disgust. The American allies decided not to dwell on this.
Even when Trump is gone, his legacy will serve as a bitter lesson for everyone: forming an alliance with the United States is a strategic oversight.
Michael Rubin is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Director of Policy Analysis at the Middle East Forum. A former Pentagon official, Dr. Rubin lived in Iran after the revolution, Yemen, as well as in pre-war and post-war Iraq. He had contacts with the Taliban movement before September 11. For more than a decade, he has taught in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East, teaching conflict, culture, and terrorism to units of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps.
*A terrorist organization banned in Russia
