After more than a decade of violent and vicious repression, Bashar al-Assad’s rule collapsed when his main backers, Iran and Russia, focused their resources and attention at home rather than Damascus.
In Syria, more questions than answers are emerging, but experience has made one thing abundantly clear to all countries: A nation in conflict cannot survive without friends.
When President Biden follows President Trump’s lead in 2021, it could be argued that the United States has inflicted the same fate on Afghanistan’s Ashraf Ghani and has lost patience with his own administration’s support of a more responsible path. The rapid and complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan paved the way for a rapid takeover by the Taliban, a rollback of Afghan women’s rights, and renewed safe havens for terrorism. Additionally, a bombing occurred at the Abbey Gate in Kabul, tragically killing 13 American soldiers and approximately 200 Afghan civilians. In the absence of U.S. action, non-profit organizations and civilians continue to evacuate and secure visas for the people we pledged to support.
For people of my generation, it was a sad reminder of the fall of Saigon and a symbol of America’s helplessness after two decades of massive human and financial investment in Afghanistan.
It is unclear whether the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham rebels who ousted Assad will take better care of Syria than the Taliban in Afghanistan. They can rule by terror, just as fellow Islamist group ISIS has expanded at lightning speed and gained access to better military stockpiles and chemical weapons. Or we can finally bring peace to the Syrian people and stop Iran’s resupply to Hezbollah through Syria.
But either way, it’s clear that Volodymyr Zelensky is paying attention. For 1,000 days, Ukrainians have been fighting to defend their territory, democracy, and the lives of 40 million people from Russia’s ongoing unlawful aggression, marked by brutal attacks on critical infrastructure and civilian hospitals and the kidnapping of thousands of Ukrainian children.
Support from the U.S. and its partners has kept Ukraine in the fight, albeit with unfortunate strings attached, but it has not been able to move beyond an initial counteroffensive in 2022. Without that support on the battlefield, Ukraine would have collapsed. The leverage that comes from continued support also strengthens Ukraine’s influence at the final negotiating table.
As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office, he must decide whether to sidestep America’s commitments to Ukraine, as we did in Afghanistan, or to keep ours.
Setting aside the legal, humanitarian, and ethical reasons for continuing to support Ukraine, two important U.S. national interests are at stake. The first is to prevent further attacks by Russia. The second is to maintain U.S. deterrence and strengthen alliances around the world.
If Russia can “win” in Ukraine – from military victories to negotiations over vital Ukrainian territory and expanded influence over the Ukrainian government – it certainly will not end here.
Russia is already expanding its influence across Eastern Europe, as evidenced by the recent Romanian elections. Vladimir Putin’s goal is to restore Russia to its former global leadership position at all costs, including partnerships with China, North Korea and Iran to counter American influence.
After suffering a humiliating failure to capture Kiev in an initial invasion, Russia reorganized its military, increased mobilization, and built a war economy that, by some measures, now produces more weapons and military equipment than the rest of Europe combined. Built. For Putin, taking a bite out of Ukraine may be an appetizer, but he’s preparing to bite into a much larger chunk of former Soviet territory.
Meanwhile, America’s commitment to Ukraine, which has bipartisan support and is supported by both NATO and non-NATO allies, cannot be separated from America’s commitments elsewhere. Other European countries, Taiwan, the Philippines, and others who rely on U.S. security guarantees are unlikely to trust U.S. promises of support if they also break their promises to Ukraine after Afghanistan.
The words of the President of the United States will lose their value if other countries read things that have an expiration date. Or if our commitment to one theater can be sacrificed for new needs in another.
At a recent Halifax International Security Forum, Taiwan’s former president called for continued U.S. military support for Ukraine, despite concerns that such support would reduce the weapons Ukraine could use. What our friends need is not just America’s arsenal. It is our commitment to the sovereignty and protection of our fellow democracies.
If the United States will not stand up to Ukraine’s merciless aggression, why would China expect us to engage in its ongoing “gray zone” tactics in the Pacific? If Kiev turns its back on it as it did in Kabul, it will be difficult to shake the paper tiger’s reputation.
The hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan was the bloody and shameful end result of four presidents seeking to reduce America’s footprint in the post-9/11 “forever” wars. If we make a similar mistake selling Ukraine to Putin, the consequences will be much worse.
Jane Harman is a nine-term congresswoman from California who served as a ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee for four years after the 9/11 attacks. She is the bipartisan chair of the congressionally mandated National Defense Strategy Committee, president emeritus of the Wilson Center, and author of “Insanity in Defense: Why Our Failure to Address National Security Challenges is Making Us Less Safe.”
