Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

Calling it quits

Syria marks the end of functioning NATO and with it, the security of numbers

You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining. You've read all of your free articles.

Full access isn’t far.

We can’t release more of our sound journalism without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.

Get into news that is grounded in facts and Biblical truth for as low as $2.99 per month.


Already a member? Sign in.

At the end of two weeks of fighting in Syria, the United States has paid a high price to get perhaps 1,000 U.S. military personnel out of harm’s way.

An area in the process of stabilizing under a semi-autonomous constitution aimed at restoring rights to Kurds, Christians, Yazidis, and Arab Muslims has reverted to a turbulent scene of atrocities and jihadist movements.

An Atlantic alliance lies in the dustbin, as European leaders have gone to great lengths denouncing Trump’s unilateral move to abandon Kurdish partners long supported by NATO. On Oct. 21 Germany’s defense minister called for an international zone in northern Syria coordinated with Russia and Turkey alone.

Russia is now ensconced at NATO’s doorstep under a formal agreement with Turkey, patrolling the Syria-Turkey border. Vladimir Putin will call the next moves in northeast Syria. Russia and Turkey together may decide the future of Syria’s oil-rich northeast. They may be the ones to tie up water rights along its Euphrates hydroelectric system.

Pledging to curb migration, Trump has launched another humanitarian crisis, with more than 300,000 Syrians fleeing in under 10 days.

Pledging to curb migration, Trump has launched another humanitarian crisis, with more than 300,000 Syrians fleeing in under 10 days. Anticipating yet another wave of displacement, UN workers expanded refugee camps in Iraq and elsewhere, yet again.

Few understand that this “Kurdish” area was historically Christian. It was chosen by the League of Nations for establishing 35 Christian villages following massacres of Assyrian Christians in the last century—first by Turkey, then Iraq, and then the Kurds. Those villages, struggling to rebuild after ISIS occupation in 2015, in October lay emptied again. They too are unlikely to revive without international protection. The Syriac Strategic Research Center reports 156 Christian families displaced from other border towns as well.

Trump’s move to green-light a Turkish invasion of Syria, and to then second it with a cease-fire agreement further forcing Syrians from their homes, deals a death blow to collective security. Such arrangements have protected the vulnerable and served U.S. interests abroad.

To summarize where we are: In the aftermath of World War II the victorious Western Allies came together to create abiding, cooperative institutions as a bulwark against the deadly extremisms of their day and the atrocities they had wrought.

The treaty creating NATO was a mutual defense pact that also governed the partners’ conduct in war. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, written mostly by Lebanese Christian thinker and diplomat Charles Malik, gave focus to the otherwise abstract role of the UN. It made liberty of conscience and individual rights no longer a “Western” idea, but a deeply embedded human (and God-given) one.

Like America’s founders, the architects of this global order were not working under illusions about man’s perfectibility. They understood it was precisely because of human sinfulness that such accords and institutions were needed to uphold a law man alone could not keep.

NATO endured from Communism to Islamism. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty has been invoked only once in NATO’s 70-year history—on Sept. 12, 2001, less than 24 hours after attacks on the United States. That action led to joint military assaults on al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and saw NATO forces engage outside the Euro-Atlantic theater for the first time. That early action undoubtedly spared the United States and its allies from further large-scale terrorist attacks.

But under the last three U.S. presidencies, the global alliance has faltered. The NATO-led campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq under President George W. Bush disintegrated into costly “endless” wars where nation-building fed corruption and new forms of terrorism. Under President Barack Obama, with fierce support from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a NATO-led no-fly zone in Libya turned into an atrocious war that demolished Libya while exporting terror and weapons.

Then came Syria. The Obama administration made and broke promises before Trump, who ended U.S. opposition to the Assad regime while prioritizing the defeat of ISIS. Syria has brought an end to a functioning NATO.

The only ones in this theater the United States hasn’t broken faith with is ISIS, but the only question now is whether ISIS will remain defeated while new forces contend for dominance.

Mindy Belz

Mindy wrote WORLD Magazine's first cover story in 1986 and went on to serve as international editor, editor, and now senior editor. She has covered wars in Syria, Afganistan, Africa, and the Balkans, and she recounts some of her experiences in They Say We Are Infidels: On the Run from ISIS with Persecuted Christians in the Middle East. Mindy resides with her husband, Nat, in Asheville, N.C.



Please wait while we load the latest comments...


Please register or subscribe to comment on this article.


Concur with the above.  I am in the game and so is my son; another son served and got out.  I am tired of deploying to Afghanistan and Iraq.  We did not volunteer to be the world's policemen, especially when U.S. interests may not be at stake.  (As an aside, this is one of the down-sides of an all volunteer force where so few serve -- we are too easy to deploy ... and abuse.)

NATO countries have for too long expanded their social programs at the expense of their defense spending, while enjoying the protective blanket provided by the U.S.  Under such circumstances, the Alliance would eventually collapse anyway because it is a one-sided relationship which the U.S. cannot sustain without significant European investment.

With respect to Middle East instability, the U.S. military cannot sustain an endless presence given the global threats from near-peer competitors (Russia and China).  In a resource constrained environment, the U.S. cannot do both -- maintain stability in the Middle East and build readiness for potential conflict with a near-peer competitor.  It would not matter if we stayed in the Middle East for 20 years or 200 years -- the moment the U.S. military redeploys, the power players will return to fighting due to longstanding ethnic feuds and the pervasiveness of Islam (an ideology with little room for forgiveness).  As with the Beirut Marine barracks in the early 1980s, the longer the U.S. military remains, the more lucrative a target it becomes leading to an inevitable withdrawal from the region.


Thank you Mindy for defining some of the problem.  What would you suggest as the answer? 

I am a member of the US Armed Forces with skin in the game.   I have served all over Iraq.  My son, other family members and many friends are also still serving. 

I do agree the pull out in Syria  is a mess, the big pullout in Iraq was a mess too, but I have not heard of any cohesive, long term strategic plan for this area of the world. 

What is God's will for this area, I do not know, but that should be our focus and prayer.