Gen. Joseph Votel, leader of the US Central Command, last week told a Congressional committee that the political conditions in Afghanistan “don’t merit” a full withdrawal of US troops and warned that Daesh will pose a threat even after its defeat as a territorial entity. Votel’s testimony is the most recent of many hearings, presidential tweets, and statements by members of Congress and military and intelligence officials that have highlighted the debate in Washington over whether and how to pull the US military out of conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan. While Democrats also have a range of views on these two wars, the more interesting debate is within the Republican Party. With control of the White House and Senate, Republicans have far more influence and power over foreign policy. President Donald Trump has been clear for a long time that he wants to end US military involvement in Syria and Afghanistan. However, the debate within the Republican Party came to a head in December, when Trump said he wanted to withdraw all 2,000 US troops from Syria. The decision prompted an unusually high degree of criticism from other Republican leaders, including Sens. Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and Bob Corker. It was apparently the last straw for Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who resigned shortly afterward. The White House insists that troops will be withdrawn from Syria soon. Trump has also been pushing for plans to withdraw half of the 14,000 US soldiers in Afghanistan. And he wants to move quickly on negotiations with the Taliban in order to facilitate withdrawing more troops. In his State of the Union address in February, he said it was time for soldiers in Syria to come home and expressed hope that the country could soon reduce its “troop presence” in Afghanistan. Trump’s Republican critics have maintained their position. The Senate passed legislation that “would recognize the danger of a precipitous withdrawal from either conflict,” according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who sponsored the legislation in January. Several senior Republicans have expressed concerns that quickly pulling troops out of Syria would benefit Iran and Russia, threaten Kurdish allies who were critical in defeating Daesh, increase Israel’s vulnerabilities, and allow space for Daesh to re-emerge. Many Republicans also have concerns that Trump might pull out of Afghanistan too quickly, but the president’s apparent willingness to move more gradually there has somewhat muted criticisms. There are multiple foreign policy perspectives within the Republican Party, but the current debate centers around more traditional, internationalist Republicans on one side and Trump and his allies on the other Kerry Boyd Anderson These differences reflect a lack of agreed principles to guide Republican foreign policy. The Democratic Party also lacks clear foreign policy guidelines, but Republican views matter much more right now. Some of the confusion in current US foreign policy stems from differences within the Trump administration, as well as between Trump and members of Congress. There are multiple foreign policy perspectives within the Republican Party, but the current debate centers around more traditional, internationalist Republicans on one side and Trump and his allies on the other. The more traditional view, which has multiple variants, states that the US must proactively address threats abroad in order to protect the homeland and US global interests. Republicans who embrace this view tend to emphasize the importance of US global leadership. Proponents of this perspective also believe that the military, diplomacy, economic tools and soft power are all essential to defending US interests. They see long-term alliances as very important; Mattis particularly noted the value of alliances in his resignation letter. Some advocates of this view also believe that promoting democracy and US values are important, and most support free trade. Trump represents a perspective that was fairly fringe among Republican foreign policy practitioners before his election. His “America First” policy questions the assumptions of the more traditional perspective, including the idea that spending energy and resources on developing US leadership and alliances is necessary. Trump’s perspective is that the world does not appreciate the US, and they should spend money at home rather than on long-term military engagements and foreign aid. This view has no interest in promoting democracy and is deeply skeptical of free trade. It is suspicious of the global order, even though the US was instrumental in creating it. America First advocates are willing to engage militarily overseas, but only in the short-term pursuit of narrowly defined US interests. They often do not accept the idea of prevention — in Syria, they do not agree with the view that the US needs to remain involved in order to prevent Daesh from re-emerging. When they support military action, they tend to be all-in, with few concerns about collateral damage or long-term consequences. Top enemies for this group are Iran, China, and Daesh when it held territory. Trump probably was right to focus attention more on the questions of why the US is still at war in Afghanistan more than 17 years after the 9/11 attacks and what the country hopes to achieve in Syria. Many Americans query the value of these military engagements, and it is a topic deserving of serious debate in Congress and among foreign policy professionals. The problem for Trump — and for all American presidents — is that there are no easy answers. All US military action has costs and consequences, but US inaction or withdrawal also has costs and consequences. There is no neutral, risk-free path. Effective foreign policy requires nuance, strategy and an acceptance of complexity — none of which are strengths of the America First approach. • Kerry Boyd Anderson is a writer and political risk consultant with more than 14 years’ experience as a professional analyst of international security issues and Middle East political and business risk. Twitter: @KBAresearch Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect Arab News" point-of-view