Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How did troop withdrawals ordered by Trump affect ongoing conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Somalia?
Executive summary
President Trump ordered significant reductions of U.S. force levels in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and pushes to cut in Syria, actions that U.S. officials said reduced Afghanistan forces from about 4,500 to 2,500 and Iraq from about 3,000 to 2,500 and that the Pentagon moved to withdraw nearly all roughly 700 troops from Somalia [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and commentary in the aftermath tied these withdrawals to risks such as empowering insurgents, complicating partner relationships, and repeating mistakes from past, rapid pullouts — while other analysts argued counterterrorism tools short of large deployments could mitigate some risks [4] [5] [6].
1. Afghanistan: A rapid drawdown that ceded leverage to the Taliban
Trump’s late-2020 and early-2021 orders to reduce U.S. troops in Afghanistan to about 2,500 were implemented quickly and surprised some U.S. officials, critics warned it removed the last significant leverage Washington had in negotiations with the Taliban, and commentators said the move risked making Afghanistan a platform for terrorist groups again [1] [4] [7]. Supporters framed the drawdown as fulfilling a promise to end “forever wars,” while opponents — including NATO officials cited by House leadership — argued an uncoordinated exit could have a high price by enabling renewed terrorist activity [1] [7]. Alternative viewpoints in later analysis argued that advanced U.S. counterterrorism capabilities (drones, intelligence) reduce the need for large ground forces, pointing to successful strikes executed post-withdrawal — but sources also note the Afghanistan exit’s heavy political and humanitarian fallout that shaped debate on future withdrawals [6].
2. Iraq: Fewer troops, continued reliance on Iraqi forces and regional risks
The reductions in Iraq — from roughly 5,200 earlier in 2021 to about 3,000 and then trimmed toward 2,500 under Trump’s orders — were presented by U.S. commanders as reflecting confidence in Iraqi security forces’ ability to counter ISIS remnants [2]. Critics warned the timing and unilateral nature of reductions risked undermining gains against ISIS and strained ties with Iraqi partners; proponents argued smaller footprints preserved counterterrorism capabilities while reducing U.S. exposure. Congressional and NATO voices expressed concern that abrupt drawdowns could replicate past outcomes where premature departures allowed extremist resurgence [2] [7].
3. Syria: Announcements, partial withdrawals and mixed execution
Trump repeatedly announced plans to withdraw from Syria, including a 2018 phone-call decision that led to an attempted full removal, but administration officials later walked back total withdrawal and a residual force remained — in part to protect oil fields and back Kurdish partners [5] [4]. By 2025 reporting described another round of reductions and base closures tied to a Trump administration posture; analysts warned that removing strategically located bases would hamper support to partners fighting ISIS and could let the group regain momentum [8]. Other analysts argued that U.S. counterterrorism reach had evolved so that presence on the ground was less indispensable for certain strikes, yet they warned lessons from Afghanistan’s chaotic exit still apply [6] [8].
4. Somalia: Near-total pullout and its impact on counter‑al-Shabaab operations
The Pentagon announced orders to withdraw nearly all of roughly 700 U.S. troops from Somalia by mid-January 2021, shifting some capabilities to neighboring countries while keeping drone and strike capacity from bases in the region [3] [9]. Somali military figures and analysts cautioned that a pullback would be driven by policy decisions rather than on-the-ground threat reductions and could undermine trust with local partners and the effectiveness of counter‑al-Shabaab operations [9] [10]. Crisis Group analysis later documented territorial gains by insurgents in 2024–25 and argued that U.S. posture changes had contributed to fragility and interrupted confidence-building measures with Mogadishu [10].
5. Competing narratives: “End the wars” versus risk of repeating past mistakes
One narrative framed Trump’s withdrawals as delivering on campaign promises to end prolonged U.S. ground commitments, reduce American casualties and shift to lower‑cost counterterrorism tools [1] [6]. The competing narrative, embraced by many military and policy analysts, warned withdrawals driven by political timetables rather than conditions risked repeating the “vacuum” that enabled ISIS’s rise after the 2011 Iraq pullout and could allow insurgents to regain territory or influence [5] [8] [7].
6. Limitations and unanswered questions in available reporting
Available sources document the orders, troop-count changes, and immediate reactions, but they do not provide a comprehensive, long-term causal accounting tying each specific withdrawal to measured changes in insurgent strength, attack rates, or regional geopolitics — those complex effects require longitudinal study and more on-the-ground data not found in the current reporting [2] [3] [10]. Where sources offer direct refutation of claims, I have cited them; where sources do not address a particular downstream effect, that effect is “not found in current reporting” [6] [8].
Conclusion: The troop reductions Trump ordered reshaped U.S. footprints across those theaters, producing immediate operational adjustments and deep disagreements about consequences. Supporters viewed the moves as prudent retrenchment paired with modern counterterrorism tools; critics warned of strategic vacuums and weakened partnerships that could invite insurgent resurgence — a debate that sources show remains unresolved in the available reporting [1] [5] [10].