The Washington Post published a article in which it spoke of the large amount of criticism by current and former US military officials of Trump's sudden withdrawal from northern and eastern Syria. The US domestic scene is witnessing sharp and clear debates about the role of the US military in foreign policy and whether public officials have a responsibility to publicly assess decisions affecting US security.
Retired General Joseph Votel, who resigned this year as head of US Central Command, and other former senior officers have issued sharp warnings since Trump ordered the sudden departure of almost all US troops in Syria, leaving SDF alone, which was an important partner of Washington against ISIS, is under attack from the Turkish army.
"The abandonment of the allies in our war against IS will severely damage the credibility and reliability of the United States," the newspaper quoted Joseph Votel as saying.
The swift withdrawal also caused an unusual wave of comments, mostly anonymous, by current and former Special Operations forces that predicted that disengagement from the SDF would lead to the return of ISIS.
The newspaper quoted a senior US official as saying: "Those who serve in Syria, see the ceasefire agreement approved by the White House on Thursday is a" complete surrender "to Turkey."
The official, who did not want to be named, said they were "angry".
For two years, the Pentagon has seen a contradiction between maintaining long-term US national security and Trump's domestic and foreign policies.
These fears have led some former military officials to step aside from what some see as widespread resentment within the U.S. military complex for Trump's policies. It culminated last week in an opinion piece by William Harry McCraven, a retired US Navy admiral who last served as the ninth commander of the US Special Operations Command, publicly calling for Trump's resignation and a serious threat to America.
In his article published in the New York Times, McCraven pointed out that the United States is not strong because of its military or economic power, "But by our ideals of freedom, justice and equality", The Washington Post considered McCraven's words a tacit criticism of Trump's betrayal of the Kurds.
Lauren Deungong Shulman, a former Pentagon and White House official, said today's military views are highly polarized and could be used for political ends.
Researchers and officers agree that a sound system is supposed to share military and civilian commanders' advice and, if necessary, but some say that the criteria on which the process is based are now tense.
On Saturday, retired Gen. David Petraeus, who led US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the "build-up of concerns" about what Trump was doing and what he called other stressors on American democracy had contributed to loud Pentagon voices criticizing Trump.
"The tendency of most of my old comrades is that there is concern about Trump's foreign policy," Petraeus said.
Derek Cholet, the assistant secretary of defense under Obama, says the sense of confusion within the military complex may increase as the presidential election approaches. "The army, whether we like it or not, will be preoccupied with this in a way that would be very uncomfortable for us," he said.
The newspaper felt that the discontent with Trump moved from the military complex to the political, where there was a sharp argument between the leader of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Trump.
While most officials look at the tension between Trump and Pelosi, the new general, Mark Alexander Milli, who has held the highest military post in less than a month, is puzzled.