Five unintended consequences of Trump's Syria withdrawal

Have Congress declare war against Syria and let's go! Nothing else has worked. So all who want us in Syria shit or get off the pot.

Syria has been a bloodbath, spiced with chemical weapons, for six years now. There have been something like 1 million people killed in the conflict, give or take which estimate you believe. Fully half of that country's population of 25 million has been displaced.
This whole time, the response of the United States to the main butcher (Assad) has been a collective shrug, spiced with a couple of airstrikes when outrage over some of the chemical attacks being "worse" than others. To date, there have been hundreds of chemical attacks, with few weeks going by without at least one of them. More deadly, though, are the conventional attacks on civilian targets. The Syrian Army and Air Force routinely bombard civilian areas and inflict misery in hopes of splintering support for rebel forces.
Assad is a war criminal, the likes of which we have not seen on this kind of scale for many years. But US policy over two administrations has been to talk tough, but generally not get involved. The reason why is pragmatism. While Assad is an awful human being, he is probably Syria's best shot at being able to internally reestablish order. An order that will no doubt include imprisoning and killing countless Free Syrian forces and collaborators. The death toll has been and will be will be enormous.
I say this to emphasize that this mess is not new, and not unique to Trump.

Instead of dealing with Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers, US policy has been to attack and destroy ISIS - a particularly virulent and ruthless faction in the Syrian Civil War - primarily in conjunction with US trained and equipped Kurds and FSA forces. This strategy was middling for a long time, as US commitment was frankly meek. But that ramped up in 2017, and was largely successful in eliminating ISIS from all held territory by the end of 2018.
That left the US in a precarious position. Our stated mission of destroying ISIS was over, but the forces we backed were still in open revolt against the government of Syria. Withdrawal meant Assad or some other element (like Turkey today) would attack and destroy them.
So for a long time, people on the ground and in the Pentagon prevailed upon Trump to keep our Soldiers there, and that succeeded, for a time. But now Trump has had enough, and left Syria to figure out Syria's problems.

The point I'm making in this rant is pointing out that NOBODY REALLY CARES, Nobody cared when ISIS ran roughshod over Kurd lands in 2014, raping and killing in gruesome ways. Obama did nothing. Nobody cared when the Kurds got organized and valiantly fought ISIS as they advanced in the very towns Turkey is occupying now. In fact, the Turks were on the border in force, only for the purposes of preventing Kurdish civilians from fleeing into Turkey, watching as they desperately struggled in house to house fighting with ISIS. Later, we made an alliance of convenience with the Kurds to destroy ISIS. That was successful.
Now, suddenly everybody cares about the Kurds?! They were silent when Obama ignored the problem. They were against our interventionism when Trump ramped up operations in Syria and Iraq. Now they are against it when we leave. Seems to me it has nothing to do with the hundreds of Kurds dead under Trump's watch, nor the 10k or so killed under Obama's watch, nor the million or so killed between the two administrations in the rest of Syria. It has everything to do with opposing anything and everything Trump does.

If we are going down the path of unintended consequences I think understanding how we found ourselves in Syria to begin with is just as important in understanding our approach in removing ourselves from the conflict. Clinton and Obama were both warned not to start a conflict in Syria as it would more than likely not pan out like they intended - yet they did. Now we find ourselves in a forced reactive position with few options as apposed to a more controlled broader proactive position. As a result a lot of unintended consequences that can't be managed without any damage.

Proactive - deciding if its a good ideal to toss a frag out vs reactive - being on the receiving side of a frag.

In essence the failures we are experiencing today in Syria are attributed to not understanding the ramification of yesterday's thinly prepared approach to foreign policy.