"Trump didn't have to"

While reading on USA Today I came across an opinion article stating Trump didn't have to with drawl troops from Syria to keep his promise on his campaign. I being a veteran and always for bringing troops home still agree with the author's. They both make great and valid points you can tell they have done there research talking about this issue. An example would be when the authors report "The current U.S. military presence in Syria of 1,000 troops represents 0.05 percent of all American military forces in uniform today." that is a small amount of troops deployed into that area in the gram scheme of things, but could have a bigger effect if something was to happen. Both authors state how we do not elect based on issue-by-issue, and that meaning they may not keep all promises but do we as Americans really expect that anymore? I believe that it comes down more to the overall how did the president do and who the upcoming candidates are. Withdrawing troops to fulfill one promise for the campaign may not be worth the possible effects. Michael O'Hanlon and Omer Taspinar who are the authors have a closing statement which states "President Trump's frustration with the forever wars is understandable. But in Syria, we have after years of policy failure, heartbreak, and danger to western Europe and North America, found an effective policy that involves very modest costs to the United States in blood and treasure. President Trump should celebrate and preserve this success rather than feel some need to end it." and I couldn't agree with this statement more with so much that has happened in Syria why not accept the victory and the end it with a strong though for the readers of their article.