The U.S Defense Secretary, Jim Mattis, will be leaving leave the Pentagon at the end of February. This statement came from Donald Trump, the U.S. President, in the midst of the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria. Mattis signed this order in spite of his disapproval of Trump’s decision, and then he penned his resignation letter. Hence, Mattis is going to leave Pentagon as a dissatisfied and overpowered politician. On 19 December, Trump declared that the United States had defeated Daesh in Syria, adding that the terrorist group was the only cause that U.S. troops were fighting in the Middle Eastern country during his presidency. About 2,000 U.S. troops are presently deployed in Syria as part of a drive to defeat Daesh. This is while the U.S. President’s assertions are in contrast with the American authorities’ support for the Takfiri groups in Syria and other countries in the region. In any case, Mattis resigned straightaway after Trump’s statement about the pulling out of American troops from Syria. In a letter to United States President, he declared his differences with Trump on numerous topics. He said he would step down so that Trump could have a defense secretary whose outlooks are better identical with the President. The point is, contrary to the wishes of the American media and the U.S. officials, who are trying to confine the differences between Trump and Mattis to a personal clash, the resignation of the U.S. Secretary of Defense from his post, is a perfect sign of the strategic defeat of the United States in Syria, Afghanistan, and the West Asia region. In other words, the significant point here is the strategic defeat of the United States in the region and not the personal debates between Mattis and Trump. The next substantial fact that should be taken into consideration is the future of the Pentagon after Mattis’ resignation. After Mattis, the Department of Defense will continue to operate as one of the hubs of intrigues against other nations. Nevertheless, Mattis’ resignation will generate disorder in the essential structures of the U.S. Department of Defense. This condition and strategic difference will also display itself in the regional approach and foreign policy of the United States. But our experience demonstrates that as time goes by, the U.S. policies will be further and further crushed in the region. The Pentagon has also been debilitated as a consequence. In the meantime, the efforts of the U.S. Department of Defense and some Western media, particularly Americans, and the leaders of the two Democratic and Republican parties, have botched to avert this drift. Manifestly, at this period, the Pentagon has become one of the symbols of regional and international fiasco in the United States.