Follow us on social

google cta
Screen-shot-2021-10-27-at-5.36.12-pm

Our troops are targets in Syria. Why is Biden keeping them there?

After a US outpost is struck again, reportedly by Iranian-backed militias, the DoD assures our forces aren't going anywhere. This is folly.

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

Last week U.S. forces operating in Syria were attacked by armed drones, allegedly by an Iranian-backed militia. On Tuesday, Al Jazeera reported that senior Biden Administration officials emphasized the president has no intention of withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria. That is a mistake that may, sooner or later, result in yet more pointless deaths of American service members. 

President Biden needs to withdraw all the troops from Syria, immediately.

There are too many among Washington’s foreign policy elite who have become, frankly stated, addicted to the idea of keeping as many American troops deployed in combat operations around the world as possible. For many years they have fought, aggressively, any consideration of withdrawing troops from any fight, anywhere, any time – and except for ending the war in Afghanistan last August, they have succeeded at thwarting any withdrawal. This latest resistance to ending our combat operations in Syria is only the latest example.

In 2014, then-President Obama announced a plan to end the Afghan war and withdraw all U.S. troops by the end of 2016, saying that it was, “time to turn the page on more than a decade in which so much of our foreign policy was focused on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Americans, Obama also noted, “have learned that it’s harder to end wars than it is to begin them.” He learned just how hard barely one year later.

In October 2015, Obama retracted his promise to end the withdrawal and decided to punt to the next commander in chief. Yet as the Washington Post’s Craig Whitlock revealed in the 2019 Afghanistan Papers, Obama pulled the plug on the withdrawal because “the president faced countervailing pressures to stay put from the Pentagon and hawks in Congress.” 

Instead of standing up to the pressure because it was the appropriate military response to the strategic circumstances, Obama folded. American troops paid the price in blood for his refusal, as 77 Americans died after 2016 and another 425 were wounded. All of those casualties would have been avoided if Obama had simply resisted the political pressure and done the right thing.

President Trump three times announced he was withdrawing troops from Syria during his term, and twice tried to completely end the war in Afghanistan. In all cases, Trump was fiercely opposed by senior members of his cabinet and national security apparatus and when he left office, none of the missions had ended. Because Trump unwilling to resist the institutional pressure and refused to end either the Syrian deployment or Afghan War on his watch, a number of U.S. troops in both countries were unnecessarily killed and wounded. 

The attack by Iran-backed militia on the U.S. base at Tanf, Syria resulted in no casualties. As a result of the “complex, coordinated and deliberate attack,” Biden is almost certain to come under pressure to retaliate with lethal force against the alleged offending militia members. On Monday at a Pentagon, Press Secretary John Kirby said that he would not “talk about intelligence matters,” but then added that “if there's to be a response, it'll be at a time and a place and a manner of our choosing,” indicating the Pentagon is actively examining such options.  

The president has for months been under pressure to respond with lethal force to such attacks. Biden approved airstrikes against targets in eastern Syria in February 2021 after U.S. personnel came under rocket fire in Erbil, Iraq. Before one more American service member pointlessly loses his or her life, it is time to end this unnecessary mission. 

Obama sent U.S. troops into Syria in 2015 to help the Syrian Democratic Forces retake territory from ISIS. The Islamic State operating within the confines of Iraq and Syria were never a credible threat to U.S. security and Obama should never have sent troops in to fight for the benefit of the Iraqi government in Baghdad and the SDF in Syria (and, perversely, to the benefit of Assad in Damascus). ISIS was a direct threat to Iraq, Syria, and the SDF — the burden to defeat ISIS should have rested fully on their shoulders.

But even if one believes we should have fought in Syria and Iraq to deprive ISIS of their territorial holdings, that mission was fully accomplished over two years ago. Since that time, there hasn’t been a valid reason to operate and maintain active combat operations in either country. Remnants of ISIS in those land-locked locations pose no threat to the U.S. that our standard global counterterror capacity can’t handle. I cannot more strongly state: a few hundred combat troops on the ground in Syria do not materially contribute to U.S. national security.

It should be unconscionable to keep American service members at constant risk of their lives and limbs when their presence there is not necessary. It is only a matter of time before one of those rocket attacks finds the mark and Americans are killed or wounded. Biden will then come under enormous pressure to respond militarily. 

The only result of such action will be to increase the tensions, raise the chance of stumbling into a pointless war with Iran, and make the Iranian and militia victims vow yet more revenge against Americans.  It’s time for the president to withdraw our troops and end the unnecessary risk to our troops.


U.S. soldiers make their way to a oil production facility to meet with its management team, in Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility, Oct. 27, 2020. The soldiers are in Syria to support Combined Joint Task Force-Operation Inherent Resolve (CJTF-OIR) mission. (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Jensen Guillory)
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?
Top image credit: President Donald J. Trump holds a joint news conference at the White House with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Feb. 4, 2025. (Shutterstock/ Joshua Sukoff)

Did the US only attack Iran because of Israel?

QiOSK

In the months that led up to the Iraq War, the Bush administration went to extraordinary lengths to convince the world of the need to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. Leading officials laid out their case in public, sharing what they claimed was evidence that Iraq was moving rapidly toward the deployment of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. When U.S. tanks rolled across the border, everyone knew the justification: the U.S. was determined to thwart Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, however fictitious that threat would later prove to be.

In the months that led up to the Iran War, the Trump administration took a different tack. President Trump spoke only occasionally of Iran, offering a smattering of justifications for growing U.S. tensions with the country. He claimed without evidence that Iran was rebuilding its nuclear program after the U.S.-Israeli attack last June and even developing missiles that could strike the United States. But he insisted that Tehran could make a deal with seven magic words: “we will never have a nuclear weapon.”

keep readingShow less
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.