Follow us on social

US troops in Syria

Why are we still at war in Syria?

The tempo of lethal US airstrikes — not all against ISIS — continue apace, despite murky Washington strategy

Analysis | Middle East


On Sunday, U.S. Central Command announced that it had recently killed two people linked to Al-Qaeda in Idlib, Syria. One of the men, Wasim Tahsin Bayraqdar, was reportedly the brother of a current Syrian government minister. U.S. Central Command identified the other man as a “senior military leader of al-Qaeda affiliate Hurras al-Din.”

This is just the latest in a series of strikes carried out by the U.S. on an array of Syrian targets since the fall of dictator Bashar al-Assad in December. It’s the fourth to specifically target a member of Hurras al–Din since the organization announced it would cease operations in January.

Lethal targets have also included 75 anti-ISIS strikes in the immediate wake of Assad’s overthrow, a top ISIS leader in an area formerly controlled by Assad’s regime, a dozen fighters at an ISIS camp, and an attack on what the U.S. military says are Iranian-backed militias just over the border in Iraq. The military has used a combination of F-15 fighter jets, B-52 bombers, and A-10 air support aircraft to carry these missions out.

To say that the tempo of U.S. military attacks and raids have not let up despite the leadership shakeup in Damascus would be an understatement. The forces may have originally moved into the region due to the civil war against Assad’s government after 2014, but the anti-ISIS justification (among others) has kept the missiles flying and boots on the ground.

“It’s a travesty that even after the fall of Assad, the primary way the U.S. engages with Syria is not through any diplomatic presence but through air strikes,” said Adam Weinstein, Middle East fellow at the Quincy Institute, noting that there are reasons why the new leadership of Syria has not pushed back on these military operations, yet. “The new government in Damascus, seeing these groups as potential rivals, is probably content with their elimination.”

Given that many Islamist groups like Hurras al-Din have voluntarily dissolved under the new rebel government, it is unclear where they now fit into Washington’s justification for continued operations other than their old Al Qaeda/ISIS connections. The new ruling faction, Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham, is also a former Al-Qaeda affiliate but its leader, Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa, was removed from a terrorist designation list by the Biden administration in December in an apparent gesture of goodwill. Perhaps, as Weinstein described, the U.S. is now doing al-Sharaa a favor.

Nevertheless, after Assad’s overthrow, the Biden administration announced that despite the regime change, Washington would still make its military presence felt to ensure a power vacuum was not filled by ISIS. Biden did not mention that Al-Qaeda remnants were also on the target list.

Trump has not articulated a clear position on the new Syrian government, but in February he indicated his preference for a scaled back U.S. military presence in the country. "We're not involved in Syria. Syria is in its own mess. They've got enough messes over there. They don't need us involved," he said in January. He has spoken publicly about targeting ISIS in Somalia but said little about his administration’s attacks on the group or other militant elements in Syria or Iraq, which still hosts forces of 2,000 and 2,500 U.S. troops respectively.

“U.S. troops in northeast Syria are unlikely to impact stability or internal dynamics enough to justify their continued presence,” said Weinstein.

Even if Trump does withdraw troops from Syria, U.S. air strikes won’t necessarily stop as they are launched from U.S. bases in the region. Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth recently confirmed that the Pentagon would loosen its general restrictions designed to mitigate civilian harm through air strikes. The new policy would allow the military to target a wider spread of people through air strikes beyond just senior members of terrorist organizations.

Because the Trump administration has not yet laid out a definite military strategy in Syria, it remains to be seen how these rules will affect U.S. airstrikes — their tempo and targets — in Syria going forward.

Hegseth also fired three Judge Advocate General’s Corps lawyers last Monday responsible for providing legal advice to the military (including authorizing and reviewing air strikes), describing them as “roadblocks” to the president's authority. This has raised alarm bells for a dozen Senate Armed Services Committee members who stated in a letter, “Without independent counsel, military operations risk violating international law, exposing U.S. forces to war crimes allegations, damaging alliances, and undermining global legitimacy.”

After more than a decade of intervention in Syria and an unprecedented regime change, the U.S. is still at war there. The new government is no longer a stated adversary and Trump has acknowledged the need to get out, but the question remains: what is the justification for not only the troop presence, but continued bombing of targets in this sovereign country? How long until one of our troops is killed or the new government decides that we have killed off enough of his old comrades (or rivals in arms)?

“The whole situation in Syria is complex, and its future is uncertain,” offered John Allen Gay, executive director of the John Quincy Adams Society.

“The mission is unclear and has been unclear since the destruction of ISIS," he added. "I don't want American troops sitting in the middle of a complex, uncertain situation, especially if we're not even sure what they're there to do.”


Top photo credit: American mechanized infantry troops support Combined Joint Task Force- Operation Inherent Resolve and partner with Syrian Democratic Forces to defeat ISIS remnants and protect critical infrastructure in eastern Syria. (U.S. Army Reserve photo by Spc. DeAndre Pierce)
Analysis | Middle East
Fall of saigon vietnam
South Vietnamese refugees walk across a U.S. Navy vessel. Operation Frequent Wind, the final operation in Saigon, began April 29, 1975. (U.S. Marine Corps in Japan, official photo)

Trump can boycott, but the failure and end of Vietnam War is a fact

Asia-Pacific

The Trump administration has ordered U.S. diplomats in Vietnam not to attend ceremonies marking the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War on Wednesday, according to a report in the New York Times.

Although mere ceremonies that look backward in history may seem unimportant compared to the current problems that diplomats must address, this decision to shun official representation at events that the Vietnamese government is organizing is regrettable. It represents a failure to recognize one of the greatest transitions in U.S. foreign policy from a destructive to a constructive path.

keep readingShow less
Pezeshkian Witkoff
Top photo credit: Iranian president Masoud Pezeshkian ( Tasnim News Agency/Wikimedia) and US special envoy Steve Witkoff (Office of President of Russian Federation/Wikimedia)

Enrichment is the sticking point as US-Iran talks cautiously 'hopeful'

Middle East

Alarmed by reports of dissension in the White House on U.S. Iran policy, the director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies recently warned that Iran will “exploit these different negotiating positions…as soon as the regime smells desperation.”

This alert was probably prompted by the White House’s chief negotiating envoy, Steven Witkoff, who stated on Monday, April 14, that “Iran does not need to enrich [uranium] past 3.67 percent,” only to declare on Tuesday that “Iran must…eliminate its nuclear enrichment and weaponization program.” In one day, he went from a position that could offer the basis for a negotiated deal to echoing administration hawks, such as national security adviser Mike Waltz, who insists that the total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program is the only acceptable goal.

keep readingShow less
Pope Francis
Top image credit: Fabrizio Maffei / Shutterstock.com

Pope Francis was often mocked for railing against current wars

Global Crises

No Pope had ever kissed the feet of leaders, begging them to bring peace to their country. But in April 2019, Pope Francis surprised South Sudan and the entire world when he did just that to President Salva Kiir, Vice President Riek Machar, James Wani Igga, Taban Deng Gai, and Rebecca Nyandeng De Mabior; a gesture that clearly expressed his belief that the Pontiff of the Catholic Church must be a committed and unwavering peacemaker.

Pope Francis spoke about peace until his very last breath. In his brief message before the Urbi et Orbi blessing on April 20, Easter Sunday, he mentioned peace 10 times, remembering the Holy Land and the gift of all Christians celebrating Easter on the same day, in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, the Southern Caucasus, the Balkans, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and South Sudan, the Sahel, the Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region, and also Myanmar.

keep readingShow less

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.