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
Benjamin Netanyahu Donald Trump
Top image credit: White House

Why Trump can do what Biden couldn't on Iran

QiOSK

Recent news that high level Trump administration officials — including special envoy Steve Witkoff — will meet either indirectly or directly with their Iranian counterparts, including Iran’s foreign minister, this coming weekend in Oman is quite remarkable, particularly given that the Biden administration never managed to get this far in four years.

Many in Washington will conclude that Trump succeeded in getting these negotiations to rein in Iran’s nuclear program started because he orchestrated a credible military threat against Iran. Indeed, that is a factor.

keep readingShow less
THAAD
Top Image Credit: A Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptor is launched from the Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska during Flight Test THAAD (FTT)-18 in Kodiak, Alaska, U.S. on July 11, 2017. Picture taken on July 11, 2017. Courtesy Leah Garton/Missile Defense Agency/Handout via REUTERS ATTENTION EDITORS - THIS IMAGE WAS PROVIDED BY A THIRD PARTY.

Reports: Despite limited stockpile, US gives Israel another THAAD

QiOSK

Amid the broken ceasefire in Gaza and boiling Israel-Iran tensions, Arab and Israeli media outlets are reporting that the U.S. is now deploying more missile defense capabilities to Israel.

The news broke ahead of President Trump’s Monday meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington. NBC News previously reported on March 30 that defense officials had approved a second Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system’s relocation to the Middle East; the Telegraph reported Monday that a C-5M Super Galaxy, a large U.S. transport aircraft able to carry a THAAD system, was at Nevatim airbase in Southern Israel on Saturday.

keep readingShow less
Nixon_and_zhou_toast-scaled
Top Image Credit: US President Richard Nixon and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai toast, February 25, 1972.

Why Trump probably can’t pull off a ‘reverse Nixon’

Europe

President Donald Trump’s unorthodox diplomacy has alarm bells ringing around the world, not least in Washington, D.C. While much of the inside-the-beltway elite is horrified at the prospect of America supposedly reorienting toward Russia, administration insiders have hinted at an ambitious plan to drive a wedge between Moscow and Beijing.

They’ve raised the possibility of a so-called “Reverse Nixon” maneuver aimed at fostering a global balance of power more favorable to America. But can it work?

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

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.