DW:  Why the US forces are still in Syria?

The US bombing of Iranian-allied fighters in Syria last week brought the same old question anew: “What are we still doing in Syria?” according to one of the headlines.

American politician, Chris Murphy, who chairs the American Foreign Relations Subcommittee, published a statement questioning “the wisdom of the spread of so many Americans in that region”.

“Whenever US forces there are attacked, the question arises again: Why are they there?”

In an August 25 address to Congress, US President Joe Biden explained why he ordered the retaliatory strikes: “To protect and defend the safety of our personnel, and to degrade and disrupt the continuing series of attacks against the United States and our partners, and deter… more attacks”.

Earlier in August, the US base of al Tanf, near the meeting point of the Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi borders, was attacked by drones. 

The missiles also targeted other US bases, known as “Green Village” and “Koniko” in Deir al Zour Governorate, in the far east of Syria.

These attacks did not result in casualties.

The US forces have been stationed in Syria since 2015, and today there are still about 900 US soldiers deployed in the area known as the Eastern Syria Security Zone. 

Those forces, along with about 2,500 soldiers stationed in Iraq, are ostensibly part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the international coalition to defeat the extremist group known as the “Islamic State” (ISIS).

But given the significant deterioration of ISIS’s power and capabilities, some Americans are skeptical of their country’s policy in Syria.

“Except for countering the ISIS threat in northeastern Syria, US policy since 2011 has failed to achieve positive results.

In September 2021, Abd al Rahman al Masri, a former fellow in the Rafic Hariri and Middle East Department at the Atlantic Council think-tank in Washington, wrote: “There has been no stand-alone and consistent policy toward Syria by successive US administrations since the beginning of the conflict in 2011.

The United States doesn’t know what it wants in Syria… Both friends and foes know this”.

What are Washington’s priorities in Syria?

Last year, the US government ordered a review of its Syria policy. 

After this was completed in late 2021, four priorities were identified regarding the presence of US forces in Syria.

First, maintaining the momentum of fighting the extremist “Islamic State” organization. 

This includes helping to train and arm the Syrian Kurdish fighters, known as the Syria Democratic Forces (SDF), who fought the Islamic State and who now control this part of Syria.

Other US priorities in Syria also include supporting ceasefires in place in several areas in Syria, stabilizing the region, and aiding humanitarian access, as well as “pressing for accountability (war criminals) and respect for international law, while promoting human rights”, and non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

All of this is supposed to help bring about a political solution to the ongoing Syrian crisis, as stipulated in Resolution 2254, which the UN Security Council passed on it in 2015.

As analysts briefed on the new policy goals complained after in its announcement, US policy in Syria remains “shy” and “tepid”.

“The United States doesn’t want to get into a big fight in Syria. 

Washington hasn’t yet identified a strategic interest in Syria that justifies a major war there,” Robert Ford, the former US ambassador to Syria, said in an editorial for the Saudi-funded newspaper Asharq al Awsat last May.

In another article published in the Atlantic Council’s “Rafik Hariri and the Middle East Section” in January of this year, the Syrian researcher, Abd al Rahman al Masri, expressed concern that the goals of the new policy in fact reflected further disinterest and could To indicate the withdrawal of the United States from the region.

Despite all the previous and other criticisms, Dareen Khalifa, a Syria analyst at the International Crisis Group, sees the United States playing an important role in stabilizing northeastern Syria: “I think a lot of people underestimate that. 

It [the US] keeps pressure on ISIS and prevents chaos”.

By this, it means that once there, the US presence prevents Turkish forces from advancing there and fighting Kurdish forces, US allies, as well as preventing the advance of the Russians, Iranians, and the Syrian army itself.

“They maintain a balance of power in this region,” Khalifa added.

“There are consequences to their presence and they are mostly positive, to be honest… This is something a lot of US policymakers don’t like to talk about, because their mandate was only to fight ISIS, not protect civilians”.

At the same time, Khalifa agrees with critics of the US presence in Syria in pointing to policy failures: “We don’t know, for example, how long they want to stay there.

We don’t know why, while they are there, they are not trying to solve some of the basic problems in the area, which are problems that will re-emerge once they leave”.

One example is the growing possibility that Türkiye will launch more attacks against the SDF. 

Khalifa indicated that “these tensions have multiplied with the United States’ support for the Syria Democratic Forces.

It is a problem that will not go away on its own. In the end, Türkiye is there to stay”.

Other experts indicated that the SDF, which doesn’t know how long its US allies will remain, may increasingly turn to Russia to secure its future.

The Russian army is also present in Syria and Syrian President Bashar al Assad.

Darren Khalifa doubts that US politicians found it easier not to address these tough questions and all they did was “kick the can out of the way until it becomes someone else’s problem”.

“Basically, it’s not about whether the United States should stay or leave,” she told DW. 

It’s about how Americans can best use their presence and help find a middle ground that will provide enough satisfaction for all parties involved”.

Khalifa concludes, “Not everyone will be happy… But each side has to be complacent enough not to blow things up”.