National Interest: The stay of US forces in Syria is absurd

The National Interest magazine published an article by the director of Defense Priorities, Michael Hall, in which he said that US President Joe Biden wants to stay in Syria, but the withdrawal is overdue.

The truth is clear, he said, that maintaining a symbolic force in Syria would put Americans’ lives at risk and doing more would drag the United States into conflicts that wary leaders should avoid.

When the United States withdrew its forces from Afghanistan, he viewed the move and warned of it as a turning point that would lead to a series of US withdrawals at a time when Washington was re-adjusting its policy.

Of course, Joe Biden wants to stop what he called eternal wars, but two months after the withdrawal of Afghanistan, the administration gave assurances that it would remain in Syria and there would be no withdrawal from the eternal war in which America is engaged there.

The writer believes that the promise to remain in Syria represents a catastrophic mistake and a commitment to a process whose sustainability cannot be preserved, as it is without a clear and specific goal to achieve.

The defense of the Kurds is the biggest factor behind the administration’s decision to prolong the deployment of 900 US troops in Syria.

In September, he sent the commander of Central Command, General Frank McKenzie, on an unusual trip to meet with Mazloum Abdi, the leader of the Syria Democratic Forces.

The purpose of the visit was to reassure Abdi that his forces could count on American support.

After a short time, Ilham Ahmed, who heads the Central Committee of the Syria Democratic Council, met with US officials in Washington and later commented, “They will remain in Syria and will not withdraw”.

The writer says that the administration, rather than using American forces to protect the Kurds, is wise to end US military involvement in Syria.

Against the backdrop of a final settlement of the Syrian crisis and the threat of a new Turkish attack against attacks by Kurdish militias, the Kurds are not in an enviable position, and it is true that Kurdish fighters fought alongside the US forces against ISIS and deprived it of the areas it controlled, but the participation of the United States in military action to defend the Kurds against Turkey, a NATO member that hosts US nuclear weapons, would remain an outlier.

While we express our gratitude to the Kurds for their fight against ISIS, it is important to acknowledge that interests may coincide but may also differ, and there is no reason to think that the Kurds or any of the non-US forces deserve US military support and protection forever.

The mission against ISIS was in contrast to the current mission in Syria, depriving the organization of the areas from which it was operating, it was a limited mission and could be accomplished through military force, which was the right tool for it.

But protecting the Kurds requires a permanent provision of resources and human forces, and there are no conditions for victory that can be met to justify the withdrawal.

It was not surprising that the US mission after the defeat of ISIS no longer had any clear goal, which raises legitimate questions about why the soldiers remain there to this day, and focus on monitoring the marches, missile bombs and Russian convoys, at a time when officials in Washington pretend that the outcome of the war Syrian civil will lead to the weakening of US security.

To be frank, Syria is not the prize US is seeking.

The remaining ISIS fighters scattered in several places are no longer a threat as they were at the peak of their strength, and they have enough enemies in the region from Iran, Russia to Assad.

At the same time, the balance of the Syrian crisis has long since skewed in favor of Syrian President Bashar al Assad, and his neighbors are now acknowledging this.

As for the Kurds, in 2019, when the US government announced the withdrawal of its forces, they rushed to strike an agreement with the Syrian government that would grant them protection.

What we learn from this is that the Kurds are eager for survival and protection, not for those who provide it to them.

The United States could encourage Kurdish leaders to agree on protection arrangements without expecting US forces to remain around them forever.

In the event that the Kurds reach a deal with Damascus, the Russian support will serve as a deterrent to Turkey from taking any military action and extremist measures against the Kurds of Syria.

Just as the United States eventually admitted that the survival of its forces in Afghanistan could not be sustained, it would later reach the same conclusion that the presence of US forces in Syria could not be maintained.

The best option is to withdraw from Syria and admit that the mission has diverted from its legitimate security goal, and it is time to admit and stop.