It’s Time for the U.S. to Disengage from Syria

It's been five months since the last piece of ISIS-held territory was liberated and there are still nearly 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria. Now that the extremist caliphate has been primarily obliterated, the small fragments of it that remain can be easily suppressed by the Syrian army, the Turks, or even the Russians. The U.S. has fulfilled its promise to aid the Syrians and the Kurds in defeating the Islamic State, begging the question of why engagement in Syria is still necessary.

In February of this year, President Donald Trump hastily raised the idea of withdrawal, but quickly backtracked when confronted with logistical challenges and widespread fear of Russian and Iranian influence. Now, the U.S. must withdraw from Syria because our current engagement is only exacerbating the conflict by prolonging the current civil war and endangering our troops, while Russia and Iran get ahead.

U.S. engagement has prolonged the Syrian Civil War by supporting and arming small, local rebel groups that would and eventually will be squashed by Assad. Yet, the numbers aren’t in the U.S.’ favor: America’s current 1,000 troops pale in comparison to Iran’s 3,000 “armed advisors” or Russia’s 4,000 mercenaries dispersed throughout the country. Thus, actually winning the Civil War against Assad– or making more impactful progress– would require a full-scale invasion, more drastic military measures, and, inevitably, more armed forces. Yet, violent opposition of the Assad regime would lead to undoubtedly more violence, miscalculation, and loss of life all around. It could also lead to a situation of potential brinkmanship with our Cold War nemesis, Russia. By pulling out now, we limit casualties and save lives.

U.S. interest in Syria is twofold: 1) preserving the lives of troops and 2) keeping out of another war in the Middle East. Yet, with the U.S.’ current precarious position in Syria, both objectives are jeopardized. 

First, U.S. troops are highly endangered by our presence in Syria. Iranian forces constantly fire ballistic missiles into Syria, which, on multiple occasions, have landed within just miles of U.S. troops, nearly harming American soldiers. Close contact occurs frequently between U.S. troops and Russian mercenaries or Iranian-backed militias. As The Hill put it in October 2018, “Syria is a crowded, complex, dangerous place ripe for miscalculation that could quickly escalate into a broader war nobody wants.” Thus, the present conflict in the region has the potential to reach a precarious boiling point if the U.S. remains involved.

Additionally, current hostile relations are more likely than ever to be provoked by the current administration. The death of American soldiers at Iranian hands could provide justification for trigger-happy administration figures like National Security Advisor John Bolton to confront Iran with military power. Bolton, who is widely accepted as a war hawk, has long made it known he wants a regime change in Tehran and the U.S.’ unnecessarily precarious position in Syria could catalyze a third Gulf War. With risk of miscalculation higher than ever, another war in the Middle East could be imminent, a solution that is the antithesis of U.S. interest.

The US has done its part in eliminating ISIS. If we stay in Syria very much longer we will wind up fighting the Syrian government forces, and perhaps Russia and Iran as well, creating a regional proxy war and pushing the US to the edge of brinkmanship, leading to the loss of innocent lives on all sides.