Understanding the Continued U.S. Military Presence in Syria

The U.S. continues military operations in Syria, targeting al-Qaeda affiliates and ISIS remnants. Despite the regime change, the rationale for U.S. airstrikes and troop presence remains unclear. Critics argue for a reevaluation of the mission as the situation evolves.

The recent announcement by U.S. Central Command regarding the elimination of two al-Qaeda affiliates in Idlib, Syria, underscores the ongoing military actions in the region. One of the deceased, Wasim Tahsin Bayraqdar, is reported to be the brother of a Syrian government minister. Additionally, this operation marks the fourth strike against the Hurras al-Din group since they declared cessation of operations in January following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December.

Since Assad’s ousting, the United States has conducted extensive military operations, including 75 anti-ISIS strikes, and targeted key ISIS figures in areas previously under Assad’s control. The U.S. military has employed various aircraft, including F-15s and B-52s, to execute these missions, maintaining a persistent military footprint in the region despite significant leadership changes in Damascus.

Adam Weinstein of the Quincy Institute criticized the U.S. administration’s reliance on air strikes for engagement in Syria rather than pursuing diplomatic channels, suggesting that the new Syrian leadership may perceive the removal of rival factions as beneficial. The dissolution of groups like Hurras al-Din adds complexity to the rationale for continued military operations, particularly given the ascendancy of Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham, another former al-Qaeda affiliate.

Following the regime change, President Biden affirmed continued military intervention to prevent ISIS from filling the power void. However, he did not explicitly reference al-Qaeda operatives as part of the military’s targeting strategy. Whereas former President Trump showed inclination towards reducing U.S. military presence, asserting that Syria is embroiled in its challenges, concerns persist around the impacts of continued military presence by U.S. forces.

Weinstein remarked that the current U.S. troop presence in Syria is unlikely to contribute positively to regional stability. Even potential troop withdrawals would not necessarily halt air strikes, which are strategically launched from nearby U.S. bases. Recent confirmations from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth indicated a shift in airstrike policies to target a broader range of individuals, raising concerns about casualties and legality and provoking reactions from Congressional members.

The situation illustrates a sustained conflict, raising critical inquiries about the legitimacy of troop presence and ongoing bombardments in Syria. Observers, including John Allen Gay, have questioned the mission’s clarity since the dismantling of ISIS, expressing concern regarding the implications of U.S. forces operating amidst an unstable landscape without a definitive purpose.

In conclusion, while the U.S. military has maintained a strong operational presence in Syria post-Assad, the rationale for continued airstrikes and troop presence remains ambiguous. The evolving dynamics, characterized by the dissolution of certain factions and the emergence of new leadership, further complicate U.S. strategy in the region. Moving forward, the effectiveness and legality of ongoing military actions must be critically evaluated against established objectives and the broader geopolitical landscape.

Original Source: responsiblestatecraft.org