President Donald Trump met earlier this month with Ahmed al-Sharaa, the de-facto leader of Syria, and signaled that he’s open to normalizing relations, including by lifting the crippling Assad-era sanctions. Regardless of what diplomatic arrangement is reached, the White House should formulate a plan to allow all American military members to safely leave Syria. The longer we keep American personnel in a rapidly changing part of the world where no vital U.S. interest is at stake, the more difficult it will be to prevent an unnecessary loss of life if the situation falls apart.
Less than two weeks after Bashar al-Assad’s regime fell last December, the Pentagon admitted that nearly twice as many U.S. troops had been sent there than previously claimed, only to watch the country fall into bloody chaos. Clearly, an American presence is not enough to prevent violence. In any case, it is not our job to risk American lives to maintain order in every corner of the world.
The two main points pro-interventionists have made on why an American military presence in Syria is necessary are that the U.S. serves as a deterrent to Iran’s influence in the region and that we should support our allies against terrorist groups like ISIS. These points were not strong when we originally stationed troops in Syria, but in light of recent events, they have become even weaker.
Iran’s hold on Syria came through Assad. But with his ousting—and the decimation of Iran’s proxies in Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen—Iran is spread too thin to rebuild a presence in Syria from the ground-up. That Israel is seriously considering military strikes against Iran (again) compounds the problem for Tehran. With the demise of Iran’s influence in Syria, Washington should reconsider its policy of deploying forces in the Middle East to protect Israel. Remember, when we keep U.S. soldiers in the region to serve as a deterrent to Iran and militant groups, we admit we are putting American lives at risk to protect another country’s sovereignty.
Subscribe Today
Get daily emails in your inbox
One could say U.S. presence also deters threats to America’s stateless partners, such as the Kurds. But the U.S. has no formal treaties with any entity in Syria, including the Kurds. Although Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR), America’s term for the campaign against ISIS, is an established regional and international coalition, there is no mandate by Congress for the U.S. to remain in Syria in perpetuity. Whether OIR still requires American involvement isn’t even clear. Indeed, because of training provided to the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), OIR reports that several operations by the group “demonstrate the SDF’s capability to prevent the resurgence of [ISIS].” If the Combined Joint Task Force is willing to praise local competency, then an American presence seems less necessary.
But what if ISIS makes a resurgence after the American military leaves? Even if non-American forces could bat it down, wouldn’t the instability benefit Iran? First, Iran is also an enemy of ISIS. Obviously, any growth of ISIS would be a bad thing, but that harm would befall everybody, including Tehran. Second, if the U.S. needed only about 1,400 soldiers (though usually under 1,000 since 2020) to assist in detaining tens of thousands of prisoners and fight 2,500 ISIS soldiers across both Syria and Iraq, then Syrian forces can learn to do such tasks on their own. If a terrorist group grows in strength, it is the responsibility of those in the region to deal with it. ISIS has been essentially defeated since 2019 and it is reasonable to expect local and regional powers to manage the threat posed by their small remnants. If they cannot fight back a deflated enemy after years of American training and investment, then it is no fault of Americans for being unwilling to die for other peoples’ inadequacies.
Additionally, with the recent dissolution of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Turkey can dedicate more of its resources towards Syria’s stability. Since Turkey is Syria’s northern neighbor, it makes sense that they should take on a bigger role. Of course, Syria’s future stability is anything but guaranteed. However, whether Syria prospers into a stable country or slides back into chaos, it is not worth American lives to guide Syria’s fate. With rising tensions in the Pacific, America should not be tied down in the Middle East, but should focus on regions where core national interests are at stake. If Syria’s future is uncertain, then so are the lives of any American stationed there.
