The U.S. continues its military operations in Syria post-Assad, with recent airstrikes against Al-Qaeda affiliates and ISIS targets. While troops remain in place under the guise of combating terrorism, the rationale for ongoing engagements is increasingly questioned. The mission’s clarity and legality are under scrutiny as the conflict evolves with new governing factions. perspectives from experts highlight the complexities and uncertainties facing U.S. troops in the region.
On a recent Sunday, the U.S. Central Command reported the elimination of two individuals connected to Al-Qaeda in Idlib, Syria. One of the deceased, Wasim Tahsin Bayraqdar, is noted to be the sibling of a current Syrian government minister. The other identified man was a senior military leader associated with the Al-Qaeda affiliate, Hurras al-Din, marking yet another targeted strike following the downfall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in December.
Since the fall of Assad, the U.S. military has conducted a series of attacks, including 75 anti-ISIS strikes aimed primarily at dismantling remnants of the Islamic State. Targets have ranged from ISIS leaders to camps hosting fighters, as well as engagements against Iranian-backed militias near the Iraq border. This military action has utilized advanced aircraft including F-15s, B-52 bombers, and A-10s.
The intensity of U.S. military actions has persisted notwithstanding the changes in Syria’s leadership. Originally motivated by the civil conflict that escalated against Assad since 2014, U.S. military involvement continues under the pretext of anti-ISIS operations. Adam Weinstein of the Quincy Institute remarked, “It’s a travesty that even after the fall of Assad, the primary way the U.S. engages with Syria is not through any diplomatic presence but through air strikes.”
As numerous Islamist factions, such as Hurras al-Din, have dissolved under the new governance, the rationale for ongoing U.S. operations remains ambiguous. The new power structure, Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham, is itself a former Al-Qaeda affiliate, though its leader Ahmed Hussein al-Sharaa was recently removed from a terrorist designation list by the Biden administration. Weinstein suggested that the U.S. may now be inadvertently assisting al-Sharaa.
Despite the U.S. military presence, President Biden has indicated a commitment to prevent any power vacuums under ISIS influence following Assad’s removal. Although Biden’s administration did not explicitly mention the targeting of Al-Qaeda remnants, the military’s operations continue. President Trump has not fully defined his stance on the new Syrian leadership, although he expressed a desire to reduce U.S. military involvement there, stating that Syria should not require U.S. involvement in its affairs.
Weinstein stated, “U.S. troops in northeast Syria are unlikely to impact stability or internal dynamics enough to justify their continued presence.” Should the Trump administration withdraw troops from Syria, airstrikes may persist as these operations are executed from U.S. bases in surrounding regions. In response to rising tensions, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth assured that the Pentagon will ease restrictions on air strikes, which could broaden the scope of targeted operations.
The Trump administration’s vague military strategy regarding Syria raises concerns over the continuation of U.S. engagements in the country. The Pentagon is under scrutiny due to potential legal ramifications and perceived risk of international law violations following recent personnel changes which diminished independent counsel’s influence on military operations. As the U.S. finds itself in a prolonged conflict with an unclear mission in Syria, the question arises regarding the ongoing reasoning for military actions in this sovereign nation.
John Allen Gay, executive director of the John Quincy Adams Society, expressed concerns over the precariousness of American military positions in Syria, stating, “The whole situation in Syria is complex, and its future is uncertain. The mission is unclear and has been unclear since the destruction of ISIS.”
The continued military presence of the United States in Syria raises significant questions regarding the justification for ongoing air strikes and troop deployments. Despite the regime change, the U.S. has persisted in its military operations under anti-ISIS pretenses while facing scrutiny regarding strategic objectives and legal ramifications. As military engagement spans more than a decade, it remains critical to reevaluate the clarity of U.S. military missions in a perpetually complex and evolving conflict.
Original Source: responsiblestatecraft.org
