At Responsible Statecraft Paul R. Pillar calls for the U. S. to withdraw its troops from Iraq and Syria:
The drone attack on Sunday that killed three U.S. service members at an outpost in Jordan near the Syria border is more likely to increase rather than decrease U.S. military involvement in the region.
This is unfortunate, and doubly so coming at a time when the Biden administration was showing signs of considering a withdrawal of the 900 U.S. troops in Syria and 2,500 in Iraq. Just last week, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin intimated that a joint U.S.-Iraqi review might lead to a drawdown of at least some of the troops in Iraq. Other reporting points to discussions within the administration about possibly removing the troops now in Syria.
It is unclear why the administration chose this time to consider what was already a long-overdue withdrawal of these troops. The answer probably involves the upsurge in regional violence stemming from Israel’s devastating assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and associated anger against the United States for its backing of Israel. Since the Israeli assault began, U.S. military installations in Iraq have been attacked more than 60 times and those in Syria more than 90 times.
The attacks underscore how much these residual U.S. deployments have entailed costs and risks far out of proportion to any positive gains they can achieve. They have been sitting-duck targets within easy reach of militias and other elements wishing to make a violent anti-U.S. statement. Even without deaths, U.S. service members have paid a price, such as in the form of traumatic brain injuries from missile attacks.
concluding:
Combating ISIS is a shared interest of Iran and the United States, as illustrated by the United States reportedly sharing — quite properly, in conformity with the duty to warn — information about the planned ISIS attack in Kerman. It would be in U.S. interests to have Iran continue to do the heavy lifting in holding down ISIS — and to have Iran, not the United States, risk any resulting terrorist reprisals.
But I don’t think I agree with him entirely. First, I think we should distinguish between the troops we have in Iraq and those we have in Syria. Those we have in Iraq are there at the request of the Iraqi government. Those in Syria are not there at the invitation of the Syrian government. IMO their presence in Syria other than in hot pursuit from Iraq is illegal and unjustified. Those troops should be withdrawn.
I think that the troops we have in Iraq should be retained there as long as a) the Iraq government wants them there and b) they are accomplishing worthwhile, measurable objectives. I’m not sure that condition b is there but I could be convinced. I don’t think our troops should be left in Iraq to be there.
Iran and its allied militias certainly know their cards to play.
None of the options Biden has about the troops in “Syria” are appealing for the election in 2024.
a. Escalation (is there an achievable objective)
b. Withdrawal (shade of Afghanistan, but even worse optics)
c. Muddle through (risk of drip drip drip casualties)
I don’t know whether it’s that they are savvy or that we have been stupid. I suspect the latter or some combination.
Since 1945, there have been some 250 wars and armed interventions, and the US has started 80% of them, and in every one of them we attacked a country at peace with us and our allies. That is even true of the liberation of Kuwait.
The problems of the world start in Washington, not Teheran, Moscow, or Beijing. Until there is regime change in Washington, there will be no peace.
PS. Overnight, the IDF/Mossad raided a hospital in Gaza and murdered three wounded Hamas leaders in their hospital beds.
The forces are mainly there to keep ISIS from returning, to battle the last remnants, and to support the allies we made along the way.
The problems with leaving that residual force behind should now be obvious, because they are difficult to defend. It was only a matter of time before one of these drone attacks got through.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to have US ground forces in the middle of a civil war where Iranian proxies are targeting us. Proxies are best fought with proxies.
I dont see as good risk/benefit ratio here. Having our troops there to help deter an attack by another state might make sense but if its a civil war or just more fo the same asymmetrical war we have been waging there isn’t much benefit to us and our troops are a big target. I dont really see Iran invading Iraq or Iraq invading Syria. Turkey might nibble away but I dont see us caring enough to intervene.
Steve
Focusing on Syria, I think we may have conflicting objectives there. The conflict is between uprooting DAESH while not wanting to stabilize the Assad regime’s hold on the country. (Aside: I don’t think destabilizing the Assad regime should be among our objectives at all.) How far would DAESH have gotten in Syria if we hadn’t been supporting them? Now we may be trying to uproot something we rooted to begin with.