Brian M Downing
Eastern Syria has been the scene of intermittent skirmishes between American and American-backed forces on one hand and Syrian and Russian troops on the other. In the last month Russian vehicles bumped US counterparts, probably deliberately, injuring several GIs.
There’ve been far more serious incidents. Two years ago 100-200 Russians from the Wagner Group were killed by American airstrikes and artillery. Nonetheless, President Trump is deploying a small contingent of troops and armor to bolster the US presence in eastern Syria. Despite his commitment to end unwinnable wars, we’re still in Afghanistan. Iraq, and Syria, albeit in reduced numbers.
Why are we in Syria, what’s keeping us there, and where is the commitment heading?
The Obama deployments
The previous administration stayed on the sidelines of the Syrian civil war for the first few years, then made moves based on faulty assumptions, poor intelligence, and naive hopes.
The administration thought that a limited US effort would tilt the balance in favor of the rebel forces. Democracy, we like to believe, is the natural outcome of human affairs. However, one group we trained and armed crossed into Syria, then swiftly vanished. Its arms, including antitank missiles, turned up with Islamist groups. Another group showed little if any fighting spirit and is now in Turkish employ.
The administration failed to appreciate the factionalism inside rebel forces. They were unwilling to coordinate operations or share intelligence and fought each other as much as they did Damascus. Most were no more disposed to democracy than Assad. Some were only somewhat less reprehensible than al Qaeda.
When ISIL took control of parts of eastern Syria and western Iraq, the administration patched together a miscellany of Arab and Kurdish militias. A limited effort would tilt the balance and end the ISIL war. The effort expanded. Arms and air support, then trainers and more sophisticated arms, then logistical help and medical detachments. Mosul and Raqqa were besieged but held out for months.
The Trump administration
The ISIL war continued into 2017. It continues today. The American presence in eastern Syria assists Kurdish-Arab militias in suppressing extant ISIL bands but the administration has conferred new objectives which though not entirely absent in the previous one’s hazy thinking, are now more pronounced.
Positions in eastern Syria threaten lines of communication between Iran and its Syrian and Hisbollah allies. Without those roadways, the Alawi government in Damascus would be isolated and Hisbollah might whither on the vine. Israel and the Sunni princes are eager to see just that and use their considerable influence in Washington to press the point.
The view here has long been that those same powers want to create a Kurdish-Arab autonomous region. This “Sunnistan” would solidify the danger to Iran’s lines of communication and perhaps one day sever them. However, the political and ethnic divisions in the Kurdish-Arab forces make a viable state unlikely. But this could mean that US and other Western states would have to be a de facto government – an endless and frustrating task.
The Syrian position could also be a bargaining chip in the regional effort to convince the Syrian government to break with Iran. In return, Damascus would get generous reconstruction aid, an end to Israeli airstrikes, and a US withdrawal. That area is home to rich agricultural land along the Euphrates and functioning oilfields – both important sources of government revenue.
Cold War Two
A resurgent Russia is expanding its military presence in the Middle East. It’s establishing an airfield in Libya and its warships have paid visits to Tobruk. The Russian naval base at Tartus, which dates back to 1971, is being expanded to handle eleven warships. This goes along with the construction of airbases near Latakia, Homs, and Palmyra.
The continuing US presence east of the Euphrates is a source of contention. Hence the bumping incidents. Others are coming. Russia, in conjunction with China, is challenging American ships, planes, and allies all around the immense Eurasian land mass, the bulk of which Moscow and China plan to control one day. Part of the plan is to increase American discontent with global commitments and large defense budgets.
The persistent ISIL presence, Israeli-Sunni pressure, and Cold War dynamics are keeping us in eastern Syria. Withdrawal would mean allowing a measure of ISIL resurgence, irritating regional allies, and losing prestige and land to Vladimir Putin. Any president would find a pullout quite vexing. We may be anchored in that landlocked, hostile part of the Middle East for some time.
© 2020 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who’s written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs. Thanks as ever to Susan Ganosellis.