More US troops to Syria?

Brian M Downing 

President Trump ordered the Pentagon to present him with a more aggressive strategy for fighting ISIL, and the chiefs are about to offer options. One option calls for deploying more troops to Syria. The units would not be ground combat units, rather they would be primarily support troops to help the SDF in the impending battle for Reqqa. They would of course be subject to vehicle-borne bombs, rocket and mortar fire, snipers, and small-unit raids.

The president’s eagerness and inexperience may blind him to the problems of a troop buildup anywhere in the Middle East. Putin almost certainly recognizes that Trump is prone to missteps and the region offers many opportunities for them. The Russian president may see an adroit chess move ahead.

Why

The new president has talked repeatedly and vociferously of stepping up the ISIL War, which he claims was being mishandled by the Obama administration. Upping the air campaign is of little use as the target list isn’t large and most aircraft return to base with payloads intact. Special forces raids such as the recent one in Yemen will probably take place but they cannot defeat ISIL.

The battle for Reqqa is beginning and its outcome will decide if ISIL can hold a major city anywhere or must become a guerrilla network operating underground or from redoubts in remote wastelands.

The battle for Mosul, now entering its fifth month, offers a sobering idea of what ISIL is capable of at Reqqa. Iraqi special forces have taken very high casualties and indeed have had to come off the line to rest and replenish their ranks. The western part of the city remains an ISIL fortress.

Deploying US troops to Syria can bolster SDF troops now encircling Reqqa. Americans will assist with logistics, tactical air support, and medical evacuation. Of course, there’s the potential for the introduction of artillery units (as in Iraq), and also closer deployment of advisors and the use of special forces raids. It’s unclear if new president would send in regular combat troops if the battle goes unfavorably.

Why not

The example of Afghanistan makes plain the logistical difficulties in regions without access to friendly ports. The effort can only be supplied through areas controlled by Pakistan and Russia, neither of which is reliable. Pakistan has closed down the passes on two occasions. Russia has not followed suit but its trustworthiness is dubious, to say the least.

The American-backed SDF operates in north-central Syria where it cannot be supplied through a friendly port. Logistics rely on Turkey, which is decreasing ties to Washington and increasing them to Moscow. Erdogan can close down supply routes as opportunistically as the Pakistani generals did, and use the occasion to demand concessions just as cleverly. American support to Kurdish components of the SDF would provide Erdogan with a rationale, if one were needed. Alternate routes through Iraq will require a greater US presence stretching from Gulf ports through areas contested by ISIL, Shia militias, and perhaps Sunni tribes in coming months.

A greater American presence in Syria will alarm many rebel groups, especially those with Salafi creeds. They will see it as another effort to humiliate the faithful, subjugate the region, and expropriate oil resources, as candidate Trump spoke of on more than one occasion. Salafi groups would enjoy a boon in recruitment and financial support.

Assad will naturally oppose more US troops and a stronger SDF, and will convey his concerns to backers in Moscow. Putin, however, may see the opportunity to work with Erdogan to isolate the American and SDF troops. Arab troops could then be enticed to form a statelet under Turkish guidance, much as the Free Syrian Army is doing just to the West.

President Trump is eager to demonstrate his mastery of world affairs and restore American greatness. Putin recognizes his opponent’s eagerness and naïveté and will seek to outmaneuver him in Syria, just as he did his predecessor with Assad’s chemical weapons.

Copyright 2017 Brian M Downing

Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who has 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.