The U.S. continues military operations in Syria post-Assad’s fall, recently striking Al-Qaeda affiliates in Idlib. Ongoing air strikes, justified by anti-ISIS operations, raise questions regarding U.S. troop presence and strategy amidst a complex and unstable situation. Despite claims of reducing military presence, recent actions suggest relentless engagements without a clear mission.
On a recent Sunday, the U.S. Central Command reported the death of two individuals associated with Al-Qaeda in Idlib, Syria. One victim, Wasim Tahsin Bayraqdar, is notably a brother of a current Syrian government minister. The other was identified as a senior military leader of the Al-Qaeda affiliate, Hurras al-Din. This operation marks the continuation of U.S. strikes within Syria following the overthrow of dictator Bashar al-Assad in December.
Since Assad’s removal, the U.S. military’s operations have included four strikes targeting Hurras al-Din and approximately seventy-five anti-ISIS operations. This sustained military engagement has included assaults on various factions and Iranian-backed militias in proximity to Iraq, employing an array of air support such as F-15, B-52 bombers, and A-10 aircraft.
Despite regime change in Syria, U.S. military interventions have not abated; the rationale involving anti-ISIS activities has remained a key justification for ongoing operations. Adam Weinstein from the Quincy Institute remarked, “It is 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.”
Interestingly, Islamist groups such as Hurras al-Din have diminished significantly post-Assad. Consequently, there is uncertainty surrounding Washington’s reasons for further military involvement in Syria, particularly as the new ruling faction is itself a former Al-Qaeda affiliate. In an effort to smooth relations, the Biden administration recently removed the terrorist designation from its leader, an act interpreted by some analysts, including Weinstein, as support for the new government.
The Biden administration reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining military presence in Syria after Assad’s removal, aiming to mitigate potential power vacuums. Although the current administration has not explicitly included Al-Qaeda remnants in its military strategy, former President Trump has indicated a preference for a reduced U.S. military footprint in Syria, stating, “We’re not involved in Syria. Syria is in its own mess.”
Weinstein cautioned that U.S. forces in Syria do not appear to significantly influence stability. Even if troop withdrawals were initiated by Trump, air strikes are likely to persist, as these operations are based out of existing regional U.S. bases. Additionally, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has confirmed a relaxation of restrictions aimed at minimizing civilian casualties, enabling broader military targets beyond just terrorist leadership.
With a lack of a clearly defined military strategy from the Trump administration, there is uncertainty regarding the future of U.S. airstrikes in Syria, including their frequency and target engagement. Concerns have also been raised regarding recent firings of legal advisers within the military, which Senate Armed Services Committee members assert could lead to violations of international law and challenges to U.S. credibility.
The protracted engagement in Syria continues to prompt critical questions regarding the legitimacy and justification of U.S. military presence. Reflecting on the complexities of the ongoing conflict, John Allen Gay from the John Quincy Adams Society stated, “The mission is unclear and has been unclear since the destruction of ISIS. I do not want American troops sitting in the middle of a complex, uncertain situation, especially if we are not even sure what they are there to do.”
In summary, the U.S. military’s continued operations in Syria raise significant questions concerning the rationale behind such interventions post-Assad’s overthrow. With ongoing air strikes targeting various groups under the pretense of addressing ISIS and Al-Qaeda threats, uncertainty looms regarding U.S. involvement and strategy in a complex and unstable region. As sentiments about troop presence shift, the need for clear military objectives becomes critical to avoid potential ramifications for both U.S. policy and international law.
Original Source: responsiblestatecraft.org
