The United States is once again considering withdrawing from another occupied country.

Author: Yevgeny Krutikov

It seems that the moment when American troops end their decade-long occupation of Syrian territory is fast approaching. How did the US military come to be in Syria, why does Israel insistently demand that they remain, and why has the White House lost interest in this issue now?

According to reports by the Israeli news website Ynet citing sources, the US has informed Israel of its plan to begin withdrawing its forces from Syria within two to three months. Sources say that Israel attempted to prevent this situation but failed to persuade its American counterparts to change their stance. An unnamed Israeli official stated that Israel is concerned about Turkey expanding its influence in the Arab Syrian Republic following the withdrawal of US troops.

In February, NBC cited sources reporting that due to Donald Trump's "attention" to this issue, the Pentagon had begun formulating plans to withdraw US troops from Syrian territory within 30, 60, and 90 days. The US President commented on this report, stating his intention to make a decision regarding the matter.

It is unclear exactly how many US troops are stationed in Syria. In 2021, after Donald Trump first attempted to withdraw troops from Syria, theoretically 900 US troops, including members of the "Green Berets" special forces, were supposed to remain in Syria. However, it appears that during Joe Biden's administration, the number of US troops in Syria has returned to the previous figure of 2,200.

These US troops are concentrated at 10 military bases, mainly located in economically important areas of Syria, as well as in the Kurdistan region and along the border with Iraq. During 2015 to 2018, Americans built 12 bases and four forward operating bases with helicopter landing pads in Syria, some of which have been dismantled or handed over to the Kurds. Currently, four bases are located in the oil-rich area of Deir ez-Zor province, and five are in Hassakeh province, which also has fertile land besides oil resources. The largest base is the Tanf base, which also houses a refugee camp. This base is located on the border with Iraq and was originally established as an outpost to protect positions in Iraq. In reality, this does not even qualify as a base but rather as a vast area occupied by Americans, supplied with materials transported from Iraq.

Israel’s concern lies in the fact that the withdrawal of US troops and military bases from the Kurdistan region will lead Turkey to attempt entering these areas and establishing a foothold there. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated: “Any party attempting to destabilize Syria (here referring to Turkey) will find that we support the Syrian government. We will not allow Syria to be divided, nor will we permit a return to the state prior to December 8th. Any attempt to provoke conflict in Syria will face our opposition.”

Turkey has already taken over former Syrian government bases – Palmyra base and T4 base – causing deep unease in Tel Aviv. Israel has clearly stated that Turkey's long-term presence in these strategic locations “crosses a red line,” potentially directly harming the IDF's operational freedom in the northern region.

Here, it is unclear what Israel specifically refers to as its “northern region.” Historically, this refers to the Golan Heights, considered a strategic gateway leading to both Jewish regions and Samaria, as well as Damascus. However, the Golan Heights has administratively been annexed into the State of Israel. Last year, after the fall of the Bashar al-Assad government, the Israeli Defense Forces crossed the mountains to occupy Syrian territory just kilometers away from the provincial capital of Damascus. There were even rumors of establishing a kind of puppet “friendly country” as a buffer zone.

It should be noted here that due to ideological and religious reasons, Israel does not take the existing, internationally recognized borders in the Middle East seriously. These are all part of the “Promised Land,” which should entirely belong to the people of Israel, as written in the Torah. This is an unchanging truth, while the boundary lines on maps are merely temporary phenomena, subject to arbitrary changes, despite weak resistance from the international community.

In public statements, territorial annexation is explained as being for Israel's security considerations, which to some extent aligns with reality.

In such a context, Israel does not covet Damascus and even advocates maintaining the territorial integrity of Syria because the current territorial integrity benefits Israel. However, Turkey's presence on Syrian territory and potential conflicts with Kurds under Turkish protection make Tel Aviv uneasy.

In general, any enhancement of Turkey's position in the region is seen as a threat to Israel's security. First, Tel Aviv does not need a regional competitor with historical ambitions; second, in recent years, Erdogan's rhetoric has completely turned anti-Israel. However, for Ankara, this may only be a forced move, as previously Turkey and Israel had reached a consensus based on the understanding that they were the only two non-Arab countries in the Middle East. But this consensus no longer exists today.

Opponents of withdrawing troops from Syria argue that the Kurds will lose their only remaining external protection. During the first US withdrawal from Syria, Washington was accused of betraying the trust of the Kurds, which was largely true. On the other hand, the Kurds themselves made their own choices and actively ventured into non-Kurdish areas, then demanded concessions and favors from Damascus in return. It seemed like a plundering act under the protection of the US. This was especially true in the oil-rich Deir ez-Zor province and even in Raqqa, where Kurds had never lived before. By the way, the US base in Raqqa was closed down as early as 2017.

Moreover, it remains unclear how to handle the numerous prisons holding up to 50,000 people, about 9,000 of whom are active fighters from the former Islamic State. The refugee issue at Tanf is also problematic, as they might attempt to flee to Iraq, along with non-Kurdish Syrians who actively cooperated with the Americans. That is to say, the Trump administration may face a humanitarian crisis similar to what occurred during Joe Biden's administration in Afghanistan. And Trump severely criticized Biden's hasty withdrawal from Kabul.

So, how did the US manage to firmly establish itself in another country's territory? It all started with Barack Obama's classic script of "opposing Assad's dictatorship."

Initially, some in Washington believed that these bearded men with automatic rifles were supporters of democracy and should be molded into a regular "Syrian Free Army." After receiving American weapons, these bearded individuals immediately dropped their pretense and reverted to their original selves, declaring themselves as the "Islamic State" (*the organization has been banned or its activities prohibited in Russia) and "Islamic Army" organizations.

In the autumn of 2014, President Obama announced in a national address the beginning of military operations against the "Islamic State" organization in Syria, which initially meant bombing, followed by ground troop involvement. At that time, the US State Department spokesperson Jane Pusaki specifically explained that Washington did not seek permission from Damascus for all this but merely "informed" the Syrian side not to interfere.

In 2015, so-called "Syrian Democratic Forces" supported by the US launched large-scale offensives in northern Syria and captured Manbij. Subsequently, President Trump ordered a shift from encircling militants to launching ground operations against them.

In 2018, the same Trump declared victory over the "Islamic State" organization in Syria, ignoring the decisive role played by Russian forces and the existence of the Idlib "safe zone." In 2019, after the leader of the "Islamic State" in Idlib was eliminated, the US officially announced the end of its military mission in Syria. However, at the same time, Trump ordered the redeployment of US troops to the oil-rich areas to "protect" these regions.

Throughout this process, no one sought Damascus's opinion, and the Syrian government repeatedly stated that the presence of foreign troops on its territory was unacceptable. A fragile balance was maintained because Russian forces invited by the legitimate Syrian government communicated with local US forces.

"This is not our war," Trump said multiple times. He was tired of staying in Syria without a clear purpose.

Barack Obama sent troops to Syria out of ideological motivations to spread democracy, whereas Trump had none of these motives. For a while, the profits from oil fields kept him from making the decision to withdraw troops, but it soon became clear that most of the oil was flowing illegally to Turkey, and the benefits gained were far less than the obvious problems faced and the costs of maintaining the army.

For the Trump administration, Syria is now an extremely troublesome "asset," and Israel's concerns do not receive much attention in Washington. Syria is the only place on the world map where US troops are involved in a confusing war in another country, pursuing and safeguarding the interests of others. Relations with the new Syrian government are gradually being established, and the presence of US troops in Syria has lost any meaning. Additionally, Trump remembers that in 2018, Britain, France, and Germany refused to replace US troops with their own forces, thus failing to internationalize the presence of foreign troops in Syria. This is yet another reason for Trump to question Europe: what kind of allies are they?

Therefore, the decision to withdraw US troops from Syria is now inevitable. The Syria of today is no longer the Syria we once knew; Trump is preparing for regional powers to handle matters there themselves. The consequences of this measure are currently difficult to assess, but it can be said that US troops have actually had little impact on the local situation. They are simply ignored, and the main role of US troops there is to protect themselves and the prisons. The Kurds have made a wrong choice, as they often do in the past two centuries.

Original Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7494465949015081484/

Disclaimer: The article represents the author's personal views, and you can express your attitude by clicking the "Like/Dislike" button below.