The Kurds in Syria are right about ISIL not being defeated.
The United States' main ally in Syria on Thursday categorically rejected President Donald Trump's claim that Islamic State group militants have been defeated and warned that the withdrawal of American troops before accomplishing that goal would lead to a resurgence of the extremist group.
The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces said in a strongly worded statement laced with bitterness that a premature U.S. pullout would have dangerous repercussions and a destabilizing effect on the entire region.
As insurgents ISIL is still around and if we pull our troops out with no replacement to back the Kurdish-dominated SDF, that fight to finish them off will peter out.
The Kurds would need to redirect their anti-ISIL efforts to holding off the Turks and Assad's forces, including Iranian-backed militias. Which will allow ISIL to regroup in eastern Syria along the Iraq border and potentially help ISIL in Iraq to fight on.
Add in the abandonment of an ally who fought and bled for us (they bled for their own causes, too, of course). That is shameful and isn't exactly an inducement for other people in the future to fight for or with us.
So no doubt the Kurds are "reeling" at the prospects of what Assad and the Turks will do:
Kurds, among the biggest winners of Syria's war, stand to lose most from a U.S. decision to withdraw forces who have helped them battle Islamic State militants and deter their adversaries Ankara and Damascus.
There may be more that we don't see to provide support for the SDF after our troops are gone. Maybe contractors (what's up with that?) will be there to call in our air support.
Maybe our allies will pick up the slack with their troops and special forces. And on that issue, France said their 1,000 troops will remain in Syria. Also, Saudi Arabia and the UAE apparently have special forces in Syria to support the Kurds. Yes, that's from the Turks but the Saudis have expressed willingness at least over the last couple years to send special forces to Syria. So the Turkish source isn't saying anything outrageous. I'd missed that news, but was thinking of the Saudis especially when I asked if our Arab allies might help fill in the gap. Remember that post-Khashoggi, the Saudis want to be on America's good side. And the Saudis have motivation to reply to Turkish troop deployments around Saudi Arabia. Jordan could be involved, too. And perhaps Britain.
Also, will all US troops leave? Special forces are often simply not counted when discussing troop presence. And if they leave, they could enter for specific missions if based in Iraq, for example:
The American commandos would be shifted to neighboring Iraq, where an estimated 5,000 United States forces are already deployed, and “surge” into Syria for specific raids, according to two military officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
And how long could they remain in Syria and not be called deployed in Syria? The definitions section could be important.
Remember, too, our air power will remain on call in the region to help any friendly forces in eastern Syria. So this withdrawal order might not be as bad as it seems.
But don't tell me Trump is just fulfilling a campaign promise. That's what Obama did when he ordered the withdrawal from Iraq in 2011.
On the surface Trump is making a mistake--with the only advantage being that we don't expose our troops to a Beirut Barracks-style attack (or a Mogadishu-style ambush) if we lack a real purpose for our troops to accomplish post-ISIL caliphate. That is something I've worried about without a firm mission, as I note here when I worry about a "Mogadishu moment."
And there is reason to worry about that as the above-linked NYT story indicates:
Under the cover of a sandstorm in October, the Islamic State nearly overran an American Special Forces team and a group of Marines outside of Hajin, wounding two American troops, a third military official said.
The group tried the same tactic again in November, waiting for a sandstorm to mask its movements, and nearly captured Gharanij, a nearby town.
But there could be a lot of other pieces on the board that make the decision less than--or not--a mistake.
But at least we made a decision about Syria, as I said we had to do after defeating the ISIL caliphate:
America avoided facing that question while in the first three steps (and I suspect avoiding that question is why Iraq War 2.0 has taken so long). We've finally finished the first three steps.
America now has to face the fourth step and either finish the job by targeting Assad and defeating Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah in the process; or by pulling out and accepting the consequences of Assad's continued rule, Russian and Iranian bases in Syria, Hezbollah's role on the winning side, and the loss of reputation by watching the Syrian Kurds and Syrian rebels we once supported get crushed by Assad and his allies.
As an aside as we digest information to judge whether this is a mistake, don't believe reports of 30,000 ISIL still being around in Iraq and Syria. That number includes family of ISIL fighters plus supporters and is grossly inflated. There would be far more mayhem if there were that many terrorists running around.
UPDATE: Strategypage looks at Syria, where American troops should withdraw from "by March."
The Kurds may be able to leverage autonomy within Syria and deter the Turks.
Also, the Saudi and UAE special forces story I reported on may not be what it is cracked up to be.
Basically the only people on Assad's side willing to fight and die are the Iranians--as long as their Shia foreign legion does the dying and as long as the Iranian people don't get fed up with the cost. So we do have options for eastern Syria after our withdrawal.
UPDATE: While I think we should have stayed in eastern Syria to protect Kurds who fought with us for as long as we could with our level of effort--and to increase the cost of Syria, Iran, and Russia winning in western Syria--I recognize that in the end we could not stay there once the pro-Assad alliance can project significant ground power into eastern Syria.
And while our foes have gained advantage from our planned withdrawal, it isn't all "mission accomplished" territory for them and we can still act against them.
Work the problem, as I like to say.
