Our allies are coming through in a difficult region:
Britain has agreed to deploy additional special forces in Syria alongside France to allow the US to withdraw its ground troops from the ongoing fight against the remaining Isis forces in the country.
US officials briefed on Tuesday that Britain and France would contribute 10% to 15% more elite soldiers, although the exact numbers involved remain secret.
While I want to support our Kurdish friends in Syria, ultimately I think the Syrian Kurds and Assad need to come to an autonomy deal. That's the best the Kurds can get, leveraging Western support because Turkey opposes independence and eventually Assad--with Iranian and Russian backing--will be strong enough to bulldoze through opposition to Assad's return to eastern Syria.
A Western military presence in eastern Syria--which is useful to hunt ISIL, although that isn't the only mission given the Kurdish issue--will help give the Kurds such leverage a little longer to make a deal.
And allowing America to get out will forestall a Beirut Barracks (or Mogadishu) incident that would drive us from the region in apparent defeat because we are in an open-ended commitment without the willingness to suffer for the objective we set before us.
Our mismatch between what we want and what we will suffer is a tremendous incentive for enemies to kill Americans. I've worried about that. The decision by France and Britain will spare us from this dilemma.
UPDATE: The likely next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not eager to get out of Syria yet:
Pulling American troops prematurely from Afghanistan would be a "strategic mistake," the Army general nominated to be Joint Chiefs chairman told senators Thursday. Mark Milley also said the United States should keep a "modest number" of forces in Iraq and Syria for now to maintain stability.
So there you go. For now.
UPDATE: Related information regarding Iran.
