The Ongoing Conflict in Syria: Understanding U.S. Military Engagement

This article examines the ongoing U.S. military presence and operations in Syria following the fall of Bashar al-Assad. Recent strikes targeted Al-Qaeda affiliates, illustrating the persistence of U.S. military engagement under the guise of combating terrorism. The lack of clarity concerning military objectives and evolving regional dynamics raises questions regarding the justification for continued airstrikes and troop deployments.

On Sunday, United States Central Command reported the elimination of two individuals associated with Al-Qaeda in Idlib, Syria. One of the deceased, Wasim Tahsin Bayraqdar, is notably the brother of a Syrian government minister. The other individual was recognized as a prominent military leader of the Al-Qaeda affiliate Hurras al-Din.

This operation represents the latest in an ongoing series of strikes executed by the U.S. on various Syrian entities following the fall of dictator Bashar al-Assad in December. Reportedly, it marks the fourth targeted assault against Hurras al-Din since the group announced a cessation of operations in January. The military has also conducted 75 anti-ISIS strikes and eliminated significant anti-ISIS leaders in the aftermath of Assad’s removal.

The United States’ military interventions have continued relentlessly since the inception of the Syrian civil war in 2014, ostensibly justified by an anti-ISIS mandate. Despite changes in leadership in Damascus, the motivations for these military actions remain largely intact. Adam Weinstein, a Middle East fellow at the Quincy Institute, expressed concern over the U.S.’s reliance on air strikes rather than diplomatic measures, noting, “It’s 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.”

Given that several Islamist groups, including Hurras al-Din, have voluntarily disbanded under the new rebel governance, the rationale for U.S. operations remains ambiguous. The faction now in charge, Hay’at Tahrir Al-Sham, did previously have ties to Al-Qaeda; however, its leader was recently removed from terrorist designation lists by the Biden administration in a gesture of goodwill.

Following the demise of Assad, the Biden administration declared that U.S. military presence would be maintained to prevent a power vacuum that could potentially be filled by ISIS. There was, however, no mention of targeting Al-Qaeda remnants. Former President Trump’s stance remains unclear; although he has indicated a preference for a reduced military footprint in Syria, stating, “Syria is in its own mess. They’ve got enough messes over there. They don’t need us involved.”

Weinstein remarked that the physical presence of U.S. troops in Syria does little to influence stability in the region. Even with a possible troop withdrawal under Trump’s administration, air strikes are likely to continue, as they are launched from various bases in the region. Additionally, recent confirmations from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested a policy shift permitting broader targeting by air strikes beyond senior terror affiliates.

Concerns are rising regarding the absence of independent legal counsel guiding military operations. Hegseth’s dismissal of three lawyers deemed obstacles to presidential authority has led to apprehensions about compliance with international law and potential war crime allegations. In light of sustained U.S. military intervention for over a decade, skepticism regarding the justification for current military presence in Syria persists.

The evolving political landscape further complicates the mission of U.S. forces. John Allen Gay, executive director of the John Quincy Adams Society, emphasized, “The mission is unclear and has been unclear since the destruction of ISIS. I don’t want American troops sitting in the middle of a complex, uncertain situation, especially if we’re not even sure what they’re there to do.”

The ongoing military operations in Syria, especially following the downfall of Bashar al-Assad, raise significant questions regarding the U.S. presence and justification for air strikes. While the U.S. has shifted its focus ostensibly towards countering ISIS and former Al-Qaeda affiliates, the ambiguity surrounding the current mission and the rationale for continued intervention is evident. This complexity, coupled with potential changes in military policy and legal counsel, prompts intense scrutiny of U.S. actions in the region.

Original Source: responsiblestatecraft.org