"A month after a drone attack killed three American troops at
a U.S. military outpost in Jordan's borderlands with Syria,
decisionmakers in DC are still contending with restricted policy
options," writes
Violet Collins—options that don't limit U.S. exposure to similar
attacks and lend themselves to further regional escalation instead.
The "violence has revealed the growing constraint on America's foreign
policy choices in the Middle East as a result of maintaining active
troop deployments." As is most acutely evident in Syria at present, this
force posture is "all cost, no benefit" for U.S. security, the holdover
of a failed grand strategy that policymakers should jettison once and
for all.
A failure of grand strategy
In the post-Cold War—and especially post-9/11—era, Washington's
bipartisan "grand strategy of 'liberal hegemony' sought to cultivate a
U.S.-led international order," explains DEFP Fellow Christopher
McCallion in a new explainer.
It was costly, bloody, and often counterproductive to U.S. security interests, accurately understood:
- "Military force and economic sanctions were used promiscuously (and
sometimes exclusively) as instruments of statecraft toward so-called
'rogue states,' including Iraq, Iran, and North Korea."
- "Regime change—often in the name of protecting human rights or
promoting democracy—became a popular option for Washington
policymakers."
- That led to "a series of ill-fated interventions and occupations in
the Middle East that unleashed a decades-long paroxysm of chaos and
bloodletting, costing millions of lives in the region (and beyond) and
$8 trillion to the American public."
- "Without exception, the outcomes of these interventions were
contrary to U.S. interests, resulting either in a return to the status
quo ante bellum (Afghanistan), descent into chaos and anarchy (Libya),
gains in influence for official adversaries (Iraq), or some combination
of the above (Syria)." [DEFP]
No time like the present to course-correct
Washington is no longer fighting large-scale wars in the Middle East and
has troop levels ranging from zero (Afghanistan) to the high hundreds
(Syria) to the low thousands (Iraq) at the sites of previous
interventions and occupations.
These forces may not typically be in combat. But particularly as the
Israel-Hamas war fans fresh conflict with Iran-linked groups, including
Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, keeping Americans
on the ground in the Mideast is an unnecessary risk:
- It is reckless in the extreme to maintain military outposts that
serve no vital national security interest and are in close proximity to
regional rivals and adversaries in wartime. This puts U.S. troops in
harm's way while creating a constant opportunity for escalation.
- Complete U.S. withdrawal is especially urgent in Syria, where
Russia joins Iran as a larger power involved in hostilities on the
opposite side of U.S. forces. The danger of unintended, maybe even
accidental, U.S.-Russia conflict in Syria is heightened by concurrent
U.S.-Russia tension over Moscow's war on Ukraine.
- The Biden administration "is reportedly
exploring options for a military withdrawal from Syria." This is long
overdue and compatible with the continued suppression of the remnants of
the Islamic State. [Newsweek / Alexander Langlois]
- It is in the interest of diverse regional actors—including the
Syrian Democratic Forces, Iran, Turkey, Russia, Jordan, Iraq, and the
Syrian regime—to continue to weed out ISIS elements that the lingering
U.S. presence theoretically serves to combat. [Newsweek / Langlois]
- "Washington should expedite [the withdrawal] process in
collaboration with partners and foes sharing an interest in Syria's
stability." [Newsweek / Langlois]
| | |