An Iran-linked U.S. death in Syria raises the question: When will this intervention end? Guest Post Defense Priorities

GREAT POWERS An Iran-linked U.S. death in Syria raises the question: When will this intervention end? A U.S. Army Sgt. conducts a dismounted patrol in Syria on January 26, 2023. Photo: DoD The death of an American contractor in Syria last week was a reminder that the U.S. retains a much-ignored military presence in the war-torn country. American boots have been on the ground in Syria for the better part of a decade, under three administrations, though military intervention there was never authorized by Congress. And while the Biden administration swore swift retaliation for this attack and any others like it, the White House didn’t seem to consider the bigger question at hand: Why are U.S. forces still in Syria, and why can’t they come home? The danger of staying “A U.S. contractor was killed and another contractor and five U.S. service members were injured” by a self-destructing drone of Iranian origin in Syria last week. The U.S. retaliated with airstrikes on Iran-linked groups. [NYT / Eric Schmitt] “Make no mistake, the U.S. does not—does not, I emphasize—seek conflict with Iran,” President Joe Biden said a day later. “But be prepared for us to act forcefully to protect our people.” [NBC / Courtney Kube et al.] "As President Biden has made clear, we will take all necessary measures to defend our people and will always respond at a time and place of our choosing," said Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. "No group will strike our troops with impunity." [DoD] Biden officially notified Congress of the strikes after the fact, characterizing them as a defensive action and a deterrent to Iran. [CNN / Nikki Carvajal et al.] National Security Council member John Kirby said more U.S. action could be coming. [CBS] Other recent developments in U.S.-Syria relations—and interactions with Syrian partners Iran and Russia—include: Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. Mark Milley visited Syria in early March and said he believes keeping a U.S. military presence there indefinitely is worth the risk. [Reuters / Phil Stewart] Milley characterized the mission as “an enduring defeat of ISIS and continuing to support our friends and allies in the region.” [Reuters / Phil Stewart] Lt. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich of CENTCOM said last week that armed Russian jets flew over a U.S. garrison in Syria almost daily in March. [NBC / Courtney Kube] Interventionist voices including former CENTCOM chief Gen. Kenneth McKenzie and the Wall Street Journal editorial board have urged the Biden administration toward a more aggressive military posture in Syria. The 900 U.S. troops still in Syria are reportedly “running an extensive aerial surveillance network, … coordinating the [Syrian Democratic Forces’] more than 100,000 fighters, and facilitating civilian aid, stabilization, and tribal engagement.” Iran-linked attacks are a “constant threat.” [Politico / Charles Lister] Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen admitted in congressional testimony last week that U.S. sanctions on Iran have “created real economic crisis in the country” while doing little to shift Tehran’s behavior. [Reuters / David Lawder and Kanishka Singh] The logic of leaving “Few people like to talk about it, but the U.S. has been in a proxy war with Iran in Iraq and Syria for years. … Every now and then, the violence comes into public view.” [Edward Wong] “Under what conditions would the Biden administration deem the mission of 900 U.S. troops in Syria to be accomplished, allowing the mission to end?” [Stephen Wertheim] The logic Biden used for removing U.S. troops from Afghanistan applies to Syria. Since a U.S. intervention should be defined by clear, achievable goals, and since long-range strikes, instead of occupying forces, can accomplish U.S. counterterrorism goals, there is no good case for keeping U.S. troops in Syria either: The 900 U.S. forces currently occupying territory in eastern and southern Syria, risk conflict with Syrian forces and local militias, as well as Russian, Iranian, and Turkish forces, as last week’s attack reminds. The Islamic State’s territorial caliphate in Syria was eliminated in 2019. The few, small, remote areas the remnants of ISIS now hold are largely within territory held by Syrian government forces. Local forces can fight the remnants of ISIS. None of the other standard rationales for keeping U.S. forces in Syria—protecting the Kurds, countering Iran and Russia, unseating the Assad regime—justify keeping troops in Syria either. [DEFP / Natalie Armbruster]