Syria Conflict: Trump Troop Pullout Raises Questions

US ground troops UU They got involved for the first time in Syria in 2015

Until now, the official position of the United States was that their forces would remain on the ground in Syria to ensure the lasting defeat of the Islamic State (IS) group.

"Nobody says an accomplished mission," said Brett McGurk, US special envoy to the global coalition to defeat IS, just two weeks ago.

But in recent months, an additional narrative has been introduced, certainly among the most strident voices of foreign policy in the Trump administration. It has been argued that a long-standing presence in Syria would help contain Iran and thwart Russia's growing influence in the region.

US ground troops UU They first became involved in Syria in the fall of 2015, when President Barack Obama sent a small number of special forces to train and advise local Kurdish fighters who fought against the SI. The United States reluctantly did so after several attempts to arm anti-IS groups that had fallen into chaos.

In recent years, the number of US troops in Syria has increased to around 2,000, although some estimates may place it even higher. A network of bases and airstrips has been established in an arch in the north-east of the country.

But what is your strategic goal now? IS is about to be defeated. Syrian President Assad is still standing with the support of his allies in Moscow and Tehran. If the goal now is to contain Iran or Russia's growing influence in the region, then 2,000 soldiers stretched over a vast territory may be too weak a force to do so.

Therefore, the decision of President Donald Trump is, in this sense, logical and corresponds to its apparent hostility, despite a great bellicose rhetoric, the entanglements of foreign wars.

'Great role'

However, others may argue the presence of US troops. UU It grants to the EE. UU This is an important presence and sometimes US forces have been involved in direct clashes with pro-Iranian militias and Russian army contractors who have attempted to attack the positions of their own. allies.

It is estimated that about 2,000 US troops are stationed in Syria

The IS may be largely defeated, but what will happen in about a third of Syria that will escape the control of President Assad and his allies? Could a new phase of the civil war emerge? And if large parts of the country sink into renewed chaos, something related to employment insurance or the like could easily emerge.

The United States has also played an important role in strengthening Kurdish groups in northern Syria, which have been the key local element in defeating the SI. But these groups are considered by Turkey as a significant threat. It is telling that Trump's policy change took place at a time when Washington and Ankara are trying to circumvent a new set of tensions and that the Turkish authorities are warning that they plan to continue attacking Syria against the same Kurdish elements.

So, does Washington have an agreement with Ankara? What security safeguards will there be for local Washington allies in the future? And if the Kurds are actually abandoned to their destination, what does he say for the reliability of the United States? UU As an ally in future conflicts, should local fighters be encouraged to align with Washington?

But most importantly, there will be new questions now about the Trump administration's approach to the region. What are your strategic goals? What are the enduring interests of the United States there? And what means must be invested to achieve these goals?

To take advantage of?

There is no doubt that the Middle East, once a crucial supplier of energy for Washington and a center of competition for the superpowers, is less geostrategic today than in the past. But it remains a region of great instability and of paramount importance for Washington's closest European allies, confronted with their many problems throughout the Mediterranean.

Washington therefore needs a coherent policy, which goes beyond the simple slogan "to contain Iran".

With President Trump, it often seems that US policy is unduly aligned with Saudi Arabia and Israel, or more precisely at the approach of two influential figures, the de facto Saudi leader Mohammed bin Salman and the prime minister. Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, who may be taking advantage of Washington's ideas. the perceived weakness in the region to promote their own political views.

President Trump's decision reverses the repeated official lines of the Pentagon and the State Department and puts Washington's Kurdish allies in greater danger.

A withdrawal from the United States. This will only rekindle questions about the Trump administration's overall approach to the region, which, although perhaps less important in Washington's calculations, may still cause explosive disturbances and conflicts.