Home
slideshows
miscellaneous
How the US military can take on terrorism threats in Iraq and Syria without staying there forever

How the US military can take on terrorism threats in Iraq and Syria without staying there forever

Baghdadi's death demonstrates effectiveness of targeted raids—and the futility of endless occupations.

The US has the most robust intelligence-gathering capability in the world, spending more than $70 billion annually.
That is more than the annual military budgets for the UK, France, Germany, and even Russia.
Along with the ability to strike targets globally through land- and sea-based aircraft, drones, and special forces, this intelligence capability enables counterterrorism strikes everywhere.

Local partners are useful for gathering intelligence and conducting counterterrorism raids—but this can be arranged on the basis of mutual interests without permanent US security commitments.
All major regional actors have a greater self-interest in destroying ISIS's remnants than the US; that interest encourages cooperation with US anti-terror efforts.
Syrian and Iraqi Kurds provided intelligence for the Baghdadi raid despite the end of the formal US-Kurdish partnership, and Russia and Turkey permitted overflight, despite rocky US relations.
The withdrawal of US forces from Syria and Iraq would leave ISIS's remnants surrounded by hostile powers.

ISIS and Al-Qaeda-linked fighters remain present in Syria where the Syrian government has not yet re-established its authority.
Despite its atrocities, the Syrian government is effective at rooting out terrorism in territory it controls.
The administration's plan to keep US troops stationed near Syria's oil fields and the base in Al-Tanf seems designed to deny the Syrian regime control of Syria—but undermining the Syrian government enables conditions under which terrorism can flourish.

Other than preventing significant, long-term disruptions to global oil flows, the US interest in the Middle East is eliminating anti-US terrorist threats, primarily from radical Sunni terrorists, of which ISIS is one prominent branch.
Completely, methodically withdrawing US ground forces from Syria and Iraq would shift the counterterrorism burden from the US back to local actors: Syria, Russia, Iran, Iraq, and others.
The US will continually monitor and strike anti-US threats, by special forces raids or other measures if need be.
Occupying parts of Syria, which remains impoverished and riven by sectarian conflict, is a costly and dangerous burden that we should be glad to hand off to others, especially adversaries.

The administration has repeatedly stated its intent to withdraw US forces from Syria—each time, it has failed to do so. US forces continue to occupy parts of Syria and are reportedly returning to bases abandoned only weeks ago.
With the caliphate destroyed—and ISIS's allure with it—the US military mission in Syria is complete. Staying has more to do with countering Assad, which actually harms the goal of defeating ISIS's remnants and radical Sunni Islamists.
US withdrawal removes the risk of being dragged into a conflict over the Turkey-Syria border and reduces US exposure to the Middle East's violent political problems.
The US should accept victory over ISIS, immediately withdraw from Syria, and keep the US safe through intelligence and raids.

Wall Street billionaires have been attacking Elizabeth Warren. Here's a round…