U.S. officials portray the situation in Syria as under control and part of what they call privately their “strategy of attrition,” which they counterintuitively define as needing less involvement, not more. It has become clear that Syria policy is in fact a policy of no policy, which has ceded power and responsibility to its adversaries that do not care about human rights or the legitimate views of the people.
Following the withdrawal of some U.S. troops from the northeast in October, the principal allies of the Bashar al-Assad regime, Russia and Iran, have filled the vacuum as U.S. troops have retreated to an even smaller zone of territory. Furthermore, without a presence and without a policy, the United States lacks the significant political leverage it needs to compel Assad to transition to a government that respects the rule of law, human rights and peaceful coexistence with its neighbors.
Under the guise of a “safe zone” in northeastern Syria, our former Kurdish partners have become the victims of an ethnic cleansing campaign, as Turkish-backed forces drive them farther from their homes, filling them with mostly ethnically Arab Syrian refugees. The Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces are left with limited options for survival but to cooperate with the Assad regime at their own risk, with the memory of this regime’s suppression of a Syrian Kurdish identity not far off.
Perhaps President Trump’s single stated U.S. policy in Syria is to “secure the oil fields” in SDF-controlled territories. In truth, the oil the United States has helped secure is eventually sold to the Assad regime by our recently deserted allies, the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, the civil administration arm of the SDF.
The irony is stark: U.S. policy is to secure oil that will indirectly benefit the Assad regime, all while working to pass a bill in Congress that will economically sanction those who do business with Assad.
Additionally, it further benefits Assad’s conspiracy theories, which claim that the United States only seeks to steal the oil and weaken Arab unity. With this policy, Assad can have his cake and eat it too.
This chaos on the ground is allowing the Islamic State to rebuild in Syria. There have been 26 percent more attacks from the Islamic State in its Syria stronghold (Deir al-Zour province) since March than in its Iraq stronghold (Diyala province) (461 and 364, respectively). Clearly, 600 U.S. troops, confined to a shrunken zone in northeastern Syria, will only further limit our ability to gather intelligence and prevent the Islamic State from regaining territory.
Despite the passage of the Caesar Act, Assad has little real incentive to end the atrocities for which Congress is sanctioning him. He has air cover from Russian forces, notorious for purposely bombing civilian targets; Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps; and foreign Shiite militias that continue to cleanse what is left of the local opposition on the ground. The United States is no longer a threat to the regime’s power because of the limited nature of Washington’s current engagements in Syria.
A “safe zone” will likely turn into a danger zone, with new rounds of bombings, kidnapping, torture and assassinations against activists and refugees who fled Assad’s atrocities since the start of the conflict.
The Caesar Act will not put an end to the Syrian catastrophe as long as Washington has a policy of no policy in Syria. “To compel the government of Bashar al-Assad to halt its murderous attacks on the Syrian people,” the White House cannot cede political and military leverage to the United States’ adversaries in Syria.
Assad is the reason radicals such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda flourished. And as long as Assad is in power, Washington’s wish to end “endless wars” will never end, at least not in Syria.
Read more: