Quibbling Over the Number of U.S. Forces in Syria Misses the Point

The magic 8-ball that is the Trump Administration’s foreign policy sent Washington and world leaders on another whipsaw last week, this time announcing the U.S. would leave 200 troops in Syria. Not even two months ago, President Trump announced the military mission to liberate ISIS-held territory was (nearly) complete and that it was time to bring American forces home.

The inconsistency of our reasoning for involving U.S. military and intelligence assets in Syria’s civil war does not inspire confidence in the political or national security leadership at the helm. Even as the Islamic State caliphate has largely been defeated, it seems like we are looking for more problems to solve, grasping at the latest straws to stay present in the country.

While there were doubtlessly opposition members in Syria prone to that type of thinking, the overall situation on the ground—as in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya—was significantly more complicated.

Sunni extremists in Syria, who had opposed the secular Assad government for decades, were part of the opposition from the outset and quickly became the more powerful factions of the rebellion. This turned western attention away from Assad towards the potential of ungoverned areas, especially in eastern Syria, becoming safe havens for Al-Qaeda-like terrorist groups.

Then in 2013, our focus shifted back to the Assad regime, when it allegedly used chemical weapons against rebel-controlled areas, killing hundreds if not thousands of civilians. The threat of chemical weapons proliferating throughout global conflicts after nearly a century became more of a national security concern than the extremists who were gaining strength in opposition to the regime.

But not even a year later, those extremists gained enough support from disenfranchised Sunnis in the region to launch a shocking campaign across northern Iraq to capture Mosul and deal a nearly fatal blow to the Iraqi government the U.S. spent a decade and hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars building.

Since that time, other justifications for involving our military in Syria have passed in and out of American talking points, each as complicated and sometimes contradictory as the others—protecting the Kurds and other minorities; supporting our Turkish NATO allies, who violently oppose our Kurdish allies; supporting our Gulf state allies, who often play both sides when it comes to Sunni extremists; pushing back against Russian and Iranian influence; shielding Israel from either an Assad-led or a Sunni extremist-led Syria; performing a humanitarian mission; or maintaining the credibility of the United States, however that is measured.

The list continues to grow in 2019 with “peacekeeping” now added, a function that had historically been reserved for the United Nations.

This confusion and lack of strategic direction stem from gross neglect of our constitutional processes. The governing body charged with declaring war (or not) and providing a foundation of consistency and continuity amid presidential changes—the United States Congress—has willfully chosen to surrender its responsibility and influence when it comes to Syria and virtually all other current foreign wars.

The Pentagon, State Department, and CIA are not deliberative bodies—by design—and therefore are not equipped to set the long-term strategic goals and policies for a Republic. Only the elected representatives of the American people—by design—are equipped to determine such issues.

So as the Trump Administration continues to be frustratingly unpredictable and inconsistent on issues like Syria and Afghanistan, Congress is failing to perform its most solemn duty by standing idle. Stability and a more disciplined, national-interest focused foreign policy could be restored by the new Congress if they reassume their Article I responsibilities as our founders intended.

Robert Moore is a public policy advisor for Defense Priorities. He has nearly a decade of experience working on national security issues in Congress, most recently working for Senator Mike Lee on the Senate Armed Services Committee.