The U.S. continues military operations in Syria, targeting individuals linked to Al-Qaeda and ISIS amidst ongoing questions about its military presence. Recent air strikes and policy changes highlight the complexities of U.S. engagement in the region, raising concerns among policymakers about legality and strategy post-Assad’s regime. Adam Weinstein and defense officials emphasize the need for clarity in U.S. objectives as the situation evolves.
On a recent Sunday, the U.S. Central Command announced the elimination of two individuals linked to Al-Qaeda in Idlib, Syria. One of them, Wasim Tahsin Bayraqdar, was noted as the brother of a Syrian government minister, while the other was identified as a senior military leader of the Al-Qaeda affiliate Hurras al-Din. This strike represents the latest of numerous military operations conducted by the U.S. since the fall of the Assad regime in December, continuing a trend of targeting individuals associated with extremist groups.
The U.S. has engaged in multiple military strikes, totaling 75 anti-ISIS operations immediately following Assad’s overthrow, targeting key figures within ISIS and Iranian-backed militias in Iraq. The missions have utilized various aircraft, including F-15 fighter jets, B-52 bombers, and A-10 air support units to execute these operations. These ongoing military actions have not diminished, despite changes in Syria’s leadership, with the U.S. still justifying its operations under the pretext of combating ISIS and other extremist factions.
Adam Weinstein, a Middle East fellow at the Quincy Institute, expresses concern over the lack of a diplomatic presence in Syria, stating that the U.S. primarily engages through air strikes. He notes that the new Syrian government may not actively oppose these actions as they view the targeted groups as rivals. While some Islamist groups have dissolved under new leadership, Washington’s rationale for continued military action remains uncertain, especially with the shift in power dynamics.
Following the regime change, the Biden administration indicated that U.S. military involvement would persist to prevent a power vacuum potentially occupied by ISIS. The administration did not clarify that Al-Qaeda remnants are also included in its military objectives. Meanwhile, President Trump has not clearly articulated a stance on the new Syrian government but indicated a preference for a reduced military presence in Syria.
Weinstein argues that the presence of U.S. troops in northeast Syria does not substantially contribute to stability. Even if troop withdrawal occurs, airstrikes may continue from regional bases. Recently, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a modification of policy allowing for broader targeting in air strikes, raising concerns among Senate Armed Services Committee members regarding potential violations of international law and the implications for U.S. military operations.
In summary, despite over a decade of involvement and the regime change, the U.S. remains actively engaged in Syria, raising questions about the justification for its military presence and actions. The ambiguity surrounding the mission and ongoing bombings indicates a complex and unstable situation, whereby leaders express concern over the potential ramifications of continued military operations in the region.
The current military strategy of the United States in Syria remains in flux, reflecting a complex interplay of regional dynamics and shifting leadership. Despite the stated goal of countering ISIS and other jihadist factions, the justification for ongoing military operations raises critical questions about long-term U.S. objectives in the region. With the new government in Damascus no longer viewed as an adversary, the rationale behind the continued U.S. military presence and airstrikes invites scrutiny and necessitates a clear strategic framework moving forward.
Original Source: responsiblestatecraft.org
