Washington Kurdish Institute
February 5, 2019
The Unplanned, Sudden U.S. Withdraw From Syria Is Wrong Simply Because:
1) The U.S. withdrawal from Syria will rejuvenate ISIS and other terror groups
The predominate and overarching motivation for the U.S. deployment of troops to Syria is to combat groups, like ISIS, who pose a serious threat, not only to the world, but specifically to the United States. Although ISIS has lost control of most of its former territory in Syria, the terrorist group still remains an effective asymmetric fighting force, with thousands of sleeper cells and supporters across the country. This is not even to mention Al Qaeda, which still controls an entire province, Idlib, where it retains tens of thousands of fighters. And it’s also important to note that this presence is allowed to thrive and supported by Turkey.
2) America will be replaced by Russia, Iran, and the Assad regime
The U.S. presence in Syria prevented Russia, the Iranian militias, and the Assad regime from freely operating as they liked in the west of Syria. With the prospect of a U.S. exit, the Assad regime is delighted and moves one step closer to exerting control over the entire Kurdish region of Syria once again. In addition, Iran and its proxy militias have already begun moving their forces near oil fields in Deir Ez Zor Province. Meanwhile, Russia is already holding talks with Turkey over the Kurds and the future of Turkish-backed jihadi groups in Syria. All these regional players, none of whom have the best interests of Syrians at heart, are behaving as if the United States never had a presence in Syria. Clearly this planned withdrawal is resulting in actions contrary to the U.S.’s main goal in the region: the decrease of Iranian influence in the Middle East and the securing of American interests and security.
3) U.S. allies in the region will suffer more under the whim of Iranian and Turkish power
The states that will be the most negatively affected by the U.S. withdrawal from Syria are actual America’s closest allies: Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Clearly, all these nations face the same threats from growing Turkish and Iranian regional influence. The vacuum left by the U.S. will put these states in a critical position, imposing national security threats on them, which may, in the long run result in American involvement in the region once again — yet in possibly a harder, much more entrenched level.
4) Kurds and Christians will face either a slow death by the Assad regime or a fast genocide by Turkey
Once the U.S. withdraws from Syria, the Kurds will be more vulnerable than ever. The people who have been fighting against ISIS and other terrorist groups since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War, will now face the very serious prospect of genocide by the hands of Turkey’s government. Turkey has threatened to attack the Kurds on many occasions, and they successfully carried out such a threat in the Kurdish region of Afrin, in the west of the country where Russia exerts de facto influence. Syria’s Christians face a similar dire prospect. Like the Kurds, the Christians have been attacked by ISIS, Turkish-backed Jihadi groups, and the Assad regime. In the face of U.S. absence, one of the prime options for the Kurds and Christians is to reach some sort of deal with the Assad regime, perhaps sadly giving up the entire region into the hands of the brutal dictator once again. This will mean a slow death for Kurds and Christians, as Assad will seek to restore his power and begin persecuting anyone who ever called for a democratic system in Syria or cooperated with the United States.
5) A Turkish-led “Safe Zone” will be tantamount to the establishment of an Islamic State:
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has called for a Turkish-led safe-zone in the Kurdish region of Syria. Erdogan failed to get international support and attention to this proposal because of the Turkish states actions in Afrin, where Turkey utilized proxy jihadist groups to kill and displace mass numbers of Kurds. The international community and the United States realized that, under such a plan, this safe zone would be controlled by thousands of different Jihadi groups, including Al Qaeda’s Syria affiliate. This would be a great step backwards for a region that was recently liberated from ISIS and has begun stabilization and rebuilding efforts. Turkey argues that such a plan helps protect its “national security” against the Syrian Kurds (who, in reality, have never attacked Turkey); such an argument has been used in years past as a pretext for regional imperialism and oppressive policies against the Kurds. Contrary to Turkey’s characterization of Syria’s Kurds as “terrorists,” the Turkish government readily engaged with Syria’s Kurds before Erdogan’s decision to end the peace process with the PKK and begin clamping down on Kurdish political parties and activists in Turkey. During this engagement period, Turkey’s government invited Syrian Kurdish officials to Ankara and stressed satisfaction with the Kurdish group’s work in securing the Turkish-Syrian border from terrorist threats.
Kurdish goals in Syria
Unlike Turkey, which wants to crush the Kurds anywhere in the region, the Kurds of Syria are just trying to survive and live a peaceful and democratic existence, free from the oppression of the Assad regime and existential threats from jihadi terrorist groups. Furthermore, the Kurds never wanted to attack Turkey. Historically, the Kurds have only been seeking basic cultural and human rights from the government’s of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. They continue to be the largest ethnic group in the world without its own state. The Kurds of Syria, unlike others, remained in their lands and stood to fight against ISIS and jihadi groups. They chose to fight and die rather than become refugees in Europe, as has happened to many other Syrians. The Syrian Kurds even hosted many refugees and Internally Displaced People (IDP) from throughout the country. With the help of the United States, they were able to defeat the largest terrorist group in history. Could they have done this without American help? No. But could the United States have defeated ISIS without them, with only the assistance and reliance on other Syrian groups? The answer is an emphatic “No”. This coordination led to a great partnership between the Syrian Kurds and the U.S.-led coalition, resulting both in the defense of the Kurdish region of Syria and the protection of U.S. and international security. Today the Kurds are asking the international community, especially the United States, to remain in Syria simply to finish the job of fighting the remaining terrorist groups and to protect the free, safe, and democratic region of the Syria Kurds — and thus help avert the slaughter of many, many innocent people. Some may say the U.S. presence in Syria is only symbolic, yet this is still effective for achieving these aforementioned goals. Such symbolic presence provides enough assurances to the people of this region that they will not be abandoned to death, displacement, or oppression. The U.S. military is in more than 70 countries. Retaining 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria is a miniscule deployment and constitutes pennies of spending compared to U.S. presence and spending elsewhere. These 2,000 troops can downgrade to even less than that as time passes and proper security is built and assured.
Solutions:
In tandem with strong engagement from European and regional countries, the U.S. should work to not only continue to fight against ISIS terrorism and Iranian expansionism, but also work to prevent the Turkish or Assad regime invasion and occupation of the Kurdish region of Syria. These goals can be achieved through declaring the region a conflict-free area, where both residents and IDPs will be protected. The countries who opposed the U.S. withdrawal from Syria should create a buffer zone between the Turkish military and the Kurdish region, in order to prevent any future clashes. The Arab Gulf countries could also finance the reconstruction of the area and help slowly repair the destruction wrought by the Syrian Civil War. Under such an arrangement, the United States presence and commitments in Syria would be limited and on a small scale. In addition, it would be important for a United Nations monitoring team to be set up to track any breaches by any side and take action accordingly.