(The Washington Post/.)
When nations declare victory over terror groups, there are often three stages: a full-blown victory announcement, followed by gradually mounting doubts and eventually the acknowledgment that things might be a bit more complicated than assumed.
On the Islamic State, President Trump has gone from stage one (“After historic victories against ISIS, it’s time to bring our great young people home!”) straight to an early stage 3 within only two months. In a sudden, partial reversal, White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders announced Thursday that “a small peacekeeping group of about 200 will remain in Syria for some time.” The extended mission still appears to be temporary, but Sanders’ announcement was a far shot from the certainty of imminent and long-term victory conveyed by Trump in December. Initially, all U.S. troops were expected to have left the country by the end of April.
So, what has changed?
The threat posed by the Islamic State
The area controlled by the Islamic State has continued to shrink in recent months. The map above — last updated in mid-January — still shows two parts of Syria controlled by the militants, but almost all of it is essentially uninhabited. In reality, the ISIS territory has now shrunk to a tiny part of the village of Baghouz, which is expected to fall soon, as well.
Despite the territorial advances, the last two months have shown that claiming back the group’s territory doesn’t automatically result in victory over the group itself.
Thousands of Islamic State fighters are still believed to be in Syria and Iraq, and the U.S. decision to withdraw has raised concerns that this number may even grow further once again. So far, Kurdish fighters in Syria were able to rely on their ally, the United States, to hold their own territory (highlighted in green in the map above) and watch over hundreds of Western Islamic State detainees arrested as the group lost its territory.
Feeling abandoned by Washington, the Syrian Kurds are now threatening to release the ISIS fighters they have so far held, as they focus on a potential battle for their own existence. That Kurdish response should not have come as a surprise, but neither Europe nor the United States appear to have had a plan for what’s next.
Much to U.S. allies’ dismay, Trump subsequently urged Europe to take back its ISIS fighters — even though he himself on Wednesday stopped the return of an Alabama woman who had joined the Islamic State. The reasons for prevailing hesitancy among the U.S. government and its European counterparts in taking back their citizens are largely the same: they fear that courts may not be able to sentence returning fighters because of a lack of evidence, allowing former ISIS fighters to roam the streets of Paris, London or New York City instead of being sent to jail.
As few nations are willing to repatriate their citizens, there are few viable options out of that dilemma except a continuation of the approach they’ve pursued so far — with troops inside Syria.
Plans for a “safe zone” in northeastern Syria
(The Washington Post/.)
The repercussions of Trump’s announcement of a full withdrawal in December also led to concerns that two U.S. allies might fight each other immediately after the American departure. The United States is both allied with NATO member Turkey and the Syrian Kurds. Turkey, meanwhile, considers the Syrian Kurds as being allied with Kurdish militants on its own soil and has vowed to attack them once U.S. forces have withdrawn.
To prevent such an escalation, a “safe zone” between Turkey and territory held by Syrian Kurds has been proposed. But a full U.S. withdrawal would make such a safe zone almost impossible, given that the two remaining powers who could patrol it — France and Britain — have warned Trump that they won’t stay behind if he follows through on his pull-out.
Concerns over growing influence of Iran
Other nations are more willing to fill the power vacuum this would create, with Iran being positioned especially well as a key ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Syrian military forces have in recent years worked hand in hand both with Iranian-commanded militias and Russian troops. All three nations would be eager to expand their sway over the northeastern parts of the country, currently held by the U.S.-backed Kurdish fighters.
When German Chancellor Angela Merkel discussed the U.S. troops withdrawal from Syria at the Munich Security Conference earlier this month, she expressed concerns also held by some U.S. officials: “Is it a good idea for the Americans to suddenly and quickly withdraw from Syria? Or will it once again strengthen the capacity of Iran and Russia to exert their influence there?”
Thursday’s announcement to keep some troops in the country suggests that waiting to find out the answer to that question appears to be an increasingly risky bet to the Trump administration, too.
Louisa Loveluck contributed to this post.
More on WorldViews:
Fallen idols and toppled statues: The world’s Catholics react to the Vatican’s abuse summit
How countries may try to avoid taking back ISIS fighters and their families
Trump says it would be ‘wonderful’ if India and Pakistan got along. Here’s why they don’t.
This story was originally published by Washington Post
via USAHint.com
No comments:
Post a Comment