QAMISHLI, Syria (North Press) – Two weeks after the US House of Representatives voted down legislation to withdraw some 900 US troops from northeast Syria, politicians deem sudden military withdrawal impossible.
Caroline Rose, a researcher at the New Lines Institute, said, in an interview on Washington Online of North Press, that the physical presence of US forces in northeast Syria is a counter way against the “Assad’s regime” and because of that, the US administration or the US Congress will not take the withdrawal decision quickly.
On March 10, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla. in the House of Representatives proposed the resolution to withdraw the troops from northeast Syria within 180 days for voting, but opponents of the resolution warned that the withdrawal might grant Islamic State (ISIS) a chance to reorganize itself and put the US and its allies at risk.
The resolution failed in a 103-321 vote that split both parties.
Republicans opposed it in a 47-171 vote, and Democrats rejected it 56-150.
When it comes to foreign policy, Gaetz is an “isolationist” which this initiative deeply reflexes, Rose said.
“I think that the US is also trying to explore diplomatic and economic tools to make pressure on the Assad regime, however, the physical presence is a very critical part of their security strategy in the country,” she added.
Answering the question about potential calls of US troops’ withdrawal if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential elections, Rose said, “If there would be a revive of Turmp’s administration, I would expect that this sort of withdrawal would happen from the executive branch rather than the legislative branch.”
Trump’s administration does not value the US presence in northeast Syria, Rose added.
She answered the question about how the “sudden” pullout from Syria would affect the northeast and Syria in general, saying, “It could heavily affect the regional geopolitics and security landscape.”
The major obstacle in front of the Turkish incursion against northeast Syria will be removed once the US troops pull out and ISIS will take advantage of the withdrawal, according to the analyst.
She deemed that the lessons the US learned from the sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan will not allow it to carry on any sudden military withdrawal from a conflict zone.
In a separate interview on Washington Online, Steven Heydemann, a political scientist, said the US will not pull out from northeast Syria since the value of the US presence in the region is widely appreciated and understood in Congress.
The US has supported the Syrian integrity and territory many times, however, the US presence there has its impacts on the political landscape, as when Erdogan threatened to invade northeast Syria, the US made very clear statements opposing the military intervention of Ankara in the northeast, Heydemann added.
Answering the question about the unanimous rejection of the Congress for normalizing ties with the Syrian government, he said that it is an extraordinary degree of consensus among America’s very divided politicians about resisting normalization with the “Syrian regime”.
The vote was almost unanimous which means that such a thing will never happen, as there is no more powerful signal from Congress than opposition to normalizations, he added.
“Whether it will have any impact on how other countries make their own decisions to engage with the Assad regime, the most effective instrument that the US has to encourage the region’s governments not to normalize with the Assad regime,” according to Heydemann.
Congress itself does not have the authority to impose this kind of sanctions and cannot take further steps to prevent other governments from normalizing ties with the Syrian government, as such resolutions have to come from the White House, Heydemann stressed.
Regarding to the visit of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley to northeast Syria, he said that the visit was a clear signal of the ongoing value of the very small troop presence in northeast Syria.
On March 4, Milley made an unexpected visit to a US base in Syria to evaluate the mission against ISIS and review protection measures for US troops.
A day after, Milley said that it is important that the US continue to support northeast Syria because the terror threat would grow in the absence of US troops.
From time to time, US troops are targeted by missile attacks, as on Feb. 19, US Central Command (CENTCOM) announced that two anonymous rockets targeted their forces at “Green Village” in northeast Syria.
His visit emphasizes that there is a continuing role in the anti-ISIS operation in northeast Syria that the US is assisting with Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in conducting operations that are affecting ISIS, according to the politician.
Milley wanted to make it clear to the regional actors – Russian and Iran – that they will not be able to remove the US forces as long as the US views that its presence in the area has a positive impact, Heydemann added.
Answering the question about the purpose of the visits that some Arab countries conducted to Syria following the earthquake, he said, “I think that the purpose of these visits is to demonstrate that these regional actors are concerned about the humanitarian effects of the earthquake.”
At dawn on Feb. 6, a 7.8-magnitude earthquake hit northwestern Syria and southern Turkey, killing more than 50.000 individuals and injuring many more. The earthquake also caused immense destruction of buildings, trapping thousands under the rubble.
“We have seen delegations that have traveled to areas affected by the earthquake, but we have not seen any kind of wider diplomatic initiatives about broader normalizations with the Assad regime which is an important distinction to keep in mind,” he stressed.
“We should not exaggerate in thinking that the earthquake has produced significant and lasting shifts in the pace of normalizations with the Syrian government,” according to the politician.
Regarding Iran’s authority in Syria, he said that it is moving much more aggressively to position weapons in Syria. It is clear that Iran is playing a more visible and influential role in Syria because of Russia’s focus on its war in Ukraine.
He deemed that the earthquake will not bring about any kind of interest on the part of the US and the European Union (EU) in re-engaging in Syria’s diplomacy, instead, it concerns the European efforts to ensure that it does not become the focus of a massive new way of people fleeing earthquake-affected areas in Syria or southern Turkey.
The main policy implication of the earthquake will not be on the diplomatic front in efforts to find a solution to the conflict around United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 2254, he added.
In Dec. 2015, the UNSC unanimously adopted Resolution 2254 endorsing a road map and setting a timetable for the talks to take place in January 2016.
The resolution shaped a more active role for the UN as the forum for talks between the opposing sides regarding a political transition and set out a timetable for a ceasefire and elections. The political process under UN auspices called for the establishment of “credible, inclusive and non-sectarian governance” within six months and the drafting of a new constitution, and the holding of free elections within eighteen months.