US diplomat calls for US troops to stay in Syria

In an editorial for the renowned news platform “Defense One”, former deputy special envoy of the global anti-IS coalition and current vice president of the Institute of the Arab Gulf States in Washington, William V. Roebuck, discussed the reasons for the deployment of US troops and why its continuation is crucial for Syria’s security,
„Keep US Troops in Syria“ – This is the headline of the plea by the US diplomat, who, because of the current threat from the terrorist organization ISIS, considers the presence of the US military in Syria to be quite useful, despite the risks and costs it bears. US troops have been active in North and East Syria since 2015, although their number significantly decreased as a result of decisions, made in the Trump era, Mr. Roebuck stressed out in his article.
Roebuck commemorates the achievements of US troops in Syria. Together with the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which he describes as “local partners on the ground”, ISIS was directly confronted during the so-called ‚Caliphate’ phase. The US military coordinated with SDF leaders and provided air support and daily military and anti-terrorist equipment as well as advice to the SDF. They also helped with the security maintenance of the prisons where more than 10,000 captured ISIS fighters are incarcerated.
According to Roebuck, US forces are said to have provided not only military aid but also civilian aid, for example through the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure or the repatriation of displaced refugees.
Since ISIS’s ultimate military defeat in 2019, US support has shifted from direct combat support to simpler military assistance. Although the leadership and organization of the terrorist organization ISIS has been significantly weakened, the US diplomat is observing a slow revival of the terrorist organization in Syria and therefore warns against a complete withdrawal of US troops as this would encourage ISIS to increase its activities in Syria, even if the SDF can repel these attacks. Furthermore, a withdrawal would usher the end of the region’s diplomatic efforts with Washington.
Roebuck also refers to the ongoing threat of Turkey invading Northern Syria, saying that if US troops intend to withdraw, Turkey would be encouraged to launch an invasion, which would exhaust the capacities of the SDF, leading to the fight against ISIS to remain in a stalemate. In such a scenario, humanitarian efforts would be just as badly affected as the millions of displaced people. For these reasons, Roebuck considers a continued US presence to be “critically” important.
In the direction of the advocates of a US withdrawal from Syria, he pleads for a continuation of the US presence in Syria, whereby in terms of cost-risk calculations, it is in no way comparable to Afghanistan. On the other hand, a reinvigorated ISIS presence would pose enormous problems for the US leadership. Moreover, the US presence in Syria would further thwart Russia’s intentions for asserting its interests in the country, particularly concerning the war in Ukraine. In conclusion, it was the right decision for the Biden leadership to maintain the US presence in Syria, especially given the dangers posed by IS and the most current attacks inside the Raqqa governorate.