The US “National Interest” website, posted an analysis by Michael Hall, paused at the contradictions in the US policy towards Syria.
Hall said that these contradictions are due to the fact that Washington’s policy has always centered around hostility to Syrian President Bashar al Assad, rather than defeating ISIS.
He added in an article that the justifications provided by the United States for its military presence in Syria reveal the contradictions as well as that they are constantly changing, noting that it was said in the past that “ISIS must be eliminated,” but he pointed out that the terrorist organization lost the last of the lands it seized in a month of March 2019, yet Washington did not withdraw its forces.
The writer referred to other justifications provided by Washington for its continued military presence in Syria, such as confronting Iran and Russia, and at the same time pointed out that Iran had the same goal, which is the elimination of “ISIS”.
The writer sheds light on what was said about the need to support the Kurds in Syria and train and arm terrorists, and referred to US President Donald Trump’s words about “securing” oil in Syria and the ongoing developments in the Syrian oil file, and that the latter uses this as an excuse to keep US forces in this country.
Hall said that the overall goal of the US presence there was as long as it was in the context of the campaign to change the regime and keep Syria a country divided along the lines of war, and make the Syrians mainly bear the negative repercussions. And the reason for the survival of the US forces even after the fall of the so-called “ISIS” caliphate.
At the same time, the writer said that all the justifications Washington provides for its stay in Syria are not vital in terms of the security of the United States, and he considered that one of the biggest contradictions in Washington’s policy towards Syria does not revolve around the reasons for the US presence, but about the fact that the United States has not yet withdrawn from this country.
In conclusion, the writer said that Syria’s problems are not America’s problems, and the only rational option that is consistent with US interests is the complete withdrawal of US forces.
In a related context, the writer on the Responsible Statecraft website, Daniel Davis, referred to the US Army Central Command sending military equipment to Syria, and the intensification of patrols in this country, after a collision between a Russian patrol and an American armored vehicle this month.
He believed that the number of US forces in Syria reached 600 as a result of this step, days after US President Donald Trump said that the US presence would be limited to “protecting the oil fields”.
The writer warned that the intensification of US forces’ firepower in Syria to enable them to confront Russia is the worst possible action on the level of US national security, and stressed that what is required is a swift and complete withdrawal of US forces.
He stressed the need not to expose US forces to danger except in the event of a direct and imminent threat to the United States or its interests, and that the US military’s job is to “defend US and provide security for American citizens and not play the role of policeman in ungoverned areas”.
The writer added that “Syria is the worst use of US forces,” as American soldiers are deployed in hostile areas without there being any direct threats to America.
He added, “The US presence in Syria may inadvertently cause the United States to be attacked”.
The writer continued that the foreign policy elite in the United States suffers from an addiction to sending American forces to foreign arenas, and he used the results of opinion polls that revealed that the majority of Americans support the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and he also said that ending wars is in the interest of US national security.
Based on what he mentioned, the writer concluded that the operation in Syria should be ended.