U.S. troops finished the anti-ISIS mission two years ago—they're still stuck in Syria's civil war; Taiwan policy discussions should acknowledge nuclear risks.
PERIPHERAL MISSIONS
ISIS's caliphate collapsed two years ago. Why are U.S. troops still in Syria?
Two years ago today, a combination of U.S. airstrikes and Kurdish fighters liberated Baghouz, ISIS's last stronghold in Syria. However, around 900 U.S. troops remain in eastern Syria today. [Defense One / Katie Bo Williams]
The U.S. intervened in Syria with a narrow military mission: Destroy ISIS's territorial caliphate. Rather than leave after victory, Washington morphed the mission into an occupation of Kurdish-controlled areas—for murky reasons, starting with denying Assad victory and prolonging the civil war there. [LAT / David Cloud]
Some argue for an open-ended presence in Syria to hunt ISIS's remnants. But ISIS is a shell of its former self. Under attack from multiple regional actors, what little is left of ISIS is confined to pockets in the Syrian desert and conducts only small-scale attacks against exposed convoys and checkpoints. [WOTR / Sam Heller]
Russia, the Syrian government, Iran, Iran-backed Shia militias, Turkey, and Kurdish units all have a strong interest in keeping ISIS's remnants bottled up. [National Review / Daniel DePetris]
Nation building and stabilization were never part of the original U.S. mission—for good reason: The U.S. has little influence, and no compelling justification to seek more. Syria—a devastated, divided country in a region decreasingly important to U.S. security and prosperity—is no strategic prize the U.S. should fear losing. [DEFP]
Keeping U.S. troops in Syria today to preserve a weak Kurdish statelet in the east to frustrate the Assad regime and its foreign backers is a risky, foolish waste of limited U.S. resources. Staying courts wider war with regional powers, undermining U.S. security. [Foreign Affairs / Robert Ford]
With the original mission completed—two full years ago—U.S. troops in Syria and Iraq should come home. [DEFP]
HONOR THE WITHDRAWAL AGREEMENT
If the Taliban agree to an extension, "those [U.S.] troops become mere leverage in a complicated diplomatic drama. If it doesn't and [President Biden] delays withdrawal anyway, the agreement that has prevented any U.S. combat casualties for the past year dissolves." [NYT / Mark Hannah]
REALITY CHECK
A conflict over Taiwan risks nuclear war between the U.S. and China [DEFP / Mike Sweeney]
As U.S.-China tensions escalate, Taiwan has become a focal point. There is speculation China's military growth could result in a military invasion of the island. Some analysts argue for a shift in U.S. policy from "strategic ambiguity" to "strategic clarity" to deter possible aggression.
DEFP Fellow Mike Sweeney cautions that discussions over Taiwan should start and end with nuclear stability between the U.S. and China. The potential for miscalculation in a crisis is higher than commonly acknowledged, he writes.
There is a wide disparity in U.S. and Chinese interests in Taiwan. If China were to move against Taiwan, the stakes could be life-and-death for the CCP, given the potential political and personal consequences should an invasion fail.
If an invasion of Taiwan faced battlefield defeats or setbacks, China's leaders could be willing to use nuclear weapons, even if they had not intended to do so before the conflict.
The U.S., too, could use nuclear weapons in the event of a war over Taiwan—particularly if Chinese cruise and ballistic missiles strike a U.S. aircraft carrier and result in massive U.S. casualties. If the U.S. targets the Chinese mainland, that could also set off an inadvertent escalation to nuclear weapons.
Too often ignored, managing nuclear risks should be the top priority, as the U.S. re-examines strategic ambiguity and debates defense planning options for Taiwan.
TRENDING
Long-term costs to U.S. power from opposing Nord Stream 2
Staying in Afghanistan courts more risk and U.S. casualties
A blueprint for pragmatic engagement with Russia
Repealing open-ended AUMFs, ending costly military interventions