Responding to U.S. deaths on the Jordan-Syria border, the worst-case scenario with Iran, the democracy-defense credo, and more.

DRAWDOWN

U.S. forces should have left Syria and adjacent countries years ago. Get them out now.

The drone killing of three American troops by an Iran-linked militia on the Jordan-Syria border on Sunday was, as journalist Matthew Petti wrote at Reason, an "avoidable tragedy."

And the chief task of U.S. policymakers as the Biden administration weighs its promised response is to, in fact, avoid similarly avoidable missteps that will put even more U.S. service members needlessly in harm's way. The first step: Withdraw U.S. forces from Syria and adjacent countries immediately—as should have happened years ago.

An avoidable tragedy

"The soldiers killed and the service members wounded in an outpost on the border of Jordan and Syria should not have been there. The outpost attacked seems to be attached to the U.S. mission in Syria, which is unauthorized, increasingly foolish, and an invitation to war with Iran." [DEFP / Benjamin H. Friedman]
The U.S. base where the attack occurred is part of "an effort to police the border against Iran-linked forces. But we never hear any larger rationale for that aim which justifies risking American lives. Congress does not perform oversight and the executive branch does not tell us." [DEFP / Benjamin H. Friedman]

First responses

President Joe Biden has pledged to "hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner of our choosing." [X]
"Actions may be tiered. We may see several rounds of action," an unnamed administration official said. [Politico / Matt Berg and Erin Banco]
Some lawmakers immediately pushed for war on Iran:
- "The only answer to these attacks must be devastating military retaliation against Iran's terrorist forces, both in Iran and across the Middle East," said Sen. Tom Cotton.
- Sens. Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham also called for retaliation against Iran itself. [Axios / Barak Ravid et al.]
Biden has claimed authority for recent Mideast airstrikes under the post-9/11 AUMFs, despite bipartisan objections from Congress. [NBC / Scott Wong and Kate Santaliz]
- Those authorizations were passed in 2001 and 2002 and covered force against the perpetrators of 9/11 and Iraq, respectively.
- Neither document mentions Iran.

Realism and restraint

"There are better ways to hit back than starting another massive war in the Middle East and signing up for exponentially more death and destruction." [DEFP / Benjamin H. Friedman]
Diplomacy is one such option here and in other conflicts with Iran-linked groups, e.g. in Yemen. [RS / Michael DiMino]
But the most immediate priority is to remove U.S. forces from worse-than-useless bases in territory it only harms us to occupy, as DEFP explainers have detailed for years:
- Keeping U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria courts war: U.S. troops in the Mideast "are especially vulnerable to direct and asymmetric reprisals from Iran; Iranian-directed proxies; and even rogue groups not controlled by Tehran."
- It is time for U.S. troops to leave Syria: Since the end of the anti-ISIS mission, the U.S. presence here has been subject to mission creep, "murky objectives and needless risks."
- Apply the logic of Afghanistan withdrawal to Syria: "[O]ver-the-horizon capabilities are sufficient to achieve U.S. counterterrorism aims" in Syria.

Quoted

"Jordan is a longtime security partner, but we are going to have to ask ourselves whether the U.S. troop presence in Iraq and Syria is worth it."

– DEFP Fellow Gil Barndollar, as quoted in, "Biden faces pressure to confront Iran after U.S. troops killed." [Bloomberg / Peter Martin and Eric Martin]

LIVESTREAM TODAY @ 2

Heightened Chinese military capabilities, rising tension, and limited U.S.-China diplomatic engagement fuel growing concerns that a war could break out between the world's two largest powers. What strategy will serve U.S. interests best?

Please join Defense Priorities today, Wednesday, January 24, for a thoughtful discussion on these important issues, featuring David Kang, Peter Harris, Susan Shirk, and Lyle Goldstein.

RSVP

TALKING HEADS

The democracy-defense credo does not serve U.S. interests

[The Atlantic / Stephen Wertheim]

When supporting democracy aligns with countries' sovereign status and serves U.S. interests, the U.S. can play a positive role. But privileging democracy above sovereignty leads to grief. It injects an endlessly destabilizing principle into international relations, implying that states do not have legitimate rights unless they are democracies, as defined by Washington.

Under [the Biden administration], the United States has abandoned the disastrous foreign-policy choices of the post-9/11 era—invading other countries to overthrow their governments and install democratic ones—yet it continues to speak as though it reserves the right to do so.

The point is not lost on states around the world. And one day, Americans will not want a yet more powerful China to assert the same principle of intervening abroad on behalf of the form of government it favors.

Read the full analysis here.

Out of Syria now