The reckless grand strategy keeping U.S. troops in Syria, a new foreign policy mood on the right, a foreign policy election in 2024, and more.

EXIT HERE

U.S. troops in Syria are in harm's way because of a reckless, costly, and unjustifiable grand strategy

"A month after a drone attack killed three American troops at a U.S. military outpost in Jordan's borderlands with Syria, decisionmakers in DC are still contending with restricted policy options," writes Violet Collins—options that don't limit U.S. exposure to similar attacks and lend themselves to further regional escalation instead.

The "violence has revealed the growing constraint on America's foreign policy choices in the Middle East as a result of maintaining active troop deployments." As is most acutely evident in Syria at present, this force posture is "all cost, no benefit" for U.S. security, the holdover of a failed grand strategy that policymakers should jettison once and for all.

A failure of grand strategy

In the post-Cold War—and especially post-9/11—era, Washington's bipartisan "grand strategy of 'liberal hegemony' sought to cultivate a U.S.-led international order," explains DEFP Fellow Christopher McCallion in a new explainer.

It was costly, bloody, and often counterproductive to U.S. security interests, accurately understood:

"Military force and economic sanctions were used promiscuously (and sometimes exclusively) as instruments of statecraft toward so-called 'rogue states,' including Iraq, Iran, and North Korea."
"Regime change—often in the name of protecting human rights or promoting democracy—became a popular option for Washington policymakers."
That led to "a series of ill-fated interventions and occupations in the Middle East that unleashed a decades-long paroxysm of chaos and bloodletting, costing millions of lives in the region (and beyond) and $8 trillion to the American public."
"Without exception, the outcomes of these interventions were contrary to U.S. interests, resulting either in a return to the status quo ante bellum (Afghanistan), descent into chaos and anarchy (Libya), gains in influence for official adversaries (Iraq), or some combination of the above (Syria)." [DEFP]

No time like the present to course-correct

Washington is no longer fighting large-scale wars in the Middle East and has troop levels ranging from zero (Afghanistan) to the high hundreds (Syria) to the low thousands (Iraq) at the sites of previous interventions and occupations.

These forces may not typically be in combat. But particularly as the Israel-Hamas war fans fresh conflict with Iran-linked groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi rebels in Yemen, keeping Americans on the ground in the Mideast is an unnecessary risk:

It is reckless in the extreme to maintain military outposts that serve no vital national security interest and are in close proximity to regional rivals and adversaries in wartime. This puts U.S. troops in harm's way while creating a constant opportunity for escalation.
Complete U.S. withdrawal is especially urgent in Syria, where Russia joins Iran as a larger power involved in hostilities on the opposite side of U.S. forces. The danger of unintended, maybe even accidental, U.S.-Russia conflict in Syria is heightened by concurrent U.S.-Russia tension over Moscow's war on Ukraine.
The Biden administration "is reportedly exploring options for a military withdrawal from Syria." This is long overdue and compatible with the continued suppression of the remnants of the Islamic State. [Newsweek / Alexander Langlois]
It is in the interest of diverse regional actors—including the Syrian Democratic Forces, Iran, Turkey, Russia, Jordan, Iraq, and the Syrian regime—to continue to weed out ISIS elements that the lingering U.S. presence theoretically serves to combat. [Newsweek / Langlois]
"Washington should expedite [the withdrawal] process in collaboration with partners and foes sharing an interest in Syria's stability." [Newsweek / Langlois]

QUOTED

"Perhaps the new strain of foreign policy emerging on the right is neither isolationist nor realist. The Republicans pioneering this vision tend to be hawkish on Latin America, Iran, and China, and also encourage close U.S.-Israel ties. At the same time, they are 'more skeptical of liberal internationalist insistence that our security is tied up in places like Ukraine,' the policy director at the think tank Defense Priorities, Benjamin Friedman, tells the Sun. 'I'd call it Jacksonian, with a lot of Trump influence.'"

– DEFP Policy Director Benjamin Friedman, as quoted in, "Pendulum of GOP foreign policy is swinging away from neoconservatives of the Reagan era." [The New York Sun / M.J. Koch]

MAPPED

Iran's affiliates in the Middle East

"The January 28 drone attack that killed three U.S. troops near the Jordan-Syria border follows more than one hundred attacks by Iran-backed militias against U.S. forces since the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war in the Gaza Strip," reports the CFR. The U.S. risks "an escalation trap with these groups" (shown in the map above), unless we remove American forces from needless and dangerous outposts, particularly those in Syria.

► Go deeper with a DEFP explainer: Withdraw U.S. troops from Syria and Iraq ◄

Sober Analysis

U.S. voters face a stark choice on foreign policy

[The Guardian / Emma Ashford]

Political scientists have long known that American voters do not typically vote on foreign policy issues, which pale in comparison with economic or social issues. In 2024, however, that rule is not likely to hold. A plethora of recent polls suggest that Americans are increasingly concerned about foreign policy; one survey found that four in 10 voters rank the issue among their top concerns. […]

U.S. voters are increasingly skeptical about the idea that America is the world's indispensable nation; and young voters in particular are dubious about the Biden administration's commitment to human rights and appalled by his support for Israel's war in Gaza. Biden's other problem, of course, is that it is easier to criticize than to fix complex international problems.

Read the full analysis here.

All cost, no benefit