The US base at Tower 22 in Jordan is in the midst of a seemingly endless desert, astride the traditional Damascus-Baghdad Freeway close to the border with Syria. In January it’s chilly, typically wet and really bleak. Final month three U.S. service members at Tower 22 have been killed by a drone launched by an Iranian-backed militia. Their deaths prompted greater than 80 retaliatory strikes by the US towards the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and militias working in Iraq and Syria.
The assault in Jordan was the clear, foreseeable results of our tepid responses to greater than 150 assaults towards U.S. forces in Syria and Iraq since October. The easy reality of the matter is that this: For too lengthy, we postponed coping with a rising risk to our forces within the area as a result of our troops have been in a position to defend themselves so properly. In different phrases, our troops’ capabilities enabled Washington to reduce the danger they confronted — and to keep away from making laborious decisions.
The Tower 22 assault ended that state of play and sparked contemporary questions concerning the security of hundreds of U.S. army personnel stationed in Jordan, Syria and Iraq because the Center East battle widens. Final month, the US and Iraq began talks that would result in the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Some members of the Biden administration could also be contemplating pulling troops from Syria as properly, in keeping with one report.
This sort of discuss could be significantly damaging to U.S. pursuits within the area. It offers hope to Tehran that it’s succeeding in its long-term aim of ejecting the US from the area via its proxy militias. Nothing could possibly be much less useful — or extra harmful to our service members who’re already in hurt’s method.
Ought to U.S. troops keep in Syria and Iraq, or ought to they go? And in the event that they keep, how does American management forestall these assaults from persevering with? What’s wanted now could be a presidential choice that has been too lengthy deferred: a agency dedication to maintaining our troops in Syria and a further, nuanced dedication to work with the Iraqi authorities to discover a mutually agreeable pressure degree in that nation.
Let’s look first at Syria. It’s turn out to be commonplace in Washington to say that the presence of our 900 service members in Syria has outrun our overseas coverage. The fact is way more complicated than that. The US entered Syria in 2014 with a world coalition to confront ISIS with our companions, the Syrian Democratic Forces. By mid-2019, we achieved the aim of eradicating the caliphate as a geographic entity, however remnants of ISIS endured.
Since then, American troops have continued to work with the Syrian Democratic Forces in northeastern Syria to coach native protection forces. Now we have helped the group handle greater than 10,000 surrendered ISIS fighters now in jail and the roughly 50,000 individuals displaced there.
A withdrawal would include critical dangers. With out U.S. help, the Syrian Democratic Forces might wrestle to proceed to safe the prisons holding ISIS fighters and camps the place so many displaced Syrians lead tenuous lives. If sufficient ISIS fighters are freed and the group has the area to rejuvenate itself, it is going to result in contemporary threats to Iraq and plenty of different nations. President Bashar al-Assad’s forces, even when buttressed by Russia and Iran, would discover it tough to suppress ISIS.
Our long-term aim in combating ISIS on this a part of the world has at all times been to get to a degree that native safety forces will have the ability to assume main accountability for stopping assaults. Now we have made some progress in Syria, however a lot stays to be finished. It isn’t but time to go away.
Subsequent door in Iraq, we’ve about 2,500 troops, who’ve been serving to practice Iraqi safety forces to confront ISIS. We’re farther together with this aim than we’re in Syria, however there may be nonetheless a necessity for us in Iraq. It’s cheap to imagine that our troop presence in Iraq will lower as negotiations proceed with the federal government and can shift to a extra regular safety cooperation association that can require fewer U.S. forces. However it might be a mistake to withdraw too rapidly, as we did in 2011. We additionally want to remember {that a} platform in Iraq is a precondition for sustaining our forces in Syria.
As in Syria, our forces in Iraq have been topic to assaults by paramilitary teams that reply to Iran. Negotiating our continued presence there may be one other complicated state of affairs. Iraq’s leaders are in an uncomfortable place. They know they want allied assist to coach their safety forces; on the similar time, they face sturdy stress from Iranian-sponsored Shiite teams to take away all overseas army presence within the nation. The US ratchets up that stress by placing Iranian proxy and Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps targets in Iraq, because it did this month.
Ultimately, American troops are in Syria and Iraq to stop ISIS from with the ability to assault our homeland. By leaving, we might give them the time and area to re-establish a caliphate, growing our danger at house. We can also face the prospect of being compelled to return at a really excessive value. There could be damaging penalties throughout the area as properly: Our speedy withdrawal could be seen as yet one more instance of American weak point that adversaries wouldn’t hesitate to take advantage of.
Leaving isn’t a alternative that ought to made calmly, however staying isn’t a sensible choice, both, until we will finish the assaults on our troops. It’s nonetheless unclear whether or not we will do that, and a stream of U.S. casualties will make it more and more laborious to remain. If we need to stay, we should successfully deter, deflect and defeat assaults on U.S. forces by Iranian-backed teams.
We’re at an inflection level. Individuals have died. Our response should be primarily based not on emotion or a need for revenge however fairly on a cleareyed dedication about what’s greatest for the US. I imagine it’s best to remain the course and to defend our homeland overseas fairly than at house.
Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., a retired Marine, was the 14th commander of U.S. Central Command. He’s the manager director of the International and Nationwide Safety Institute on the College of South Florida. His forthcoming guide is “The Melting Level: Excessive Command and Conflict within the twenty first Century.”
The Instances is dedicated to publishing a range of letters to the editor. We’d like to listen to what you concentrate on this or any of our articles. Listed below are some ideas. And right here’s our e-mail: letters@nytimes.com.
Observe the New York Instances Opinion part on Fb, Instagram, TikTok, X and Threads.
