The cost of America’s presence in Syria is very high/return home.
Jeff Lamire, a member of the US Department of Defense, in a report examined the presence and role of the US in the Syrian crisis for several years and warned that Washington’s military intervention in Syria may seem low-cost, but this presence is more dangerous and costly than is always
The translation of this report follows:
American forces are resuming their operations after a pause following Turkish attacks on Kurdish forces supported by the United States of America. This preference for the status quo ignores the dangers that a continued US presence in Syria has made increasingly dangerous.
Washington’s decision to support Syrian rebels at the start of the Syrian civil war was disastrous and led to the rise of ISIS and other militant groups. The ensuing carnage prompted further intervention, and with the defeat of ISIS, the American justification for staying in Syria increasingly frayed. Now the deviant logic used to justify the deployment of American forces in Syria is to protect the same American forces. The cycle of Washington creating problems for every solution has gone on long enough.
While Washington’s strategy remains the same, the situation is more dynamic and volatile than ever. Turkey’s recent rocket attacks on Kurdish forces were within 130 yards of American forces. Turkey views Washington’s Kurdish allies as terrorists, and recent explosions in Istanbul have raised the possibility of another Turkish ground invasion of Syria.
Turkey is a member of NATO and has blocked the application of Sweden and Finland to join NATO because of its concerns about Kurdish militias. The United States is unlikely to gain anything from further involvement in a conflict that has been ongoing since the 1970s. Moreover, given that Ankara takes the threat of terrorism seriously, hostilities with Turkey are likely to undermine NATO’s cohesion.
