There is considerable debate over whether ISIS in Syria has been defeated to a significant enough degree that it would not be able to quickly rebuild as soon as U.S. troops leave Syria.
As part of our special coverage on Syria, The Cipher Brief spoke with Dr. Kimberly Kagan, the founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War, a non-partisan, non-profit organization based in Washington D.C.
The Cipher Brief: What are both the risks and benefits of a full withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria?
Kagan: The president has made a decision to withdraw, and withdrawing from Syria, in the face of ISIS still remaining there, is similar to the U.S. withdrawing from Afghanistan after the Soviet war. This is exactly how we got to 9/11, and the president has set us on a course to be out of Syria as ISIS revives its organization and its military capabilities.
I don't know what is driving the president's decision. But I do know how it looks. In the past week, the Turks, a NATO ally, threatened to attack our military positions inside of Syria. It is difficult not to conclude that the President of the United States has surrendered to a NATO ally bullying the United States.
The Cipher Brief: What do you think the likelihood is that the U.S., if it moves forward with the withdrawal, would get any reliable guarantees from Turkey that they're not going to attack the Kurds and other U.S. allies on the ground, to include local allies?
Kagan: The United States has just given up its most important leverage in Syria by withdrawing its military forces, and by giving up our partnerships on the ground and the terrain that our partners hold.
The United States should not expect any kind of a good deal from the Turks, from the Russians, from the Iranians, from Assad, from Al-Qaeda, from ISIS or from anyone, because we have relinquished our leverage.
The Cipher Brief: Do you see any benefit or value that the U.S. may get by withdrawing troops from Syria that would be beneficial to U.S. policy?
Kagan: I really don't. I think the president has made a bad deal. I think he gave away U.S. leverage in Syria, and I think he got nothing in return. I think that the promises that the Russians, the Iranians, and the Turks have made previously to settle the conflict in Syria do not secure U.S. interests. And over the long term, will lead to the return of ISIS and to regional conflict, which will emanate from an unsettled Syrian war.
The Cipher Brief: What about the President’s public reasoning that he believes the U.S. has defeated ISIS and that therefore, the military mission is complete? Let’s look at Afghanistan for a moment. This is literally happening almost on the same day that we're meeting with the Taliban and learning that the situation there is perhaps not what the government has said that it's been in terms of the numbers of foreign fighters on the ground. How can we have any faith at all that we've defeated ISIS or that, in fact, they are defeated?
Kagan: The U.S. military and its allies in the area of operations have routinely said that ISIS remains a threat. The defeat of ISIS holding the territorial pocket in eastern Syria is not the defeat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. It's just the end of the territorial caliphate. We are observing that ISIS is resurging its capabilities inside of Iraq and regrouping in Syria. ISIS is strong and reviving in the area south of Kirkuk City, Iraq, from which it was never really ejected. The town called Hawija was in the 2006, '07, '08 period, and again in the ISIS period, a stronghold of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and then became an ISIS strength. And we are seeing ISIS reconstitute its forces in this area. We have seen ISIS conduct spectacular attacks in Mosul, and it seems to be extorting money from businesses in the Mosul area. And that is an early indicator of its attempts to revive itself and resurge.
Likewise, inside of Syria, ISIS had pinned and fixed our attention on the Hajin pocket, even as it has had fighters and capabilities in areas of western Syria that nominally are out of control and in areas out in the desert, beyond the Euphrates River Valley. There is a huge difference between saying that ISIS no longer holds a city and that ISIS is defeated, and we can withdraw.
They have not lost the will to fight. Nor have they lost the capability to fight. ISIS has simply lost the safe haven, and the loss of safe haven is likely to be temporary.
The Cipher Brief: With a U.S. troop withdrawal, would we be looking to Iraq as the next bubbling-up point for ISIS?
Kagan: The short answer to your question is yes. ISIS in Iraq remains a danger. It remains especially a danger in the current period of enormous political instability that Iraq is going through.
As for the Iranians, and in particular, Qasem Soleimani, the head of the IRGC Quds Force, has been working to push the selected prime minister, out of office. Iran is putting its commander back in charge of its proxies in Iraq, over the current prime minister's objections. And those proxies are accelerants to violence who do not have the welfare of the population in the Sunni area at heart.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is a non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization that advances an informed understanding of military affairs through research, analysis, and education.
Read ‘Iran’s Uncontested Influence in Syria’ from Cipher Brief Expert Norm Roule…
Read ‘The Greater Cost of U.S. Absence in Syria’ from Cipher Brief Expert Emile Nakhleh…
Read ‘How Will Russia Play a U.S. Syria Withdrawal, from Cipher Brief Expert Steve Hall…
Read‘President Trump’s Syria Surprise’ from Cipher Brief Expert Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt…
Are you looking for an opportunity to get up close and personal with the best national security experts in the business? Find out more about The Cipher Brief’s Exclusive, Invitation-only 2019 Threat Conference in Sea Island, GA.
