M A Hossain<\/p>\n
The United States is leaving Syria. Not with the thunder of collapsing Saigon embassies or Black Hawk Down spectacles, but through a quiet, undignified fade into irrelevance. Three of America\u2019s eight military bases in northeastern Syria are closing. U.S. troop levels are being halved\u2014no declaration, no defined endgame, no accountability. What looks like prudent disengagement from a peripheral war is, in reality, the latest episode of America\u2019s strategic abdication. The cost? Not just the abandonment of allies but the empowerment of adversaries\u2014and a region inching toward chaos.
\nThis is not a pivot; it\u2019s a pattern. Like Afghanistan before it, Syria is another case study in America\u2019s inability to match tactical success with strategic resolve. The illusion that a battlefield victory\u2014defeating the Islamic State in territorial terms\u2014would allow for a clean withdrawal has collapsed under the weight of Middle Eastern geopolitics. And while Washington looks away, the region is being reordered by powers with clearer aims and fewer scruples.
\nIt\u2019s worth recalling that the U.S. never had a grand strategy in Syria. The initial aim was modest: degrade ISIS and prevent its resurgence. And in 2019, the Islamic State\u2019s self-proclaimed caliphate was destroyed. But even then, the critical question remained unanswered: what comes after?
\nThat silence, maintained across administrations, now defines America\u2019s presence in Syria. The Biden administration, much like Trump\u2019s before it, has drifted\u2014supporting the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) with minimal commitment, while avoiding a broader political or diplomatic engagement. This vacuum has left the U.S. presence not as a stabilizing anchor, but as an exposed, shrinking outpost with no political backing at home and even less deterrent credibility abroad.
\nIn the meantime, Syria has changed. The civil war\u2019s original dynamics are unrecognizable. Bashar al-Assad, once seen as the irredeemable villain of the conflict, has been overtaken in parts of the country by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), a jihadist outfitted with transnational ambitions. What was once a contest between a brutal secular regime and various opposition factions has devolved into an ungoverned zone of extremists, shifting alliances, and regional interference.
\nWashington\u2019s rationale for withdrawal is politically understandable. The American public is exhausted by the \u201cforever wars.\u201d Syria, with its complex tribal and sectarian tapestry, holds no obvious economic or political reward. But geopolitics is never a matter of public sentiment, it\u2019s a matter of hard realities. And the reality is this; the U.S. is not exiting a war; it is conceding a geopolitical space.
\nThat space will not remain empty. Already, Russia, Iran, and Turkey are maneuvering to shape post-American Syria. Moscow, with its airpower and regional diplomacy, is entrenching its military and political presence. Iran, through its Shiite militias and proxy networks, is threading together its long-sought land corridor to the Mediterranean. Turkey, under the guise of counterterrorism, is targeting Kurdish territories and expanding its influence in northern Syria. And now, radical factions are exploiting the uncertainty, aiming to recapture territory and legitimacy.
\nFor Washington to pretend this outcome doesn\u2019t matter is not merely na\u00efve, it\u2019s dangerous. Syria is not just another Middle Eastern mess. It sits at
\nthe intersection of regional and global power struggles. It is a testing ground for how far Russia and Iran can go in defying the West. It is a pressure point on NATO\u2019s southern flank. And most critically, it is the holding pen for thousands of ISIS fighters who remain in makeshift prisons, watched over by an increasingly abandoned and vulnerable Kurdish force.
\nThe betrayal of the SDF is a stain on American credibility. These forces, largely Kurdish, carried the brunt of the fight against ISIS. They did so without air power, armored divisions, or global diplomatic backing. They fought street by street, died by the thousands, and asked only for recognition and support. Now, they are being left to face Turkish bombardment, regime hostility, and radical revenge.
\nThis isn\u2019t just a moral failing\u2014it\u2019s a strategic blunder. Allies around the world take note of how America treats its partners. The message from Syria is loud and clear: the U.S. will use you, then abandon you. In the corridors of Taipei, Kyiv, and Tbilisi, this message echoes with alarming resonance.
\nThose who argue that Syria is not worth the cost are missing the forest for the trees. The U.S. presence there is not about dominating Damascus or building a new democracy. It\u2019s about maintaining a foothold in a region increasingly shaped by hostile powers. It\u2019s about preventing the resurgence of ISIS before it threatens the world.
\nMore broadly, it\u2019s about signaling that the United States still has the will and capacity to shape global events. In geopolitics, perception is often as important as power. America\u2019s quiet retreat signals something else entirely: fatigue, indecision, and strategic incoherence.
\nThe choice is not between endless war and total withdrawal. There is a middle ground\u2014one grounded in realism, responsibility, and resolve.
\nThe U.S. withdrawal from Syria also disrupts the already fragile balance among regional non-state actors who have long operated in the shadow of major powers. With America\u2019s deterrent role vanishing, groups such as Hezbollah and the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in Iraq may find new strategic corridors to operate across borders with greater impunity. Israel, compelled to conduct more pre-emptive operations without the cushion of American coordination in the region.
\nGulf monarchies, sensing a power vacuum and Washington\u2019s retreat from its traditional guarantor role, may double down on proxy investments, exacerbating sectarian divides. Moreover, China\u2019s silent but steady diplomatic courtship could signal an emerging alignment that adds an Eurasian layer to Syria\u2019s crisis. The withdrawal not only weakens U.S. leverage\u2014it accelerates the transformation of Syria into a hub where multipolar competition, extremist resurgence, and regional insecurity converge unchecked.
\nSyria is not just another distant conflict. It is a mirror of America\u2019s foreign policy choices, its resolve, and its values. A country that allows radical networks to reclaim territory, that surrenders its alliances to Turkish drones and Russian maneuvering, is not leading the world\u2014it is yielding it. The world is watching. Ukraine, Taiwan, and others are studying at this moment closely. If Washington cannot hold the line in Syria, what lines will it hold anywhere? The answer, increasingly, is none.<\/p>\n
The writer is a political and defense analyst based in Bangladesh. He can be reached at writetomahossain@gmail.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
M A Hossain The United States is leaving Syria. Not with the thunder of collapsing Saigon embassies or Black Hawk Down spectacles, but through a quiet, undignified fade into irrelevance. Three of America\u2019s eight military bases in northeastern Syria are closing. U.S. troop levels are being halved\u2014no declaration, no defined endgame, no accountability. What looks […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[13085],"class_list":["post-474114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-article","tag-m-a-hossain"],"yoast_head":"\n