A Clear and Comprehensive U.S. Policy toward Syria is Long Overdue — and Essential
By Pam Rosen
The recent United States airstrike against Iranian-backed militias in Syria has reignited debates about American military action and policy in Syria. Questions surrounding the efficacy of military action in Syria, and what objective the U.S. hopes to achieve with military action, have long permeated Washington since the Syrian conflict began in 2011. These debates are especially critical given the increased involvement of Iran and other neighboring states in Syria for their own national interests. While the airstrikes brought attention to Iran’s role in Syria and how it effects U.S. interests, Turkey is another powerful actor in the Syrian conflict seeking to extend its role within Syria’s territory. Turkey has gained a foothold in northern Syria, triggering direct conflict with Syrian Kurds. Turkey’s incursion across the border further complicated the already multilayered conflict dynamics within Syria.
To successfully engage with Turkey on Syria, United States must communicate a clear, comprehensive policy on Syria, and follow through on this policy. Doing so will help to establish a foundation for conversations with Turkey on Syria. It is also critical that the United States articulates a clear Syria policy so both allies and adversaries in the region, including Turkey, understand the motivation behind future American action.
Diplomatic engagement with Turkey will be critical for the Biden administration as it crafts its Syria policy, as they are an important part of this conversation. However, this will not be an easy task. U.S. and European diplomatic relations with Turkey have been tense for several years, and the United States and Turkey disagree on a number of contentious issues, including Syria.
In the past years, U.S. policy on Syria has been inconsistent. Even though the U.S. condemned the human rights abuses committed by President Assad, they were reluctant to launch a military intervention. In 2012, President Obama originally declared that his the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons would be the breaking point for U.S. military intervention. However, a year later when the Assad regime used sarin gas in an attack that killed over 1,000 people, Obama did not intervene against Assad.
Then in 2019, President Trump unilaterally withdrew U.S. troops stationed in northern Syria in the fight against ISIS. The withdrawal took place with less than 24 hours’ notice, leaving the Kurds, America’s strongest allies in Syria, at the mercy of the advancing Turkish army. For their own safety, the Kurds were forced to make a deal with Assad, who they had been fighting for years.
These two instances are the strongest examples of inconsistent and erratic U.S. policy in Syria since the civil war began in 2012. The lack of clear, consistent policy has meant that U.S. interests — a political solution to the conflict in Syria, respect for human rights, and support for regional allies — were put at risk. As a result, the United States has struggled to maintain its influence in the region. The leadership vacuum in this area left space for Russia to intervene and dictate the trajectory of the Syrian conflict. Russia’s support has enabled Assad to stay in power, while Iranian and Turkish interference in Syria has continued without significant resistance.
Today, the Biden administration has an opportunity to reset U.S. policy in Syria. But to do so, it will have to navigate Turkey’s national interests in the region.
The conflict and instability in Syria has led 3.6 million people to flee their homes and seek refuge in nearby Turkey. Additionally, the conflict allowed Syrian Kurds to gain territory along the Turkish border. Turkey views the Kurdish army in Syria as indistinguishable from Turkey’s Kurdistan Worker’s Party, which the Turkish government considers a terrorist organization.
From 2014 to 2019, the United States supported and fought alongside the Syrian Kurds against ISIS. During that time, the Kurds were America’s strongest ally in the region, and many hoped that the United States would support their goal of an independent Kurdish state. However, this hope that faded quickly after President Trump withdrew U.S. troops from Syria.
As he reevaluates the United States’ priorities in Syria, President Biden will have to acknowledge Turkey’s national interests while grappling with the consequences of America’s betrayal of its Kurdish allies. Renewed support for Syrian Kurds risks aggravating Turkey. Already, the Turkish pro-government publication Daily Sabah has linked the recent increase in terror attacks in northern Syria with Biden’s inauguration. The article states that Biden’s criticism of Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops “[signals] that the new administration will continue its policy of backing [a] terrorist organization.” Turkey is using these assumptions to fit U.S. policy into its own narrative against the Kurds, painting the United States and the Kurds in a way that justifies Turkey’s military presence in Syria.
The Biden administration therefore needs to make its Syria policy clear to Turkey and other actors statements and communication, not just actions. Actions without advance notice or explanation leave regional actors like Turkey to make their own interpretations of the U.S. position. Whether such interpretations are right or wrong, it is risky for Turkey to act on these assumptions. A clearly articulated policy will decrease the risk of Turkey acting against U.S. interests based on incomplete information, potentially in ways the United States does not understand or anticipate.
Since the Syrian war began, policy circles in Washington have debated the merits of military intervention in Syria, as well as the long-term benefits and consequences of supporting different actors. These debates are necessary and should continue to inform U.S. policy. However, once a policy is decided, it should be clearly communicated to the American public and to other regional players. A clear policy — and clear follow-through on this policy — offers the best path for the United States to pursue its interests in the region.
Pam Rosen is a graduate student at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, where she studies security and conflict resolution with a focus on regional conflict in the Middle East/North Africa and the Sahel. Prior to Fletcher, Pam worked on conflict policy advocacy with International Crisis Group and Search for Common Ground in Washington, D.C. Pam earned a B.A. in International Studies from Macalester College.
Syria is by Erik Barfoed and is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
