On Wednesday, the White House announced that it will “fully” and “rapidly” withdraw the U.S. military presence in Syria, where approximately 2,000 U.S. troops have been stationed in the northeastern, Kurdish-controlled part of the country, near its border with Turkey. USIP’s Mona Yacoubian examines the implications of the troop withdrawal and its broader impact on the Syria conflict.

U.S. Special Forces soldiers at a front line outpost outside Manbij, Syria, Feb. 7, 2018. (Mauricio Lima/The New York Times)
U.S. Special Forces soldiers at a front line outpost outside Manbij, Syria, Feb. 7, 2018. (Mauricio Lima/The New York Times)

What are the implications of the recently announced U.S. troop withdrawal from Syria?

A precipitous U.S. troop withdrawal will undermine critical U.S. interests in Syria. The U.S. troop presence serves as a key pre-condition for a newly invigorated U.S. Syria policy focused on the enduring defeat of ISIS, the withdrawal of Iran from Syria, and the rejuvenation of the Geneva Peace Process. These objectives will be compromised significantly by an immediate U.S. military withdrawal:

  • Compromising the counter-ISIS campaign. While the counter-ISIS military campaign is in its final stage, the enduring defeat of ISIS is far from assured at this point. In a recent report, the lead inspector general estimated that as many as 30,000 ISIS fighters remain in Syria. Equally concerning, indicators of an incipient ISIS insurgency have appeared with increasing frequency. At the same time, U.S. civilian assistance to stabilize areas liberated from ISIS could be curtailed without a U.S. military presence on the ground. This assistance—focused on rubble removal, the provision of essential services, and building local governance institutions—has been critical for helping civilians in ISIS-liberated areas get back on their feet. The lessons learned from the 2011 U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq underscore the need to set the conditions for ISIS’ last defeat by addressing underlying grievances and ensuring against the emergence of power vacuums. 
  • Undermining a bulwark against Iran and Russia. While the primary focus of the U.S. military presence in Syria is the enduring defeat of ISIS, U.S. forces on the ground have also served as a key counterweight against Iran and Russia. In particular, this derivative benefit has countered further Iranian expansion into eastern Syria. Should the U.S. withdraw, Iran as well as Russia and the Assad regime will be well poised to exploit the vacuum that will be created.
  • Depriving the United States of leverage to rejuvenate the Geneva Peace Process. The United States has underscored its desire to jump start the Geneva peace process. U.S. leverage on the ground—the United States and its allies control roughly 25 percent of Syrian territory—is critical to this effort. Without “skin in the game,” it will be difficult for the United States to inject new life into the moribund process or influence its underlying dynamics.

What are the broader implications for the Syrian conflict?

Heightened Turkish-Kurdish hostilities. The U.S. withdrawal will leave a dangerous power vacuum on the ground that could lead to new conflicts erupting. Most urgently, Turkey has been threatening a military incursion in Syria against the Kurds. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces have been a critical U.S. partner in the fight against ISIS, serving as the primary force on the ground responsible for liberating ISIS-held territories. To date, the U.S. presence on the ground in northeastern Syria has served as an important hedge against a large-scale Turkish attack. Yet, Ankara may decide to act following a U.S. pullout from Syria, provoking a larger “hot war” in Syria between Turkey and the Kurds.

Regime attempts to reassert control. The Assad regime has long stated its desire to regain control over the entirety of Syria. Having consolidated its hold over the western “spine” of Syria, Damascus will likely exploit an American military withdrawal to reassert itself in eastern Syria, an area rich in hydrocarbon and water resources, as well as fertile agricultural land. At a minimum, it will seize on the U.S. absence to negotiate its return to northeastern Syria, if not initiate hostilities against Kurdish forces to retake the area by force.

A Kurdish turn to Damascus? Earlier this year when President Trump announced his desire to withdraw U.S. troops, the Kurds responded by promptly initiating negotiations with Damascus. Renewed U.S. assurances to the Kurds as well as the wide divergence between the Assad regime’s goals and Kurdish aspirations led the talks to falter soon after they began. However, a precipitous U.S. withdrawal would have existential stakes for the Kurds—simultaneously threatened by Turkey, the Assad regime, Russia and Iran. The Kurds may decide they have no choice but to negotiate a deal with a regime, albeit on weaker terms than before. Even if the U.S. should once again pull back from the brink of withdrawal, the damage to U.S. credibility and its relationship with the Kurds will be done, prompting the Kurds to seek a longer-term understanding with Assad.

Related Publications

The Best Hope for Sustained De-escalation in Syria

The Best Hope for Sustained De-escalation in Syria

Wednesday, November 18, 2020

By: Mona Yacoubian

As the conflict in Syria approaches its 10th anniversary, a holistic political settlement encompassing the entirety of the country is unlikely in the near to medium term. More than eight years of diplomatic initiatives have yielded only limited results. The two principal tracks—the Geneva and the Astana/Sochi processes—are running up against the complexity of the conflict and an emboldened Assad regime; neither process is sufficient on its own to generate momentum toward a lasting political settlement for the whole of Syria. However, creatively bridging these two processes could bring greater stability to those areas of Syria still beyond the Assad regime’s control, assuaging the suffering of some Syrians, and potentially serving as a building block for a longer-term settlement.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

Can Syrians Who Left ISIS Be Reintegrated into Their Communities?

Can Syrians Who Left ISIS Be Reintegrated into Their Communities?

Wednesday, October 21, 2020

By: Mona Yacoubian ; Chris Bosley; Leanne Erdberg Steadman

More than a year since the territorial defeat of ISIS, the region is still reeling in the wake of the self-styled caliphate’s destruction. Kurdish authorities operate two dozen detention facilities in northeast Syria holding thousands of former ISIS fighters. On October 5, Kurdish authorities in charge of al-Hol said they would free the 24,000 Syrians in the camp, where conditions have become increasingly unsustainable. USIP’s Mona Yacoubian, Chris Bosley, and Leanne Erdberg Steadman look at what led to the decision to release these Syrians and the challenges ahead for reintegrating them into their communities.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Reconciliation; Violent Extremism

The Current Situation in Syria

The Current Situation in Syria

Wednesday, August 26, 2020

Now in its 10th year, the Syrian conflict has led to more than 500,000 deaths and displaced an estimated 13 million—over half of Syria’s pre-war population. Over 6.2 million Syrians are internally displaced, and 5.6 million are refugees, predominantly in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey.

Type: Fact Sheet

View All Publications