How the US military can take on terrorism threats in Iraq and Syria without staying there forever

• The killing of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Syria last month is the latest blow to the terrorist group leveled by the US and its local partners.
• The US Special Forces operators who swooped in on al-Baghdadi’s compound came from several US outposts in the region.
• But the US doesn’t need to maintain a permanent footprint in the Middle East in order to strike at terrorist threats effectively, argues Defense Priorities senior fellow Enea Gjoza.
• Visit Business Insider’s homepage for more stories.

Baghdadi’s death demonstrates effectiveness of targeted raids—and the futility of endless occupations.

• Other than preventing significant, long-term disruptions to global oil flows, the US interest in the Middle East is eliminating anti-US terrorist threats, primarily from radical Sunni terrorists, of which ISIS is one prominent branch.
• Completely, methodically withdrawing US ground forces from Syria and Iraq would shift the counterterrorism burden from the US back to local actors: Syria, Russia, Iran, Iraq, and others.
• The US will continually monitor and strike anti-US threats, by special-operations raids or other measures if need be.
• Occupying parts of Syria, which remains impoverished and riven by sectarian conflict, is a costly and dangerous burden that we should be glad to hand off to others, especially adversaries.

US military capability to monitor and strike globally is unmatched.

• The US has the most robust intelligence-gathering capability in the world, spending more than $70 billion annually.
• That is more than the annual military budgets for the UK, France, Germany, and even Russia.
• Along with the ability to strike targets globally through land- and sea-based aircraft, drones, and special forces, this intelligence capability enables counterterrorism strikes everywhere.

Middle East stakeholders have a strong interest in countering terror, supporting US anti-terror efforts.

• Local partners are useful for gathering intelligence and conducting counterterrorism raids-but this can be arranged on the basis of mutual interests without permanent US security commitments.
• All major regional actors have a greater self-interest in destroying ISIS’s remnants than the US; that interest encourages cooperation with US anti-terror efforts.
• Syrian and Iraqi Kurds provided intelligence for the Baghdadi raid despite the end of the formal US-Kurdish partnership, and Russia and Turkey permitted overflight, despite rocky US relations.
• The withdrawal of US forces from Syria and Iraq would leave ISIS’s remnants surrounded by hostile powers.

Local government is most effective at counterterrorism.

• ISIS and Al-Qaeda-linked fighters remain present in Syria where the Syrian government has not yet re-established its authority.
• Despite its atrocities, the Syrian government is effective at rooting out terrorism in territory it controls.
• The administration’s plan to keep US troops stationed near Syria’s oil fields and the base in Al-Tanf seems designed to deny the Syrian regime control of Syria-but undermining the Syrian government enables conditions under which terrorism can flourish.

US intervention changed the balance of power in Syria—withdrawal would result in a return to that balance.

• Other than preventing significant, long-term disruptions to global oil flows, the US interest in the Middle East is eliminating anti-US terrorist threats, primarily from radical Sunni terrorists, of which ISIS is one prominent branch.
• Completely, methodically withdrawing US ground forces from Syria and Iraq would shift the counterterrorism burden from the US back to local actors: Syria, Russia, Iran, Iraq, and others.
• The US will continually monitor and strike anti-US threats, by special forces raids or other measures if need be.
• Occupying parts of Syria, which remains impoverished and riven by sectarian conflict, is a costly and dangerous burden that we should be glad to hand off to others, especially adversaries.

Full military withdrawal from Syria allows vigilance against terrorism.

• The administration has repeatedly stated its intent to withdraw US forces from Syria-each time, it has failed to do so. US forces continue to occupy parts of Syria and are reportedly returning to bases abandoned only weeks ago.
• With the caliphate destroyed-and ISIS’s allure with it-the US military mission in Syria is complete. Staying has more to do with countering Assad, which actually harms the goal of defeating ISIS’s remnants and radical Sunni Islamists.
• US withdrawal removes the risk of being dragged into a conflict over the Turkey-Syria border and reduces US exposure to the Middle East’s violent political problems.
• The US should accept victory over ISIS, immediately withdraw from Syria, and keep the US safe through intelligence and raids.