US Forces Face Challenges in War Torn Syria

In a dramatic turn of events, Syria’s civil war has reignited with a ferocity unseen in years. Rebel forces, spearheaded by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), have launched a surprise offensive, seizing control of Aleppo—the nation’s largest city and a strategic linchpin. This development not only reshapes the Syrian conflict but also places U.S. forces stationed in the region in a precarious position.

The Resurgence of Conflict

On November 27, 2024, HTS, alongside Turkish-backed factions within the Syrian National Army, initiated a coordinated assault against the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) across the Idlib, Aleppo, and Hama Governorates. This offensive, dubbed “Deterrence of Aggression,” led to the rapid capture of key territories, including the strategic towns of Urm Al-Sughra and Anjara, as well as Base 46, the largest regime base in the area.

By November 29, rebel forces had entered Aleppo, marking their first presence in the city since 2016. The swift advance caught the Assad regime off guard, compelling Syrian and Russian warplanes to launch intensive airstrikes on rebel-held positions.

Who are Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham?

Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham is an Islamist militant group that operates primarily in northwestern Syria. It was originally founded in 2012 as Jabhat al-Nusra, an affiliate of al-Qaeda. However, the group broke ties with al-Qaeda in 2016, rebranding itself as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham before merging with other factions in 2017 to form HTS. Today, it is the largest opposition group in northwestern Syria, controlling much of Idlib province and parts of western Aleppo. The group is believed to have between 12,000 and 15,000 fighters.

HTS’s main goal is to overthrow the Assad regime and establish Islamic rule in Syria. While it claims to have moderated its stance since cutting ties with al-Qaeda, its ideology remains rooted in Islamist principles. To manage the areas under its control, HTS has established a governing body known as the Syrian Salvation Government. This administration oversees local governance and exerts economic control over resources and border crossings in its territories.

Internationally, HTS is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States and several other countries due to its origins and ongoing activities. Recently, the group led a significant military offensive, capturing large parts of Aleppo and advancing towards Hama, marking the most substantial gains by opposition forces since 2016.

Implications for U.S. Forces

Approximately 900 U.S. troops are stationed in eastern Syria, primarily tasked with advising and assisting local forces in combating the remnants of the Islamic State (ISIS).

The resurgence of large-scale hostilities presents multifaceted challenges:

• Operational Security: The chaotic environment increases the risk of U.S. forces being inadvertently drawn into the conflict, especially with the proximity of various hostile factions.
• Force Protection: The Assad regime, now under heightened pressure, may intensify its alliances with Iranian-backed militias, which have previously targeted U.S. personnel. This raises concerns about the safety of American troops amid escalating tensions.
• Strategic Objectives: The U.S. mission, focused on ISIS containment, could be compromised as local partners divert attention to address the immediate threat posed by the renewed civil war.

The US Position

The United States’ stance on the situation in Syria is complex, reflecting multiple objectives and challenges. As noted, we have approximately 900 U.S. troops stationed in Syria, primarily in the northeast, where their mission includes countering ISIS to prevent its resurgence, supporting local partners like the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), and deterring Iranian influence in the region. Politically, the U.S. supports a negotiated settlement to the conflict based on UN Security Council Resolution 2254 and does not recognize the Assad regime as Syria’s legitimate government.

The U.S. is also the largest provider of humanitarian aid for the Syria crisis, having allocated nearly $17.2 billion since 2012. At the same time, it maintains sanctions on Syria, targeting the regime for issues like terrorism support, interference in Lebanon, chemical weapons use, and human rights violations. Regarding recent events, the U.S. is not involved in the ongoing offensive led by Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which it designates as a terrorist organization. The Biden administration has called for de-escalation in the region to prevent further instability.

Looking ahead, U.S. policy in Syria remains a topic of debate. Some argue that maintaining the current military presence is essential to prevent an ISIS resurgence and ensure regional stability. Others advocate for a withdrawal, questioning the long-term benefits of involvement. Balancing these objectives—counterterrorism, regional stability, humanitarian concerns, and complex relationships with allies and adversaries—poses a significant challenge for U.S. decision-makers.

Regional Dynamics

The offensive underscores the fragility of the Assad regime, which has heavily relied on support from Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah. However, these allies are currently preoccupied with their own conflicts, rendering Assad more vulnerable.

Turkey’s involvement adds another layer of complexity. Ankara’s backing of certain rebel factions aligns with its objective to counter Kurdish forces in northern Syria, which it views as extensions of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). This alignment, however, risks direct confrontation with U.S.-supported Kurdish groups, potentially straining U.S.-Turkey relations.

US Policy Considerations

The Biden administration faces a strategic conundrum. Supporting the Assad regime is untenable due to its egregious human rights violations. Conversely, backing rebel groups like HTS is problematic, given their designation as terrorist organizations. This dilemma complicates efforts to stabilize the region and protect U.S. interests.

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has emphasized the administration’s commitment to leveraging U.N. Security Council resolutions to promote stability. However, the complex web of alliances and enmities in Syria makes diplomatic solutions exceedingly challenging.

Conclusion

The rekindling of conflict in Syria, epitomized by the fall of Aleppo to rebel forces, has profound implications for U.S. military personnel and broader regional stability. Navigating this volatile landscape requires a nuanced approach that balances the imperative of combating terrorism with the necessity of safeguarding American troops and upholding international norms. As the situation evolves, U.S. policymakers must remain vigilant, adaptable, and prepared to respond to the multifaceted challenges that lie ahead.