The fight against ISIS continues in Syria, but faces hurdles - analysis

US airstrikes eliminated an estimated 35 ISIS members, US Central Command reported Wednesday. The strikes took place Monday evening. This is an important development.

ISIS members usually gather in small numbers in Iraq and Syria. Eliminating 35 ISIS fighters illustrates that the fight against the terrorist group is continuing.

The strikes on ISIS come as America’s main anti-ISIS partner in Syria, a group called the Syrian Democratic Forces, is being bombed by Turkey. Turkey, a member of NATO, has often targeted Kurdish groups in Syria that have helped defeat ISIS.

This is because Turkey accuses these Kurdish groups of being “terrorists,” without any evidence that they engage in any terrorist acts. In general, every time there are alleged terrorist attacks in Turkey, the country lashes out by bombing Syria.

Complicated mission

This has made the anti-ISIS mission complicated. The SDF controls eastern Syria, and it has kept ISIS defeated. Nevertheless, there are many agendas at play in Syria.

The US doesn’t want to get in the middle of Turkish attacks on the SDF. Meanwhile, the Syrian regime opposes the US role in Syria, and Iranian-backed militias often target US forces in Syria.

This means the US in Syria is fighting ISIS with one hand but also has to deal with a number of other bad actors on the other.

The October 28 airstrikes targeted a number of locations and numerous ISIS “senior leaders.” The US believes these strikes will disrupt the ability of ISIS to “plan, organize, and conduct attacks against civilians, as well as [against] US allies and partners throughout the region and beyond.”

The airstrikes are an important development. But the success against ISIS requires the SDF as local partners.

Ankara’s attacks, which are unpredictable and have happened numerous times over the past several years, undermine stability in eastern Syria and also harm civilians. This makes the anti-ISIS war harder.

In addition, it sheds light on the problematic US attempt to outsource many aspects of the anti-ISIS war to the SDF while not protecting the SDF from airstrikes.

For instance, the SDF is expected to police ISIS detainees in camps such as al-Hol. These detainees continue to radicalize youth and pose a danger.

The US fight against ISIS and its partnership with the SDF tends to be seen as a military-only tactic. The work with the SDF and the Kurds in Syria is often not recognized publicly by the US diplomatic statements.

For instance, the US Embassy in Syria appears to ignore the role of the SDF. In a statement on October 26 about the anniversary of Raqqa, the US Embassy didn’t even mention the SDF.

“[Seven] yrs ago, local forces liberated Raqqa from ISIS with Coalition support,” it said. “While diminished, terrorist groups remain a threat to Syria & the region. The US and its partners remain committed to ensuring the enduring defeat of ISIS & preventing its resurgence.”

In a recent statement about the anniversary of Raqqa, the US Embassy didn’t even mention the SDF on October 26. “7 years ago, local forces liberated Raqqa from ISIS with Coalition support. While diminished, terrorist groups remain a threat to Syria & the region. The U.S. and its partners remain committed to ensuring the enduring defeat of ISIS & preventing its resurgence.”

The “local forces” were the SDF, which lost thousands of fighters defeating ISIS alongside the US-led Coalition. Refusing to mention the SDF is clearly systematic.

The US Embassy in Syria said in another post: “The US works with local governance actors in NE Syria to improve access to healthcare through USAID’s Essential Services program, which has rehabilitated 3 hospitals (in Deir Ezzor, Hasakah & Raqqa), established 4 oxygen bottling facilities, and started a health center in Raqqa.”

The local governance actors are the local authorities of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES), which is linked to the SDF.

Why not mention the SDF or AANES in statements?

Why not mention the SDF or AANES in the statements? This is likely because of the desire not to “offend” Turkey. Turkey occupies part of northern Syria and has fought the SDF. Ankara also invaded Afrin in northern Syria in 2018 and ethnically cleansed it of Kurds.

The Kurdish activists in Afrin were part of the YPG, a force that is also linked to the SDF. Turkey accuses the YPG of being part of the PKK, which Turkey and the US view as terrorists.

Turkey backed Syrian rebels in Afrin against the YPG. The US works with the Syrian opposition, which is often linked to Turkey and the rebels. The opposition also appears to systematically exclude most of the Kurdish minority of Syria.

This appears to replicate the Syrian regime’s own long history of discriminating against Kurds. The US says it wants to see “an inclusive, Syrian-led political solution” for Syria, but excluding the SDF, Kurds, and many others is not “inclusive.”

Therefore, the US war against ISIS faces hurdles in Syria. The main hurdle is the lack of a combined military and political solution. Instead, the US military works against ISIS, and US diplomatic visions of Syria are usually separate or sometimes the opposite of the Pentagon’s view.

Fighting ISIS tactically with airstrikes and raids, while ignoring the larger political issues in Syria and the SDF or other groups that helped defeat ISIS, is likely a recipe for policy failure in the future.