The United States must take a step back in Syria

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced this week that a military incursion east of the Euphrates river was going to happen “within days.” The imminent offensive will be Turkey’s fourth major operation in Syria after Euphrates Shield, Olive Branch and the establishment of observation posts around Idlib. This time around, the Turkish forces will target the designated terrorist organization PKK’s Syrian affiliate, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), which has been under U.S. protection. Although the next mission’s objective is different, Turkey’s approach hasn’t really changed. Turkish officials explained in advance what they intended to do in Syria. They have informed the public about ongoing diplomatic contacts with their relevant military counterparts and underscored their determination to act. At home and abroad, it was made clear that Turkey was committed to this particular course of action. The Turkish decision to move came after Russia publicly accused the United States of trying to establish a so-called Kurdish state in Syria – which alone suggests that the time is right.

The Turks have been open about their intention to drive out the PKK’s Syrian franchise from northern Syria for a long time. Washington, in turn, has been stalling Turkey in Manbij, which remains under the same terrorist organization’s occupation, and setting up observation posts in an attempt to protect YPG militants on the ground. Most recently, the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Danford said that Washington had trained 20 percent of a 40,000-strong “stabilization force.” Having divided the Syria file into two pieces, the Trump administration seems to think that it can keep things under control by taking tactical steps. The United States continues to follow Brett McGurk’s approach by training YPG militants as a step toward regional autonomy and tries to mitigate Turkish concerns by putting a bounty on senior PKK commanders and having U.S. Special Representative for Syria James Jeffrey preach the gospel of cooperation.

Ironically, Washington has been reluctant to identify its endgame and to share details of its game plan with Turkey, its NATO ally. U.S. officials reportedly claim in meetings that they, too, do not know what they want to accomplish in Syria, but that’s just another stalling tactic. In the Middle East, all blueprints seem to be temporary and tactical at first – just before they evolve into permanent features. History books are filled with supposedly temporary faits accomplis by Britain and France, and later the United States and Israel. We are all too familiar with the disastrous outcomes of supposedly strategic plans and so-called humanitarian interventions that those powers have carried out in this part of the world. Iraq and Afghanistan attest to that fact. Yet Turkey is determined to prevent another fait accompli involving YPG forces. Turkish officials maintain that neutralizing the terror threat next door is a cornerstone of Turkey’s national security strategy – even if it takes decades to defeat the enemy.

At the same time, the two countries attach different amounts of importance to the situation there. The Turks see the terror threat next door as a vital threat against their national security and territorial integrity. The United States, in turn, says its military commitments on the ground are temporary and tactical. Seeing that, it is Washington’s responsibility to withdraw its forces from those parts of Syria that its NATO ally, Turkey, will liberate. U.S. officials cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the level of determination in the Turkish capital Ankara. It would take a bigger footprint in Syria to protect the YPG militants. Even if Washington were to deploy additional troops to the conflict zone, it cannot have its way without negotiating terms with Turkey.

[Daily Sabah, 15 December 2018]