U.S. troops are currently stationed at three locations in Syria. The first two, the so-called Green Village and Mission Support Group Conoco, are located in Deir ez Zor province, just east of the Euphrates River. The third site, the small al Tanf garrison, is approximately 300 miles to the south, straddling the Iraq-Syria-Jordan tri-border area. Some 1,000 U.S. personnel operate in Syria, about 3 1/2 years after the Islamic State’s territorial caliphate lost its last chunk of land.
Normally, the U.S. deployment doesn’t get much attention. But it did last week when several drone and rocket attacks by Shia militias targeted U.S. forces at two sites, prompting a series of U.S. strikes in response. On Tuesday, the U.S. retaliated against militia bunkers for an Aug. 15 drone attack against U.S. personnel, which fortunately didn’t result in any casualties. But U.S. forces were harassed the very next day at the Conoco site in northeast Syria, causing yet another series of strikes on the same day. This time, at least four militia fighters were killed in addition to the rocket launchers used in the attack.
According to U.S. officials, the purpose of the strikes was twofold: 1.) to destroy the infrastructure used by these militias in order to degrade their capability and 2.) to deter similar rocket and drone attacks from occurring in the future.
The first objective, destroying the facilities, is the U.S. military equivalent of breathing. The U.S. Air Force has reduced numerous militia buildings and ammunition dumps to rubble ever since U.S. troops started taking incoming fire from Iranian-aligned proxy forces in Iraq and Syria. It’s also a relatively simple operation for the U.S. military to conduct; finding, fixing, and finishing hardened targets is what the U.S. military is designed to do.
Deterring future attacks, however, is a whole other story. And it should be abundantly clear by now that these U.S. strikes aren’t deterring anything. We know this because the United States has had to conduct similar operations against militia groups multiple times in the past. If deterrence was working as intended, Washington wouldn’t have to bother.
Deterrence is most effective on state actors, who have equities to protect, constituents to care for, and power to maintain. The nation-state, regardless of its internal political characteristics, is inherently concerned with survival and self-preservation. Needless to say, going head to head with the world’s dominant military power, particularly if it involves an act of aggression, is an act of sheer stupidity, and it’s liable to cause more pain than any benefit the attack could possibly provide. There’s a reason why even Washington’s most fervent adversaries avoid military actions such as launching missiles, unprovoked, into a U.S. base. Simply put: They don’t want to be on the receiving end of U.S. military firepower.
Armed nonstate actors, however, don’t have the same set of concerns. Entities that aren’t responsible for governing or administering territory are, in a sense, free to act more callously than they would be if one of their top goals was sustaining political dominance. Nonstate actors can sustain a lot of damage before dissolving or negotiating. Indeed, it took the FARC about a half-century before it pursued serious talks with the Colombian government.
Therefore, we shouldn’t be surprised when projectiles continue to fly in the direction of U.S. forces in both Iraq and Syria. The competition between the U.S. and the militias often takes the form of a circular tit for tat in which a rocket attack produces a U.S. response, only for another rocket to come screaming toward U.S. positions days or weeks later, which in turn inspires yet another round of U.S. airstrikes. The same story has played out since at least 2019, and it will continue to play out for as long as U.S. troops remain in both countries.
Briefing reporters last week, Pentagon press secretary Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder said he hoped the latest U.S. strikes would do what others failed to. “My hope would be that these groups would have received the message loud and clear and that we will not see similar behavior in future,” he said.
Don’t bet on hope.
Daniel DePetris (@DanDePetris) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. His opinions are his own.
