President Trump’s decision to scrap the withdrawal of all US troops from Syria
in favor of keeping 200 troops at al-Tanf, and contributing another 200
troops to an international coalition force has made a lot of hawks
happy. Keeping the troops in Syria was a top priority for many hawks.
All that’s missing in that plan is the international coalition force.
The announcement that US troops were staying came immediately after
Britain and France declined US calls to stay, and at the time it was
generally believed that an enduring US presence was done to convince
them to stay as well.
That’s not happening, and so far the US hasn’t found
any commitments from any allies willing to stay in Syria. British,
French, and German officials have so far declined any comment at all on
the matter.
Some European nations were more willing to talk, however. They told
reporters that they were reticent because the US proposal didn’t involve
any specific plans for securing eastern Syria, or what else they’d
actually be doing, beyond just being in Syria.
US Still Hunting for Allies to Stay in Syria
European officials say US isn't providing specific plans
Jason Ditz is Senior Editor for Antiwar.com. He has 20 years of experience in foreign policy research and his work has appeared in The American Conservative, Responsible Statecraft, Forbes, Toronto Star, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Providence Journal, Washington Times, and the Detroit Free Press.
Join the Discussion!
We welcome thoughtful and respectful comments. Hateful language, illegal content, or attacks against Antiwar.com will be removed.
For more details, please see our Comment Policy.
×