Buffer zone in northern Syria
The Foundation of Political, Economic and Social Research (SETA) hosted a discussion on January 18, about the US withdrawal from Syria, with Mark Kimmitt, retired General and defense consultant. He was joined by Hassan Hassan, Senior Fellow at the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy and Andrew Tabler, Martin J. Gross Fellow in the Geduld Program on Arab Politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. They addressed the US withdrawal from Syria, and its implications for the region, mainly Turkey, Syria and the Kurds.
Pointing out the reasons for the US withdrawal from Syria, Kimmitt believes ISIS is no longer an existential threat to the US. It has not been completely defeated, but it has been degraded. The caliphate is gone. The mission has been accomplished. He claims that asking the US to stay in Syria to finish off ISIS would entail a US presence in the twenty-three other countries where ISIS operates.
YPG, Kimmitt asserts, are brave and allies of the US. But working alongside them to fight ISIS was, quoting US envoy James Jeffrey, “temporary, transactional and tactical.” Having given no expectations or promises to the YPG when the mission is over, the US is off the hook. Turkey’s concerns about the Kurds pose a serious challenge. Kimmitt suggests a safe zone in Syria, like the one set up as part of the Dayton Peace Accords between the Serb and Federation forces. The YPG can be protected while also honoring Turkish national security concerns.
Hassan is still concerned with ISIS. Besides sleeper cells and ISIS members who got tired of fighting, sympathizers with the group are everywhere in the region. They can return to violence at anytime. He considers the hasty US withdrawal from Syria at odds with the slow defeat of ISIS. But ISIS is not the only problem. Peace in Syria is still fragile and can crumble at any time. If the fight gets renewed, ISIS and Al-Nusra will benefit the most, as moderate groups have been completely decimated.
These facts get ignored because the U.S withdrawal from Syria has been hijacked by two arguments. One calls into question the role 2000 US troops can play against Iran. The other questions what they can possibly do to confront ISIS. Hassan considers these flawed arguments, as the mission was never to fight Iran and US troops were not the spearhead of the fight against ISIS. It is possible for the US to pull the troops from Syria while fighting ISIS, and decide with other countries the fate of the one-third of Syrian territory they have controlled.
Acknowledging the complex nature of the conflict in Syria, Andrew offered an overall perspective to understand its intricacies. Assad, with the help of Russia and Shiite militias was able to take over 60% of the territory. Syrian opposition backed by Turkey played a major role in freeing some areas, including Idlib. In the eastern part of Syria, the US partnered with YPG to defeat ISIS.
The outcome was unacceptable to two neighboring countries: Israel and Turkey. Israel is concerned with Shiite militia and Iran-backed units moving heavy weapons into the country. For Turkey, the PKK is an existential threat. US backing for Kurds allied with the PKK, which fights the Turkish government made Ankara feel a huge threat.
The moderator of the discussion, Kadir Ustun, Executive Director at SETA Foundation, spelled out the Turkish position . He claims that Turkey has put a lot of pressure on the US to stop cooperating and empowering what he labeled “terrorist YPG,” who are linked to PKK. Their primary objective is to enlarge themselves and get international legitimacy, not fighting ISIS. Turkey’s operations west of the Euphrates and Manbij were undertaken to limit the movement of the YPG.
Bottom line: US withdrawal is a subject of intense debate among the Americans, Turkey, the PYD and other stakeholders wactive inside Syria. A buffer zone between the warring parties is an option.
RSS - Posts
