A rebel blitzkrieg against President Bashar al-Assad’s forces in northwestern Syria reignited that nation’s dormant civil war last week, when a coalition of militant groups united behind Hayat Tahrir al-Sham — a former Al Qaeda affiliate known as the Al Nusra Front that the U.S. considers a terrorist group — and captured Syria’s largest city, Aleppo. The rebel army, which include Turkish-backed forces, have since pushed government troops out of Hama, another major metropolis.
For years, Syria’s complicated battlefields have been populated by shifting groups of militants battling a range of enemies, including each other, and proxies backed by outside powers. Iran and Russia have propped up the autocratic Assad regime for more than a decade, while Turkey and the United States have troops on the ground in areas outside government control, and each support local proxies.
News reports and videos posted on social media indicate U.S.-backed rebels, supported by American airstrikes, may now be battling Syrian government forces as part of renewed fighting in the east.
That U.S. backing means boots on the ground. Around 900 U.S. troops are deployed in Syria alongside private military contractors, in what one expert calls “arguably the most expansive abuse” of the war powers granted to the executive branch in the wake of 9/11 — and those troops have, on average, come under fire multiple times each week since last October, according to new Pentagon statistics obtained by The Intercept.
Since the war in Gaza began last year, U.S. forces have been under sustained attack by Iran-backed militants across the Middle East, with the Pentagon’s Syrian bases being the hardest hit. Since October 18, 2023, there have been at least 127 attacks on U.S. forces in Syria, according to Lt. Cmdr. Patricia Kreuzberger, a Pentagon spokesperson, and information supplied by U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM. On average, that’s about one attack every three days.
“Why are U.S. troops in Syria? What is the mission? What is the endgame? And is this legally authorized?”
Mission Support Site Conoco — also known as Mission Support Site Euphrates — located near a gas field in northeastern Syria, has been attacked about 40 times since last October, according to a “defense official” who would only agree to speak on background using that moniker.
Another Pentagon source confirmed that several U.S. troops are currently being evaluated for potential traumatic brain injuries after incoming mortar rounds landed near that base in eastern Deir Ezzor on Tuesday.
Documents provided by another Pentagon official, on the condition of anonymity, show that still another U.S. base, Mission Support Site Green Village, has been attacked at least 28 times. Last month, U.S. troops came under rocket attack at Patrol Base Shaddadi, one of at least 22 attacks on the small outpost since last October. There have also been at least 11 attacks on al-Tanf, a small garrison near the Iraq and Jordanian borders in southeast Syria.
Brian Finucane, a former State Department lawyer now with the International Crisis Group, said the ongoing bombardment of U.S. bases should prompt hard questions in America’s halls of power. “Why are U.S. troops in Syria? What is the mission? What is the endgame? And is this legally authorized?” are the questions that need answers, he said. “The administration doesn’t want to have that debate. Congress also seems perfectly fine avoiding it. And so, the legislative and executive branches are content to muddle along, avoiding their constitutional responsibilities — the need for congressional authorization — and really debate the merits of this conflict.”
The U.S. military has been conducting operations in Syria since 2014. America’s bases there and in neighboring Iraq ostensibly exist to conduct “counter-ISIS missions,” despite the fact that the Pentagon concluded in 2021 that the Islamic State in Syria “probably lacks the capability to target the U.S. homeland.”
Around 900 U.S. troops — including commandos from Combined Special Operations Joint Task Force-Levant — and an undisclosed number of private military contractors are operating in Syria. In 2022, The Intercept revealed the existence of a low-profile 127-echo counterterrorism program in Syria targeting Islamist militants. Under the 127e authority, U.S. Special Operations forces arm, train, and provide intelligence to small groups of elite foreign troops. But unlike traditional foreign assistance programs, which are primarily intended to build local capacity, 127e partners are dispatched on U.S.-directed missions, targeting U.S. enemies to achieve U.S. aims.
The Syrian Democratic Forces, a Kurdish-led militant group based in the country’s northeast is America’s main proxy force in Syria. While the SDF fights Islamist extremists with U.S. support, it also battles Turkey and Turkish-backed militants. Turkey, America’s longtime NATO ally, opposes the SDF due to that group’s ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a Kurdish nationalist militant group that both the Turkish and U.S. governments, among others, have designated a terrorist group.
For many years, the SDF has been implicated in widespread human rights violations. The most recent State Department report on human rights in Syria notes that members of the group have been involved in “abuses involving attacks striking residential areas, physical abuse, unjust detention, recruitment or use of child soldiers, restrictions on expression and assembly, and destruction and demolition of homes.”
In the last week, the SDF appears to have also launched an offensive against Syrian government troops. Pentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder announced that the United States was “in no way involved in the operations you see playing out in and around Aleppo in northwestern Syria.” What’s less clear is whether the U.S. is aiding an opportunistic SDF offensive in the east of the country. This week, in a press release, the SDF announced efforts to safeguard a number of villages around the town of Deir Ezzor “in light of the serious security situation arising from recent developments in western Syria.” Videos also emerged on social media showing purported U.S. airstrikes in Deir Ezzor supporting SDF ground forces battling Assad regime troops.
“[F]ighters from a U.S.-backed, Kurdish-led coalition battled government forces in the northeast, both sides said, opening a new front along a vital supply route,” according to Reuters.
The Pentagon did not respond to The Intercept’s repeated requests for comment on such reports.
The future of America’s escalating war in Syria may face renewed scrutiny early next year. President-elect Donald Trump showed antipathy to the U.S. war in Syria and withdrew U.S. forces from the north of the country in 2019, opening the door to a Turkish invasion.
“When Trump ordered the removal of U.S. forces from Syria in late 2018, there was a scramble within the government to try to figure out what that meant and whether there were ways to walk it back,” said Finucane, the former State Department lawyer. “The Pentagon was fine to pull out U.S. troops from al Tanf because there was really no counter-ISIS mission. But in his memoir, [Trump’s national security adviser] John Bolton said he wanted to keep troops there to counter Iran.”
For four years, experts say the Biden administration has continued this shadow effort aimed at Iran under the guise of a counter-ISIS mission, fending off several congressional efforts to force the removal of U.S. troops from Syria. Last year, a bid by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to compel the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Syria within 30 days also failed. “The American people have had enough of endless wars in the Middle East,” Paul told The Intercept at the time. “Yet, 900 U.S. troops remain in Syria with no vital U.S. interest at stake, no definition of victory, no exit strategy, and no congressional authorization to be there.” Those troops may be increasingly drawn into the Syrian civil war in support of their SDF allies.
“This is arguably the most expansive abuse of the 2001 AUMF in the history of the law,” said Erik Sperling of Just Foreign Policy, an advocacy group critical of mainstream Washington foreign policy, referring to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, enacted in the wake of the September 11 attacks. “We know from Biden administration leaks that the U.S. presence in Syria was part of an anti-Iran proxy war strategy but after Congress started voting to remove troops, they cracked down on those leaks and they said it’s only about terrorism.”
Ryder, the Pentagon press secretary, reiterated this talking point on Monday, following a U.S. strike on a “hostile target” supposedly threatening U.S. and coalition forces at Mission Support Site Euphrates, noting that U.S. forces in Syria are “singularly focused on the enduring defeat of ISIS.”
Following an attack on U.S. personnel in Syria on November 25, the U.S. responded in typical fashion: with a strike against an Iranian-backed militia group, along with tough talk. “As previously stated, we will not tolerate any attacks on our personnel and coalition partners. We are committed to taking all necessary actions to ensure their protection,” said CENTCOM commander Gen. Michael Erik Kurilla.
U.S. troops have, however, been relentlessly attacked across the Middle East since last October. There have been at least 208 attacks against U.S. forces in the region — two in Jordan, 79 in Iraq, and 127 in Syria — according to Kreuzberger and CENTCOM. In addition to coming under fire about once every other day, U.S. troops have been killed or seriously injured in these attacks. In January, three U.S. soldiers were killed and more than 40 other personnel were injured in an attack on a base in Jordan near the Syrian border. Eight U.S. troops also suffered traumatic brain injuries and smoke inhalation from an August 9 drone attack on the Rumalyn Landing Zone in northeastern Syria.
“There were deliberations within the Biden administration prior to October 2023 about redeploying some of the U.S. forces in Syria, particularly from al Tanf,” said Finucane. “But once U.S. troops started taking fire, the deliberations came to a halt because the U.S. doesn’t want to be perceived as removing troops because they were under attack.”
Keeping military personnel in harm’s way for the sake of foreign policy credibility has become increasingly risky with the Gaza war and the flare-up of the Syrian civil war.
“As the U.S. and Israel have escalated conflicts in the region, it’s put U.S. troops in Syria in further danger.”
“It’s clear that as the U.S. and Israel have escalated conflicts in the region, it’s put U.S. troops in Syria in further danger. They are sitting ducks for U.S. ‘adversaries,’” said Sperling, a former congressional staffer who has worked on Syria policy for over a decade. “There are times when it’s worth it for U. S. service members’ lives to be put at risk. That’s why you have a military. But that’s also the reason that the framers of the Constitution said that Congress has the power to declare war. There needs to be a debate and vote.”
Trump has signaled he wants to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria, according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom Trump has tapped to be his secretary of health and human services. “Get them out!” Trump reportedly said.
“The Biden administration never put the war in Syria up for debate because they know the American people don’t want another war in the Middle East. They know there is no popular support for putting U.S. troops at risk for this. That’s extremely undemocratic and immoral,” said Sperling, who noted that the president-elect has an opportunity to change course. “Many of Trump’s advisors will try to drag him deeper into this regional conflict in the Middle East. His legacy is going to hinge on whether he keeps his campaign promise to be an anti-war president. He can start with Syria.”
