Too many reasons why US intervention in Syria is problematic: US media
An article in the National Interest provides a set of arguments about why the US' intervention in Syria is a losing venture.
An article in the National Interest that US military presence in Syria should be "objectionable on constitutional, moral, and strategic grounds, yet it retains widespread bipartisan support in Congress and the foreign policy establishment." The article argues using a multitude of points how the ongoing US meddling in Syria is a losing project.
Slamming the intervention as becoming increasingly unjustifiable, the article argues that it is no coincidence that Washington has positioned its forces in northeastern Syria, where significant oil reserves are situated, mobilizing Kurdish militias to do the security work.
The article noted that the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), backed by the US, is a critical client in the region, and is hardly even democratic. Not only is Washington's support for the so-called democratic forces problematic, but the presence of US troops is also causing difficulties with Turkey, which is a NATO ally.
Read: US occupation forces in Syria smuggle 34+ trucks of military equipment
Last month, Turkey launched a round of airstrikes against what it described as "Kurdish targets" in Syria, with one attack coming about 300 meters far from a US military base. This led to the Pentagon filing complaints that the attacks were endangering their officers. The article writes that the last thing Biden's administration needs is a new round of tensions with Turkey due to Syria.
Slamming the US' policy to Syria as 'unwise', the article explained that Barack Obama's attempts to 'tie together' Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other regional powers to oust Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad should not become an extension in Biden's policy.
Read: US occupation loots 88 Syrian oil tankers, smuggles them to Iraq bases
As tensions with Turkey grew, the intervention went on for land and oil, and other resources: Although Turkey was one of the nations in the region waging aggression against Syria, its president's enthusiasm faded drastically when it came to aligning itself with Washington's policies, which was to create opportunities for Kurdish separatists, which are considered terrorist by Ankara.
During Trump's term, Erdogan warned his administration to relocate US forces, which he did in October 2019 to clear the border area after Ankara decided to intervene militarily in the region. However, even with that concession, US troops faced Turkish artillery during the 2019 military operation.
It's worth noting that Congress has never authorized the Syrian intervention; however, "a bipartisan hawkish coalition, led by neoconservative Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), pushed through a resolution denouncing Trump for even considering a withdrawal of the illegal U.S. occupation force."
Read: Syrian tribes refuse to cooperate with US occupation
What is more peculiar about US intervention in Syria is that although official accounts note that 500 American troops were stationed in Syria, evidence shows that the actual numbers swim between 2,000 and 4,000.
The article concludes by saying that under incumbent President Joe Biden, matters still aren't constitutional or coherent, and the war doesn't seem to stop. Matters even seem to get more dangerous - in October this year, Syrian Kurdish leaders are asking Washington for more.
"We must not lose sight of the growing, multiple perils in Washington’s Syria intervention," finalizes the piece.