January 31, 2024 - 3:30pm
In the wake of an attack on American troops that left three dead and dozens more injured, the United States needs to re-examine its position in the region. While many cry for a direct escalation against Iran in response to the assault perpetrated by Iran-backed militias, this doesn’t address the root of the problem: overexposed troops in vulnerable positions.
Washington effectively has two choices: retaliation or withdrawal. We don’t have to speculate about how these paths develop, because we have been down this road before. Following an Iranian militia attack which killed an American contractor in Iraq in 2019, the Trump administration conducted a strike which killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. In response, Iran launched ballistic missiles at al-Asad base, injuring over 100 troops. The Soleimani strike did not initiate a war, but this was mostly down to luck. The missiles targeted barracks, and only early warning which prevented fatalities and the downing of a civilian airliner stopped further escalation. Does Joe Biden really want to risk something similar?
In the event that the US retaliates ruthlessly against Iran, that leaves thousands of American troops exposed in Jordan, Syria, Iraq and the Gulf. The root problem is that Washington has abdicated its role of force protection by putting troops in indefensible positions without any national imperative to do so. The anti-Isis mission, the pretext for US troops’ presence in Iraq and Syria, has long gone past its point of usefulness. The group’s residual presence is now best dealt with by Iraq’s internal security forces; an American military hammer is not the appropriate tool to stomp out a group that has gone underground.
US troops are also stationed in al-Tanf, Syria, on the auspices of blocking Iranian supply lines to its militias. What this primarily ignores is that Iran doesn’t use this route — the presence of Iran-backed militias whose abilities have only grown for several years bears witness to this. What’s more, the close proximity of American troops provides these militias with exposed targets. A non-existent supply line does not justify the risks to American troops.
Many in Washington believe the cause for this latest attack was that Iran was insufficiently deterred. Really, though, the US permitted hundreds of attacks on its troops in Iraq and Syria for several years prior. Early warning systems and air defences can only insulate soldiers for so long. Eventually there are human or technical gaps that enemies can exploit.
The solution might be the Reagan option. When President Ronald Reagan was faced with hundreds of dead soldiers following a barracks bombing in Beirut, Lebanon, he withdrew troops. He spotted the sunk-cost fallacy: American blood had been spilled, and an aggressive response would not undo it. Biden should take note.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribePerhaps some can explain why we have troops stationed in Jordan, Syria, Iraq and the Gulf. A cynic might say that they are little more than bait to satisfy the wet dream held by many in DC for war with Iran. How would that work? We have a depleted munitions stockpile and a demoralized force worn down by purges of supposed ‘white supremacists’ and the infusion of leftist dogma in an environment where it has no place.
Why are American troops stationed anywhere but in the US? To control the friends and the enemies
A perfect synopsis, well done sir!
This isn’t an either/or question. Yes, we should withdraw troops from exposed positions in the Mid East. At the same time we should retaliate both to cover the withdrawal, and to deter future attacks.
The only think that brings you any credibility in that region is force or the threat of force.
And slice it any way you like, the death of Souleimani is a massive plus.
You can take America out of the Middle East but can you take the Middle East out of America?
Everyone in the Middle East knows that the US will leave – they always do, eventually.
No-one except demented Neocons (in Washington and Jerusalem) want a war. Hopefully, the Americans will leave before the Neocons plunge the region into yet another one.
Pull the troops out then have another Operation Praying Mantis. If anyone attacks Western interests they get bombed. If anyone attacks Israel they get bombed. For example, the Houthi ports should already have been bombed. If they bring arms in over land routes, bomb those routes.
America and Iran play the similar game – invest in wars not on home soil. I say similar, not the same.
‘end this chapter one and for all’ you mean wait until Iran is nuclear and then ponder it again.