The U.S. must strike back at those who attacked us. But we must do so aware that we have other soldiers sitting deep and poorly defended among hostiles.
The U.S. must strike back at those who attacked us. But we must do so aware that we have other soldiers sitting deep and poorly defended among hostiles.
T hree Americans were killed on a spot of land just at the border of Jordan, Syria, and Iraq last weekend. Republican senators and congressmen, so anxious to portray Biden as weak and to call for a vigorous military response, have blown past the most basic questions about the incident, ones that make both the Trump and Biden administrations look utterly foolish and depravedly negligent.
Why did three Americans die in a desolate corner of northern Jordan, near the Iraqi border and just a stone’s throw from a U.S. military outpost in Syria at Al-Tanf? Why were they there? Who authorized the mission? Why were they so vulnerable? Who attacked them and with what weapons?
The newspapers are pointing the finger at an unspecified “Iranian-backed militia.” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin III was reluctant to identify the country from which the attack occurred. There’s a reason for this reluctance, as specificity would prove embarrassing.
Kataib Hezbollah is the radical Iraqi Shiite militia named by the Pentagon as the likely source of the attack. The group was previously led by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, an Iraqi-Iranian dual citizen who was killed in a 2020 U.S. drone strike along with Qasem Soleimani. Muhandis had once been something of a U.S. ally in the 2004 battles against the followers of Muqtada al-Sadr, another radical Shiite cleric, in Iraq. The media, if they mention Kataib Hezbollah at all, emphasize that, like other groups trading under the banner of Islamic Resistance in Iraq, it may be coordinated by the Iranian Quds Force. Less well advertised is that the group has been able to sustain and strengthen itself with U.S. arms that have slipped through the control of the U.S.-backed Iraqi army, including M1 tanks.
In its coverage, ABC news allowed that the deadly attack on our soldiers “highlighted a little-known mission in the barren desert area” known as Tower 22 and “sparked public questions about why it is that U.S. troops have been stationed in this remote location.” For answers, they turned to retired general Robert Abrams, who said correctly that it was part of an anti-ISIS mission going back to 2014. But it has “since grown to be able to support expanding missions and conducting operations for the last 10 years.”
Well, what missions are those? Some news watchers may remember Donald Trump announcing the return of all troops from Syria years ago and then later confirming that some would be staying — ultimately over 900 troops across a dozen installations.
The Trump-admin memoirs of former secretary of state Mike Pompeo and national-security adviser John Bolton feature both men bragging about keeping troops at Al-Tanf Syria, which was directly supported by Tower 22 in Jordan, to frustrate the Iranians, despite pushback from the Pentagon about the utility of the mission and against the explicit wish of President Trump to withdraw from an increasingly bewildering patchwork of conflict in Syria. Over time more uses were found for these tiny installations, including disrupting Syrian-Russian air defenses. Again, it’s a mission that was never authorized by Congress and is little known by the American public.
The Biden administration inherited these installations, which are running on dubious legal grounds, knowing that they were surrounded by hostile forces. This proved even more true after the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7 of last year.
Sunni states have tried to make peace with Israel as part of their long-term survival strategy of enduring Shiite pressure and staying as close as possible to the good graces of the United States. Radical Sunni and Shiite militia groups that hate Israel began acting furiously last year to punish the United States for its support of the Jewish state.
Since then, these undermanned installations have experienced as many as 150 attacks from missiles, drones, rockets, and the like. Stephen Bryen asks and answers the most important question:
What did the US Army do to protect our bases subjected to attacks of this kind?
For a long time, the Army did nothing. Then it sent the obsolete rapid fire last resort gun called C-RAM. In Syria the Army threw in the old Avenger system. So far as is known, it has not been effective. Only at the al-Assad base was the Patriot system installed, but it has not been enough to stop missiles and drones ramming into the base, causing “numerous” (CENTCOM’s word) casualties, mainly traumatic brain damage to troops.
Sending our troops to man foreign, poorly protected, bases is unacceptable. It is an invitation to turn our bases into hostage zones.
He’s right, of course.
What mission was accomplished that was worth losing three reservists over? Can the American people name anything they’ve really gained? Of course not.
The United States must strike back at those who attacked us. But we must do so aware that we have other soldiers sitting deep and poorly defended among hostiles. There is no virtue in stubbornly sticking around. If their missions are unauthorized, and unproductive, these troops should be evacuated rather than left to sit out as local targets or to be used as easy steps up the escalation ladder for our enemies.
The Biden administration and the Pentagon need to come out and clear the air with the American people — explain where we have troops in the Middle East and why they are needed there, and then defend them adequately. If they feel that the justifications offered by their spokespeople won’t fly with the American public, there’s another option: Bring those troops home and out of harm’s way.