“U.S. troops entered Syria to fight the Islamic State group, which lost its last territory in 2018. They stayed to counter Iranian forces, who were in Syria at the invitation of former leader Bashar al-Assad and were kicked out during the December 2024 revolution by the new Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa. The possibility of a Turkish invasion of Syria scuttled Trump’s first withdrawal attempt in October 2019, but that is unlikely now that Kurdish factions are negotiating peace with the Syrian and Turkish governments.
…
the Trump administration has been expanding rather than shrinking America’s military involvement in Syria. It recently began talks to build a new U.S. base right outside Damascus, the Syrian capital, ostensibly for peacekeeping between Syria and Israel.
Sharaa, eager to stay in Washington’s good graces, visited the White House in November 2025 and announced that he would be joining the U.S.-led coalition against the Islamic State group. Americans were suddenly patrolling alongside Syrian forces in areas they had never patrolled before, such as Palmyra, which Trump described on social media as “a very dangerous part of Syria, that is not fully controlled by them.”
…
Cooperation with the new Syrian government may have looked like a relatively cost-free way to keep a U.S. foothold in Syria, but the incident in Palmyra shows that there is, in fact, a greater risk to American troops than the White House realized. Yet the administration is doubling down, arguing that the attack is actually a reason to stay in Syria.”
…
We’re told that American troops are in Syria to prevent “another costly, large-scale war,” but every time someone attacks those troops, we’re told the U.S. has to double down on its commitment to avoid humiliation—which will create more opportunities to attack Americans. And the Palmyra shooter is not the only Syrian who has a problem with the new government or its American backers.”