CRS INSIGHT
Evaluating Possible U.S. Troop Withdrawals from
Hostile Areas
February 1, 2019 (IN11032)
|
Kathleen J. McInnis
|
Kathleen J. McInnis, Specialist in International Security (kmcinnis@crs.loc.gov, 7-1416)
On December 19, 2018, President Trump announced
his intention to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria within 30 days,
although Administration officials subsequently suggested that the process could take several months. Subsequent press
articles indicated that the White House is also considering withdrawing "up to half" of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in the
coming months, although at the time of writing the Trump Administration has stated it has not yet ordered any such
withdrawal. More recently, the United States has been negotiating with Afghan Taliban representatives regarding the
conditions upon which, if met, American forces might withdraw from Afghanistan. Opinions vary as whether these
negotiations might lead to a successful settlement. Regardless, the suggestion that the United States might curtail its
military operational commitment to those theaters raises a number of issues which may be of interest to Congress. In
particular, from a strategic perspective, when is a withdrawal from a military operation appropriate?
Operational Context
The strategic question of when to withdraw is particularly complex due to the nature of the contemporary conflicts in
which the United States is involved. Unlike World War II, for example, when all parties mutually agreed to cease
hostilities in the wake of an overwhelming allied victory, identifying clear "winners" and "losers" in these military
campaigns is often problematic. For one, there are often a multiplicity of parties to these conflicts—in Afghanistan
alone, belligerents have included al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, the Islamic State, the United States, the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the International Security Assistance Force coalition, and the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Syria is comparably complex. As each party has its own objectives and priorities,
winning agreement amongst all to cease hostilities is an inherently challenging endeavor.
Further, defining and measuring success in these campaigns has bedeviled military and civilian leaders alike, in large
part due to the at times amorphous nature of the strategic goals of the campaigns themselves. Seizing and occupying
terrain is generally a more straightforward military objective than, say, building legitimacy and local popular support for
a centralized government or permanently eliminating terrorist safe havens. Without a clear understanding what success
looks like, understanding whether enough has been done, or whether additional forces and resources might be required,
becomes educated guesswork. Some key issues for Congress, therefore, are to what extent withdrawal plans proposed
by the Trump Administration satisfy those criteria, and whether withdrawal either advances or sets back U.S. interests.
