One day after news broke that President Trump appeared to unilaterally order the withdrawal of the U.S. troops from Syria, both the path forward for implementation and the impact on U.S. military strategy in the region remains unclear.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle told reporters Wednesday they were blindsided by the news (Defense Daily, Dec. 19). Allied partners in the region, such as France and the United Kingdom, were also not informed of the decision, but both countries confirmed they will continue operations in Syria, per multiple reports.

U.S. Marines train with a Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle in Deir ez-Zor province, Syria, Oct. 9, 2018. Coalition Forces continue to assist in Operation Roundup, the Syrian Democratic Forces-led offensive to liberate the last remaining stronghold of ISIS in the Middle Euphrates River Valley. The Coalition remains committed to working with local partners toward the enduring defeat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Matthew Crane)

On Thursday, the two leaders of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-Wash.), issued a joint statement calling it “a strategic error to remove U.S. forces precipitously from Syria without regard to the impact” it might have on the battle against ISIS and the safety of allied partners such as the Kurds. They added that ISIS was and still remains a “lethal threat” to U.S. national security and an effective counterterrorism strategy is still required.

“Congress must be fully informed and included in the deliberations about any policy under consideration,” they added.

Pentagon officials remained mum on Thursday regarding plans to remove the approximately 2,000 troops currently operating in Syria. It is unclear whether air and artillery strikes will continue if and when personnel are completely evacuated from the country.

“As long as there are U.S. troops on the ground we will conduct air and artillery strikes in support of our forces,” said Cmdr. Rebecca Rebarich, a Pentagon spokeswoman, in an email. “We will not speculate on future operations.”

Roman Schweitzer, of the Cowen Washington Research Group, said in a Thursday email that a withdrawal of troops will have widespread implications for the U.S. military’s regional strategy, but the broader impact remains unclear, especially as it may relate to efforts with Turkey, Russia, Iran, the Gulf region and Afghanistan.

“This is a level of geopolitical statecraft we’ve never seen before and certainly one never done in 280 characters or less,” he said.

Cowen had anticipated a gradual winddown of operations in both Syria/Iraq and Afghanistan in 2019, “but clearly not like this,” he added. 

Cowen noted earlier this month that the Defense Department has allocated $50 billion for Afghanistan operations in FY ’19 and $15 billion to counter ISIS. “We believe those costs/missions will come down or be changed over the course of the next year and that could free up significant funds that could be shifted to support investment spending in FY ’20 and later,” Schweitzer wrote at that time.

Byron Callan, of the Capital Alpha Group, said in a Thursday email to investors that the impact of troop withdrawal on defense spending remains to be seen, and added “a more immediate issue may be how long Secretary of Defense [Jim] Mattis continues to serve.” Multiple reports state that Pentagon leadership and the National Security Council were not consulted prior to Trump’s decision to pull U.S. servicemembers out of Syria.

Callan notes that terrorist actions may have helped support positive defense sentiment between 2014 and 2017, with ISIS being a key factor in that sentiment.

“If Trump’s decision to withdraw turns out to be another ‘mission accomplished’ moment that places Kurdish forces at risk, … and/or enables ISIL safe havens from which to again recruit, train, plan and launch terror attacks in 2019-2020, this may again stoke ‘the world’s a more dangerous place’ sentiment, even though the direct impact on U.S. defense spending is de minimis,” he wrote.