Congressman Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., requested a House vote on whether the United States should keep military forces in Syria after reports of four American service members being injured there last week. This comes despite President Biden having previously declared that there were no U.S. troops in the country.
Congressman Smith’s proposed resolution calls for President Biden to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria within 15 days of its adoption, should it be approved by Congress.
Rep. Gaetz recently expressed his views on America’s involvement in Syria to Fox News Digital. “My legislation,” he said, “is an effort to make Congress acknowledge the entanglements resulting from Obama’s decision to begin our involvement in Syria’s civil war.” He believes that Russia, Turkey, and Iran are now present in a concentrated area, and members of Congress need to vote on record and address how the U.S. should proceed.
The present-day climate gives cause for pause when considering strategic plans for the Middle East. With that in mind, it’s essential to evaluate our thoughts on intervening in the Syrian civil war – a crisis from 2023. We should consider if this is what we want to do, as it could lead to heightened tensions and more dramatic outcomes.
Congressman Gaetz recently presented a resolution to the House Armed Services Committee in response to an incident in northeastern Syria. According to the official report from U.S. Central Command, four U.S. service members were injured when a joint mission between the U.S. and Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) resulted in the death of a senior-level ISIS leader.
Congressman Gaetz raised concerns that President Biden may need a comprehensive understanding of the Syrian conflict. Citing an August 2021 interview with ABC News, in which Biden mentioned an absence of U.S. military presence in Syria to ensure security, Gaetz questions whether or not Biden has a grasp on the situation.
Alternative reports have suggested a disagreement with the previous statement, providing evidence that approximately 900 U.S. troops had been deployed to Syria for assistance in fighting Islamic State (ISIS) forces in alliance with SDF militia at the interview.
Congressman Gaetz has argued that U.S. armed forces have never been authorized to participate in Syria by Congress, and he maintains that such authorization is required under the Constitution.
Rep. Matt Gaetz recently proposed a resolution in line with the 1973 War Powers Act, designed to restrict the President’s ability to enter or extend military conflict without congressional approval. After the solution has been introduced, the House of Representatives will be required to vote within 18 days. This provides an essential oversight into any potential military actions abroad.
Recent accounts from the Syria region have suggested that Russian and American personnel are engaging in nearby activities, which include taking photos and waving. This has been observed as recently as today, according to Congressman Gaetz. Such fractionalized actions can potentially lead to heightened tensions in the area.
When implementing an intervention in Syria, it is critical to consider the associated risks. In particular, there is a possibility that any miscalculation or misuse of authority could lead to direct kinetic conflict between the United States and Russia. As such, we must carefully weigh the potential benefits of action and the costs that may arise from these risks before moving forward.
If Joe Biden desires to retain American troops in the Syrian conflict, he should provide a strategic explanation for the decision that outlines the objectives and indicators of success.
Representative Matt Gaetz expressed his hope that his resolution would be well-received among Republicans and Democrats in Congress.
In an interview, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) commented on the current lack of anti-war sentiment in Congress. He noted that a few years ago, prominent members now seemed more vocal about the issue, but “The Squad” has shifted its stance regarding NATO and other conflicts. The Congressman questioned where this legislative session’s current voice of opposition to war resides.
The resolution before us will be an essential indicator of how we define our foreign policy: is it centered around America’s first principles, or is it a more adventurous agenda for the Middle East? Let us see through this resolution who will remain committed to their beliefs and exercise pragmatic judgment.
The article first appeared on ournationstands.com
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
At least some American forces have been in Syria since late 2016, if not earlier, and it’s time to ask: what are they doing there?
The Obama Administration sent in a small number of troops due to the Syrian civil war and the presence of Da’ish, more commonly referred to as ISIS, but let’s tell the truth here: there are no good guys in that war to support, only questionably not quite as bad guys. President Trump should have pulled them all out, but didn’t, reducing their number, but that’s about it.