Graham Concerned About Trump’s New Plan
Republican lawmakers with deep foreign-policy experience are voicing serious concerns after reports suggested the United States may be considering a full military withdrawal from Syria. They warn that reducing America’s presence could unintentionally create space for ISIS to regroup.
Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said even a small U.S. footprint has played a critical role in keeping terrorist threats contained. Responding to reports of a possible drawdown, Graham cautioned that a complete exit could undo years of hard-won progress.
According to Graham, American troops working alongside local partners have functioned as an insurance policy against ISIS reemerging and threatening U.S. national security. He stressed that Syria remains unstable and that withdrawing prematurely could have lasting consequences.
The remarks followed a report indicating U.S. officials are weighing a full troop pullout as Syria’s interim leadership pressures U.S.-backed Kurdish forces to integrate into the central government. At the same time, government-aligned forces have made significant advances in northeastern Syria, where U.S. troops are currently stationed.
Defense officials declined to comment on troop movements or potential future operations, citing operational security and the safety of American service members. Pentagon spokespeople also emphasized that they do not discuss hypothetical scenarios.
Approximately 1,000 U.S. troops remain in Syria, primarily in the northeast, with a smaller presence at a key outpost near the southeastern border. American forces have been stationed in the country since 2014 with the primary mission of preventing ISIS from rebuilding after its territorial defeat.
U.S. troops have worked closely with Kurdish-led militias on patrols and counterterrorism missions. However, those allied forces have faced recent setbacks, losing control of strategic oil facilities, infrastructure, and military positions. Several areas were later handed over to Syria’s interim government following a temporary ceasefire.
Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, echoed concerns that a reduced U.S. presence could weaken regional stability. He warned that Syria’s political transition remains fragile and that extremist groups could exploit any power vacuum.
McCaul said maintaining a limited American presence helps deter terrorist activity and prevents the region from sliding back into chaos. He added that an ISIS resurgence would threaten not only the Middle East but U.S. interests abroad.
Additional concerns have emerged over reports that elements within the interim Syrian military include individuals previously linked to extremist organizations. Intelligence assessments have raised questions about whether these forces can reliably prevent terrorist networks from reforming.
The Pentagon began reducing troop levels in Syria last year, citing progress in the fight against ISIS. A similar effort to fully withdraw U.S. forces was attempted during President Trump’s first term but faced resistance from defense officials who warned of long-term security risks.
Supporters of a full withdrawal argue that America can pursue counterterrorism goals without maintaining a permanent military presence. They say U.S. forces should not remain indefinitely in unstable regions once major objectives are achieved.
Public opinion is also divided. A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans favor bringing U.S. troops home, reflecting broader frustration with prolonged overseas deployments.
As the debate continues, Republican leaders remain split between those urging caution against renewed terrorist threats and those pushing for a strategic reset. The decision could shape U.S. security policy in the Middle East for years to come.
