American sources revealed to Erem News Washington's position on the establishment of a federal army in Syria, confirming that the emergence of any new military formation in Syria is not currently on the agenda of Washington or the international coalition.
American political sources said that the international coalition in Syria is still assessing the risk indicators in the field, particularly in the context of counterterrorism. They believe that the joint command of Operation Inherent Resolve continues to focus on denying ISIS and the remnants of al-Qaeda freedom of movement, in addition to preserving the capabilities of local partners.
The sources indicated that Washington is taking all possibilities into account when dealing with any potential developments in Syria, including activating the work of the counterterrorism group within the international coalition, which relies on local partners: the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Free Syrian Army operating around the al-Tanf base.
The International Coalition's Agenda
The sources explained to "Erem News" that the emergence of any new military formation in Syria during the current period is not on the agenda of the International Coalition or Washington. They believe that international efforts will focus on stabilizing the political and negotiating process, "even if Washington does not trust the process of integrating military factions into the new Syrian army, which was announced by the transitional Ministry of Defense recently."
The sources continued: "Washington does not see the process of integrating factions into the new Syrian army as a mature process or one with guaranteed results. The integration process is currently taking place on paper more than on the ground, while the command structure remains fragmented."
The New Army's Stakes and Standards
The sources added that Washington believes that any real integration process must go through clear practical steps, beginning with subjecting all units to a thorough security and legal review, including a review of the violations record. The sources added that Washington believes that any real integration process must go through clear practical steps, beginning with subjecting all units to a thorough security and legal review, including a review of the violations record. They also believe that the operational command must be unified and linked directly to the transitional Ministry of Defense. Furthermore, a unified training program must be developed to reshape military doctrine on national, non-factional, or ideological foundations.
Regarding Washington's confidence in alternative military formations that can be worked with to prevent violations in Syrian areas or address any security breaches, the sources explained that the options available to Washington remain diverse and subject to political, military, and security constraints, which are drawn up in coordination with regional allies, while continuing to provide primary guidance and support to local allies on the ground.
They added: "Any American support for a new military formation will be contingent on clear developments on the ground, such as a widespread security collapse, a high-level resurgence of the ISIS threat, or a power vacuum in a sensitive region. Even if this occurs, support will not come until specific conditions are met, most notably the ability to integrate into the national army."
According to the sources, the United States still believes that the greatest investment should be directed towards the political and negotiating process, not towards reshaping the military landscape from scratch. Existing military support is limited to partners that have proven their commitment to coalition standards, namely the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Free Syrian Army. The sources added: "These partners represent reliable assets that can be relied upon to maintain security stability."
On the other hand, the events in Sweida and the coast have increased Washington's doubts about the transitional authority's ability to control the forces on the ground. According to sources, the US assessment of these incidents is based on two main points: First, the violations reveal the weakness of the command and control system within the forces and the absence of immediate accountability mechanisms; and second, the continuation of these violations threatens international confidence and fuels sectarian and regional tensions, potentially reproducing an environment of instability.
Washington's Calculations
According to Michael Coleman, a researcher in American affairs, to "Erem News," Washington's focus in the short term in Syria is on managing the situation on the ground in a way that prevents any sudden escalation or security disruption that extremist groups could exploit.
Coleman believes that "US actions at this stage will not be directed towards establishing long-term strategic arrangements, but rather towards ensuring continued control over the stability of the situation on the ground and maintaining local partners at a high state of readiness."
Washington's Plans
He added, "Washington does not base its current strategy on military expansion plans or support for new formations, but rather on stabilizing existing structures and improving their efficiency, while retaining the option of selective intervention if circumstances dictate. This pattern of military-security management reflects what can be called the 'remote control' doctrine, which aims to accumulate influence at the lowest human and political cost, while maintaining the fight against terrorism as a legitimate cover for the military presence in Syria."
The immediate goal for the United States on the ground, according to Coleman, is to prevent any security vacuum or widespread unrest that would force Washington to reconsider its priorities, while keeping decisions such as the formation of new forces or extensive restructuring postponed until the need arises or the situation on the ground develops.
Building Strong Institutions
While the United States believes that ensuring stability in Syria cannot be achieved solely through the redistribution of military power, but also through building political institutions capable of governing the state efficiently and with internal consensus, Washington directs the bulk of its efforts toward supporting the political process and formulating permanent constitutional arrangements. According to Coleman, this approach aims to address the roots of the conflict rather than merely dealing with its military consequences.
At the same time, military support is kept to a minimum to ensure that trusted partners continue to maintain the minimum level of security stability necessary for the success of the political process.
On the other hand, Washington recognizes that any change in the military posture within Syria must take into account the network of interests and understandings with regional allies. Therefore, policies are formulated in close coordination with these capitals, both regarding the distribution of logistical and military support roles and managing political pressures.
Coleman added, "This coordination aims to avoid any step that might upset the regional balance or open the door to counter-intervention by rival powers such as Russia or Iran. The result is that the American decision to support or form any new force is always subject to a broader regional equation, not just the requirements of the immediate Syrian battlefield."
Read the original post Here
Comments About This Article
Please fill the fields below.