US to scale down its military bases in Syria, envoy says
ANKARA (Reuters) -The United States will scale down its military presence in Syria to one base from eight and U.S. policies will shift in the country "because none of them worked" over the last century, the new U.S. special envoy has said.
Thomas Barrack, who President Donald Trump named special envoy last month shortly after he unexpectedly lifted U.S. sanctions on Syria, made the comments in an interview with Turkish broadcaster NTV late on Monday.
The U.S. military has about 2,000 U.S. troops in Syria, mostly in the northeast. They are working with local forces to prevent a resurgence of Islamic State, which in 2014 seized large swathes of Iraq and Syria but was later pushed back.
Since rebels ousted Syria's former President Bashar al-Assad in December, the United States and other countries are re-engaging with Damascus under new leader Ahmed al-Sharaa.
Barrack, also U.S. ambassador to Turkey, raised the American flag over the ambassador's residence in Damascus last week for the first time since 2012.
When asked how the Trump administration will shape its Syria policy and whether the U.S. is considering troop withdrawal from Syria, Barrack said: "What I can assure you is that our current Syria policy will not be close to the Syria policy of the last 100 years, because none of these have worked."
Reducing the number of bases to one from eight was an important part of that shift, he said, according to an interview transcript.
Two security sources in bases where U.S. troops are deployed told Reuters in April that military equipment and vehicles had already moved out of eastern Deir el-Zor and were being consolidated in the province of Hasakah.
One of the sources said the consolidation plan involved pulling all U.S. troops out of Deir el-Zor province.
Barrack said that the Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) were a U.S. ally and a "very important factor" for the U.S. Congress, and that directing them to integrate into a new Syrian government was also very important.
"Everyone needs to be reasonable in their expectations," he said.
The SDF is the main ally in a U.S. coalition against Islamic State militants in Syria. It is spearheaded by the YPG militia, which Ankara sees as an extension of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). The PKK decided to disband last month after a 40-year conflict with the Turkish state.
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said last week that the SDF was using "stalling tactics", despite a deal with the Syrian government to integrate into Syria's armed forces.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Held at gunpoint: BBC team detained by Israeli forces in southern Syria
On the morning of 9 May, I was part of a BBC Arabic team which left the Syrian capital, Damascus, for the southern province of Deraa. From there we planned to go to the frontier with the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. We wanted to get close to the Syrian territory that has been seized by the Israeli military since December, when Israel's prime minister said it was taking control indefinitely of a demilitarised buffer zone and neighbouring areas following the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime. We were a team of seven - myself (a British citizen), two Iraqi BBC staff, and four Syrians - three freelancers and one BBC cameraman. Israel says it struck near Syria palace over violence in Druze areas First Druze crossing in 50 years as Israel courts allies in Syria Israeli strikes in Syria a challenge to Turkey We were filming near one of the UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) observation posts, close to the town of al-Rafeed, when an official from the UN told us that the Israeli side had inquired about our identity and had been informed that we were a BBC crew. We next drove north towards Quneitra city, which has been located inside the buffer zone since a 1974 disengagement agreement between Syria and Israel, which captured the Golan during the 1967 Middle East war. About 200m (660ft) away from the city, an unguarded checkpoint blocked the road. To the side of the checkpoint we spotted Merkava tanks, one of which was flying an Israeli flag. From a nearby tower, two Israeli soldiers were watching us - one of them through binoculars - and my colleague held his BBC ID up for them to see. The BBC has complained to the Israeli military about what happened next to my team, but it has not yet received a response. A minute after we started filming in the area, a white car approached from the other side of the checkpoint. Four Israeli soldiers got out of the car and surrounded us. They pointed their rifles at our heads and ordered us to place the camera on the side of the road. I tried to explain that we were a BBC crew, but things escalated unexpectedly quickly. I was able to send a message to my BBC colleagues in London saying that we had been stopped by the Israeli military before our phones and all equipment were confiscated, more Israeli soldiers arrived in a Humvee military vehicle, and our car was thoroughly searched. The soldiers escorted us through a barrier into the city of Quneitra and stopped at the crossing point that separates Quneitra from the occupied Golan. There, the soldiers began reviewing the footage as we sat in our car, while one pointed his rifle at my head from metres away. After more than two hours, one of the soldiers asked me to step out of the car and speak on a mobile phone. I didn't know who the person on the line was. He spoke broken Arabic. He asked why we were filming Israeli military positions. I told him I was a British BBC journalist and explained to him the nature of our work. I returned to my car, and the rifle was again aimed at my head. After another hour of waiting, one more vehicle arrived. A group of security personnel got out of the car carrying blindfolds and plastic zip ties and asked me to step out first. The lead officer, who spoke fluent Palestinian Arabic dialect, took me by the hand towards one of the rooms at the crossing point which were previously used by the Syrian army. The floor was strewn with broken glass and rubbish. He told me that they would treat me differently - no handcuffs, nor blindfold - unlike the rest of my team. I was in shock. I asked why they were doing this when they knew we were a BBC crew. He said he wanted to help get us out quickly and that we had to comply with their instructions. Moments later, another officer entered and told me to take off all my clothes except my underwear. I initially refused, but they insisted, and threatened me, so I complied. He inspected even inside my underwear, both front and back, searched my clothes, then told me to put them back on and started interrogating me - including personal questions about my children and their ages. When they eventually let me out of the room, I witnessed the horrific scene of my team members, tied up and blindfolded. I pleaded to the officer to release them, and he promised to do so after the interrogations. They were taken one by one to the same room for strip search and questioning. They returned with their hands still bound but not blindfolded. The team's interrogation lasted more than two hours, during which all our phones and laptops were examined, and many photos - including personal ones - were deleted. The officer threatened us with worse consequences if we approached the frontier from the Syrian side again, and said that they know everything about us and would track us down if any hidden or un-deleted photo was ever published. About seven hours after our detention - it was past 21:00 - we were taken by two vehicles, one in front of our car and the other behind us, to a rural area about 2km (1.2 miles) outside Quneitra. There, the vehicles stopped and a bag containing our phones was thrown towards us before the vehicles left. Lost in the dark with no signal, no internet and no idea where we were, we kept driving until we reached a small village. A group of children pointed us to the highway, warning that a wrong turn could draw Israeli fire. Ten tense minutes later, we found the road. Forty-five minutes after that, we were in Damascus. Israel demands complete demilitarisation of southern Syria 'We just need peace': BBC speaks to Syrians watching Israel's incursion Israel seizes Golan buffer zone after Syrian troops leave positions
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Check out the latest Donald Trump presidential approval ratings for PA and across US
Despite mass firings within the government, threats of tariffs and struggles to get the 'big, beautiful bill' passed, President Donald Trump's approval ratings have held steady early in his second term. DOGE leader Elon Musk is leaving the White House and Trump is threatening to tariff two high profile American companies — Apple and Mattel — despite questions by the US Court of International Trade about his authority to unilaterally impose tariffs without action by congress. Here's what the recent polls show about Trump's presidential job approval ratings as of the first week of June. According to Rasmussen Reports polling, Trump's approval has improved to a 53% approval rating and 46% that disapprove. The TrafalGarGroup poll from this weekend found that 53.7% of Americans approve of how Trump is handling his job as president, while 45.6% disapprove. The Morning Consult tracker poll taken this weekend reported a drop to 46% approval rating and a 51% that disapprove. The Economist/YouGov poll taken this week, shows Trump improving with a 45% favorability versus 53% unfavorable. Americans expressed the most important issue was overwhelmingly focused on inflation/prices, followed by jobs and the economy, health care, immigration and civil rights. In this weekend's Quantus Insights poll, Trump's job approval improved with 48.3% approval versus 47.8% that disapprove and 3.9% that had no opinion. RealClear Polling which encompasses the average of different 15 different pollsters, including all those mentioned above, shows Trump's overall favorability at 47.5% and 49.7% that disapprove. These numbers have improved since his lows at the end of April, when it reached a 52.4% disapproval rating and 45.1% favorable approval rating. According to Civiqs polls, last updated June 2, Trump's approval ratings have dropped about three points in The Keystone State compared to what Pennsylvanians thought of his performance in January. About 53% of Pennsylvanians polled currently disapprove of the president's performance, up from 50% on Jan. 20. Only 43% of the commonwealth gave Trump a thumbs up as of early June, down from 46% six months ago. These polling numbers were also broken down by age, education, gender, race and party. Age: Those between 18-34 were most unfavorable of Trump (60%), while those 50 to 64 were the most favorable (55%). Education: Postgraduate students were most unfavorable toward Trump (68%). Non-college graduates were most favorable (49%). Gender: Men and women are split on Trump, more than half of females (58%) holding an unfavorable view and more than half of males (52%) having a favorable view of the president. Party: Members of the Republican party were 87% favorable of Trump, compared to the Democratic party, who felt just 3% favorable of the president's performance. Independent voters leaned unfavorable (48%). Race: Black voters had the highest unfavorable opinion of Trump (89%), followed by other races at 59%, Hispanic/Latino at 57% and white at 46%. Note: Polls are constantly changing and different pollsters ask different varieties of the population. These numbers were reflected as of Tuesday, June 3, 2025 at 10 a.m. This article originally appeared on Donald Trump presidential approval rating today in PA vs. nationally
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Is it time to talk impeachment? Given Trump's actions, it may be overdue.
In the few months since Donald Trump returned to the presidency, he has issued so many executive orders and pronouncements on domestic and foreign policy that he may have overwhelmed our intellectual and emotional energy to fully appreciate their impact. Whether or not you approve of the direction he wants to take the country, he took office after being duly elected. Many of his initiatives are within his authority. Generally speaking, Trump has the right to indulge his ideological obsessions and advance policies that benefit the economic class that 'brung him to the dance.' But, what of those executive orders that exceed the limited authority proscribed for the presidency — powers meant to be shared with other branches of government, or those that defy Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution? Say goodbye to democracy — and our freedoms — if we ignore James Madison's warning in the Federalist Papers No. 47 that "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." On Jan. 20, 2025, Trump took the Presidential Oath of Office to 'faithfully execute the Office of President' and 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Yet just three months later, when asked if he agreed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio's statement that every person in the United States is entitled to due process, Trump told NBC's Kristen Welker that he's not so sure. 'I don't know. I'm not a lawyer.' The Constitution states that 'no person' shall be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.' It says 'person,' not 'citizen.' Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has held that everyone in this country have certain basic rights. When Welker reminded the president of this constitutionally guaranteed right, Trump complained that this only slows him down: 'I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it.' This helps explain why democracy requires an independent judiciary — to check the actions of the executive (from local police to presidents) to ensure that government allegations of wrongdoing are accurate and mistakes are not made. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the recent high-profile example, is Salvadoran, married to an American citizen with three American-born children who has lived in U.S. since 2011. He was granted protected status by an immigration judge in 2019. Nevertheless he was detained by ICE in March and deported to El Salvador without a hearing. The Trump administration originally acknowledged that he was mistakenly deported, and a federal judge ordered that he be returned to the U.S. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld this directive. As of this writing the Trump administration has done nothing to facilitate his return. The President even quipped that he could do so, but he will not. The government now asserts that Abrego Garcia's deportation wasn't a mistake, claiming he is a member of the Salvadoran gang MS-13, but declines to provide evidence supporting the claim. As if to emphasize contempt for constitutional rights, deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller recently said that the Trump administration was considering suspending Habeas Corpus to block an immigrant's right to challenge their detention before being deported. There are other examples of presidential defiance of the law, such as the illegal impoundment of congressionally authorized appropriations and constitutional freedoms. So, it is time to insert the 'I' word (impeachment) into civic conversations. I am not naïve: impeachment is neither imminent nor likely — for now. The disgrace of this period, as future historians will note, is that whether the President has intimidated Congress into silence or they applaud his overly expansive use of power, the legislative branch has abandoned its oversight responsibility. For now, Congress is content to look the other way. Nevertheless, we must begin to insert 'impeachable offenses' into civic conversations. If we don't, we will be complicit in accepting that the aberrant behavior of this President is the new normal for the evaluation of future presidents. Howard L. Simon served as executive director of the ACLU of Florida from 1997-2018. He resides in Gainesville and is president of Clean Okeechobee Waters Foundation, Inc. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Talk of impeachment hasn't come up. How long can that last? | Opinion
