At the same time, ISIS is losing its international influence as terrorist attacks in the West are declining. And the latest intelligence reports suggest the group has very little \u2015 if any \u2015 operational control over its affiliate groups in other countries in Africa<\/a> and beyond.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet top U.S. officials at the Pentagon and the White House are avoiding anything that sounds like a declaration of victory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Many experts believe that\u2019s because U.S. leaders want to maintain public support for other ground-level missions in the region that are harder to sell to the American people, politically.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But so far, no one has stood at the Pentagon podium and directly said that balancing regional threats like Iran and \u201cShia influence\u201d is part of the current policy or strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNever give up a sales pitch that\u2019s working,\u201d said Barry Posen, director of the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI don\u2019t think that somebody\u2019s going to step up and say, \u2018We\u2019ve finished the job we came to do. It\u2019s time to leave’.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe great thing about the [ISIS] mission is it was already sold to the American people,” Posen said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Officially, the only mission for U.S. troops on the ground in the region \u2015 including about 5,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and 2,200 in Syria \u2015 is to defeat and destroy ISIS.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But recently the White House has begun to reveal a massive new mission on the horizon for U.S. troops in the Middle East: containing Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n National security adviser John Bolton on Monday said countering Iran\u2019s influence in Syria and elsewhere is a major goal of the U.S. military mission in the Middle East.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe\u2019re not going to leave as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders, and that includes Iranian proxies and militias,\u201d Bolton said, signaling a fundamental shift from the current counter-terrorism operations to a mission focused more on geopolitical maneuvering and proxy warfare.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Bolton\u2019s comments echo sentiments that are widely shared among the think tank experts and hawkish defense officials in Washington who allude to the real purpose of U.S. forces as balancing against regional threats like Iran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI would prefer to keep U.S. troops there indefinitely, because they also serve a purpose in blocking Iran\u2019s freedom of movement and access to lines of communication that would connect western Iraq with Lebanon,\u201d said James Phillips, senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Heritage Foundation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI think, particularly, it would be a mistake to abandon the small garrison at Al Tanf, at the Syrian-Iraqi border and near Jordan.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The forward operating base at Al Tanf, manned by dozens of U.S. troops, but far from the concentration of ISIS, is one example of a larger strategic mission cloaked in the mantle of counter-ISIS operations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Al Tanf is located at the strategic border area between Iraq, Syria and Jordan. The Marine Corps recently conducted a \u201cshow of force\u201d mission near Al Tanf<\/a> as a reaction to a potential Russian military operation in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For years, Syria has festered with rival militias and foreign fighters, including Iranian-backed militias and Russian military forces, both supporting Syria\u2019s embattled regime led by President Bashar Al Assad, as well as Kurdish forces and Turkish-backed groups vying for control over Syria\u2019s north.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But some experts suggest that the very presence of Americans may be what ultimately stalls ISIS\u2019 demise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pentagon leaders warn that it\u2019s still possible for the extremist group to re-emerge, and so a continued U.S. presence in Syria has been long justified.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But many experts disagree with that logic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ISIS thrives in chaos. Initially, the extremist group was able to grow and seize territory because of the chaotic Syrian civil war and sectarian tensions that festered in Shiite-dominated Iraq.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Allowing low-grade warfare to continue in Syria is likely to benefit the group by providing the stateless, lawless, war-stricken environment where insurgencies flourish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe argument that ISIS is going to come back if America leaves Syria seems spurious to me,\u201d Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cISIS has never spread in a country where there\u2019s a strong state,\u201d Landis said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, ISIS has already shifted back to a grass-roots insurgency, similar to the group\u2019s previous iteration that was known as al-Qaida in Iraq.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The original insurgency led by al-Qaida in Iraq grew in the aftermath of the 2003 U.S. invasion and the U.S. attempt to supplant Saddam Hussein\u2019s largely Sunni government with Shiites, sparking intense sectarian violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The eight-year U.S. military mission there that ended in 2011 helped to quell that insurgency. But it boiled over again in 2014, in part because Assad\u2019s regime was roiled by a civil war and had largely abandoned eastern Syria, allowing ISIS the space to set up a capital for its caliphate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Both the Iraqi and Syrian regimes have strengthened in recent years. Landis said the most effective strategy for the complete elimination of ISIS is to foster peace, stability, a strong state and economic reconstruction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Landis suggested that the U.S. should get out of Syria and \u201callow the country to knit itself back together.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhat America is doing today, which is dividing Syria without spending significant money to rebuild, is going to open the doors for al-Qaida or ISIS to come back,\u201d Landis said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe\u2019re just keeping this hollowed-out region, hollowed out,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the recent comments from the White House about leaving troops in Syria to contain Iranian influence, the Pentagon has not yet articulated any military mission with that aim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cRight now our troops inside Syria are there for one purpose, and that\u2019s under the U.N. authorization about defeating ISIS,\u201d Mattis said Monday.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mattis downplayed any tension with the White House, saying he and Bolton were \u201con the same sheet of music.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mattis said the U.S. presence in Syria is based on United Nations-led peace talks for Syria rather than Iran\u2019s activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt\u2019s the Geneva process and the Geneva process has got to come to a conclusion if we are to see this end,\u201d Mattis said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Nevertheless, Mattis acknowledged concerns about Iran and its malevolent influence. Mattis has voiced concerned about Iran for years, dating back to his time as the commander of U.S. Central Command under former president Obama.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAs part of this overarching problem, we have to address Iran,\u201d Mattis said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cEverywhere you go in the Middle East where there\u2019s instability you will find Iran. So in terms of getting to the end state of the Geneva process, Iran, too, has a role to play, which is to stop fomenting trouble.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.S. exercises influence in Syria from the Kurdish areas in the country\u2019s northeast<\/a>. The U.S.-backed SDF<\/a> controls much of that region, while Turkish-backed rebels control select portions of the north.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And whatever dream that previously existed of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq has largely died. U.S. leaders have shown little willingness to offend their NATO ally Turkey in favor of such a move, as exemplified in the Manbij region stand-off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Keeping portions of northern Syria under Turkish control, though, would satisfy some of the United States\u2019 geopolitical ambitions: It weakens Assad and keeps Syria poor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe anti-Iran, anti-Russia policy wonks want to deny reconstruction to Syria because they don\u2019t want to reward Russia and Iran by having an asset that\u2019s worth something,\u201d Landis said. \u201cThey would prefer Syria poor and broken down, rather than a Syria that can re-arm.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBy denying them northern Syria, you\u2019re keeping them weak,\u201d Landis added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And therein lies a fundamental problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian state is only going to heal if it reunites, because if there are provinces not under his control, Assad will wage war. And without a strong, united Syria, ISIS will have room to grow again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s been nearly a year since Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said: \u201cThe caliphate is on the run, we\u2019re breaking them.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n The final phase of U.S.-backed military operations against ISIS will likely wrap up later this year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Syrian Democratic Forces \u2014 backed by U.S.-led airpower and artillery \u2014 are in the final phase of a push to eliminate remnants of ISIS in eastern Syria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The airstrike campaign against ISIS is tapering off. By July 2018, the latest data available, the Inherent Resolve mission has conducted a little more than 3,000 weapon releases for the year. That\u2019s compared to nearly 28,000 for the same time period through July 2017, roughly 17,000 through July 2016, and almost 14,000 through July 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The group\u2019s ability to direct attacks on Western countries appears to be waning. An annual U.S. State Department survey of global terrorism noted a 23 percent drop in terrorist attacks in 2017 as compared to the previous year. That\u2019s the third year of declining attacks. The report notes that much of the decrease is due to successes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s unclear whether the ISIS affiliates beyond Iraq and Syria, in places like Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere, pose a significant threat beyond their local region or to the U.S. homeland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere are remnants of ISIS in Iraq and Syria that are capable of launching local terrorist attacks, but I think many of the attacks in Western countries are conducted by ISIS wannabes,\u201d Phillips said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thomas Mockaitis, a professor at DePaul University and consultant for the Center for Civil-Military Relations at the Naval Postgraduate School, was blunt in his assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cTerrorism is a persistent nuisance, a problem, but not an existential threat,\u201d Mockaitis said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Though he sees a need to maintain pressure on ISIS, he is critical of the over-militarized response to ISIS, arguing that a balance of approaches is what it will take to truly defeat the group\u2019s ideology, which is what it exports when other groups attach themselves to its message.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A government official with knowledge of the work of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS but who was not authorized to speak to the media told Military Times that the counter-ISIS mission is \u201cevolving\u201d but still necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The official acknowledged that the threat from ISIS affiliates outside its core in Iraq and Syria does not necessarily reflect that the group has a real global reach or influence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cSome people portray it as ISIS the inkblot expanding all around the world,\u201d the official said. \u201cIt\u2019s more of a rebranding of local terrorist groups to take on the branding of ISIS.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several pre-existing groups, such as former factions of al-Shabbab in East Africa and Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, have taken exactly that tactic of attaching themselves to the ISIS brand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite professed allegiances, the numbers just are not there. Across the entire continent of Africa there are an estimated 6,000 ISIS-affiliated fighters, according to data from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And after a U.S.-Filipino assault in Marawi last year, current reports put the number of remaining ISIS fighters at about 200, according to the Pentagon.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Yet despite the exponential decline in enemy fighters, U.S. investment is increasing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Last year\u2019s total budget for the Philippine operation was $32.4 million. Next year\u2019s budget seeks $108.2 million, a third of which is devoted to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That includes plans for five military facilities dotting the islands. The larger strategy builds a partnership with the Pacific Ocean nation that could help counter China.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Experts said it\u2019s questionable whether ISIS-type territorial gains could emerge in areas such as northern Africa or Yemen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But ISIS has created a powerful brand, one that was boosted by its battlefield victories in Iraq in 2014.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That global brand was attractive to struggling groups elsewhere, such as Afghanistan\u2019s ISIS offshoot \u2014 dubbed Khorasan province, or ISIS-K.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAlthough the ideological links between the Afghan-based group and the main group in Iraq and Syria are strong, the organizational and operational links I think are very attenuated [weak],\u201d Phillips said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That sentiment was echoed by Bill Roggio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and editor of the Long War Journal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Roggio said that ISIS-K\u2019s presence in Afghanistan is at least partially made up of disaffected Taliban. And while the group swore allegiance to the Islamic State\u2019s leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and is certainly an official ISIS province, it has yet to be seen that the disconnected groups share much other than propaganda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWhen it comes to the insurgency in Afghanistan, the Taliban is still the major threat. Compared to the Taliban, ISIS\u2019 presence is minimal,\u201d Roggio said. \u201cBut they are persistent. They have a nucleus there and are hard to get rid of, just like in Iraq and Syria. They take their lumps but they\u2019re capable of regenerating. Their message resonates with a certain segment of the jihadist community.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n ISIS-K\u2019s presence in eastern Afghanistan\u2019s Nangarhar province, for instance, was large and it continues despite the large amount of resources the U.S. military allocated to uproot them from there, according to Roggio.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Several Army Green Berets have died in anti-ISIS-K operations in Nangarhar this year.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ISIS-K tends to magnify its presence by conducting particularly brutal suicide attacks against local civilians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Taliban also conduct suicide attacks, but most of these incidents are targeted against foreigners and government offices, Roggio said. ISIS-K\u2019s strikes, meanwhile, tend to be of a more brutal variety, like hitting non-profit offices focused on caring for children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That brutality turns away some even within the Taliban. But were a peace settlement between the Afghan government and Taliban to occur, Roggio hypothesized that ISIS-K could be a landing spot for hardliners in the insurgent group who oppose such a move.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Roggio doesn\u2019t see a peace settlement happening soon, and if it did, the Taliban would still have the network to fight ISIS-K. This was evident when the Taliban routed another ISIS stronghold in the northern Afghan province of Jowzjan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n More than 200 ISIS fighters surrendered to the Afghan government, a decisive victory for the Taliban.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Taliban have remained a cohesive fighting force for the past 17 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIf the Taliban were to turn their guns on them [ISIS-K], they wouldn\u2019t stand much of a chance,\u201d Roggio said. \u201cThe Islamic State just doesn\u2019t have the reach, or the recruiting base or the infrastructure that the Taliban has in Afghanistan. \u2026 ISIS isn\u2019t utilizing the tribal structures that the Afghan Taliban have mastered. The Taliban know all the politics in the area and have all the contacts in Pakistan.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Compared to the Taliban, ISIS is small, limited in its range, and mostly appeals to the more violent and simplistic jihadists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And it\u2019s still unclear whether ISIS affiliates in Afghanistan, or elsewhere, actually pose a threat to the U.S. homeland. But if U.S. officials decide that they do, the prescription to the ailment will have to be more than using the military as a placeholder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, is cautious about what plan, if any, the U.S. government has for these regions if the U.S. does decide ISIS is an existential threat.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe fact is we want to get out,\u201d Cordesman said. \u201cIt\u2019s been too long a war.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n He echoed Landis’ sentiments regarding the lack of planning and funding for reconstruction that could result in ISIS elements maintaining local control for long periods through targeted terrorist attacks on the local population.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cAnd the problem you also have is we have yet to show we have any strategy that we have to create a reconstructed, redeveloped Iraq that meets needs over time,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI think the country is tired,\u201d he said. \u201cI think the U.S. military is tired of what seem to be open-ended wars.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The White House signaled a fundamental shift in the military mission for troops in Syria that would focus on Iran rather than ISIS.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":10495,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-noindex":"","_yoast_wpseo_meta-robots-nofollow":"","_yoast_wpseo_canonical":"","_acf":"","_yoast_wpseo_primary_category":13,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","_smg_distribution_targets":{"2":{"categories":["your-military","news","flashpoints","left-column","home","middle-column"],"primary_category":"your-military"},"5":{"categories":["your-army","news","flashpoints","daily-news-roundup","newsletters","left-column","home","middle-column"],"primary_category":"flashpoints"},"6":{"categories":["your-marine-corps","news","flashpoints","daily-news-roundup","newsletters","left-column","home","middle-column"],"primary_category":"flashpoints"},"7":{"categories":["your-navy","news","flashpoints","daily-news-roundup","newsletters","home","middle-column"],"primary_category":"flashpoints"}}},"categories":[101,13,24,88,89,16,26,67],"tags":[],"coauthors":[3277,3393],"class_list":["post-34118","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-daily-news-roundup","category-flashpoints","category-home","category-left-column","category-middle-column","category-news","category-newsletters","category-your-air-force"],"acf":{"subheadline":"","legacy_arc_id":"L7QLPPVRJNDPRJXSQ3PO2Q2KHI","arc_canonical_url":"\/news\/your-air-force\/2018\/09\/25\/the-white-house-just-revealed-massive-mission-creep-in-syria-heres-why\/","remove_feature_photo":false,"is_sponsored":false,"subtype":"","redirect_url":"","disable_inline_ads":false,"native_logo_pretext":"Presented By:"},"yoast_head":"\n![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/4569415.jpg.jpg\")
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/4000242.jpg.jpg\")
The focus on ISIS<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/4727277.jpg.jpg\")
The end of counter-ISIS operations?<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/GettyImages-688227038.jpg.jpg\")
ISIS in Afghanistan<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/4150726.jpg.jpg\")