Skip to main content

U.S. President Donald Trump walks out of the Oval Office to speak to members of the media on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, on Nov. 4, 2019.

The Associated Press

U.S. President Donald Trump has approved an expanded military mission to secure an expanse of oil fields across eastern Syria, raising a number of difficult legal questions about whether U.S. troops can launch strikes against Syrian, Russian or other forces if they threaten the oil, U.S. officials said.

The decision, coming after a meeting Friday between Mr. Trump and his defence leaders, locks hundreds of U.S. troops into a more complicated presence in Syria, despite the President’s vow to get the United States out of the war. Under the new plan, troops would protect a large swath of land controlled by Syrian Kurdish fighters that stretches nearly 150 kilometres from Deir el-Zour to al-Hassakeh, but its exact size is still being determined.

Officials said many details still have to be worked out. Mr. Trump’s decision hands commanders a victory in their push to remain in the country to prevent any resurgence of the Islamic State group, counter Iran and partner with the Kurds, who battled IS alongside the U.S. for several years. But it also forces lawyers in the Pentagon to craft orders for the troops that could see them firing on Syrian government or Russian fighters trying to take back oil facilities that sit within the sovereign nation of Syria.

Story continues below advertisement

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal deliberations.

Mr. Trump’s order also slams the door on any suggestion that the bulk of the more than 1,200 U.S. troops who have been in Syria will be coming home any time soon, as he has repeatedly promised.

Senator Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democrat, called the mission misguided. “Risking the lives of our troops to guard oil rigs in eastern Syria is not only reckless, it’s not legally authorized,” Mr. Kaine told the Associated Press. “President Trump betrayed our Kurdish allies that have fought alongside American soldiers in the fight to secure a future without ISIS – and instead moved our troops to protect oil rigs.”

The Pentagon will not say how many forces will remain in Syria for the new mission. Other officials, also speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss continuing deliberations, suggest the total number could be at least 800 troops, including the roughly 200 who are at the al-Tanf garrison in southern Syria.

According to officials, lawyers are trying to hammer out details of the military order, which would make clear how far troops will be able to go to keep the oil in the Kurds’ control.

The legal authority for U.S. troops going into Syria to fight IS militants was based on the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which said U.S. troops can use all necessary force against those involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and to prevent any future acts of international terrorism. Legal experts say the U.S. may have grounds to use the AUMF to prevent the oil from falling into IS hands.

But protecting the oil from Syrian government forces or other entities may be harder to defend.

Story continues below advertisement

“The U.S. is not at war with either Syria or Turkey, making the use of the AUMF a stretch,” said Stephen Vladeck, a national-security law professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

He added that, while the U.S. Constitution bestows significant war powers on the President, those are generally meant to be about self-defence and for the collective defence of the country. Arguing that securing the oil is necessary for national security “just strikes me as a bridge too far,” he said.

Members of Congress, including Mr. Kaine, have also raised objections to the Trump administration using the AUMF as a basis for war against a sovereign government. That type of action, he and others have argued, required approval by Congress.

U.S. officials said the order approved by Mr. Trump does not include any mandate for the U.S. to take Syria’s oil. Mr. Trump has said multiple times that the U.S. is “keeping the oil.” But the White House and Pentagon have so far been unable to explain what he means by that. Defence Secretary Mark Esper said Friday he “interprets” Mr. Trump’s remarks to mean the military should deny IS access to the oil fields.

There were already a couple hundred U.S. troops around Deir el-Zour, and additional forces with armoured vehicles, including Bradley infantry carriers, have begun moving in. Officials have said the total force there could grow to about 500.

Mr. Trump, Mr. Esper and other defence leaders have said it’s important to protect the oil so that Islamic State militants can’t regain control of the area and use the revenues to finance their operations.

Story continues below advertisement

Currently, the U.S.-backed Syrian Kurdish forces have controlled the oil, supported by a small contingent of U.S. troops. A quiet arrangement has existed between the Kurds and the Syrian government, whereby Damascus buys the surplus through middlemen in a smuggling operation that has continued despite political differences. The Kurdish-led administration sells crude oil to private refiners, who use primitive homemade refineries to process fuel and diesel and sell it back to the administration.

It’s unclear how long that agreement may continue. And if some dispute arises, U.S. troops must have clear guidance on how to respond.

U.S. forces can use military force to protect themselves. But the oil fields are expansive, and troops can’t be everywhere. If, for example, Syrian government troops try to retake a portion of an oil facility and U.S. troops are not nearby, it’s unclear now how much force they could use if they aren’t acting in self-defence.

Our Morning Update and Evening Update newsletters are written by Globe editors, giving you a concise summary of the day’s most important headlines. Sign up today.

Related topics

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter