Deciphering the meaning behind Milley’s secret visit to Syria

U.S. Chief of General Staff Mark Milley’s secret visit to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) terrorist organization-held area in northern Syria could not be given the attention it deserved on the agenda due to the severe turbulence among the opposition table of six. It was the highest-level U.S. visit to the area to date.

Ankara was deeply disturbed upon hearing the allegation that Milley met with PKK members as well during the visit. Numerous other U.S. officials were also previously captured in the same frame with members of the terrorist organization with "anti-Daesh efforts” as their excuse. However, a chief of general staff making such a reckless move comes across as institutional representation and gains a different meaning.

U.S. Ambassador to Ankara Jeff Flake was immediately summoned to the Foreign Ministry and asked to provide an explanation for the secret visit. The U.S. ambassador denied the allegations of a top-level meeting with PKK terrorists in Syria. He claimed the U.S. base and troops were visited in Syria, there was no meeting with anyone other than their own troops, and the visit was secret, but it was leaked to the press. The U.S. ambassador was demanded upon this too, “Then refute these claims.” U.S. Department of State Spokesperson Ned Price’s statement that “Milley met with U.S. troops only” should be analyzed in this context.

It can be said that these diplomatic initiatives and statements prevented a likely crisis between the two capitals. Ankara dropped the subject for now, noting, “The U.S. continues to support the terrorist organization, regardless of whether the meeting happened or not.” Nonetheless, as this visit, and what happened after it are signs of important developments concerning Türkiye, they deserve to be scrutinized a little further.

My main theory is that Ankara’s decision to establish dialogue with Damascus led to tectonic movements in the region’s geopolitics. (It was announced the previous day that the new meeting regarding dialogue meetings will be held in Moscow, with Iran in attendance as well.) If this process proves to be successful, the status quo keeping the U.S. in Syria will become invalid. As the PKK terrorist organization will have less room to move, Washington’s presence on the ground will become meaningless. Thus, the U.S. is trying to answer the new status quo that will form, and implement a new strategy.

What is this new strategy? It is not clear yet. The implicit clues in the developments may help make sense.

The U.S. chief of general staff visited Israel before coming to Syria. One of the messages he gave was in relation to “Daesh.” Milley said there is a need for U.S. units in Syria, so they will remain in Syria, and that they will continue to act together with PKK terrorist organization members, whom he refers to as “Kurdish warriors.” His explanation for the visit was, “I wanted to check the force protection.” In other words, he checked the units on the ground.

A few days after Milley, this time U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin went on a critical Middle East tour, which included Iraq (including Northern Iraq), Jordan, Israel, and Egypt. Austin’s message in Iraq was similar to Milley’s message in Syria. “U.S. forces are ready to stay in the country upon Iraq’s invitation.”

In other words?

Though the U.S., whose influence in the region diminished, previously announced it would withdraw from Syria, it is now taking a new position. While the Ankara-Damascus dialogue makes U.S. presence in Syria meaningless, Washington is saying loud and clear that it will continue to play a role in the region, and maybe even increase its military presence.

But how will it realize this new decision?

The U.S. administration will continue to base its presence in the region on two imminent threat discourses. The first is Daesh, and the second is Iran. There is no visible Daesh threat. Therefore, it can be said that the real action will be concerning Iran.

As known, Israel is increasingly targeting Iran’s presence in Syria by the day. Previously, the U.S. was preventing Israel from “going too far.” According to statements by analysts with good command of the region’s diplomacy, “The U.S. will no longer tell Israel to stop.” As I wrote in a previous column, one other scenario on the table is the idea to form a buffer zone in the south of Syria. Israel and Jordan had a key role in that project. Could the U.S. defense secretary’s visit to Iraq, then Jordan and Israel be telling us something? The upcoming days will be action-packed. We shall wait and see.