Trump wants to protect oil fields in Syria, but the military receives no specific orders and has no legal basis to perform the task.

After abruptly announcing the withdrawal of almost all US troops from northeast Syria earlier last month, President Donald Trump reversed the process by saying that he would maintain a force in the country to carry out the task of protecting the oil well. "We are protecting the oil. I always emphasize this goal," he told police officers in Chicago on October 28.

Earlier, in a speech at the White House on October 27, Trump also expressed his desire to reach an agreement with oil and gas corporation Exxon Mobil or another US company to "exploit the oil properly and spread." richness".

He explained that oil in Syria is valuable because it was an important source of income for the self-proclaimed Islamic State (IS) militants. Controlling oil fields could help support the Kurdish and American militias "should also have their share." Washington then sent more troops and tanks, armored vehicles to Deir Ezzzor to perform the task of protecting oil resources in northeastern Syria.

However, when US troops deployed to the Deir Ezzzor area began patrolling around the oil field, they received no specific orders regarding important details related to their operations, according to an anonymous source familiar with the matter. US commanders in Syria struggled in confusion because their mission was interpreted in different directions.

There are no approved missions detailing how the US military "controls" oil, including when to patrol or when it is to be used by force, nor is there a decision on whether to protect the Another oil field in northeastern Syria outside the Deir Ezzzor region, where they are present, or not.

According to CNN commentators Barbara Starr and Nicole Gaouette, perhaps the most important thing is that the US military does not know exactly who it must fight against at the oil fields. Accurate information about "enemies" helps them identify situations and know when to fire, and helps military planners estimate the number of soldiers and means needed to carry out the task.

At a press conference at the Pentagon last week, when asked whether the US military's mission would include "preventing Russian and Syrian forces" from accessing oil fields, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper said. "The short answer is yes, because in that case Washington wants to ensure the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) has access to the resources."

However, defense officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said no decision had been made on the battlefield role of the US military in oil fields, although it was something they were extremely looking forward to, and there was no What remediation is the case in case Russian or Syrian forces approach.

The decision to add more troops and combat facilities in Syria was contradicted by Trump's initial statement that he wanted to escape "no-end" wars in the Middle East. Security officials and Republicans seem to have made the White House boss change his mind by giving reasons to protect oil, which Trump has always been concerned about.

"Our professional military officers and diplomats don't want to leave Syria," said William Wechsler, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense. He explained that arguments capable of persuading other presidents, such as maintaining the credibility and deterrence of the United States, countering terrorism or restraining Iran, have no effect on Trump. The only reason why it works is oil.

"Oil is the only thing that has an influence on Trump, so it becomes an excuse for the US to maintain its forces in Syria and protect other interests," Wechsler said. This argument seems to have achieved its purpose, but "opened up a series of other questions," he added.

Location of key Syrian oil fields and facilities. Graphics: EIA.

According to Wechsler, it is unclear the legal basis for the US to maintain a military force in Syria, especially when President Bashar al-Assad's government does not recommend it. Other open-ended questions include what exactly their mission is, what are the rules for intervention in addition to self-defense, or how to complete the task.

Speaking to Chicago police on October 28, Trump did not answer those questions, but only emphasized that the US "is protecting the source of oil". This statement caused Trump to be mocked by President Assad on Syrian national television on October 31 that "at least he was honest".

It is not clear what the US government will rely on to control or suck oil in Syria. Experts said the United States could apply the Military Use Authorization (AUMF), the legal basis for allowing the US to fight ISIS in Syria, to prevent oil fields in the country from falling into the hands of rebels. However, in the event that the Syrian army, backed by Russia, wants to regain oil fields within its lawful territory, it is difficult for US commanders to order air strikes or fire a response based on the base. this.

Defense officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the US military now considers its mission in Syria to "defend against any intrusion to allow SDF to prevent IS from accessing oil fields". Secretary Esper also said that they will help SDF protect this important resource. However, when asked if this meant that the United States would "occupy" oil fields as Trump said, Esper responded that their mission was to "prevent IS access."

In addition, while Trump expressed his desire to let US companies exploit oil in Syria, Pentagon spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said on November 7 that revenue from the resource "would not be transferred to the United States." belongs to SDF ".

In the event that Washington does not receive any profits from oil in Syria, the main reason why Trump maintains a military presence in the country will be gone. At that time, the decision to keep soldiers in Syria again made no sense, Vox commentator Alex Ward said.