When news broke over the weekend that two U.S. Army National Guard soldiers from Iowa and an American interpreter had been killed in a deadly ambush in central Syria, the shockwaves in Washington were immediate and intense. The attack, which also wounded three other American soldiers, quickly reignited a fierce debate over the continued presence of U.S. troops in the war-torn country and the broader Middle East.
According to the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command, the ambush took place near Palmyra in the Homs countryside, a region that has seen persistent violence and shifting territorial control. The U.S. military confirmed that Sgt. Edgar Brian Torres-Tovar, 25, from Des Moines, and Sgt. William Nathaniel Howard, 29, from Marshalltown, were the two Iowa National Guard soldiers who lost their lives. The American civilian interpreter, whose name was not immediately released, also died in the attack. The wounded soldiers were airlifted to the al-Tanf garrison near the Iraq-Jordan border, where they received medical care and, according to President Donald Trump, were "doing well."
The incident, which U.S. officials say was carried out by a lone ISIS gunman, has prompted a flurry of statements from American leaders. President Trump, speaking to reporters at the White House, was unequivocal in his response. "This was an ISIS attack against the U.S. and Syria, in a very dangerous part of Syria, that is not fully controlled by them," he said, emphasizing that the assault had "nothing to do" with Syria’s new president, Ahmad al-Sharaa. Trump described al-Sharaa as a "strong man" who "feels very badly about" the attack, adding, "The new leader is a strong person, and that's what you need. This is a rough part of the world, and it's been amazing what's taken place in Syria."
Trump’s comments come on the heels of a historic diplomatic shift. Just weeks before the attack, he hosted President al-Sharaa at the White House—the first visit by a Syrian head of state in more than 75 years. In what he framed as a bid to "give the new government with a new leader a chance at greatness," Trump announced the lifting of longstanding U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, controversial in some quarters, was intended to foster cooperation in the fight against ISIS and promote stability in the region.
In the aftermath of the attack, both Trump and al-Sharaa have sought to present a united front against the Islamic State group. Syrian security forces launched a sweeping operation in the Homs countryside, arresting five ISIS suspects believed to be connected to the ambush. Al-Sharaa also sent a message of condolence to the White House, expressing solidarity with the families of the victims and reaffirming Syria’s commitment to security and stability. Trump, for his part, took to social media to promise "very serious retaliation."
"There will be very serious retaliation," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "The President of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, is extremely angry and disturbed by this attack. There will be very serious retaliation. Thank you for your attention to this matter!"
But even as the White House and Pentagon signal a tough response, the attack has reignited a long-simmering debate in Congress about the legal and strategic basis for U.S. military operations in Syria. The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), first passed in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, attacks, has served as the primary legal justification for a wide range of U.S. military actions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Syria. Over the years, lawmakers from both parties have questioned whether the AUMF’s broad mandate is still appropriate or whether it has been stretched too far.
This latest tragedy has brought those questions to the fore once again. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a Republican who recently announced her resignation from Congress, was blunt in her criticism. "National Guard troops should not be sent to foreign countries to be killed in foreign lands like Syria," she posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. "Bring our troops home!!! Enough of this!!!"
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, another Republican known for bucking party orthodoxy, echoed those concerns in an appearance on NBC News’ "Meet the Press." While agreeing with Trump’s calls for retaliation, Paul questioned the underlying mission. "Yes, the people who killed our soldiers should be punished," he said. "But really, we need to reassess whether or not we should have troops in Syria to begin with."
Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky went further, vowing to sponsor legislation to repeal the AUMF and calling for a full withdrawal of American forces. "I’m heartbroken that we lost soldiers in Syria, but now is the time to ask: Why are we in Syria?" Massie wrote on X.
The debate over the AUMF is hardly new. During President Barack Obama’s administration, the decision to send special operations forces into Syria in 2015 drew pushback from Democratic senators like Tim Kaine, Brian Schatz, and Chris Coons, who questioned whether the 2001 AUMF gave Obama the authority for such a move. More recently, Rep. Gregory Meeks and Sen. Ben Cardin led efforts to repeal or narrow the scope of the AUMF during President Joe Biden’s tenure, especially as Biden ordered strikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen and other Iranian-backed groups.
The War Powers Resolution, passed in 1973, requires that any hostilities carried out without a congressional declaration of war must end within 60 days after the president notifies lawmakers of the action. Yet, as the U.S. continues to maintain approximately 1,000 to 1,500 troops in Syria—down from a peak of eight bases in 2014—many lawmakers argue that the time has come for a broader debate about America’s role in the region.
Not everyone in Washington is eager to pull back. Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, urged a robust response and greater cooperation with the new Syrian government. "We have our opportunity, for the first time in a long time, to work with a Syrian government that shares many of our own hopes and aspirations in terms of defeating ISIS," Reed said in an interview with Fox News.
For now, the Biden and Trump administrations’ efforts to walk the line between aggressive counterterrorism and congressional oversight remain under scrutiny. As the families of Sgt. Torres-Tovar and Sgt. Howard mourn their loss, and as the Pentagon weighs its next steps, the question of why American troops remain in Syria—and under what authority—has never felt more urgent.
In the end, the attack has laid bare the complexities of America’s Middle East policy: the shifting alliances, the enduring threat of ISIS, and the ongoing struggle to balance military action with democratic accountability. As Washington debates, the soldiers on the ground continue to carry out their mission, facing dangers that, for many, are half a world away but all too close to home.
