The US has no interests in Syria.
None.
We expend blood and treasure for nothing.
In a way yes, but being involved in operations does keep the troops trained and techniques used to fight these sorts of battles updated.
I think we have learned a lot over the last few decades related to combating terrorists in these environments.
I do not think it would be wise to pull everyone out, and then leave it like Obama did.
That sure didn’t work out so swell.
We also have contacts in the region, and I think it’s best to keep those active.
Being there helps us categorize the players. We develop network workups and can monitor people globally.
I honestly don’t think this is a zero gain effort.
Syria.
Iran has or is in the process of annexing a route through Iraq, Syria, and along the Golan into Lebanon (with its ally Hezbollah which runs Lebanon) to achieve access to the Med. Iran is stationing some battle-hardened troops 10km from Golan border; this is pre-positioning for an invasion and take over of the Golan - in conjunction with a coordinated attack by Hamas to the south.
The US State Dept (which historically hates Israel) has just announced the sale of 12 billion in sophisticated arms (helicopters, comm gear, night vision, etc) to Lebanon which is to say arms for Hezbollah and perhaps Iranian al-Qods troops.
As long as US troops are in Iraq and Syria, they present a check on Iran’s top military general, Senior General Soleimani ‘s plans. Withdrawing them means Iran has a green light to invade Israel (a standing goal of the mullahs that run Iran). So yes, we do have an interest in Syria: preventing a major regional war in the ME.