SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kamu Yönetimi ve Politikaları Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2

Military Cooperation With Non-State Armed Actors: A Regional Assessment Based on the USCENTCOM–SDF Example

DEVLET DIŞI SİLAHLI AKTÖRLERLE ASKERÎ İŞBİRLİĞİ: USCENTCOM–SDG ÖRNEĞİ ÜZERİNDEN BİR BÖLGESEL DEĞERLENDİRME

Nazım Fatsa(KUTAHYA DUMLUPINAR UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-9680-617X
Pages
244–261
Publication Date
2026-07-03
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

While historically limited in terms of internal organization, “Does the USCENTCOM-SDF relationship have the potential to increase stability in the region in the long term, or does it have the potential to deepen fragility?” The study will apply descriptive and historical research methods, conducting document-based analysis using qualitative research methods.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to examine the design of regional security cooperation between the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in terms of de facto state and non-state military cooperation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research will examine military, intelligence, and operational dynamics, as well as regional implications and the new regional power balance resulting from the cooperation.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:While historically limited in terms of internal organization, “Does the USCENTCOM-SDF relationship have the potential to increase stability in the region in the long term, or does it have the potential to deepen fragility?” The study will apply descriptive and historical research methods, conducting document-based analysis using qualitative research methods.
🔬Design:Derleme
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ABD · USCENTCOM · SDG

Abstract

This study aims to examine the design of regional security cooperation between the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in terms of de facto state and non-state military cooperation. The research will examine military, intelligence, and operational dynamics, as well as regional implications and the new regional power balance resulting from the cooperation. While historically limited in terms of internal organization, “Does the USCENTCOM-SDF relationship have the potential to increase stability in the region in the long term, or does it have the potential to deepen fragility?” The study will apply descriptive and historical research methods, conducting document-based analysis using qualitative research methods.

Özet

Bu çalışma Amerika Birleşik Devletleri Merkez Komutanlığı (USCENTCOM) ve Suriye Demokratik Güçleri (SDG) arasındaki bölgesel güvenlik işbirliği tasarımını defakto bir devlet ve devlet dışı askeri işbirliği anlamında incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Askerî, istihbarî ve operasyonel dinamiklerin yanında bölgesel yansımalarının ve işbirliği neticesinde ortaya çıkan yeni bölgesel güç dengesinin de irdeleneceği araştırma, tarihsel olarak örgütlenmelerin dahili itibariyle sınırlılık gözetmekle birlikte, “USCENTCOM–SDG ilişkisi uzun vadede bölgede istikrarı artırma mı yoksa kırılganlığı derinleştirme potansiyeli mi taşımaktadır?” Sorusuna cevap arayacaktır. Çalışmada betimsel ve tarihsel araştırma türü uygulanarak, belgeye dayalı analiz yapılacak olup nitel araştırma yöntemi kullanılacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Fatsa, N. (2026). Military Cooperation With Non-State Armed Actors: A Regional Assessment Based on the USCENTCOM–SDF Example. Kamu Yönetimi ve Politikaları Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 244–261. https://doi.org/10.58658/kaypod.1842074

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (57)

  1. Aftandilian, G. (2018). U.S. Military Involvement in Syria. Pennsylvania: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College.
  2. Aksu, M., & Dere, A. (2021). İnsani Gelişmişlik Seviyesi İle Terör Arasındaki İlişki: İspanya Örneği. Assam Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi, 8(18), 1-18.
  3. Balanche, F. (2017, 8 2). The End of the CIA Program in Syria. www.foreignaffairs.com: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2017-08-02/end-cia-program-syria# adresinden alınmıştır
  4. Balcı, A. & Keser, A. (2023). Enerji Güvenliğinde Türkiye'nin Rolü ve Yenilenebilir Enerji Kaynakları, Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 16(44), 200-233.
  5. Balcı, A., Keser, A., & Kocadaş, A. K. (2023). Siyasetin Kutsal Yüzü: Faşizm ve Totaliter Anlayışlar Üzerinden Bir Değerlendirme, Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 20(3),899-909.
  6. Bayramoğlu, Z. (2020). Suriye İç Savaşı Özelinde PKK/YPG’nin The Wall Street Journal ve The Guardian Gazetelerinin Haberlerinde Çerçevelenmesi. T. (. Yerlikaya içinde, Terörün Medyatikleştirilmesi PKK Örneği (s. 59-87). İstanbul: SETA.
  7. Bellal, A., Giacca, G., & Casey-Maslen, S. (2011). International law and armed non-state actors in Afghanistan. International Review of the Red Cross, 47-79.
  8. Bianchi, A. (2016). Non-State Actors and International Law. New York: Routledge.
  9. Bloomberg HT. (2021, 3 15). Erdoğan: Batı, Türkiye'nin Suriye'deki iç savaşı bitirme çabasına yardım etmeli. https://www.bloomberght.com: https://www.bloomberght.com/erdogan-bati-turkiyenin-suriyedeki-ic-savasi-bitirme-cabasina-yardim-etmeli-2276517?page=3 adresinden alınmıştır
  10. Bulos, N., Hennigan, W., & Bennett, B. (2025, 12 5). In Syria, militias armed by the Pentagon fight those armed by the CIA. www.latimes.com: https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html adresinden alınmıştır
  11. Clément, M., Geis, A., & Pfeifer, H. (2021). Recognising armed non-state actors: risks and opportunities for conflict transformation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  12. Cordesman, A. H. (2017). Stability Operations in Syria T he Need for a Revolution in Civil-Military Affairs. Washington: Army University Press.
  13. Crosston, M. D. (2014). Cold War and Ayatollah Residues: Syria as a Chessboard for Russia, Iran, and the United States. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 94-111.
  14. Çıkmaz, E., ve Aksu, M. (2019). Suriyeli Mülteciler ve Güvenlik Sorunsalı: Kilis İli Örneği. 13. Kamu Yönetimi Sempozyumu (KAYSEM 13) Tam Metin Bildiri Kitabı. (Ed. Ali Fuat Gökçe, Uğur Ülger, Seda Kulu ve Muhammed Aksu) (s.893-903). Nobel Yayıncılık
  15. Darıcılı, A. B. (2023). İstihbarat Sırları. İstanbul: Destek Yayınları.
  16. Dent, E. (2020). US Policy and The Resurgence of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Washington D.C.: Middle East Institute.
  17. Derin, M. (2025a). Soğuk Savaş Bağlamında Cumhuriyetçi Güven Partisi’nin Türkiye Siyasetindeki Konumu ve Uluslararası Güvenlik Dinamikleri. Journal of History School, 18 (78), 4609-4632.
  18. Derin, M. (2025b). “Kuzey Makedonya’nın Avrupa Birliği’ne Katılım Sürecinde Bulgaristan’ın Politik Etkileri”, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 70, 257-267
  19. Esty, J. (2017). Kissinger’s Strategy in the Iraqi Kurdish Rebellion of 1972-75: False Start or Foundation of AmericanKurdish Partnership? Yale: Yale University EliScholar – A Digital Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale.
  20. Fawzy, M. (2015). Iran and Hizbullah: A Very Special Relationship. Annals of the Faculty of Arts, Ain Shams University, 453-506.
  21. Gökçe, A. F., ve Aksu, M. (2020). Otoriter Ülkelerde Devlet Terörü: Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti Üzerine Bir Değerlendirme. 3. Uluslararası İnsan Çalışmaları Kongresi Tam Metin Bildiri Kitabı. 192–206.
  22. Gökçe, A. F. ve Aksu, M. (2025) Redefining Terror and Terrorism Concepts, Asian Journal of Social Science and Management Technology, 7(2), 52-61.
  23. Günyel, C. (2022). Soğuk Savaş Sonrası NATO’nun Orta Doğu Politikası ve Bölgeye Olan Etkisi. VII. Uluslararası Orta Doğu Sempozyumu: Orta Doğu’da Siyasal Ve Toplumsal İstikrar (s. 216-221). İstanbul: İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi.
  24. Hinnebusch, R. (2020). Proxy Wars and Spheres of Influence in Post-Isis Syria. Barcelona: European Institute of the Mediterranean (IEMed).
  25. Humud, C. E. (2022). Syria and U.S. Policy. Washıngton: Congressional Research Center.
  26. Humud, C. E., & Blanchard, C. M. (2020). Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response. Washington: Congressional Research Service.
  27. International Committee of the Red Cross. (1949). THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org.
  28. ISW. (2015, 7 2). Map Room. https://understandingwar.org: https://understandingwar.org/analysis/map-room/ adresinden alınmıştır
  29. Jones, S. G. (2020). Moscow's War in Syria. Washington: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
  30. Knights, M., & Wilgenburg, W. v. (2021). Accidental Allies. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc.
  31. Kofman, M., & Rojansky, M. (2018). What Kind of Victory for Russia in Syria? Kansas: Army University Press.
  32. Lambeth, B. S. (2021). Airpower in the War against ISIS. Arlington: Mitchell Institute.
  33. Maguire, D. (2020). A Perfect Proxy? The United States–Syrian Democratic Forces Partnership. Virginia: Virginia Tech School of Public and International Affairs in Association with Virginia Tech Publishing.
  34. Mamasoliev, S. (2024). The United States in Syria. Why it still matters? Periodica Journal of Modern Philosophy, Social Sciences and Humanities, 47-53. McInnis, K. J., & McGarry, B. W. (2022). United States Central Command. Washington: Congressional Research Service. Michnik, W., & Plakoudas, S. (2023). Proxy Warfare on the Cheap: The Partnership between the USA and the Syrian Kurds (Kurdish Societies, Politics, and International Relations). Pennsylvania: Lexington Books. Morrissey, J. (2017). The Long War: CENTCOM, Grand Strategy, and Global Security (Geographies of Justice and Social Transformation). Georgia: University of Georgia Press. Mumford, A. (2013). Proxy Warfare. Polity: Cambridge. Ryu, S. (2023). Managing US Involvement in Syria. Washington: Marcellus Policy Analysis. Salehyan, I. (2009). The Delegation of War to Rebel Organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1-23.
  35. Salık, N. (2023). Between Constructive Engagement and Overt Confrontation: U.S. Foreign Policy towards Syria in the post-Cold War Era (1989-2009). Ankara: ODTÜ (Yayınlanmış Doktora Tezi).
  36. Schelling, T. (1966). Arms and Influence. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  37. Schmitt, M. N. (2014). Legitimacy versus Legality Redux: Arming the Syrian Rebels. Journal of national security law & policy., 139-159.
  38. Self, A., & Ferris, J. (2016). Dead Men Tell No Lies: Using Killed-in-Action (KIA) Data to Expose the PKK’s Regional Shell Game. Defence Against Terrorism, 9-35.
  39. Siccardi, F. (2021). How Syria Changed Turkey’s Foreign Policy. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
  40. SOHR. (2025, 3 20). 14th anniversary of Syrian Revolution | Nearly 657,000 persons killed since the onset of the revolution in March 2011. https://www.syriahr.com: https://www.syriahr.com/en/358243/ adresinden alınmıştır
  41. Souleimanov, E. A., & Dzutsati, V. (2018). Russia’s Syria War: A Strategic Trap? Middle East Policy, 42-50.
  42. Stewart, J. G. (2003). Towards a single definition of armed conflict in international humanitarian law: A critique of internationalized armed conflict. International Review of the Red Cross, 313-350. Suriye Gündemi. (2018, 11 6). ABD’nin Suriye’deki Askeri Varlığı ve Lojistik Hattı. https://www.suriyegundemi.com: https://www.suriyegundemi.com/abd-nin-suriye-deki-askeri-varligi-ve-lojistik-hatti adresinden alınmıştır
  43. U.S. Central Command. (2025, 12 3). Mission. https://www.centcom.mil: https://www.centcom.mil/ABOUT- US/COMMAND-PRIORITIES/ adresinden alınmıştır
  44. U.S. Department of Defence. (2025). Casualty Status. Washington: U.S. Department of Defence.
  45. United States Congress. (2019, 12 20). Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020. Washington: U.S. Government Publishing Office.
  46. Votel, B. J., & Keravuori, E. R. (2018). The By-With-Through Operational Approach. Washington: National Defense University Press.
  47. Wastnidge, E. (2017). Iran and Syria: An Enduring Axis. Middle East Policy, 148-159.
  48. Yanarışık, O. (2021). Terörizm ve Medya Çerçevelemesi. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, 241-256.
  49. Yeşiltaş, M., & Duran, B. (2018). Ortadoğuda Devlet Dışı Silahlı Aktörler Terör Örgütleri Milisler Vekil Güçler. Ankara: SETA.
  50. Yetkin, M. (2024). Meraklısı için Ortadoğu Kitabı. İstanbul: Doğan Kitap.
  51. Yükselen, H. (2020). Turkey and Russia in Syria. Ankara: SETA.
  52. Clément, M., Geis, A., & Pfeifer, H. (2021). Recognising armed non-state actors: risks and opportunities for conflict transformation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  53. Fawzy, M. (2015). Iran and Hizbullah: A Very Special Relationship. Annals of the Faculty of Arts, Ain Shams University, 453-506.
  54. Hinnebusch, R. (2020). Proxy Wars and Spheres of Influence in Post-Isis Syria. Barcelona: European Institute of the Mediterranean (IEMed).
  55. Humud, C. E., & Blanchard, C. M. (2020). Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response. Washington: Congressional Research Service.
  56. Lambeth, B. S. (2021). Airpower in the War against ISIS. Arlington: Mitchell Institute.
  57. Mamasoliev, S. (2024). The United States in Syria. Why it still matters? Periodica Journal of Modern Philosophy, Social Sciences and Humanities, 47-53. McInnis, K. J., & McGarry, B. W. (2022). United States Central Command. Washington: Congressional Research Service. Michnik, W., & Plakoudas, S. (2023). Proxy Warfare on the Cheap: The Partnership between the USA and the Syrian Kurds (Kurdish Societies, Politics, and International Relations). Pennsylvania: Lexington Books. Morrissey, J. (2017). The Long War: CENTCOM, Grand Strategy, and Global Security (Geographies of Justice and Social Transformation). Georgia: University of Georgia Press. Mumford, A. (2013). Proxy Warfare. Polity: Cambridge. Ryu, S. (2023). Managing US Involvement in Syria. Washington: Marcellus Policy Analysis. Salehyan, I. (2009). The Delegation of War to Rebel Organizations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1-23.