"NATO Can Save the Kurds and Make the Turks Happy" Topic

"Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does geopolitics. So it was predictable that, following the snap decision by President Donald Trump to pull U.S. forces out of Syria, the void in the north of the country was immediately filled by Russian troops supporting the regime of the war criminal Bashar al-Assad.

The humanitarian costs of the Turkish invasion are rising rapidly, with hundreds of Kurds dead and nearly 300,000 civilians – including 70,000 children – on the move. The chaos is allowing Islamic State fighters to escape jail, joining the thousands in hiding around the Syria-Iran border and looking for an opportunity to regroup. America's former Kurdish allies have been forced to turn to the hated Assad regime for their very survival…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I highly respect Admiral Stavridis and his views on the region. My only concern is that now that Russia has moved in, we are too late and have handed Putin another victory. When it was said we would get "tired of winning" I thought it was referring to the USA, not Russia. Oh well, my bad.

Nothing at all stopping you from going over there and defending the Kurds yourself. Asking others to put their lives on the line so that Putin doesn't get a rhetorical victory seems like a major ask. How does 'ongoing commitment of troops to a civil war we shouldn't have been involved with' constitute a victory?

I feel for the Kurds, and abhor the death toll, but the Turks were screwing them long before we were even a nation. There are many other areas where I regret what's going on, but I don't see anyone demanding US intervention there either.

Do Hong Kong citizens not also deserve our support? How about the Uhygurs who are quite literally forced into concentration camps to be re-educated? What about the chaos that is Sub-Saharan Africa? Chile and Spain are now flashpoints with death tolls and there is the ongoing insurgency in the Philippines or the ugly war in Yemen. Why aren't we clamoring for US intervention in all of these places? Are any of those civilians less worthy than the Kurds of US support?

It's really easy to sit back and armchair quarterback, but quite another to demand someone else's kid risk their life on a day to day basis when there is no strategic goal or policy. Thats true no matter what color the current president's hair is. It's our job as an electorate to demand a strategic policy and vote when there isn't one, but we're too busy hating one another over the latest meaningless scandal. If the US populace isn't serious about governance, why are we surprised when our government isn't?

It's telling that Turkey finds more common ground with Russia and Syria with their recent ceasefire agreement than with the US. Turkey even bought S-400 air defense systems from Russia, thereby throwing away its investment in the F-35.

Probably had something to do with Erdogan's belief that the US was behind the abortive coup a few years ago, but it's not exactly a big secret that the US (and Western Europe) have been trying to reshape the ME either through hard (Iraq and Libya) or soft (Arab Spring) power. It was failed Arab Spring that precipitated the bloody civil war we've seen in Syria.

Toppling dictators and regime change should never have been America's foreign policy objectives. Realpolitik should underpin our foreign policy, not Idealpolitik.

28mm Fanatik – I agree with you on that.

TGerritsen – You may misunderstand why we are in Syria. The civil war there gave rise to Deash (ISIS) and we needed beat them back before they expanded across all of the region, specifically Iraq which we destabilized in the first place. Rather than commit massive amounts of our own frontline troops, we convinced the Kurds to be our proxies. This enabled Deash to be contained without large amounts of US casualties. Now, if we have to go back in back Deash is able to take advantage of the confusion in the region again, who would you suggest we ally with? My complaint is not that we pulled our troops out, it is with the timing, the manner, and with the obvious lack of planning. Our current president, rather than protecting our allies and negotiating a solution with Turkey, pulled our forces out despite the advice of the experts in both defense and diplomacy. Now if Deash are able to reinvigorate to once more become a threat to the region and our national interests (oil & Israel) we will have to commit more of our troops. (and did I mention three of my four children are potentially those troops? 2 Marines and 1 Army) We are weakened in the region with this move and Russia is now more influential and that is Realpolitik. As for Hong Kong, the Uhygurs, and the other regions; I do believe that we need to take action. That doesn't mean committing troops in each region but by using our economic and diplomatic might to influence for what is right because that is one of things that made our country great. We were strongest when we were setting the tone for the rest of the world to follow. Unfortunately, we have squandered that good will and perceived moral high ground. I want our government to have a coherent and stable foreign policy that leads the world and builds strong allegiances in order to promote our security because IT IS MY KIDS that will risk their lives when their is no strategic goal. (I used upper case since I don't know how to underline or italicize in this format) It is also my neighbors and my friends (I live outside of US Marine Corp Base Camp Lejeune) I do vote and have never missed a federal election since I was eighteen. I believe in a strong strategic diplomatic footprint built upon strong alliances, I believe in fiscal responsibility in my government, I believe that all forms of corruption in government are wrong, and I believe in the rule of law as laid down in the Constitution (which I swore to defend years ago against all enemies both foreign and domestic). As for hating one another; there are not many people I can say I hate, less than I can count on one hand probably. There are many people I disagree with, but not hate. I will always listen to a reasoned argument and am actually open to new thoughts from opposing view points when they are presented rationally and respectfully. I will say I find it very hard to respect those who are blatantly hypocritical (and I am not saying this applies to you to be clear) and have no respect for those who will ignore or subvert our constitution.

Rant Over

Private Matter + 1.

Amicalement
Armand

The civil war there gave rise to Deash (ISIS)

Actually ISIS was a byproduct of the US invasion of Iraq which replaced a relatively stable regime under an autocratic dictator (Saddam Hussein) with a weak "democratic" coalition government. ISIS was initially formed out of disillusioned officers from Saddam's "defeated" army and took advantage of the instability in Iraq – after the US declared victory prematurely and withdrew its forces – as well as the chaos resulting from the civil war in Syria (which was also a byproduct of western meddling as noted in my earlier post), to carve out its "caliphate" spanning both countries. Through time ISIS ranks were swelled by volunteers all over the world.

The US had little choice but to come back and clean up its own mess, enlisting the aid of whomever is willing to help out as boots-on-the-ground. The Kurds being one of them, along with some of our NATO allies with their token contributions.

The regime change in Iraq is arguably the greatest strategic blunder of the 21st Century thus far, for it not only gave rise to instability and ISIS but also in one fell swoop removed the main counterweight (other than Israel) to Iran, which created a power vacuum Tehran was only too happy to fill. In fact, the only thing missing was a nice ribbon on top.

You're welcome, ayatollah.

28mm Fanatic is correct. ISIS was not created because of the Syria civil war. ISIS was formed because the minority Sunni population in Iraq was essentially shut out of the new Iraqi government. They took advantage of the Syrian civil war and headquartered their caliphate there.

To simple say the rise of ISIS is due to the Syrian civil war is factually incorrect.

We have no business helping to create a Kurdistan. The Kurds need to work out their issues with their neighbors not us.
I don't see the importance of Syria to us. It has never been our friend in the last 50 years. It has always been more aligned with Russia.
With our oil production at its current level, the Middle East is now of secondary importance. We need to focus on the Pacific & our real enemy which is China.

The US has the biggest economy in the world, with a worldwide reach. There is hardly a country on the globe that the US economy doesn't touch. The Middle East is still a major oil producer that the world relies on. It doesn't matter whether the US is oil independent; most of the rest of the world is not. So instability in the Middle East has very real economic concerns for the rest of the world & by default the United States. That's why it is in our best interests to promote stability in the Middle East.

Damon.

Define what "promote stability" means to you. The devil is in the details.

Private Matter, I don't disagree with much of what you say, and I didn't mean to imply that you hate anyone. Though I do agree with Fanatik that ISIS was caused due to our involvement in Iraq and not because if the Syrian Civil War. They simply took advantage of the latter.

I am embarrassed that we pulled out on the Kurds. However I was embarrassed when we asked the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and did nothing when he gassed them. I was embarrassed when we pulled up stakes in Vietnam and Cambodia. In modern times we haven't always been the greatest ally. However, in each case it was dubious why we were there in the first place. I'm tired of young Americans being killed for short sided political decisions with little thought given to the consequences.

I hate Assad. He's a war criminal. I want him gone.

However, I'm a realist. I don't want one American youth to die because of some stupid intervention without a clear goal. I'm very pro-American military power and also served myself. However, I believe that we should not ever, for any reason, go into a conflict where lives are put at risk without clear objectives and a clear set of exit contingencies. I also believe strongly that the US military is a spear to be use quickly and decisively, and not an occupying force. If we ever plan to occupy a place, I believe we should have a separate force for that trained in proper peacekeeping rather than war fighting as they are opposite goals.

I wish we hadn't done that to the Kurds. ISIS is a disgusting group that is abhorrent on all levels. I think Erdogan and Assad both need to go- I just don't believe a single American life is worth those goals. This is supposed to have been what the UN was created for and as much as I don't trust that body, I would rather that this set of issues be handled with an international approach rather than putting the US in the position of being the bad guy once again- which may ultimately threaten more US lives down the road.

As an old cold warrior, I would prefer going back to covert methods- where we have plausible deniability, and often more success.

The problem with using the military and sending our kids to achieve political goals isn't so much the lack of "clear" objectives. Rather, it's the failure to properly evaluate and assess the costs and risks, as well as whether such goals and objectives are realistic, achievable and will not create more problems and headaches than they're intended to solve.

For instance, the invasion of Iraq met its clear political objectives of deposing Saddam and setting up a new government for Iraqi self-rule, but it failed to anticipate problems like the costs of long-term nation-building and other unforeseen developments like the rise of ISIS.

One can certainly argue that it's impossible to "predict the future" this way, but at least we can hope that these painful lessons will give our politicians pause when they consider sending our kids on ill-advised military adventures abroad in the future. We can only hope, anyway.

Define what "promote stability" means to you. The devil is in the details.

Let's start with "no shooting wars, whether civil or international."