Robert Ford, U. S. ambassador to Syria under President Obama, in an op-ed in the Washington Post, gives his opinion about President Trump’s decision to withdraw our troops from Syria:
Stability, not a deeply embattled Syrian Kurdish autonomous zone, is the vital long-term U.S. interest in northeastern Syria. Turkey can accept with conditions the return of Syrian government forces into the area, as Russia and Iran want. Ankara dislikes the Assad government, but it dislikes more the prospect of an autonomous Kurdish region along its border.
That is so obviously correct that it sparks the inevitable question: why are so many people complaining so bitterly about the announcement? Let’s consider a few reasons.
- If Trump is for it, they’re against it.
- They disagree and think that a Syrian Kurdish autonomous zone is in the U. S. interest. Why?
- They think that the U. S. has short-term interests which temporarily over-rule our long-term interest. What?
- They’re focused on something other than U. S. interests. What?
- They haven’t thought it through.
Have I missed anything? This is genuinely puzzling to me.
At least for those Americans paying attention, I think the Kurds, a relatively unknown culture to most of us, have been overplayed as “the good guys” in the scenario the media has presented. They may be the good guys when their interests temporarily align with yours, or they feel there’s something to gain from you, otherwise, I wouldn’t count on it.
I think they have different interests than you and I do (or at least different priorities). I think the natsec establishment is still committed to the idea of opposing Syria, Russia and Iran in the region is a vital national interest. There is no one to ally with inside Syria except the Kurds, so Turkey’s interest must be sacrificed or ameliorated in other ways. In short, they assume the Northern Watch model will work in Syria.
“So before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; and the tribe against the world. And all of us against the infidel.†~ “The Haj” by Leon Uris
This is as good a starting place as any in trying to understand that part of the world.
And it makes me think about the pallets of American cash GWB sent into Iraq to purchase allies. Dealing here with people who actually believe their faith, whether we like it or not, whether we understand that sort of thing or not.
There is a war within Islam, and the fundamentalists may lose in the long run, but we live in the short run.
I think that the neocons and their sympathizers sincerely oppose leaving Syria. They want to occupy and transform everyone everywhere. They want the Kurds as mercenaries, or something. There may be another small group that thinks we are deserting the Kurds. Then I think a lot of the rest is opposing Trump. Much of that is just opposing Trump on principle, as was done with Obama, but I think some are truly unhappy with the process. It feels like another abrupt decision without a lot of input or effort then announced on Twitter. (Bob seems to think KSA fits well here but I have never met anyone who deployed to the ME who thought the Saudis were a capable fighting force. They buy people to fight for them, preferably the US military. The Turks have to know that, or is the KSA military actually improved? Having KSA there only makes sense I think if KSA is going to pay off Turkey. On the other side, I think Turkey is more likely to stay out of Syria because of Russian and Iranian support for Syria.)
Steve
“They [KSA] buy people to fight for them,…”
Which is one reason why they may be the best option for the Kurds. The US support for the Kurds is subject to the vagaries of our domestic politics. KSA can be a dependable source of funds and arms. The incentive for the Saudis is that the Kurds have an established presence in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran – KSA adversaries.
The Kurds are conducting the most radical socio-political experiment on the planet. They will be target number one for destruction by the violent regimes that control the region. Anarchist communities always are.
I think you’re misinterpeting the Kurds. They aren’t anarchists. They’re tribal.
The Democratic Federation of Northern Syria has a libertarian socialist constitution.
Actually, the Kurds, at least those in Syria, are marxists.
It is worth noting that the Kurds never fought on the side of the US. They stood aside from all fighting, unless the outcome might affect their territorial claims. This was especially obvious regarding ISIS, and especially Raqqa. The Kurds never attacked ISIS in Raqqa, and they ignored them until the very end. Then, they allowed their Arab allies to occupy Raqqa when ISIS withdrew down river. The occupation was peaceful, and ISIS was allowed to go unmolested.
The main problem with the Kurds is Turkey. The Kurds want to partition Iraq, Syria and Turkey and build an ethnically pure Kurdish homeland, which would be a marxist state.
Remember, Turkey is our second oldest ally, joining the anti-fascist UN military alliance when France was still Vichy and allied with Germany. They are also essential to our position in the Middle East, which is untenable if they are against us.
The fake American neocons, like Bill Kristol, are a puzzle. I can only think they are serving Israeli interests, or at least think they do. But Israeli interests sometimes align with ours, and they are best served by a strong Turkish-American alliance.
You could have stopped at dot point 1, Dave. See video below.
In any event, you and Bob identify the issue. The Kurds want some land for the tribe. The rest is BS.
https://mobile.twitter.com/PolishPatriotTM/status/1078821185515913216/video/1
My wife got me a red Make Naples Great Again hat for Christmas. It’s just silliness, but it generates stares. It’s not intended to be provocative, (well) just a play on words. We’ve got a lot of NYers moving in. They are simply batshit crazy. I took a tour through OTB the last couple days. Talk about batshit crazy……..
Kemalist Turkey was our ally. The present Turkey is not Kemalist. What you’re doing is assuming that because monarchist France was an ally republican France will be, too.
You’re reading the press releases and not the actuality. The actuality is that the political leaders are mostly traditional tribal leaders plus a few Turkish communists who’ve taken refuge in northeastern Syria.
The punchline is the last paragraph.
I would extend it to there is something wrong with the NSC process when for two Presidentcies the process recommends the same thing (intervening in the Syrian civil war for purposes other then fighting ISIS) when it led to terrible results (the civil war, ISIS), and shown to have minimal political support?