Turkey and the Kurds Hold the Key to Defeating the Islamic State

[KG1]

The Northern Syrian Kurds will have to form an alliance with Damascus now. It looks like they have welcomed a call from the Russians to begin a dialogue with Damascus and they want Moscow to play a role as a supporter and guarantor.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...call-for-dialogue-with-damascus-idUSKBN1WO1I8

 

[T.Lex]

All politics are local. Turkey doesn't care what people in the US or Europe think, they care that bombs keep going off and their soldiers keep getting killed by Kurdish terrorists.

Imagine how receptive the US government and public would be to Europe or China trying to pressure us into not taking action against Mexican terrorists who cross the border and murder US servicepeople in ambush attacks.

Substitute Saudi Arabia for Europe or China and I think we have an answer.

But more seriously, Turkey - for a combination of legitimate and "racist" reasons - classified Kurds as terrorists with a very broad brush. Not all of their organizations are, and by some definitions, they may not be at all anymore.

Regardless, the question isn't whether Turkey's military advancement is defensible, it is whether the US policy is just. I'm not sure we've exhausted all of the diplomatic options to avoid this, or even whether there's any will to undertake them.

 

[T.Lex]

The Northern Syrian Kurds will have to form an alliance with Damascus now. It looks like they have welcomed a call from the Russians to begin a dialogue with Damascus and they want Moscow to play a role as a supporter and guarantor.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...call-for-dialogue-with-damascus-idUSKBN1WO1I8

That's the way it works. We have been a disloyal ally, so they'll look elsewhere.

Plus, with Russia having greater influence with Turkey, it makes complete sense. Not sure it'll get very far, but it makes sense.

 

[KG1]

That's the way it works. We have been a disloyal ally, so they'll look elsewhere.

Plus, with Russia having greater influence with Turkey, it makes complete sense. Not sure it'll get very far, but it makes sense.

Well the thing is that our allegiance with the Kurds was based on a mutual threat to take out an ISIS caliphate. The question is should that allegiance carry over to a totally separate issue concerning the Kurds long held conflict with Damascus for their autonomy and their decades old conflict with the Turks?

 

[T.Lex]

Well the thing is that our allegiance with the Kurds was based on a mutual threat to take out an ISIS caliphate. The question is should that allegiance carry over to the Kurds long held conflict with Damascus for their autonomy and their decades old conflict with the Turks?

Totally agree, although I'd go a bit further and say that our alliance with/use of the Kurds extends further back at least a generation.

At a philosophical level, how do we interact with a group of people who want freedom from objective oppression? Even if they want the freedom to move in a direction different than a representative democracy. Or, to put it another way, if the real goal was eliminating Daesh, there were other potential allies....

 

[ghuns]

...Sums up the shocking hypocrisy of people who have been vehemently anti-war for 15 years, but suddenly flipped to being frothing warmongers the instant Orange Man started giving them what they wanted.

And the hypocrisy of those who were all about regime change and imposing USian democracy around the globe who are now screaming to "bring our boys home" cause Orange Man said so.

The thing is, they're not really coming home. They're just being moved around a bit. They will most likely stay somewhere hot and sandy until their deployments are up. Given the small number who remained in northern Syria, and the fact that ISIS was wiped out, leaving them in northern Syria didn't pose a great risk. As we can see by Turkey's actions, that very small number of US troops was all that was standing between them and the Kurds/SDF, and the thousands of ISIS prisoners they had locked up. This was no secret. Turkey was known to snipe, lob mortars, even shell SDF bases in northern Syria. All that was required to stop this was to send a dozen Marines to that base and it would immediately stop. Turkey may not be a good ally, but they ain't stupid.

Trump announced we'd be pulling out of Syria over a year ago. My son in law was there at the time. My daughter was all excited like he'd be leaving the next day. When she was able to talk to him several days after the announcement, he just laughed. He said he'd be there until his deployment was up, and he was. A friend whose son is also a Marine had the same experience on Sunday. She thought he'd be boarding a plane in no time headed back to lovely scenic 29 Palms. She was partly right. Head boarded a plane, but it was a very short flight. He couldn't say where he was, only that the climate and terrain wasn't much different than where he'd been and he'd be home later this year, when his deployment is scheduled to end.

Right or wrong, we deploy our military all over the world constantly. Often in places where the amount of good they can do is negligible and the level of risk is high. The amount of good they were doing in northern Syria, with minimal manpower, and minimal casualties was anything but negligible. Why the sudden urgency to move them aside and let Turkey do what they want?

 

[KG1]

Totally agree, although I'd go a bit further and say that our alliance with/use of the Kurds extends further back at least a generation.

At a philosophical level, how do we interact with a group of people who want freedom from objective oppression? Even if they want the freedom to move in a direction different than a representative democracy. Or, to put it another way, if the real goal was eliminating Daesh, there were other potential allies....

You are correct in stating that our alliance with the Kurds did'nt start with the task of taking out an ISIS caliphate but in all cases it was a mutual alliance for a common goal. My point is that I don't know if the Kurds were expecting that alliance to carry over to supporting their other goals or should they?

Can an equation be made for our support with the Kurds against Saddam Hussain's regime and supporting the Kurds against Erdogan's regime? Should we be involved in the latter given that we were involved in the former?

 

[T.Lex]

You are correct in stating that our alliance with the Kurds did'nt start with the task of taking out an ISIS caliphate but in all cases it was a mutual alliance for a common goal. My point is that I don't know if the Kurds were expecting that alliance to carry over to supporting their other goals or should they?

Can an equation be made for our support with the Kurds against Saddam Hussain's regime and supporting the Kurds against Erdogan's regime? Should we be involved in the latter given that we were involved in the former?

Great questions.

I've been reluctant to criticize Trump (too much) over this. These are REALLY difficult problems. Ones that he's not really familiar with. He has no personal analogs to make these decisions.

Part of the problem is that his stylistic... foibles... don't really translate well into foreign policy.

 

[drillsgt]

Great questions.

I've been reluctant to criticize Trump (too much) over this. These are REALLY difficult problems. Ones that he's not really familiar with. He has no personal analogs to make these decisions.

Part of the problem is that his stylistic... foibles... don't really translate well into foreign policy.

Neither the Bush's or Obama did all that great either I don't envy anyone trying to navigate that area.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You are correct in stating that our alliance with the Kurds did'nt start with the task of taking out an ISIS caliphate but in all cases it was a mutual alliance for a common goal. My point is that I don't know if the Kurds were expecting that alliance to carry over to supporting their other goals or should they?

Can an equation be made for our support with the Kurds against Saddam Hussain's regime and supporting the Kurds against Erdogan's regime? Should we be involved in the latter given that we were involved in the former?

How about this. After Israel, who has been our most valuable ally in the Middle East, and show your work please.

 

[T.Lex]

Some additional perspective from the BTDT department.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-syria-invasion-special-forces-soldier-kurds

“The Kurds are as close to Western thinking in the Middle East as anyone,” said the longtime member of Special Forces. “It’s a shame. We are just watching. It’s horrible.”

 

[ghuns]

Some additional perspective from the BTDT department.

https://www.foxnews.com/world/turkey-syria-invasion-special-forces-soldier-kurds

In some ways, they're even more western thinking than us. Almost half of their soldiers are women.

 

[KG1]

How about this. After Israel, who has been our most valuable ally in the Middle East, and show your work please.

So what you're saying is that the Kurds should garner the same level of support as Israel in all matters? Sure the Kurds have been a valuable asset. I'm not denying that.

I guess some feel that we should we continue to protect that asset in the region the same as Israel. Our fight isn't with Turkey though. At least not yet anyway.

 

[T.Lex]

So what you're saying is that the Kurds should garner the same level of support as Israel in all matters? Sure the Kurds have been a valuable asset. I'm not denying that.

I guess some feel that we should we continue to protect that asset in the region the same as Israel. Our fight isn't with Turkey though. At least not yet anyway.

So, there's a bit of process of elimination here, right?

(Oh, and to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you. The merits of partnering with a nation in the past may not merit continued partnership. Another example is Qatar.)

Our relationship with Turkey has only gotten worse since Erdogan consolidated power and has moved closer to Putin. The NATO thing has looked like a bad idea now for quite awhile, but no one really knows what to do with it. Right, wrong, or indifferent, we just aren't really allied with Turkey in any meaningful way. Our bases there are more like Gitmo than Ramstein.

Syria? Just no. We can't align ourselves with Assad/Russia.

Iran? Again no. Really no way to go there.

Iraq? Will, we are sorta allied with them, but no one is really noticing in the US, but Iraq has its own problems.

Anyone else come to mind?

The Kurds remain a viable group, with more alignment than anyone else in the region.

IF we make the policy decision to exert any influence there at all, just about the only conduit for that is the Kurds.

So that brings up the issue of just abandoning the entire area. That's basically the same as allowing Russia to draw the lines and make the deals to establish the political reality there for at least a generation. And potentially grow deeper into that area.

(Or, if Russia is getting played by Turkey, then Turkey may end up with the territory.)

I'm not sure that's a good result, either.

 

[KG1]

So, there's a bit of process of elimination here, right?

(Oh, and to be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you. The merits of partnering with a nation in the past may not merit continued partnership. Another example is Qatar.)

Our relationship with Turkey has only gotten worse since Erdogan consolidated power and has moved closer to Putin. The NATO thing has looked like a bad idea now for quite awhile, but no one really knows what to do with it. Right, wrong, or indifferent, we just aren't really allied with Turkey in any meaningful way. Our bases there are more like Gitmo than Ramstein.

Syria? Just no. We can't align ourselves with Assad/Russia.

Iran? Again no. Really no way to go there.

Iraq? Will, we are sorta allied with them, but no one is really noticing in the US, but Iraq has its own problems.

Anyone else come to mind?

The Kurds remain a viable group, with more alignment than anyone else in the region.

IF we make the policy decision to exert any influence there at all, just about the only conduit for that is the Kurds.

So that brings up the issue of just abandoning the entire area. That's basically the same as allowing Russia to draw the lines and make the deals to establish the political reality there for at least a generation. And potentially grow deeper into that area.

(Or, if Russia is getting played by Turkey, then Turkey may end up with the territory.)

I'm not sure that's a good result, either.

So should we join with the Kurds in staking out a claim in the region as a buffer to Russian influence to protect our interests? (whatever those are) Maybe. I guess we've done those sorts of things before but that would garner further engagements in the region that Trump has been promising to withdraw from.

Another thing I want to make clear is that I'm in no way supportive of Turkey in their current iteration under the Erdogan regime when he guided the helm away from a more secular society to what appears to be shifting towards an authoritarian Islamic one.

I think that's when Turkey shifted away from being a reliable NATO partner.

 

[T.Lex]

So should we join with the Kurds in staking out a claim in the region as a buffer to Russian influence to protect our interests? (whatever those are) Maybe. I guess we've done those sorts of things before but that would garner further engagements in the region that Trump has been promising to withdraw from.

[Edited out the boring stuff we agree on.]

It seems to me that the current status - with the US/Kurds controlling the buffer region with Daesh - probably started to feel too much like the exercise of sovereignty. The longer Erdogan just left that in place, the harder it would be to argue against an organized Kurdistan. Really, it sounds like that was the practical result of what was happening.

That put Trump in the position of either having to go all-in (or nearly so) on an independent Kurdistan, or letting Turkey take over the buffer zone. Which, if Turkey was a real ally with us, they could do so in a way that still allowed the Kurds some autonomy. I just don't see that happening, though.

If Trump has obtained some sort of assurances behind the scenes that Erdogan will live and let live with Kurds (but not Daesh), then this could be a really big step forward. If those assurances are absent, then this will continue to be a bloody mess.

 

[KG1]

[Edited out the boring stuff we agree on.]

It seems to me that the current status - with the US/Kurds controlling the buffer region with Daesh - probably started to feel too much like the exercise of sovereignty. The longer Erdogan just left that in place, the harder it would be to argue against an organized Kurdistan. Really, it sounds like that was the practical result of what was happening.

That put Trump in the position of either having to go all-in (or nearly so) on an independent Kurdistan, or letting Turkey take over the buffer zone. Which, if Turkey was a real ally with us, they could do so in a way that still allowed the Kurds some autonomy. I just don't see that happening, though.

If Trump has obtained some sort of assurances behind the scenes that Erdogan will live and let live with Kurds (but not Daesh), then this could be a really big step forward. If those assurances are absent, then this will continue to be a bloody mess.

About the only assurance that I've seen reported is from Erdogan assuring that they will take control of Daesh prisoners which IS in our interest. When Trump got that assurance he found an out from further conflicts which is part of his stated goals that he is trying to fulfill.

As to the other part I don't know about live and let live. The Turks just flat out don't want the Kurds operating and establishing a foothold so close to their border and Trump wanted to steer clear of that dispute hence the reason to withdraw our token number of troops from the border region before an offensive began.

 

[KLB]

[Edited out the boring stuff we agree on.]

It seems to me that the current status - with the US/Kurds controlling the buffer region with Daesh - probably started to feel too much like the exercise of sovereignty. The longer Erdogan just left that in place, the harder it would be to argue against an organized Kurdistan. Really, it sounds like that was the practical result of what was happening.

That put Trump in the position of either having to go all-in (or nearly so) on an independent Kurdistan, or letting Turkey take over the buffer zone. Which, if Turkey was a real ally with us, they could do so in a way that still allowed the Kurds some autonomy. I just don't see that happening, though.

If Trump has obtained some sort of assurances behind the scenes that Erdogan will live and let live with Kurds (but not Daesh), then this could be a really big step forward. If those assurances are absent, then this will continue to be a bloody mess.

This is the big problem. We have to either support them or not. They should have given them a chunk of Iraq when we were rebuilding them. Of course that would have angered Turkey and Syria, so we didn't. We've just continued to use them with no intention of actually supporting them.

 

[KG1]

The Northern Syrian Kurds will have to form an alliance with Damascus now. It looks like they have welcomed a call from the Russians to begin a dialogue with Damascus and they want Moscow to play a role as a supporter and guarantor.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...call-for-dialogue-with-damascus-idUSKBN1WO1I8

Well so much for this. It appears that the Kurdish SDF is on their own.

On Thursday, the Syrian government said that it would not ally with the SDF, referring to them as traitors.

 

[T.Lex]

The Kurds have never had very many friends, and that doesn't appear to have changed.