Trump Implementing the Palin. doctrin

gcomeau wrote:
The Kurds were the closest thing to a group that aligned with US long term interests that existed in that entire region.

Generally because they were in bad terms with nearly everybody else. It's the kind of ally that cling to you just because everyone else wanted to kick him. Kurds were trying to promote their Kurdistan idea for literally decades; they never were able even to agree how to actually create it.

And?

Both of you might be speaking of the Iraqi Kurds. Those in Syria have embraced a much more aggressively terrorist approach. Those groups in Syria are bad news. There have NOT been long term US allies. Conflating the two groups, then basing long term foreign policy commitments on that dangerous conflation is stupid.

Let Asad get his country to a state of peace. The Kurds in Syria seem to have lived under Asad peacefully for quite some time. Same with the Christians. The sooner that happens, the fewer people have to die.

Dilandu wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
The Kurds were the closest thing to a group that aligned with US long term interests that existed in that entire region.

Generally because they were in bad terms with nearly everybody else. It's the kind of ally that cling to you just because everyone else wanted to kick him. Kurds were trying to promote their Kurdistan idea for literally decades; they never were able even to agree how to actually create it.

PeterZ wrote:The US is using other means to establish a safe zone for those people. Aligning with a group that do not have compatible long term interests is stupid. Such an alliance means that we go to war with whoever attacks these people. Whoever attacks people with a world view that is antithetical to long term US interests. That. IS. Stupid!

Dilandu's point about saving lives has merit.

Daryl wrote:Breathtaking in its pragmatic action that totally avoids any ethical commitment, or in simple terms doing the right thing, just because it is the right thing. Abandoning the moral high ground may have unintended consequences later on.

PeterZ wrote:Abandoning the PKK linked PYD is an acceptable choice. We aligned when our interests converged and separated when those interests diverged. Same thing happened in Afganistan. The PYD is a Marxist group aligned with PKK terrorists. These folks are not candidates for long term alliances, so committing to go to war should those folks suffer an attack is foolish.

Keeping those oil fields and the revenue they represent from potential enemies is wise.

Bottom line is I agree with Dilandu. Let Assad consolidate power and stabilize the region and allow the Russians to spend their blood and treasure, if they want.

No one, AFAICT, has been suggesting the US swear eternal alliance with the Kurds. Removing US troops, in and of itself, was expected to happen at some point. What wasn't expected was how the US decided to leave - which was an outright betrayal (leave with no warning after convincing the Kurds to dismantle their defences facing Turkey and previously preventing them from exploring an accord with Syria and Russia, and then make an agreement with Turkey which amounts to unconditional surrender by the Kurds without even xonsilting them).

And it looks like Trump isn't even pulling troops out, since the administration is now talking about leeping troops to control the oilfields and possibly take some of their revenue and Trump is talking about making deals with US companies to extract the oil (apparently Syria has no say in this as far as he's concerned,yay for neocolonialism I guess)

The E wrote:And?

And basically they were allies only because they have no one else even remotely inclined toward their ideas. They were of little use.

Dilandu wrote:And basically they were allies only because they have no one else even remotely inclined toward their ideas. They were of little use.

Oh, so because they were only useful in fighting ISIS, it is permissible or understandable that they got stabbed in the back for bullshit reasons?

The E wrote:
Oh, so because they were only useful in fighting ISIS, it is permissible or understandable that they got stabbed in the back for bullshit reasons?

Well, if they did not start their "usual Kurdish thing" (i.e. rebelling, claiming "we need our national state" and then starting to quarrel with each other without actually doing anything useful), then Syrian government troops would do the same thing more efficiently...

PeterZ wrote:Abandoning the PKK linked PYD is an acceptable choice. We aligned when our interests converged and separated when those interests diverged. Same thing happened in Afganistan. The PYD is a Marxist group aligned with PKK terrorists. These folks are not candidates for long term alliances, so committing to go to war should those folks suffer an attack is foolish.

Keeping those oil fields and the revenue they represent from potential enemies is wise.

Bottom line is I agree with Dilandu. Let Assad consolidate power and stabilize the region and allow the Russians to spend their blood and treasure, if they want.

Daryl wrote:Breathtaking in its pragmatic action that totally avoids any ethical commitment, or in simple terms doing the right thing, just because it is the right thing. Abandoning the moral high ground may have unintended consequences later on.

PeterZ wrote:The US is using other means to establish a safe zone for those people. Aligning with a group that do not have compatible long term interests is stupid. Such an alliance means that we go to war with whoever attacks these people. Whoever attacks people with a world view that is antithetical to long term US interests. That. IS. Stupid!

Dilandu's point about saving lives has merit.

]

Eyal wrote:
No one, AFAICT, has been suggesting the US swear eternal alliance with the Kurds. Removing US troops, in and of itself, was expected to happen at some point. What wasn't expected was how the US decided to leave - which was an outright betrayal (leave with no warning after convincing the Kurds to dismantle their defences facing Turkey and previously preventing them from exploring an accord with Syria and Russia, and then make an agreement with Turkey which amounts to unconditional surrender by the Kurds without even xonsilting them).

And it looks like Trump isn't even pulling troops out, since the administration is now talking about leeping troops to control the oilfields and possibly take some of their revenue and Trump is talking about making deals with US companies to extract the oil (apparently Syria has no say in this as far as he's concerned,yay for neocolonialism I guess)

That's my point. The transactional componnet of the agreement was met. The US agreed to help these Kurds fight ISIS to defend their homes and they would in return accept that intel help. Both sides benefited.

Once ISIS was defeated, the congruence of interests dissipated. Now, the US is negotiating with a NATO ally, Turkey, to mitigate that ally's preferred security solution. That solution would devastate the Syrian Kurds. The same Syrian Kurds who have been defended by Asad as they engage in terrorist activities against the Turks.

Again, allying beyond the the mutually beneficial anti ISIS activities is stupid. Doing so would betray other, longer standing alliances. So, scream all you want about these Syrian Kurds, committing only to the transaction of fighting ISIS is consistent with long term American interests. Committing to more than that is not.

AAMOF, Dilandu is right in that fewer lives will be lost by supporting Asad. That alone has the benefit of practical, if not moral superiority.

PeterZ wrote:That's my point. The transactional componnet of the agreement was met. The US agreed to help these Kurds fight ISIS to defend their homes and they would in return accept that intel help. Both sides benefited.

Once ISIS was defeated, the congruence of interests dissipated. Now, the US is negotiating with a NATO ally, Turkey, to mitigate that ally's preferred security solution. That solution would devastate the Syrian Kurds. The same Syrian Kurds who have been defended by Asad as they engage in terrorist activities against the Turks.

And I'm going to call a stop to this line of utter nonsense right there.

1. The "transaction" you are speaking of did not exist. It is a fantasy you are concocting to try to justify Trump's betrayal after the fact. The deal wasn't that the US would temporarily hold off the Turks for the length of the ISIS engagement only and then immediately bail at the tail end of the operation with their end held up. If that had been the deal they wouldn't have had the Kurds DISMANTLE THEIR TURKISH FACING DEFENSES. And the Kurds sure as hell wouldn't have gone aong with doing it.

2. You just absurdly tried to classify the entire Kurdish ethnic group as terrorists. The Turks are ETHNICALLY CLEANSING THE ENTIRE REGION and you are trying to justify it based on the fact that some terrorists happen to be Kurd and therefore all Kurds have to pay the penalty.

3. You are still skipping over the "DIDN'T WARN THE KURDS" part. There is ZERO way to spin that as anything but the most despicable of backstabs.

Again, allying beyond the the mutually beneficial anti ISIS activities is stupid.

(4. The anti ISIS activities were not then nor are they now over)

Doing so would betray other, longer standing alliances.

Utter BS. The US, Kurds and Turks had a standing security agreement that was safeguarding the Turks from any threat inside the Kurdish controlled zone in Syria. And it was working according to the US troops on the ground. The Turks aren't going in there out of a need for self defense, they're going in there to purge the region of Kurds so they can replace them with an Arab population they would rather have on their border. They sent roaming bands of Jihadist militas in there to commit atrocities to drive the entire population out.

And Trump signed off on it.

AAMOF, Dilandu is right in that fewer lives will be lost by supporting Asad. That alone has the benefit of practical, if not moral superiority.

"Come on guys, we're going to lose a LOT of lives fighting this Hitler guy and his Axis buddies, wouldn't it be easier to just let the dictators have their way and kill the lower number of people they're going to butcher and then let everyone live under authoritarian rule? I mean, it's the practical if not moral thing to do."

Yeah, your support for Trump is becoming more and more understandable.

IRRC, one of the reasons the West refused to get involved in the Syrian civil war until ISIS showed up was that there didn't seem to be a side which could be trusted not to wipe out the opposing ethnic or religious group after they won.

So I'm going to be skeptical of the idea that we should happily let Assad seize control of the country again.