https://mobile.twitter.com/AynRandPaulRyan/status/1182253758127828992
https://mobile.twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1182118570634960896
https://mobile.twitter.com/ColinKahl/status/1182071789737795584
https://mobile.twitter.com/PreetBharara/status/1182063636728156162
Yeah and more in the civil war. Thatâs not what could happen here and now.
Beyond morality, thereâs the question of a coherent national interest. A U.S. that tried to entrench a rules-based world order for its own benefit (even you believe if it never bought into it and cheated and betrayed whenever it could) is different from a U.S. that doesnât care and that makes foreign policy decisions based on personal benefits to Donald Trump. An amoral psychopath with the interests of the U.S. would not betray the Kurds because itâs destroys our credibility and undermines our interests.
Iâm trying to think of a single example that would show thereâs hope youâre not entirely right and Iâm not sure there is one. We supported Kosovo, which was probably not in our interest in that way, but the contrast wasnât nearly the same.
Jimmy Carter did nothing for East Timor. Obama did nothing for the Uighers. Thereâs not much reason to think any US administration would ultimately do anything but clear the way for Turkey.
The US was pretty consistent in saying there was a partnership only to fight ISIS. Everyone has known this would come and it happened already in Afrin a year ago. And Turkey is a NATO ally. So I donât think like legal/treaty obligation-wise itâs like that.
The Ukraine otoh, I think we had a treaty obligation to help.
On the one hand, fuck you, on the other, fine, send the refugees. Better they be refugees than corpses.
For sure. But I think heâs talking about Syrian refugees in Turkey already. Turkey has by far the most Syrian refugees.
Kosovo seemed to be about trying to make up for Bosnia. Canât blame them for being haunted by that, of course. It also re-founded the Westâs ability to intervene unilaterally with its military, this time on âhumanitarianâ grounds after âanti-communismâ had gone the way of the dodo.
I mean, I donât think youâre trying to argue that Trump is looking for the best practical case option here. If youâre saying thatâs the situation in now that he fucked it all up, then thatâs a consideration⌠But I donât think Turkey was necessarily always going to force the issue, especially not in a way that a competent president wouldnât have been able to handle before they finished their morning coffee. Like, âWeâre staying put, youâre not going to attack us, good day sir,â would have worked, at least for quite some time.
Thatâs the unspeakably frustrating part about this. People ITT are discussing whether other administrations would have ultimately done the same thing because it wasnât in our own national security interest to protect the Kurds, but I think there are two things being missed:
-
The cost to us to keep 500-1,000 troops there as a peacekeeping force (essentially serving as human shields that we know Turkey wonât attack) was virtually non-existent.
-
Keeping the captured ISIS fighters secured is in our direct national security interest, as well as that of our European allies - in fact itâs even more in their interest. To that end, we could have even reduced our forces and called upon Germany, France, the UK, etc to send some of theirs to join us in that role and share it equally.
See, in poker terms, this to me looks like a maniacal LAG trying to run over a bunch of nits deep in a tournament now that the big stack has left early for the day because he couldnât be bothered to play the last two hours. Erdogan is betting that without the US in the middle, nobody in Europe is going to stand up to him. Heâs probably right.
I guess my post wasnât very clear, but never mind. If the question is could an even half competent US President have trivially stopped Turkey from invading like this now, then I agree completely that they could have. I donât think it would have taken the tiniest of threats, to use the parlance of our times thereâs more than enough quid pro quo to go around at the moment.
I was briefly, madly considering how difficult it is to even conceive of a foreign policy acceptable to looney tunes leftist internationalists, and how might it proceed from the now. It probably wonât happen again.
When I said this betrayal was coming it was more that barring fundamental changes the existence of Rojava depended on a certain type of US military presence there. Thatâs just not a situation that can continue indefinitely and the only moves the US has been making have been to appease Turkey and to continue its hard line against Assad. It didnât take a genius to read the runes.
Iâm letting myself off easy there, though. Iâd need to write an essay to properly say why I think this - and, as ever, it would just be my opinion, man - but I do think that pressure would have built over the next 1 - 3 years meaning that any US administration would find itself cutting off ties with Rojava.
I donât know what they are doing at the moment, but the French have been pretty involved.
I agree that Trumpâs policy is bad in its own terms of promoting Americaâs interests. Iâm skeptical of rules-based world orders being anything other than the status quo protecting its own interests. So if someone was an advocate of a rules-based system that promoted something like fairness or justice, then I think theyâd be just as much closed out by current reality as those trying for a moral or progressive foreign policy. I donât know if Iâm disagreeing with you there.
Macron loves to see himself as the peace maker. Turkey has said enough times now that theyâre aiming for a buffer zone on the border, so when their invasion reaches that point I think the expectation is there will be a pause. At which point, if things went well, they would naturally start to consider going further. I think thatâs the point at which Macron and others will start pushing for peace talks and the like.
At the moment his public statements have been of the âI am concernedâ type. His big domestic push this week has been immigration policy, he had his government introduce a debate on it in parliament and, as you might have guessed, the message was that they would toughen up. Thatâs relevant because Turkey has a deal with the EU that non-legal migrants that enter via Turkey can be returned. Turkey is obviously a massive route for immigration into the EU.
Macronâs also still trying to get an Iran deal off the ground, if you believe reports in the last few days. I canât see he has a hope there but I think he thinks he does, and foreign policy is the one area he has done well in in the eyes of French people who arenât his hard core support. Iâd guess throwing Rojava into that mix is hard as Iran and Turkey are allies with respect to Iran selling more oil, but at best indifferent and more likely somewhat hostile when it comes to Syria.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ImIncorrigible/status/1182399350732972033
https://mobile.twitter.com/GeorgeKerevan/status/1182220733960855552
My own Grandad fought with these folks⌠
Welcome to hellâŚ
https://mobile.twitter.com/lindseyhilsum/status/1182658027381501952
ISIS might be free already.
So thereâs shelling/bombing happening in the Kurdish area of Nusaybin, which is a town on the Turkish side of the border. Half the info on the internet says Turkey is doing it and half says the YPG is doing it. Iâm inclined to believe itâs Turkey doing it, but hard to say. I expect itâs widely believed though in non-Kurdish circles in Turkey that the YPG is shelling Kurds in Turkey.