As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!). They must, with Europe and others, watch over...
....the captured ISIS fighters and families. The U.S. has done far more than anyone could have ever expected, including the capture of 100% of the ISIS Caliphate. It is time now for others in the region, some of great wealth, to protect their own territory. THE USA IS GREAT!
Am I wrong or is this possibly the most nonsensical boast he's made so far?
...that is a legitimately frightening thing to read. The President of the United States is not well
So Erdogan promised:
A) to open a sham investigation on a political opponent to be named later deals for Trump Org properties
C) something completely bonkers that will in hindsight seem perfectly obvious
D) all of the above
Continued discussion from Democrat Primary thread. Somewhat topical for this thread.
It could be argued as well that the USA has abandoned soft power in a post 9/11 world far too often and gone with hard power which has further eroded its soft power and hard power. Each time the invincible, undefeatable American military power is resisted or defeated, the respect held by others of its strength is eroded. From a purely military might dickwaving perspective, being defeated or stymied leads to others thinking they can defeat or stonewall America.
The main problem with the current government is that the president doesn't recognize soft power as a thing that exists.
Continued discussion from Democrat Primary thread. Somewhat topical for this thread.
It could be argued as well that the USA has abandoned soft power in a post 9/11 world far too often and gone with hard power which has further eroded its soft power and hard power. Each time the invincible, undefeatable American military power is resisted or defeated, the respect held by others of its strength is eroded. From a purely military might dickwaving perspective, being defeated or stymied leads to others thinking they can defeat or stonewall America.
The main problem with the current government is that the president doesn't recognize soft power as a thing that exists.
That's been a core doctrine of the GOP since Cheney.
He also tweeted that we can just, and I quote "go back and BLAST", in regards to a potential future terrorist situation.
Doubtful, considering that at this point no one in the region has any reason to co-operate with the US given that they mostly just make things worse and can't be trusted to honor their alliances.
This seems like a great time to remind everyone that, as reported by Al Jazeera and many other outlets at the time, Erdogan hosted Putin and Iranian leader Rouhani for a trilateral meeting on... Syria less than a month ago.
Not anything about the WH or its foreign policy debacles, but a wife of a US diplomat did a hit and run, killing a 19 year old in Britain. Fled the country and claiming immunity. Apparently the US has a history of pulling this kind of bullshit with diplomatic immunity.
Not anything about the WH or its foreign policy debacles, but a wife of a US diplomat did a hit and run, killing a 19 year old in Britain. Fled the country and claiming immunity. Apparently the US has a history of pulling this kind of bullshit with diplomatic immunity.
Unfortunately this is kind of normal diplomatic immunity BS. Normally the only recourse is to eject the diplomat in question and label them persona non grata basically. Doing otherwise opens the door to shadier countries making up stuff to try to get their hands on your diplomats. It sucks rocks but it is what it is.
The thing about Trump's decisions is that none of them are the result of well thought out non-interventionism so even what nominally might be considered good in terms of winding down military intervention almost always ends up being done poorly in a way likely to cause long term problems for the USA compared to slightly less poorly thought out withdrawals.
Edit: You can imagine a world in which a president starts and continues a withdrawal from Syria without making it as much of a "feel free to commit atrocities" message to Turkey as possible, but Trump is not that president.
Not anything about the WH or its foreign policy debacles, but a wife of a US diplomat did a hit and run, killing a 19 year old in Britain. Fled the country and claiming immunity. Apparently the US has a history of pulling this kind of bullshit with diplomatic immunity.
Unfortunately this is kind of normal diplomatic immunity BS. Normally the only recourse is to eject the diplomat in question and label them persona non grata basically. Doing otherwise opens the door to shadier countries making up stuff to try to get their hands on your diplomats. It sucks rocks but it is what it is.
Diplomatic immunity does not cover homicide or manslaughter. And it's the UK so you can't even make the flimsy excuse of corrupt courts/ police with no rule of law.
A senior StateDept official says Erdogan “just decided that he wanted to do this on his own,” and were surprised at end of call w/ Trump on Sunday when Turkish pres. announced plans for mil incursion in NE Syria. 1/3
The sr StateDept official said it was possible – or at least hoped – that Mr. Erdogan would step back from an incursion once it became clear that the United States would not provide military support and that the rest of the international community would condemn it. 2/3
“I think [Erdogan] expected that the U.S. would not only provide him military support, but somehow fix it with the rest of the world,” the senior State Department official told reporters on Monday. “We’re fixing nothing.” 3/3
I think that State Department official might be surprised at what Trump will do.
I think that State Department official might be surprised at what Trump will do.
Can you sum up the text as they are not loading
Edrogan expected military and diplomatic support from the U.S. for this move. He's as shocked as anyone that Trump's just abandoning the region and leaving him as the sole aggressor.
WASHINGTON — In a major shift in United States military policy in Syria, the White House said on Sunday that President Trump had given his endorsement for a Turkish military operation that would sweep away American-backed Kurdish forces near the border in Syria.
Administration officials said that Mr. Trump spoke directly with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey on the issue on Sunday. And the officials indicated that the 100 to 150 United States military personnel deployed to that area would be pulled back in advance of any Turkish operation but that they would not be completely withdrawn from Syria.
Many Syria experts criticized the White House decision and cautioned that American abandonment of its Kurdish allies could widen the eight-year Syrian conflict and prompt the Kurds to ally with the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad to combat the much larger and more technologically advanced Turkish army.
The announcement by the White House came as a shock to the S.D.F., Kurdish officials said on Monday. In a statement, the S.D.F. said that it had fulfilled its obligations in the efforts to reduce tensions with the Turks but that the United States had not.
Mr. Erdogan has demanded a “safe zone” for his nation to run 20 miles deep and 300 miles along the Turkish-Syrian border east of the Euphrates. That area, he has said, would be reserved for the return of at least a million Syrian refugees now inside Turkey. Mr. Erdogan has threatened to send a wave of Syrian migrants to Europe instead if the international community does not support the initiative to send them back to Syria.
As recently as the week of the United Nations General Assembly summit in late September, senior American officials were saying there was consensus across the United States government, including Mr. Trump, on ensuring the welfare of the Kurdish forces and warding off Turkey’s persistent desire to attack those forces.
But around that same time, Turkish officials were privately saying that they saw things very differently: They said they perceived a sharp division between Mr. Trump and other American officials — most notably generals in the United States Central Command, which oversees troops in the Middle East. While it was clear the generals wanted to bar Turkey from the safe zone and keep American troops there, Mr. Trump clearly wanted the troops out, they said, and in the end he might get his way.
As recently as the week of the United Nations General Assembly summit in late September, senior American officials were saying there was consensus across the United States government, including Mr. Trump, on ensuring the welfare of the Kurdish forces and warding off Turkey’s persistent desire to attack those forces.
But around that same time, Turkish officials were privately saying that they saw things very differently: They said they perceived a sharp division between Mr. Trump and other American officials — most notably generals in the United States Central Command, which oversees troops in the Middle East. While it was clear the generals wanted to bar Turkey from the safe zone and keep American troops there, Mr. Trump clearly wanted the troops out, they said, and in the end he might get his way.
Mr. Erdogan had traveled to New York with the intention of talking about Syria and the Kurds with Mr. Trump in a private meeting. He attended a group dinner hosted by Mr. Trump, but the two did not have a formal meeting there. Mr. Trump did say at one event that Mr. Erdogan had “become a friend of mine.” The telephone call between the two on Sunday might have been organized as a substitute for the meeting that never took place.
So... that safe zone is guaranteed to not be safe, right?
That was a pretty safe bet for Turkey, especially given his love of strong man dictators.
So Erdogan promised:
A) to open a sham investigation on a political opponent to be named later deals for Trump Org properties
C) something completely bonkers that will in hindsight seem perfectly obvious
D) all of the above
Not anything about the WH or its foreign policy debacles, but a wife of a US diplomat did a hit and run, killing a 19 year old in Britain. Fled the country and claiming immunity. Apparently the US has a history of pulling this kind of bullshit with diplomatic immunity.
Unfortunately this is kind of normal diplomatic immunity BS. Normally the only recourse is to eject the diplomat in question and label them persona non grata basically. Doing otherwise opens the door to shadier countries making up stuff to try to get their hands on your diplomats. It sucks rocks but it is what it is.
Diplomatic immunity does not cover homicide or manslaughter. And it's the UK so you can't even make the flimsy excuse of corrupt courts/ police with no rule of law.
Diplomatic immunity can be waived and the diplomat hung out to dry depending on what they did too.
The thing about Trump's decisions is that none of them are the result of well thought out non-interventionism so even what nominally might be considered good in terms of winding down military intervention almost always ends up being done poorly in a way likely to cause long term problems for the USA compared to slightly less poorly thought out withdrawals.
Edit: You can imagine a world in which a president starts and continues a withdrawal from Syria without making it as much of a "feel free to commit atrocities" message to Turkey as possible, but Trump is not that president.
Part of the issue is that trump seeks to do things as quickly as possible without any understanding of the ramifications of doing so; at one point he wanted all of the US troops out of the middle east in like, 2 weeks. Which is impossible because even if you could pressgang a bunch of civilian transports into moving the troops out in that span of time, you still need to take steps to make sure that nothing was left behind equipment wise (a cell phone for example could have critical intel on it and would be easy to misplace) or whatever camps/fortifications you'd established.
To say nothing of what a mass exodus of troops does to the stability of the region.
Turkey apparently only learned about the decision to withdraw from the readout because of course Trump would be that incompetent.
Middle East Eye reporter: https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu
I don't know how well respected Middle East Eye is but their Wikipedia page suggests they are legit.
"Erdogan told Trump that the US should either work with Turkey to conduct this operation or just get out of the way,” a Turkish official familiar with the conversation told Middle East Eye.
To the authorities in Ankara, it appears that the US president decided after the call to do just that.
However Trump wasn’t interested in any of this, according to the official.
Instead, he asked Erdogan whether the Turkish leader could do anything about the IS foreign fighters currently languishing in Kurdish custody instead of being repatriated and prosecuted by their countries of origin.
Erdogan, the official said, pointed out that Turkey had in recent years deported 6,000 suspected foreign fighters back to their countries, and suggested the two leaders could work together on the issue.
“But he didn’t make any commitment on the issue," the official said.
"Trump also didn’t respond to Erdogan’s demand on the 'safe zone'. He said he would consult with his military advisers.”
The commitment came in the readout.
“Turkey will soon be moving forward with its long-planned operation into northern Syria. The United States Armed Forces will not support or be involved in the operation, and United States forces, having defeated the ISIS territorial 'Caliphate', will no longer be in the immediate area,” the readout said, referring to IS with an alternative acronym.
“Turkey will now be responsible for all ISIS fighters in the area captured over the past two years.”
Trump literally just entrusted Turkey the responsibility for all ISIS fighters in that area without any commitment from Turkey on that issue?
You assume that Trump and the Trumpians give a fuck about the stability of the region.
Also, once Iran gets nukes, then the US is going to be locked out almost entirely anyways.
A lot of analysts suggest we already are. Our carrier fleet has no answer for modern anti-ship missile technology until new systems in the pipeline come online in 2022 at the earliest.
I think that State Department official might be surprised at what Trump will do.
Can you sum up the text as they are not loading
Edrogan expected military and diplomatic support from the U.S. for this move. He's as shocked as anyone that Trump's just abandoning the region and leaving him as the sole aggressor.
This seems like a great time to remind everyone that, as reported by Al Jazeera and many other outlets at the time, Erdogan hosted Putin and Iranian leader Rouhani for a trilateral meeting on... Syria less than a month ago.
Which would explain the other Trump quote saying the only people who are sad to see this are Russia and China, due to them wanting to see the US in another quagmire (and not getting paid for it!)
Yeah, he is going to openly cheer the slaughter and justify it.
Edit: I assume no one has told Trump the PKK are socialist yet.
This is a point of contention among practitioners and future practioners. There is no easy answer, because there is/was interaction between the YPG/YPJ and the PKK, and Turkey is a NATO ally. If we choose Rojava over Turkey we are telling a NATO ally to kick rocks over an organization with ties to another group which is actively engaged in an insurgency against said NATO ally and which we have declared a terrorist organization.
Of course we also are, even if not from the establishment policy maker and practitioner perspective, betraying the Kurds again if we don't.
The central question is: Do you think NATO is important?
Yeah, he is going to openly cheer the slaughter and justify it.
Edit: I assume no one has told Trump the PKK are socialist yet.
This is a point of contention among practitioners and future practioners. There is no easy answer, because there is/was interaction between the YPG/YPJ and the PKK, and Turkey is a NATO ally. If we choose Rojava over Turkey we are telling a NATO ally to kick rocks over an organization with ties to another group which is actively engaged in an insurgency against said NATO ally and which we have declared a terrorist organization.
Of course we also are, even if not from the establishment policy maker and practitioner perspective, betraying the Kurds again if we don't.
The central question is: Do you think NATO is important?
I think this is something of a false binary - we’re (hypothetically) capable of walking grey lines, providing support to allies who aren’t fully aligned with each other (and may be diametrically opposed in some fashions) while working towards mutual solutions. I’d suggest it’s a necessary capability to be effective on the international stage.
As regards NATO - do you think this is a decision made with any basis in maintaining the meaningful existence of NATO? Or that the rest of NATO is fully aligned with Erdogan’s interests on this matter?
Yeah, he is going to openly cheer the slaughter and justify it.
Edit: I assume no one has told Trump the PKK are socialist yet.
This is a point of contention among practitioners and future practioners. There is no easy answer, because there is/was interaction between the YPG/YPJ and the PKK, and Turkey is a NATO ally. If we choose Rojava over Turkey we are telling a NATO ally to kick rocks over an organization with ties to another group which is actively engaged in an insurgency against said NATO ally and which we have declared a terrorist organization.
Of course we also are, even if not from the establishment policy maker and practitioner perspective, betraying the Kurds again if we don't.
The central question is: Do you think NATO is important?
I think this is something of a false binary - we’re (hypothetically) capable of walking grey lines, providing support to allies who aren’t fully aligned with each other (and may be diametrically opposed in some fashions) while working towards mutual solutions. I’d suggest it’s a necessary capability to be effective on the international stage.
As regards NATO - do you think this is a decision made with any basis in maintaining the meaningful existence of NATO? Or that the rest of NATO is fully aligned with Erdogan’s interests on this matter?
Of course we can "walk grey lines", we have been doing it by working with the SDF. But that isn't without some consequence. In this case, however, it isn't necessarily that they aren't fully aligned or are only opposed in some fashions: the organization we are working with has ties with another organization we have declared terrorists and who are engaged in an active insurgency against our NATO ally.
To the first question: I would have to guess not, or at least not for the sake of NATO itself given the administration's position on NATO in the past (which aligns with a non-establishment policy framework, Realists are discussing whether they have really gotten what they wanted with this admin).
To the second question: I see two outcomes to this.
1. We (NATO) decide Turkey's interest in Syria (security) does not align with the rest of NATO despite their current internal military conflict, and the Realist argument is made for them.
2. We decide that the conceit of NATO is more important than a Kurdish state.
From my personal perspective (I probably fall strongly in the Constructivist school), I support the Kurds and I think we should. But I recognize the reality of our NATO membership and the importance of Turkey as an ally to help check the naval aspirations of Russia.
Yeah, he is going to openly cheer the slaughter and justify it.
Edit: I assume no one has told Trump the PKK are socialist yet.
This is a point of contention among practitioners and future practioners. There is no easy answer, because there is/was interaction between the YPG/YPJ and the PKK, and Turkey is a NATO ally. If we choose Rojava over Turkey we are telling a NATO ally to kick rocks over an organization with ties to another group which is actively engaged in an insurgency against said NATO ally and which we have declared a terrorist organization.
Of course we also are, even if not from the establishment policy maker and practitioner perspective, betraying the Kurds again if we don't.
The central question is: Do you think NATO is important?
I think this is something of a false binary - we’re (hypothetically) capable of walking grey lines, providing support to allies who aren’t fully aligned with each other (and may be diametrically opposed in some fashions) while working towards mutual solutions. I’d suggest it’s a necessary capability to be effective on the international stage.
As regards NATO - do you think this is a decision made with any basis in maintaining the meaningful existence of NATO? Or that the rest of NATO is fully aligned with Erdogan’s interests on this matter?
The Obama administration tried to find this balance and largely failed. Throughout his second term, the US alliance with Turkey gradually deteriorated due to US support for the SDF in the ISIS war, and this arguably pushed Turkey closer to Russia, as demonstrated by the more recent S-400 air defense system purchase which caused so much consternation in Washington. Ankara is unwilling to yield on the issue of the Syrian Kurds/the PYD, and attempts to appease them by looking the other way during their assaults west of the Euphrates didn't satisfy them.
I think the tweet at the beginning of this quote tree is largely correct, but I think the circumstances of the ISIS war made the US-SDF alliance understandable despite that. I'm also unhappy at the news that the US has apparently given Turkey free reign over the north. As implied by that NYT article, if Turkey follows through with their invasion, we are going to see mass resettlement of Syrian Arab refugees along the northern border, in Kurdish and Arab towns alike. This is what happened in Afrin, which is now under the control of rapacious Turkish-backed militias who pillage the region and oppress the Kurdish residents who remain. Turkey gets to weaken an enemy, reduce its refugee problem, and have influence via proxy militias in a neighboring country.
I wonder whether we'll see the YPG make concessions to the Syrian government now, in exchange for support against Turkey. Damascus can't be happy with Turkey continually gobbling up Syrian territory.
I don’t know that the entirety of the deterioration was due to the SDF, the transition of Turkey from at least a nominal liberal democracy aspiring to EU membership to an outright dictatorship that threw most of the military and diplomatic people we had historically been working with in the country into prison might have had something to do with it as well.
Didn’t Edrogan imprison the financier behind the Trump Hotel in Turkey? Did that ever get resolved or are we seeing another example of Trumps susceptibility to extortion?
Yeah, he is going to openly cheer the slaughter and justify it.
Edit: I assume no one has told Trump the PKK are socialist yet.
This is a point of contention among practitioners and future practioners. There is no easy answer, because there is/was interaction between the YPG/YPJ and the PKK, and Turkey is a NATO ally. If we choose Rojava over Turkey we are telling a NATO ally to kick rocks over an organization with ties to another group which is actively engaged in an insurgency against said NATO ally and which we have declared a terrorist organization.
Of course we also are, even if not from the establishment policy maker and practitioner perspective, betraying the Kurds again if we don't.
The central question is: Do you think NATO is important?
I think this is something of a false binary - we’re (hypothetically) capable of walking grey lines, providing support to allies who aren’t fully aligned with each other (and may be diametrically opposed in some fashions) while working towards mutual solutions. I’d suggest it’s a necessary capability to be effective on the international stage.
As regards NATO - do you think this is a decision made with any basis in maintaining the meaningful existence of NATO? Or that the rest of NATO is fully aligned with Erdogan’s interests on this matter?
Of course we can "walk grey lines", we have been doing it by working with the SDF. But that isn't without some consequence. In this case, however, it isn't necessarily that they aren't fully aligned or are only opposed in some fashions: the organization we are working with has ties with another organization we have declared terrorists and who are engaged in an active insurgency against our NATO ally.
To the first question: I would have to guess not, or at least not for the sake of NATO itself given the administration's position on NATO in the past (which aligns with a non-establishment policy framework, Realists are discussing whether they have really gotten what they wanted with this admin).
To the second question: I see two outcomes to this.
1. We (NATO) decide Turkey's interest in Syria (security) does not align with the rest of NATO despite their current internal military conflict, and the Realist argument is made for them.
2. We decide that the conceit of NATO is more important than a Kurdish state.
From my personal perspective (I probably fall strongly in the Constructivist school), I support the Kurds and I think we should. But I recognize the reality of our NATO membership and the importance of Turkey as an ally to help check the naval aspirations of Russia.
I feel like this is where a functioning State Department could thread the needle and maintain support for Rojova while mediating any security concerns Turkey has with their new neighbor.
The Department of Defense made clear to Turkey - as did the President - that we do not endorse a Turkish operation in Northern Syria. The U.S. Armed Forces will not support, or be involved in any such operation.
In conversations between the Department and the Turkish military we have consistently stressed that coordination and cooperation were the best path toward security in the area. Secretary Esper and Chairman Milley reiterated to their respective Turkish counterparts that unilateral action creates risks for Turkey. As the President has stated, Turkey would be responsible, along with European nations and others, for thousands of ISIS fighters who had been captured and defeated in the campaign lead by the United States.
We will work with our other NATO allies and Coalition partners to reiterate to Turkey the possible destabilizing consequences of potential actions to Turkey, the region, and beyond.
Posts
...that is a legitimately frightening thing to read. The President of the United States is not well
Maybe he used to have a casino there?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah oh boy this is sad
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
The entire tweet thread could probably be reduced to "fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you, you backstabbing bastards"
Trump doesn’t care about socialism. To him it’s just a word that he uses in his crowd therapy sessions to get a response. That’s it.
He’d sell his kids (that he doesn’t want to fuck anyway) to Lenin’s corpse if it got him another Trump tower.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
At this point I think any of the US' allies in the syrian/iraqi theatre are entitled to say whatever they want about the US.
Not just trump, but the whole dang country.
I wonder how many U.S. soldiers died fighting alongside the Kurds?
A) to open a sham investigation on a political opponent to be named later
C) something completely bonkers that will in hindsight seem perfectly obvious
D) all of the above
The main problem with the current government is that the president doesn't recognize soft power as a thing that exists.
That's been a core doctrine of the GOP since Cheney.
Doubtful, considering that at this point no one in the region has any reason to co-operate with the US given that they mostly just make things worse and can't be trusted to honor their alliances.
Not anything about the WH or its foreign policy debacles, but a wife of a US diplomat did a hit and run, killing a 19 year old in Britain. Fled the country and claiming immunity. Apparently the US has a history of pulling this kind of bullshit with diplomatic immunity.
Unfortunately this is kind of normal diplomatic immunity BS. Normally the only recourse is to eject the diplomat in question and label them persona non grata basically. Doing otherwise opens the door to shadier countries making up stuff to try to get their hands on your diplomats. It sucks rocks but it is what it is.
Edit: You can imagine a world in which a president starts and continues a withdrawal from Syria without making it as much of a "feel free to commit atrocities" message to Turkey as possible, but Trump is not that president.
Diplomatic immunity does not cover homicide or manslaughter. And it's the UK so you can't even make the flimsy excuse of corrupt courts/ police with no rule of law.
NYT reporter:
Edit:
I think that State Department official might be surprised at what Trump will do.
Can you sum up the text as they are not loading
edit: thanks!
Edrogan expected military and diplomatic support from the U.S. for this move. He's as shocked as anyone that Trump's just abandoning the region and leaving him as the sole aggressor.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/us/politics/trump-turkey-syria.html So... that safe zone is guaranteed to not be safe, right?
That was a pretty safe bet for Turkey, especially given his love of strong man dictators.
E) Dirt on another made up Biden scandal.
Diplomatic immunity can be waived and the diplomat hung out to dry depending on what they did too.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Part of the issue is that trump seeks to do things as quickly as possible without any understanding of the ramifications of doing so; at one point he wanted all of the US troops out of the middle east in like, 2 weeks. Which is impossible because even if you could pressgang a bunch of civilian transports into moving the troops out in that span of time, you still need to take steps to make sure that nothing was left behind equipment wise (a cell phone for example could have critical intel on it and would be easy to misplace) or whatever camps/fortifications you'd established.
To say nothing of what a mass exodus of troops does to the stability of the region.
Also, once Iran gets nukes, then the US is going to be locked out almost entirely anyways.
Middle East Eye reporter:
https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu
I don't know how well respected Middle East Eye is but their Wikipedia page suggests they are legit.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-syria-turkey-kurds-erdogan-trump Trump literally just entrusted Turkey the responsibility for all ISIS fighters in that area without any commitment from Turkey on that issue?
A lot of analysts suggest we already are. Our carrier fleet has no answer for modern anti-ship missile technology until new systems in the pipeline come online in 2022 at the earliest.
I mean, they really should've known.
I mean, he really should've known
Which would explain the other Trump quote saying the only people who are sad to see this are Russia and China, due to them wanting to see the US in another quagmire (and not getting paid for it!)
This is a point of contention among practitioners and future practioners. There is no easy answer, because there is/was interaction between the YPG/YPJ and the PKK, and Turkey is a NATO ally. If we choose Rojava over Turkey we are telling a NATO ally to kick rocks over an organization with ties to another group which is actively engaged in an insurgency against said NATO ally and which we have declared a terrorist organization.
Of course we also are, even if not from the establishment policy maker and practitioner perspective, betraying the Kurds again if we don't.
The central question is: Do you think NATO is important?
I think this is something of a false binary - we’re (hypothetically) capable of walking grey lines, providing support to allies who aren’t fully aligned with each other (and may be diametrically opposed in some fashions) while working towards mutual solutions. I’d suggest it’s a necessary capability to be effective on the international stage.
As regards NATO - do you think this is a decision made with any basis in maintaining the meaningful existence of NATO? Or that the rest of NATO is fully aligned with Erdogan’s interests on this matter?
Of course we can "walk grey lines", we have been doing it by working with the SDF. But that isn't without some consequence. In this case, however, it isn't necessarily that they aren't fully aligned or are only opposed in some fashions: the organization we are working with has ties with another organization we have declared terrorists and who are engaged in an active insurgency against our NATO ally.
To the first question: I would have to guess not, or at least not for the sake of NATO itself given the administration's position on NATO in the past (which aligns with a non-establishment policy framework, Realists are discussing whether they have really gotten what they wanted with this admin).
To the second question: I see two outcomes to this.
1. We (NATO) decide Turkey's interest in Syria (security) does not align with the rest of NATO despite their current internal military conflict, and the Realist argument is made for them.
2. We decide that the conceit of NATO is more important than a Kurdish state.
From my personal perspective (I probably fall strongly in the Constructivist school), I support the Kurds and I think we should. But I recognize the reality of our NATO membership and the importance of Turkey as an ally to help check the naval aspirations of Russia.
I think the tweet at the beginning of this quote tree is largely correct, but I think the circumstances of the ISIS war made the US-SDF alliance understandable despite that. I'm also unhappy at the news that the US has apparently given Turkey free reign over the north. As implied by that NYT article, if Turkey follows through with their invasion, we are going to see mass resettlement of Syrian Arab refugees along the northern border, in Kurdish and Arab towns alike. This is what happened in Afrin, which is now under the control of rapacious Turkish-backed militias who pillage the region and oppress the Kurdish residents who remain. Turkey gets to weaken an enemy, reduce its refugee problem, and have influence via proxy militias in a neighboring country.
I wonder whether we'll see the YPG make concessions to the Syrian government now, in exchange for support against Turkey. Damascus can't be happy with Turkey continually gobbling up Syrian territory.
MWO: Adamski
I feel like this is where a functioning State Department could thread the needle and maintain support for Rojova while mediating any security concerns Turkey has with their new neighbor.
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/1982590/statement-attributable-to-assistant-to-the-secretary-of-defense-for-public-affa/#.XZuLZvtYD1g.twitter