Such is the nature of the international arena. The Kurds did not align with the United States out of the goodness of their hearts, but because such alliance was a means to securing their position in northern Syria. (The Kurds having been stateless far longer than the other, more famous people - the Palestinians - but only more recently an object of American sympathies.) So, too, the United States did not align with the Kurds not out of any concern for Kurdish interests, but out of the need to address the problem of the Islamic State as well as complicate the problems confronting the Syrian government.The effects were positive - the Islamic State was defeated for what it was worth. (More cathartic than strategically useful.) They were indifferent - the Syrian government still won its civil war. (Thus perpetuating the status quo in the Middle East.) They were negative. (They drove a NATO ally into the arms of America's Iranian - and thereby to some degree Russian - adversaries.)In World War I, Italy and Japan were US allies. In World War II, they were US enemies. By the logic of the questioner, should we have not sided with our "friends?"The situation changes and so the priorities change. Nations that fail to adapt to such changed circumstances, friends or not, do not survive. Sad, but there it is.
night: You are entirely missing the point. The Kurds have been our allies for years, literally the one's most helpful to us in the Middle East. Turning our backs on them so quickly tells the world, that if you are an ally of the U. S., if you fight and die beside Americans, you will be stabbed in the back very soon. That makes the world more dangerous for America, as people will not want to work with us, as we are unreliable. Of course, Trump is unreliable, and makes haphazard decisions. Trump says he is the brightest and smartest, and know more than all the generals. Of course, these are the worlds of a megalomaniac, not the words of a wise person, who knows what he is doing. Trump simply has made the world a more dangerous place for Americans.
First, as I already mentioned, I am no fan of President Trump. So that is not really a factor in my analysis. He either followed a deliberate strategy or he was simply responding to the political imperatives of his campaign promises.That latter point being by no means a sin on its own terms. However, in general, it is my view that campaign promises are best kept ONLY when they are prudent, The fact that they are such a promise lends them no specific weight.However, as far as domestic politics is concerned and constitutional propriety - the latter of much greater importance - it is worth noting, as I did, that Congress had not bothered to authorize this action. To be sure, I am a Hamiltonian to my chromosomes and favor "energy in the executive." However, that said, if Congress were all THAT serious about its shedding of tears over being disloyal to allies, it could vote to authorize the action. As it is, the international arena is not the realm of moral principle, but to send Americans quite potentially to die for moral wars absent strategic purpose - see also Afghanistan - is patently immoral.In terms of the international dimension. Here too, you are in error. First, we left South Vietnam - and Laos and Cambodia - to their fates in far less fortuitous circumstances. The world did not teeter and fall. See also the US abandonment of the UK, France and Israel during the Suez War of 1956. That latter helping to cause the fall of Prime Minister Eden's government.So there is historical precedent, to say no more. It is in the nature of things.CONT.
In any case, the main point is that nations do not ally out of friendship and loyalty but out of convenience, common strategic interests and simple necessity. Were the United States to return to ally with the Kurds tomorrow, absent viable alternatives, they would ally again with the U. S.Warily to be sure, but wariness is the prudent state of mind in international affairs. The Kurds did not ally with the US out of love and loyalty. Rather because it served there strategic purposes. That underlying logic - brutal though it may be - will not change. Suffice to add that the international arena is not a morality play - whatever the media and preening Members of Congress might tell you.
Type-o:This sentence - "Rather because it served there strategic purposes."Should read - "Rather because it served THEIR strategic purposes."
night: To relegate keeping faith with an ally who fought and died with us, does a disservice to those in our military, and to our ally. It endangers both our allies and us. And though Hamilton wanted a strong executive, and he got it, he also envisioned serious limitations on the executive. Other founding fathers saw even greater limitations on the executive. You speak of a moral war. it does seem there is a good degree of morality in a war that fights terrorists, who want to kill us and others, who readily kill women and children to intimidate, and who basically force women into rape. Of course there have been examples of American duplicity in the past, where we have abandoned allies. That doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean we should just accept it when it happens. You gave the example of the Suez War of 1945. In that situation, the UK, France and Israel were invading Egypt. That is very different from abandoning an ally that just fought your enemy, along side you.
My argument with a war fought only for moral purposes and without strategic objectives is a war without end. No matter the nobility of the goal, such a war costs billions of dollars and thousands of lives to no end. Thereby assuring defeat.It is a pity that the international arena is not a place where moral principles are operative. Regrettable perhaps, but not less the grim reality. As John Quincy Adams pointed out, Americans are friends of liberty everywhere but are custodians only of their own.The preservation of such liberty being contingent on the capacity of a country to define and secure its interests. Indeed, the problem with morality as you define is that its "abstract perfection is its practical defect."Indeed, when Wilson at Versailles in 1919 sought to create a moral international order he created the perfect conditions for a global economic depression and another world war. Wilson forgot, with all his sermonizing, that power has its limits and we must accept the world as we find it and not as we would like it to be.(Just as an aside - After World War I, with the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the United States had been offered a League of Nations mandate of Kurdistan which would have given the Kurds a homeland - albeit as effectively a colony. None too surprising the United States wanted no part of this. Thus, the first time we abandoned the Kurds.)Righteous outrage is not a substitute for rational cold strategic calculation. That may do a "disservice to our military" but it may save the lives and limbs of our military and advance the national interest over the long term. That is, to say the least, more important.
Turkey is a Russian rival and us ally, they don't and Assad don't want Turkey in Syrian territory
Let’s not forget. It was American blood and treasure along with the Kurds that paved the way to the Kurdish autonomy in Iraq. if the Kurds have forgotten then we don’t need them as allies.
White queen: You are assuming, that if Obama had done nothing, ISIS would have been a teddy bear. ISIS was going to take over as much land and people as they could get away with. And the reason there were rebel groups in Syria in the first place, was because of the brutality of the Assad's regime.
Well what did Obama's policies result in? Explain all the good they did. Fyi ISIS was in Iraq, they convinced the rebel anti-Assad groups in Syria that Obama had trained, funded and armed to join them in an invasion of Iraq, that's why they had so many us weapons and why Toyota was the official battle wagon of ISIS.
white: Perhaps you have not noticed. Trump is president, not Obama. Trump is the one who had bailed, leaving our Kurdish allies to die. And leaving the 10,000 ISIS prisoners means to escape. You can talk all you want about Obama, to deflect away from the terrible decision Trump made, but in fact, Trump really screwed the pooch here. Setting terrorist free, and screwing our ally, who fought and died beside us. Making America much less safe.
Obama is the one who tried and failed to overthrow Assad. The reason ISIS was bombing NATO countries and the reason for the refugee crisis which predates trump. Obama is the one who recruited the Kurds with promises he could not keep. Trump didn't set terrorists free the Kurds did of they did, also the Kurds are terrorists. Obama messed up arming & supporting Kurdish terrorists considering Turkey is an ally. I dont know about making America great but if you Americans could stop policing the world that would be great because we here in Europe are tired of paying the price all so you can keep oil a dollar a barrel and so American billionaires can have more money.
White: If the Kurds has not been fighting with us, we would have had two choices. 1. Fight ISIS with many thousands of American ground troops, taking thousands of American lives. OR 2. Let a very large, well organized terrorist group have their own country. This terrorist group, ISIS, would be attacking America right now, and would have been doing so for some time now. And the Kurds are not terrorists. Some Kurds are terrorists. They want to rule themselves, not be ruled by Turkey. And it was the British and the French, following world war one, that set up this problem. So, fighting ISIS was about stopping terrorists who wanted to kill Americans, among others. Being as you didn't want Obama working with the Kurds, which did you chose for America? 1. Thousands of American war dead? OR 2. ISIS terrorists blowing up American civilians?
I'm afraid it was the Russians, iranians and Assad's Syrian army that fought ISIS. The US did mostly ineffectual drone bombings while mostly attacking Assad. The Kurds did very little except set up terror training camps on the Turkish boarder to launch attacks against Turkish civilians.
White: Garbage. The Kurds did a whole lot of fighting against ISIS. They lost around 10,000 soldiers in the process. Giving inaccurate information about all the fighting the Kurds did, doesn't change the fact, that the fought ISIS, and were the main fighters against them. It also doesn't change the fact, the Trump abruptly, and shamefully, turned on our ally, the Kurds.
ISIS was attacking them. Doesn't change the fact that Obama turned on a US NATO ally Turkey by supporting terrorists
White: Everybody was happy with Obama at the time, as the Kurds were doing the dying, not the Americans. Of course, if Obama hasn't allied with the Kurds, he would have been castigated for letting Americans die, instead of the Kurds. One of the real problems right now, is Trump gave our allies the Kurds, no warning, so they families could be protected. And keep in mind, who is the real ally. The ones who largely sits back during the fighting, the Turks, or the one's who fight beside you, the Kurds? I hope you are unbiased enough to answer this honestly.
Turkey was not happy about the US supporting the Kurds because the US was basically arming, funding and training terrorists who bomb Turkish civilians.The Turks aren't sitting back they are attacking ISIS while all the US did was sit back and drone bomb Assad's forces so ISIS could take control of half of Syria and iraq.Turkey is the real ally though the US has been a poor NATO ally that expects everyone else to back them up in their war on terror but won't back their allies like Turkey up and even support their enemies.
White: Turkey was not happy with us, because we gave arms to the Kurds to fight ISIS. This made it more difficult for the Turks to subjugate the Kurds. During the war in Iraq and Syria, the Kurds did a lot of fighting. The Turks did very little. Now, the Turks are pushing the Kurds back, and allowing a new vacuum for ISIS to grow in. Being as the Kurds have done most of the fighting and dying in the war with ISIS, it's easier for Turkey to push them back.
Why would they subjugate the Kurds? The Kurds are in Syria and iraq. Most of the fighting against ISIS was done by Assad, the Russians and Iranians while the Kurds and us sat on the sidelines more concerned with ousting Assad for US corporations special intrests. Turkey is filling any vacuum with actual land forces.
White: The Kurds have traditionally been mostly in three countries. Iraq, Iran and Turkey. They have not had self rule for many hundreds of years. The Turkish and Iraqi portion were part to the Ottoman Empire for many hundreds of years, until 1918, when Turkey was defeated. At that time the British and French divided up the Middle East. The countries of Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Syria were formed at that time. The Kurds were ignored, and were split up into three different countries.
Im aware of history.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
that: Then people reading here can learn a little about how Trump has turned his back on allies who fought and died with us.
Sure, if they believe you at all in the first place. About half of all the users on this site are trolls and complete fucking morons. They won't believe you.
So the US didn’t turn our backs on the Kurds, in fact the president praised them
ecfresh: That is what Trump says. What will he actually do? Did Trump say he changed his mind, and is not pulling out US troops from Kurdish areas? Trump praised the Kurds? Trump has a long history of praising, just before he dumps someone, or stabs them in the back.
Time will tell, trump is a known liar. Well most national politicians are known liars (including Biden and Warren).
ecfresh: Though most, or all, politicians lie, few, very few, have done so as much and as consistently as has Trump. It's like comparing a driver who goes through a stop sign once a decade, to someone who keeps loosing their license to excessive speed and repeated drunk driving. They both get tickets, but they are not the same. Not even close.
Never been a trump fan as he is a horrible human being. Despite that things are going well and he did choose good SCOTUS justices. Hopefully he gets to pick more. Again a terrible role model but things are making progress as we are paying lower taxes and the unemployment rates are low. He wins re-election if people ha e jobs
ecfresh: What is missing, is for the lower 50% to gain in buying power. The top 50% have gained, and the top 10% have gained a lot. The top 1% have gained enormously. The lower 50% is getting almost nowhere. And honestly, the economy is peanuts compared to our freedoms. Trump has changed the power of the presidency, increasing it immensely, if he gets his way. If what Trump has done become the norm, our freedoms are in serious jeopardy. Hitler greatly improved the economy of Germany. It wasn't nearly worth the cost. What Trump seemingly has done for the economy, won't nearly be worth the cost, if we lose our freedoms, by a greatly expanded, powerful president. Remember, the president won't always be a Republican, and won't always make the decisions you want. Without proper controls, checks and balances, a president could easily ruin both our economy and our freedoms.
Well aware of that as Obama began executive actions to grab power. Agree with needed checks and balances as the constitution should be our reference guide. Hope a Democrat isn’t elected as those freedoms may erode quickly
ecfresh: Yes, politicians do lie. But Trump has brought lying to a whole new art form in America. I hope you understand the difference between someone who lies sometimes, and someone who i sa compulsive liar. Trump lies on the level of tin dictators. He changes his lies from day to day to day. He lies so much, he practically trips over his own lies. It's a false equivalency to compare his lies to most politicians. Trump is the king of liars, and can't be trusted about anything, except that he will always act in his own self interest. Country be damned, as far as Trump's concerned. What is important is him, and nothing else.
ecfresh: Yes, I am aware that Obama had executive orders. Many presidents have had executive orders. But Obama has done nothing at all like what Trump has done. No other president has made themselves so above the law, has so used the government for his own personal personal and political wants. To compare Trump's acts to other presidents, is like comparing a splash in a bathtub to a hurricane. Trump's abuse of powers endangers the very existence or our republic.
ecfresh: Well, you were dead wrong about Trump. Trump has abandoned the Kurds. As we speak, they are evacuating areas due to a Turkish military invasion. The Kurds will likely need to abandon ten thousand ISIS prisoners, who will then escape, in order to protect themselves against the Turks. Great play, Trump. Trump makes America less safe every day.
Anon: Trump's actions gives ISIS a new lease on life, and makes it much less likely that anybody will want to help us or work with us in the future, as they now know we will turn out backs on those who fight and die beside us.
which is why i said they're celebrating this day.
The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!