To further elaborate on the previous post, I’d like to first present a truth before discussing Syria’s conflict. It seems that almost everything the Democrats, Never-Trumpers, Neoliberals, and Neocons claim is a reliable indicator of falsehood and nonsense. Thus, judging the situation has become relatively simple: One can often get closer to the truth by simply opposing what figures like Pelosi, Schiff, Sanders, Graham, Romney, Bolton, and the majority of mainstream pundits claim. The legitimacy of opposing viewpoints then becomes a matter of personal perspective and emphasis.
This logic is useful when analyzing the US withdrawal from northeastern Syria and the alleged abandonment of the Kurds. By considering the opposite of the artificial outrage from the political swamp inside and outside the Beltway, the reality becomes clearer.
The argument that the US has betrayed the Kurds, who fought alongside us to defeat ISIS, is absurd. With the ISIS caliphate eliminated, Turkey sought to establish a safe zone to counter Kurdish forces in Syria, which it views as an anti-Turkish terror group. US intelligence observed preparations for a Turkish operation over several weeks and concluded that Turkey had serious intentions, which even last-minute calls between Presidents Trump and Erdogan couldn’t prevent. Clearly, the US administration neither approved nor could deter Turkey’s actions. Even if US forces had been reinforced, the few dozen special forces in northeastern Syria could not have stopped or repelled a Turkish incursion.
Therefore, the decision to withdraw US troops was the right one. It avoided conflict between NATO allies and allowed the Kurds to turn to the Syrian Army for protection. The Syrian Army is now moving to the border, assuming control of the region and safeguarding the Kurdish population.
The military leadership and the armchair generals in Congress (led by warmonger Senator Lindsey Graham) who accuse the US of abandoning its Kurdish allies fail to recognize (and likely never will) that the Syrian crisis began with the misguided US regime-change operation against Assad nearly seven years ago.
In my May 10, 2013 blog post (https://www.edwinseditorial.blogspot.com.edwinseditorial.com/2013/05/disastrous-foreign-policy-failures.html), I criticized the disastrous decision to politically and militarily support radical insurgents in Syria. This followed similar mistakes in Egypt and Libya, which already yielded terrible outcomes.
Since then, the chaos caused by the US’s failed regime-change effort has become evident. The US worked alongside the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a group composed of Kurds and Sunni Arabs, and the Kurdish PYD, which is aligned with the PKK, a group Turkey considers a terrorist organization.
When Russia intervened in 2015 to prop up Assad and restore Syrian territorial integrity, it was clear that the US intervention – illegal under international law and ethically questionable – was doomed to fail. In its Russophobic, regime-change mindset, Washington rejected Russia’s offer to fight ISIS together and instead continued supporting Kurdish-dominated forces with money, weapons, air support, and special forces.
In my September 27, 2017 post (https://www.edwinseditorial.blogspot.com.edwinseditorial.com/2017/09/why-my-north-korea-resolve-could-have.html), I predicted the inevitable failure of US foreign policy in Syria and its resulting embarrassment.
President Trump's decision to avoid engaging in a war with Turkey prevented yet another costly intervention. This decision, heavily mediated by Russia, allowed the Kurds to finally turn to Damascus for protection. It seems that Syria is now taking advantage of the ceasefire negotiated by US envoys Pence and Pompeo to regain control of its territory. Once sovereignty is restored and national security is assured by Syria’s armed forces, there will be no justification for further Turkish incursions.
Let’s be clear: The US’s former “Kurdish allies” were essentially mercenaries, bought with vast amounts of money and weapons, carrying out the US’s bidding. Their commitment to fighting ISIS was likely more about carving out territory for themselves, potentially creating an autonomous region in Syria or even parts of Turkey.
The outcry from the left and neoconservatives in the US is not only unwarranted, but downright foolish. Notable exceptions, such as GOP Senator Rand Paul and Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, criticized the interventionist policies and supported President Trump’s shift in foreign policy. Meanwhile, the discredited Hillary Clinton, who pushed disastrous policies under President Obama, derides Gabbard as a Russian agent for her stance.
What’s also disturbing is the lack of loyalty within the Republican Party, as 129 of its members signed on to a House vote condemning the President’s troop withdrawal. The military-industrial complex's hold on Washington, combined with the Trump Derangement Syndrome, seems to stifle any reasonable debate on war, even among conservatives.
The disregard for the President’s prerogative to set foreign policy and the viciousness with which the Washington establishment opposes any correction to failed policies over the last two decades is alarming. It reflects a deep corruption of minds and morals in the capital, along with a concerning lack of professionalism and understanding of civic and human affairs.
It’s clear: as far as its political culture is concerned, the Republic is in serious trouble.
No comments:
Post a Comment