occamslightsaber wrote:Hmm... could it be that the US is... allied with the Kurds, who have been providing most of the ground force to fight ISIS in Syria? It is expected of the US to extend its diplomatic cover and deterrence to those proxies fighting on its behalf. Why would anyone side with the US if it doesn’t guarantee their safety?
Because the war on land against ISIS is over. The calliphate has been dismantled, it doesn't hold any significant or strategic extent of land. And nobody closed any treaty with the Kurds, I don't remember the US signing any alliance treaty with them. If they were allies at any point, they were temporary allies and the US doesn't have any perpetual obligations to them, especially since no treaty was ever signed.
There is a notion in security studies called the “interdependence of commitments”, meaning that US commitment to one ally matters to US allies elsewhere. Naturally, America’s allies become nervous and wonder what will happen to them when the US suddenly abandons one of its partners to die (although I doubt the Turks will actually commit a genocide like others have said). Trump’s willingness to throw one ally under the bus has already been noted around the world and may hurt America’s effort to recruit allies in the future.
Well, that's a risk that the current administration has considered is worth taking. After all, Trump promised he would go against this school of thought that is widely shared by experts, which says your diplomacy and policy should always be predictable, a few steps ahead. He wants his policy to become more and more unpredictable, so that other players in the geopolitical game cannot discount your decisions in advance, thus holding you hostage to your own commitments.
I'm not necessarily defending this idea, but what Trump is doing is logically consistent with his electoral pledges. He promised he'd pull out of foreign wars that cost the taxpayer too much and achieve nothing for the US and that's what he's been doing.
The US is sinking billions in the Middle East to stabilize the region because its refugee flow to Europe has undermined the goal of European integration, which is in US interest to balance a resurgent Russia. The Turkish offensive so far has further destabilized the region and allowed high value ISIS detainees to escape. It’s one thing for the US to stop trying to police the world and another to drop all its responsibilities and fuck off at the expense of national interest.
Haha, lolwut. The US is sinking billions in the Middle East for Europe's sake?
Wow, so much altruism in global politics. The US didn't get involved in the Middle East for one single reason, it's part of a long-term policy of containing Russia, indeed, but it's not a policy with one single objective. You also got involved because you wanted to ensure Israel's security against Iranian threats. As well as access to oil fields for American companies, like Haliburton. And containing Iran. And making sure you gradually subdue all of Russia's former Soviet influence in the region. And that you get closer to both Russia and China, establish strategic outposts in these Middle Eastern countries, in order to encircle Russia and China from a military point of view. Too bad it all blew to pieces. Despite W Bush's efforts to turn Iraq in a democracy, it actually looks more like a democrazy today. Egypt is anonther point of failure. Lybia, yet another. Syria was basically abandoned, because Russia won.
Where is the concern for Europe in all of this? Where was this uppermost concern for Europe when the Obama administration funded the Syrian opposition groups, armed and trained them to start the civil war in Syria, hoping that Assad would be removed? What was the aftermath of that US support given to the Syrian opposition? A few millions of migrants from the Middle East pouring in across Europe's borders, which eventually led to a resurgence of far right parties.
And in fact that's what's going to happen if more refugees come to Europe. Currently far right parties have only made some gains here and there, occasionally being coopted in coalition governments. But if Middle Eastern migrants start coming in again in large waves in Europe, the political picture will change. We will see far right parties rising to a far higher degree in Europe than until now. And there's no telling what they could do. For example, they could choose to basically expel all migrants that came during the 2015 crisis and afterwards. Maybe that's what Trump actually wants. He wants to force Europe to toughen up its stance on migration and close borders. And if they don't, then a new wave of migrants from the Middle East will achieve just that, since that would boost far right parties even more than it previously did.