What's the deal with Turkey and the Kurds?

[occamslightsaber]

Lol Dolan still thinks a piece of paper is what constitutes an alliance. Not common interest or anything.

[kami_ryu]

-- deleted post --

[Cometk]

From Ilham Ahmed, co-president of the Syrian Democratic Council, the political wing of the SDF

"I was one of the main advocates for sustaining and improving the relationship between Syrians and Americans. Skeptics warned me: “The U.S has no friends, only interests.” But I rejected such sentiments as an anti-American narrative encouraged by our enemies. Now it turns out that the pessimists were right. I was wrong."

From Mazloum Abdi, Commander-in-Chief of the Syrian Democratic Forces

"We, however, are not asking for American soldiers to be in combat. We know that the United States is not the world police. But we do want the United States to acknowledge its important role in achieving a political solution for Syria. We are sure that Washington has sufficient leverage to mediate a sustainable peace between us and Turkey."

Nope, let's leave 'em high and dry. ISIS? She some European chick?

[Dolan]

Dude, what allies? Is there any signed document by which the US got allied with Kurds?

I don't know what to tell you when U.S. forces are fighting with the SDF against Turkish-backed jihadi rebels, when we are selling them weapons just before the recapture of Raqqa, and when we are explicitly telling them that we will not leave the region until peace settlements with Turkey are established.

Do you seriously believe there will ever be a peace settlement between Turkey and Kurds? That's like a peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. This will not happen until the end of time. Nobody can promise that to anyone. That basically means "we will be in the region forever and ever".

They were lied to, outright, and if you don't understand why having a contract or not is irrelevant to the fact that people will see you as a betrayer when you default on your promises and enable a brutal ethnic cleansing, then I really don't know what to tell you.

No, they were not lied to, because these were promises made by another administration. How were they promised, where is this promise enshrined? Any signed document or was it just a casual remark?

Brutal ethnic cleansing is taking place right now across the world in multiple places and yet nobody is getting alarmed over it, because you don't see it in the media and it's not being debated in your country. If you don't see it, it doesn't bother you. Why didn't you people jump to help the Rohingya when they were being killed and thrown out of the country in Myanmar? Because there were no US troops in their country? What about the Yemeni civil war (the number of casualties is close to 100000), where "your allies" Saudis are part of that conflict? Your country has such dubious allies all around the world. Israelis are also your allies and they are basically removing Palestinians from their own lands, through forced colonisation. Saudis, another US ally, is funding one side in the Yemeni civil war.

This is not a whatabout argument, I'm bringing all these examples to illustrate the fact that your country is allied with all sorts of dubious countries and factions out of pure strategic reasons. And you're also selling them weapons for the same strategic reasons. And when your administration decides one of these allies is of no strategic interest anymore, they can pull out. It will probably happen in Afghanistan too.

The USA and Pakistan were allies during the Soviet-Afghan war. Now they are no longer allies, since the geopolitical context changed and Pakistan is allied with China, while India, their archenemy, is allied with the USA. As the saying goes, in international relations, there are no permanent friends, and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

Anyway, I'm not defending Trump's decision, I'm just pointing out that there's no moral angle in this story, you're being played by your media.

[fightinfrenchman]

Dude, what allies? Is there any signed document by which the US got allied with Kurds?

I don't know what to tell you when U.S. forces are fighting with the SDF against Turkish-backed jihadi rebels, when we are selling them weapons just before the recapture of Raqqa, and when we are explicitly telling them that we will not leave the region until peace settlements with Turkey are established.

Do you seriously believe there will ever be a peace settlement between Turkey and Kurds? That's like a peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. This will not happen until the end of time. Nobody can promise that to anyone. That basically means "we will be in the region forever and ever".

They were lied to, outright, and if you don't understand why having a contract or not is irrelevant to the fact that people will see you as a betrayer when you default on your promises and enable a brutal ethnic cleansing, then I really don't know what to tell you.

No, they were not lied to, because these were promises made by another administration. How were they promised, where is this promise enshrined? Any signed document or was it just a casual remark?

Brutal ethnic cleansing is taking place right now across the world in multiple places and yet nobody is getting alarmed over it, because you don't see it in the media and it's not being debated in your country. If you don't see it, it doesn't bother you. Why didn't you people jump to help the Rohingya when they were being killed and thrown out of the country in Myanmar? Because there were no US troops in their country? What about the Yemeni civil war (the number of casualties is close to 100000), where "your allies" Saudis are part of that conflict? Your country has such dubious allies all around the world. Israelis are also your allies and they are basically removing Palestinians from their own lands, through forced colonisation. Saudis, another US ally, is funding one side in the Yemeni civil war.

This is not a whatabout argument, I'm bringing all these examples to illustrate the fact that your country is allied with all sorts of dubious countries and factions out of pure strategic reasons. And you're also selling them weapons for the same strategic reasons. And when your administration decides one of these allies is of no strategic interest anymore, they can pull out. It will probably happen in Afghanistan too.

The USA and Pakistan were allies during the Soviet-Afghan war. Now they are no longer allies, since the geopolitical context changed and Pakistan is allied with China, while India, their archenemy, is allied with the USA. As the saying goes, in international relations, there are no permanent friends, and no permanent enemies, only permanent interests.

Anyway, I'm not defending Trump's decision, I'm just pointing out that there's no moral angle in this story, you're being played by your media.

Superdreadnought Rail Cannon Gustav Max

[Cometk]

Ok, I guess letting the Turkish forces steamroll the Kurds and free the captive ISIS fighters is fine. I guess upending years of counter-insurgency is fine. My bad

My bad

[fightinfrenchman]

Ok, I guess letting the Turkish forces steamroll the Kurds and free the captive ISIS fighters is fine. I guess upending years of counter-insurgency is fine. My bad

My bad

You don't have to engage with anti-Semites, and if you have moderation powers on the forum on which they post you can actually stop them from posting, if you want.

[Dolan]

Ok, I guess letting the Turkish forces steamroll the Kurds and free the captive ISIS fighters is fine. I guess upending years of counter-insurgency is fine. My bad

My bad

Well, what should be done about those ISIS detainees? Nobody wants them back and Kurds won't be able to hold them forever. They practically don't belong to any state anymore. Some countries like the UK stripped them of their citizenship, even. So some of them are stateless.
Trump simply doesn't care about what happens to them because they pose no direct threat to the USA. As far as he's concerned, ISIS doesn't control any territory anymore so it doesn't make any sense to keep US troops there just because there are some ISIS prisoners left in Syria. And it makes even less sense to intervene in a conflict between a NATO ally (Turkey) and an ethnic group from Syria. Turkey is a NATO ally by treaty, while Kurds were only temporary, situational allies in a conflict that is over.

The issue of Turkey abusing its military power against defenceless civilians should surely be dealt with, but not by the USA. It should be dealt with by the UN, which never misses any opportunity to lecture states on what they should be doing. This is exactly the situation for which the UN was created.

[Amsel_]

You don't have an obligation to protect the Kurds in the same way that no one had an obligation to protect the Jews against Nazi Germans. There is literal murder going on in Turkey and you're fine turning a blind eye to it. In the same way that the world is turning a blind eye to Hong Kong, and more importantly, the Nazi bullshit the Chinese are pulling on Muslim minorities in China.

This is why we aren't having a real discussion, dipshit. You're fine with the murder of an ethnic minority, I'm not. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... Syria.html

^As Trumples would put it, probably just fake news. Nothing bad is going on in Turkey.

Does the U.S. have any more of a responsibility to protect the Kurds than other countries? Are we morally required to spend billions of dollars, start bombing until the civilians hate us, and send young men to go die, and because of international law refuse any economic reparations, yet the French can just sit in France and spend their money on welfare?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-us-sp ... icial-says

tl;dr

Kurds knew Turkish invasion was going to occur at some point or another. They could not fight against ISIS while also preparing for the looming Turkish forces.

Even last year, when (Brett) McGurk (the then-presidential special envoy to the coalition against ISIS) was still serving, Kurdish leaders in Syria were telling the Americans that if support for them and deterrence against a Turkish attack was not going to continue, they needed to make a deal with the Assad regime and Russia for protection. “We have given our road map to the Russians. We are just waiting on a decision,” one senior Kurdish official told The Washington Post . . .

. . . In other words, once it became clear in 2018 that Trump was hostile to the open-ended U.S. presence in Syria he inherited, the Kurds had options to help ease the end of their relationship with the Americans. But Trump’s State Department and Pentagon, unwilling to face up to a final withdrawal—and the unequivocal loss of U.S. influence in a part of the Middle East where it is increasingly impotent, if not irrelevant—convinced the Kurds not to plan for an American departure. Had the Kurds done so, their new Russian and Syrian partners might have been able to spare them the devastation that Turkey is now wreaking as the U.S. pulls back and stands by . . .

What matters is that the Kurds were lied to by American brass, and now we've displayed to the world that we'll allow our allies to be disposed of when we decide we no longer have a use for them. The Kurdish leadership say we betrayed them. Even 85% of the House of Representatives say we betrayed them. It doesn't matter that you don't want to play police anymore when you've burned the bridge of every regional ally.

We were betrayed by the Kurds first. We were planning to do this withdraw a year ago. We didn't do it then because we wanted to give the Kurds more time to get things in order. They made virtually no progress in this regard. They didn't even think to move prisoners away from the border, or hand them over to the international community. Now they're relying on moral blackmail to keep us protecting them, for free, forever. It's not our fault that everyone else ignores American interests, and only sees the United States as an ATM and an attack dog. Maybe the message will be clear to all our other selfish allies: play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Well, what should be done about those ISIS detainees?

[n0el]

Why do we have to do anything with the military? We can both not have troops there and prevent Turkey from slaughtering innocent people and using chemical weapons on them. Doesn’t that seem like a reasonable middle ground?

[Cometk]

I mean it's not like Turkey needs more territory, that's not why they're doing this. That territory will eventually be managed by Syria, once it regains its administrative function back.

Except Northeastern Syria already has administrative function under Rojava, which is primarily constituted of Kurds, Assyrians, and Arabs. You are right though, it's not why Erdogan is invading - he wants to slaughter the Kurds and squash any potential for the formation of a stable region that might foster a future Kurdistan. What's hilarious to me is you don't view this as Turkey invading Syria up-front, when the SDF had the Assad regime as an option on the table for aide but that was hand-waved by the Americans with a promise for continued support. Keep in mind most SDF fighters have a long history of dissent from the Assad regime, including being tortured in regime prisons. And that they would still look to Damascus for support against the Turks...

[Cometk]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-us-sp ... icial-says

tl;dr

Kurds knew Turkish invasion was going to occur at some point or another. They could not fight against ISIS while also preparing for the looming Turkish forces.

Even last year, when (Brett) McGurk (the then-presidential special envoy to the coalition against ISIS) was still serving, Kurdish leaders in Syria were telling the Americans that if support for them and deterrence against a Turkish attack was not going to continue, they needed to make a deal with the Assad regime and Russia for protection. “We have given our road map to the Russians. We are just waiting on a decision,” one senior Kurdish official told The Washington Post . . .

. . . In other words, once it became clear in 2018 that Trump was hostile to the open-ended U.S. presence in Syria he inherited, the Kurds had options to help ease the end of their relationship with the Americans. But Trump’s State Department and Pentagon, unwilling to face up to a final withdrawal—and the unequivocal loss of U.S. influence in a part of the Middle East where it is increasingly impotent, if not irrelevant—convinced the Kurds not to plan for an American departure. Had the Kurds done so, their new Russian and Syrian partners might have been able to spare them the devastation that Turkey is now wreaking as the U.S. pulls back and stands by . . .

What matters is that the Kurds were lied to by American brass, and now we've displayed to the world that we'll allow our allies to be disposed of when we decide we no longer have a use for them. The Kurdish leadership say we betrayed them. Even 85% of the House of Representatives say we betrayed them. It doesn't matter that you don't want to play police anymore when you've burned the bridge of every regional ally.

We were betrayed by the Kurds first. We were planning to do this withdraw a year ago. We didn't do it then because we wanted to give the Kurds more time to get things in order. They made virtually no progress in this regard. They didn't even think to move prisoners away from the border, or hand them over to the international community. Now they're relying on moral blackmail to keep us protecting them, for free, forever. It's not our fault that everyone else ignores American interests, and only sees the United States as an ATM and an attack dog. Maybe the message will be clear to all our other selfish allies: play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

No - it seems more like the SDF was groomed by the Americans to eventually be invaded by the Turks.

[Dolan]

Except Northeastern Syria already has administrative function under Rojava, which is primarily constituted of Kurds, Assyrians, and Arabs.

What I meant when I brought up administrative function in the debate was that Turkey could not have been able to freely enter Syrian territory if the Syrian government fully controlled its territory. They were able to do this recently precisely because currently the Syrian state is in disarray. At some point, I think Assad will eventually regain control of most of Syria's territory. Then Turkey will have to stay out or face the consequences of invading another state.

You are right though, it's not why Erdogan is invading - he wants to slaughter the Kurds and squash any potential for the formation of a stable region that might foster a future Kurdistan.

There is not going to be any future Kurdistan, because nobody will recognise it. As I previously argued, there are tens of large ethnic groups in the world that do not have their own separate state. It's not a solvable problem.
I doubt that Turkey is under any illusion they will simply physically remove all Kurds, because they are spread out all around the Middle East. They could always bring new relatives from Iraq, for example. You don't simply make a population of about 3 millions Syrian Kurds disappear just like that and hope nobody will know about it. On top of that there are more than 10 million of them in Turkey. It's pure fantasy to think they could have such an objective, it's simply not realistic under any scenario. It's more likely that they want to dismantle the military structures of those organisations that are responsible with terror attacks in Turkey.

What's hilarious to me is you don't view this as Turkey invading Syria up-front, when the SDF had the Assad regime as an option on the table for aide but that was hand-waved by the Americans with a promise for continued support. Keep in mind most SDF fighters have a long history of dissent from the Assad regime, including being tortured in regime prisons. And that they would still look to Damascus for support against the Turks...

Yeah, well, welcome to the Middle East, where yesterday's enemy is now your new ally; and the reverse. It's really not unusual for such shifts in alliances to take place there. It's very common. That's why I find it hillarious that some people are so concerned about holding steadfast to some promises made years ago by a previous US administration, when treason and backstabbing are basically established tradition in the Middle East.
ISIS originally was al Qaeda's Iraqi branch, until they got kicked out because they weren't obeying orders. Eventually, ISIS grew so large in Syria that they fought openly with Jabhat al-Nusra, which is al-Qaeda's Syria branch. Yesterday bros, currently foes.
Assad also had a frenemy relation with ISIS. He let them grow large enough so that the US would not focus their fire on him too much, because if he was too weakened, that would have made ISIS stronger. So, for a long time, ISIS and Assad operated under an implicit agreement: they were given free reign in some territories as long as that made Assad's opponents weaker. It's easy to get confused by the shifting sands of Middle East politics and think about it in terms of keeping a promise and being perpetual allies, lol. But this is the narrative that your media is serving you, because there basically is no neutral press anymore: you either are a Trumpian bootlicker and sing praises to the emperor or you think everything Trump does must be the product of mental illness, personal financial interest or nazi ideology. There's no room for any middle ground, evidence-based thought anymore. Which is pretty much evident in how this discussion unfolds here, in this topic.

[Cometk]

I guess we had to let the Turks free ISIS eventually, right? Haha

I don’t think you understand the bottom line: even if the course of action of withdrawing from Syria was always going to happen, this method of doing it was not the play. You see that with our (further) loss of influence and the capitulations to Erdogan. But I guess I’m just an ideologue

[Horsemen]

We should create an ESOC Commando Strick Force and right the wrongs of this world.

We already have such a force, it is called The Basement

[Jam]

We should create an ESOC Commando Strick Force and right the wrongs of this world.

We already have such a force, it is called The Basement

@kami_ryu can fly them to Syria.

[Dolan]

I guess we had to let the Turks free ISIS eventually, right? Haha

I don’t think you understand the bottom line: even if the course of action of withdrawing from Syria was always going to happen, this method of doing it was not the play. You see that with our (further) loss of influence and the capitulations to Erdogan. But I guess I’m just an ideologue

Not sure if it's a capitulation to Erdogan. It might be a trap that Trump set for Turkey. Turkey is walking a tightrope between different major interests in that region. Recently they bought missiles from Russia, which runs against every recommendation made by NATO allies. They basically put themselves outside of NATO defence systems by doing that. On the other hand, they supported and trained anti-Assad opposition forces during the Syrian civil war. More recently they managed to antagonise the USA by arresting that American pastor, which made Trump threaten them with economic sanctions. As a result of that incident, their national currency almost collapsed. They barely dodged a bullet there.
So nobody knows exactly what's Turkey's game here. It could be that they're trying to assert themselves as a regional power, so they're acting as if they don't have to follow NATO policy or bow down to Russian or American interests. Erdogan seems to think he can play his own game and negotiate with the big boyz on an equal footing to them.
And considering how Trump's threat of sanctions last year almost destroyed their currency, I don't see how Trump's attitude to Turkey's regional games can be seen in any way as a sign of weakness or capitulation. The US has a huge influence on the global financial system and Turkey can't afford to lose access to dollars.

As for ISIS prisoners, nobody wants those. They are considered more dangerous than enriched uranium, so Western countries have taken a hard pass to taking them back. It's likely that among them there are lots of executioners who beheaded their victims, set them on fire, cut their throats, trained their kids to kill and believe in the goals of the calliphate, etc etc. Even nazis look tame by comparison to these guys. Allowing them to return to their countries is like importing highly radioactive material that needs to be somehow contained and monitored for many years to come. If they stay in the Middle East, it's likely they are going to be much less dangerous than if they were allowed back in Western countries or in Russia, from where they came. Because at least in that region they're not going to be exposed to that Western or non-Muslim lifestyle that goes against their radical religious beliefs (Salafism). So they would have fewer incentives to organise terror attacks in the Middle East, since they wouldn't meet any symbolic objective by doing that. Maybe it's just better if they just stay there, where they culturally fit better and are less likely to be able to organise anything destructive.

[Dolan]

Apparently, Turkey wants a safe buffer zone within northern Syria, because that's where they're planning to resettle 2 million Syrian refugees:

Ankara has stuck to its original proposal of a 270-mile long (440km), 20-mile deep buffer zone from the Euphrates river to the Iraqi border, but the SDF has only acknowledged the 75-mile area between Ras al-Ayn and Tel Abyad.

The US-brokered agreement struck last Thursday did not specify the zone’s size, where Turkey also plans to repatriate up to 2 million of its 3.6 million Syrian refugee population.

This actually makes a lot of sense. Turkey doesn't want to continue to bear the costs of keeping more than 3 million Syrian refugees in their country, if they can be safely repatriated in a stable, conflict-free zone in northern Syria. So you see, this is probably not really a plan to "slaughter the Kurdish population". If you're trying to stabilise that area to resettle refugees there, you can't possibly have plans for massacres.

[Amsel_]

Apparently, Turkey wants a safe buffer zone within northern Syria, because that's where they're planning to resettle 2 million Syrian refugees:

Ankara has stuck to its original proposal of a 270-mile long (440km), 20-mile deep buffer zone from the Euphrates river to the Iraqi border, but the SDF has only acknowledged the 75-mile area between Ras al-Ayn and Tel Abyad.

The US-brokered agreement struck last Thursday did not specify the zone’s size, where Turkey also plans to repatriate up to 2 million of its 3.6 million Syrian refugee population.

This actually makes a lot of sense. Turkey doesn't want to continue to bear the costs of keeping more than 3 million Syrian refugees in their country, if they can be safely repatriated in a stable, conflict-free zone in northern Syria. So you see, this is probably not really a plan to "slaughter the Kurdish population". If you're trying to stabilise that area to resettle refugees there, you can't possibly have plans for massacres.

Wtf I love Erdogan now.

[Cometk]

As for ISIS prisoners, nobody wants those. They are considered more dangerous than enriched uranium, so Western countries have taken a hard pass to taking them back. It's likely that among them there are lots of executioners who beheaded their victims, set them on fire, cut their throats, trained their kids to kill and believe in the goals of the calliphate, etc etc. Even nazis look tame by comparison to these guys. Allowing them to return to their countries is like importing highly radioactive material that needs to be somehow contained and monitored for many years to come. If they stay in the Middle East, it's likely they are going to be much less dangerous than if they were allowed back in Western countries or in Russia, from where they came. Because at least in that region they're not going to be exposed to that Western or non-Muslim lifestyle that goes against their radical religious beliefs (Salafism). So they would have fewer incentives to organise terror attacks in the Middle East, since they wouldn't meet any symbolic objective by doing that. Maybe it's just better if they just stay there, where they culturally fit better and are less likely to be able to organise anything destructive.

for anyone that missed it, this is' dolan's apologism for isis captives being freed by the turkish invasion, justifying it as "well, ISIS isn't that big a threat anyway as long as they stay in the middle east lol"

right. that's why we've been fighting them for the past 5 years. that's why the troops that were stationed in syria are being relocated to iraq for a "counter-ISIS mission".

https://www.businessinsider.com/1000-us ... aq-2019-10

"" Secretary of Defense Mark Esper told reporters on Saturday that the roughly 1,000 US troops left in Syria would be "repositioned" in western Iraq, which runs along the Syrian border. He said the goal of the move would be to help defend Iraq and to "perform a counter-ISIS mission as we sort through the next steps.' ""

Apparently, Turkey wants a safe buffer zone within northern Syria, because that's where they're planning to resettle 2 million Syrian refugees:

Ankara has stuck to its original proposal of a 270-mile long (440km), 20-mile deep buffer zone from the Euphrates river to the Iraqi border, but the SDF has only acknowledged the 75-mile area between Ras al-Ayn and Tel Abyad.

The US-brokered agreement struck last Thursday did not specify the zone’s size, where Turkey also plans to repatriate up to 2 million of its 3.6 million Syrian refugee population.

This actually makes a lot of sense. Turkey doesn't want to continue to bear the costs of keeping more than 3 million Syrian refugees in their country, if they can be safely repatriated in a stable, conflict-free zone in northern Syria. So you see, this is probably not really a plan to "slaughter the Kurdish population". If you're trying to stabilise that area to resettle refugees there, you can't possibly have plans for massacres.

huge brain play. just displace the syrian kurds already living in syria to make lebensraum to deport the syrian refugees currently living in turkey to...

[Cometk]

dolan so clouded by his ultra-contrarianism and need to be original that he'll defend something that, even from a Machiavellian perspective, is a complete political disaster

[Dolan]

A complete political disaster for whom?
But that's the idea, the current US administration is no longer interested in acting as a caretaker of different foreign parties and factions caught up in conflicts.
Nothing bad happened in the US as a result of this military retreat from Syria. So if pulling out of Syria doesn't affect the US in any way, then why were we even there in the first place? Because Obama thought it would be a great idea to act as the Middle East's Mother Theresa.

The rationale behind Trump's defence doctrine ( ) is transactional: what's in it for us if we stay there? We're paying the bills for this expensive operation, but it's not our job to provide military protection to different parties around the world, free of charge.

I haven't really told you my own opinion on this decision, I just explained what I think their rationale is. It's not even a very controversial or new idea, there have been many voices in the US asking the same questions. And since Trump has been voted into office on such a promise of bringing troops back home, you don't need much political acumen to see who will be scoring points with the electorate on this issue.

[Cometk]

Bringing the troops home to West Iraq

[Dolan]

Probably a question of logistics. You don't just send a few planes from the US and get them onboard, you first move them to a safe, proximate location. As the article says:

Trump’s top aide, asked about the fact that the troops were not coming home as the president claimed they would, said, “Well, they will eventually.”

Acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney told “Fox News Sunday” that “the quickest way to get them out of danger was to get them into Iraq.”

And if that were not true and Trump was lying, according to that article those troops will be participating in operations against ISIS from Iraq to Syria. So much of the same? Then it's all good, ISIS is being taken care of, except from another location?

[Cometk]

Right and we betrayed the Kurds. Yet apparently you haven’t given me your “opinion” yet. I estimate I’ll be in my grave before you ever take a solid stance on anything.