Turkey to launch new offensive against US backed Kurds in Syria

[zachroidott]

No unfounded?

Wait. This one's a crowd fav: in their national interests.

[Peter1469]

These aren't the "moderate rebels" right?

Kurds.

Not rebels. I know, foreign policy is not your thing.

[jimmyz]

Turkey better remember what our F-22s and artillery did on purpose to 200 Russian irregulars killed last year in the same region. Trump spoke with Ertogan in the last 24 hours.

[Lummy]

Kurds have been very good allies to the US.

[IMPress Polly]

I don't feel that the Turkish government has a right to complain about the nominal U.S. support that goes to the predominantly Kurdish anarchist fighters they fear so much. America's policy in Syria has been purely opportunistic in nature, initially favoring instead the Turkish-controlled Free Syrian Army, as you may recall, as a means of ousting the country's dictator Bashir Al Assad. But the Free Syrian Army proved less effective at fighting Syria's government than the rival Islamic State, and so lost its initial clout with anti-government fighters. America feared the rise of the Islamic State more than Assad, and so called upon the Free Syrian Army, and Turkey more directly, to take a stand against ISIS. They refused. American authorities responded by backing the only fighters in Syria who were willing to fight the Islamic State, and that would be the Kurdish People's Protection Units. The latter thrived and have largely defeated the Islamic State in Syria. The Turkish-controlled Free Syrian Army, meanwhile, was obliterated by Assad's forces.

In other words, had Turkey been more concerned about the rise of the Islamic State than it was interested in replacing a secular neighboring government with a puppet state under its control, they would enjoy a more favorable relationship to the U.S. government at this time, as U.S. policy toward Syria has been purely opportunistic in nature throughout this civil war. No right to complain.

[Peter1469]

I don't feel that the Turkish government has a right to complain about the nominal U.S. support that goes to the predominantly Kurdish anarchist fighters they fear so much. America's policy in Syria has been purely opportunistic in nature, initially favoring instead the Turkish-controlled Free Syrian Army, as you may recall, as a means of ousting the country's dictator Bashir Al Assad. But the Free Syrian Army proved less effective at fighting Syria's government than the rival Islamic State, and so lost its initial clout with anti-government fighters. America feared the rise of the Islamic State more than Assad, and so called upon the Free Syrian Army, and Turkey more directly, to take a stand against ISIS. They refused. American authorities responded by backing the only fighters in Syria that were willing to fight the Islamic State, and that would be the Kurdish People's Protection Units. The latter thrived and have largely defeated the Islamic State in Syria. The Turkish-controlled Free Syrian Army, meanwhile, was obliterated by Assad's forces.

In other words, had Turkey been more concerned about the rise of the Islamic State than it was interested in replacing a secular neighboring government with a puppet state under its control, they would enjoy a more favorable relationship to the U.S. government at this time, as U.S. policy toward Syria has been purely opportunistic in nature throughout this civil war. No right to complain.

Polly hit the nail on the head here.

[zachroidott]

I don't feel that the Turkish government has a right to complain about the nominal U.S. support that goes to the predominantly Kurdish anarchist fighters they fear so much. America's policy in Syria has been purely opportunistic in nature, initially favoring instead the Turkish-controlled Free Syrian Army, as you may recall, as a means of ousting the country's dictator Bashir Al Assad. But the Free Syrian Army proved less effective at fighting Syria's government than the rival Islamic State, and so lost its initial clout with anti-government fighters. America feared the rise of the Islamic State more than Assad, and so called upon the Free Syrian Army, and Turkey more directly, to take a stand against ISIS. They refused. American authorities responded by backing the only fighters in Syria that were willing to fight the Islamic State, and that would be the Kurdish People's Protection Units. The latter thrived and have largely defeated the Islamic State in Syria. The Turkish-controlled Free Syrian Army, meanwhile, was obliterated by Assad's forces.

In other words, had Turkey been more concerned about the rise of the Islamic State than it was interested in replacing a secular neighboring government with a puppet state under its control, they would enjoy a more favorable relationship to the U.S. government at this time, as U.S. policy toward Syria has been purely opportunistic in nature throughout this civil war. No right to complain.

As irony would have it, Turkey went to Moscow for a deal on the air space in Northern Syria. The US wanted Assad gone too.

[Peter1469]

As irony would have it, Turkey went to Moscow for a deal on the air space in Northern Syria. The US wanted Assad gone too.

The US was wrong to attack Assad. Most Syrians support him and removing Assad would create another Libya.

[Ransom]

The US was wrong to attack Assad. Most Syrians support him and removing Assad would create another Libya.

But once you draw a red line, Peter. Where Polly's argument misses the nail's head is US policy being opportunistic that implies a proactive policy. It's been the 180, a rather reactive policy. We had plenty of opportunities and they were debated right here on our very forums for YEARS, Polly and Pete being right there. We withdrew from Iraq completely in 2011 despite unanimous dissent from military analysts who warned of unrest in Syria, Iraq, the Kurdish 'states' gaining more autonomy by the day. We had many opportunities to intercede prior to ISIS using Toyota trucks to defeat Iraqi army units. Plenty of opportunity to influence outcomes in Syria, more than enough to demand Turkey stop facilitating caliphates and unrest in Syria.

And these analysis always ignore Russia, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and many other interests in Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda, the list long and influential. America......reacted to Syria and paid dearly for it as we all saw the outcome played out. Opportunistic a bit of a stretch of an analysis. We passed many many opportunities until the entire region was wholesale unstable, where US troops(yes boots on ground) became necessary.

[donttread]

Do you think the Kurds consider it to be games? How about the Turks?

NOPE. I consider it US who takes it as a game. Proxy wars, war without any real risk to those declaring the war. Arming enemies against one another. Pawns dying and killing on a Stratego Board.