Yes (walk back). But it calls for clarity, at last, abt what we're doing in Syria. Trump himself seemed unable to answer the question, when Erdogan challenged him to explain what our SOF were doing East of Euphrates. The standard answer has generally been "to defeat Isis."
At times, USG has also intimated that (i) we want to topple Assad and restore Syrian democracy, and/or (ii) maintain a presence that wd challenge Iranian (and, later, Russian) influence in Syria.
At no point has supporting the establishment of a Kurdish homeland in northern Syria been a stated objective. Our military alliance w/ YPG has been widely understood to be one of convenience, faute de mieux: the YPG were simply the best, most dependable fighters we could find.
This 'transactional' relationship w/ YPG has always entailed risk for the YPG: they've NEVER known how far the alliance would carry them, or at what point USG might abandon them.
Now, with Trump having announced our withdrawal, much of the commentary I see is about the indecency of our 'abandonment' of the Kurds. I hate it too, but I don't think ppl shd be confused abt the nature of our relationship w/ the YPG. That way lies mission creep.
If we want to support Kurdish independence, let's say so. I don't see that as a likely policy, given its implications for U.S.-Turkey relations, but at least let's have a public discussion, and let the Kurds know where they stand.
It's the constant obfuscation of our purpose in Syria that lays up large problems for our future. Lack of clarity is, to some extent, inherent in the situation, but we're at a point now where we have to decide: what *are* we doing in Syria ?
