Alright, here we go. Following a call between Presidents Erdogan the Trump, the United States will withdraw its forces from border areas in Northeast Syria and leave Turkey to invade the last redoubt of stability in the country.
A long-ish thread on the potential impact: /1
A long-ish thread on the potential impact: /1
I am going to leave the extended background story to others. Suffice to say, this disaster has been five years in the making. Whatever officials claim publicly, none of this comes as a surprise to anyone involved. US officials appear to have run out of rope - on both ends. /2
Turkey has been advancing plans for a 32 kilometre "safe zone" (no such thing in Syria) along its entire border to push back what it considers "terrorists" of the US-backed YPG/SDF, threatening to invade and disrupt the war-torn country's last redoubt of relative stability. /3
Turkish plans for what it calls its "peace corridor" also envisage the resettlement of approximately one million Syrian refugees in the area into dozens of districts and villages to be created - likely fundamentally altering the ethnic composition throughout the border area. /4
In practice, this will be a piecemeal enterprise. Turkish contingents, supported by a hodgepodge Syrian opposition forces, are likely to stage a series of small incursions across the border, potentially up to the M4 highway, establishing small military outposts along the way. /5
But leaving its Syrian proxies to do the hard lifting. A similar strategy proved relatively successful (in a military sense) in past interventions against the YPG e.g. in Afrin) Landscape in Northeast Syria is open plains, little cover for the comparatively lightly-armed SDF. /6
Still, Turkey is likely to face a protracted insurgency, especially in Kurdish-majority areas. Past experience in Afrin and Aleppo shows that Turkish-backed rebel groups are likely to respond to any resistance, real or imagined, with recrimination and even ethnic cleansing. /7
The United Nations estimates that there are currently approximately 758,000 civilians resident in the 32 km stretch along the border, among them more than 115,000 internally displaced people. A significant share of these would likely flee a violent Turkish military advance. /8
Additionally, a number of local governance and international aid operations have their headquarters in the area. A Turkish invasion would likely lead to massive disruptions across the regional humanitarian response - this in an intensely volatile situation with winter looming. /9
Obviously, Turkish intervention would also disrupt continued operations vs ISIS remnants. SDF would be forced to shift forces to defend north and potentially abandon volatile front lines in Deir Ezzor and other areas. Officials also threatened potential ISIS "prison breaks". /10
Again, most likely this will be a long and phased process. We will have to see whether US/Coalition officials manage to carve out an "acceptable" arrangement on the ground at least for some areas. But signal is clear: Trump wants out, Turkey and Russia pick up the pieces. /11
Or they won't - and this wound will fester, like all the others. /12
Finally, there's questions about what this might mean for the wider trajectory of the country, including the viability of the Idlib pocket and the Astana process. But that too is for another day, once we have a better idea of what's going to happen on the ground. /13
PS: Beyond the horrid impact on civilians and stability, there's an argument about moral responsibility towards those who have fought and sacrificed alongside us. But the "betraying the Kurds" narrative is infantilizing. It was always an alliance of limited shared interests. /14
Scorn to be reserved for those who saw this coming who did nothing to mitigate its potential impact but obfuscate the real policy dilemma (or come up with partisan talking points). So many missed opportunities. /15
A great thread on the great disaster that was the US policy process on this:
