U.S.-Kurdish security ties were never meant to be long-term newsweek.com/us-kurdish-tie…
It's not surprising why so many are upset about the Trump administration's decision. The Syrian Kurds have been Washington's most effective counterterrorism partners against the Islamic State. Nobody else in Syria comes close.
But just because the anger is boiling hot at the moment doesn't necessarily mean it's justified. There is a lot of misinformation percolating in the ether. It's time to correct the record.
First, it's important to remind people about what the U.S.-Syrian Kurdish partnership is—and is not—about.
Washington invested in a relationship with the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces for a very specific reason: to chip away at ISIS's territorial caliphate to the point where the terrorist group was no longer capable of holding dominion over a wide swath of territory.
The combination of U.S. air power and Kurdish ground forces proved to be extraordinarily effective, so much so that the physical caliphate is now in the ash heap of history.
The national security objective the United States sought to accomplish—the demise of ISIS as a territorial force—has in fact been accomplished.
At bottom, the relationship between the United States and Syrian Kurdish fighters was one steeped in pragmatism, mutual interest, and a mutual enemy.
Those who believe U.S. troops should remain in Syria's northeast indefinitely in order to deter a Turkish military incursion are misrepresenting the fundamental glue that held the US-Kurdish partnership together and broadening its purpose far beyond its original intent.
Indeed, this argument is a perfect illustration of mission-creep, in which U.S. policy in Syria becomes increasingly detached from the core objective in favor of those that are more ambitious and unattainable.
As difficult as it is for many in Washington to accept, the United States is not responsible for Syria's internal politics—nor is the U.S. obligated to support or defend the political aspirations of the Syrian Kurdish community.
To do so would likely create even more problems, putting the U.S. smack-dab in the middle of a decades-long Turkish-Kurdish rivalry and further deteriorating a U.S.-Turkey relationship that is already suffering from a number of disputes.
Bluntly put: serving as the Kurds' external protector in perpetuity is not what U.S. troops signed up for when they were first deployed to Syria years ago.
