I don't think these "hard truths" are so hard. forbes.com/sites/melikkay… No one serious argues the YPG, "are quasi-cherubim worthy of besotted adulation."
You ask, "Why did he choose the Kurds rather than the Turks or anyone else as his proxy against ISIS?" and suggest it might be because "he inherited the Bush longterm Neo-con strategy of empowering the Kurds and Kurdish unification as a way to redraw the Mideast map."
But in the next paragraph, you remind readers that "Throughout the ISIS years, [Erdogan] allowed tens of thousands of Sunni Islamist fighters to come through Turkey into Syria – a phenomenon well-documented in western media."
This is a much more compelling explanation for the US preference for the YPG as a partner than the so-callled
Büyük Orta Doğu Projesi.
Büyük Orta Doğu Projesi.
As you say, and I agree, "above all, he gets to keep his army busy, which he still regards as a coup threat against his rule. And by creating a constant border of conflict, he gets to play the patriot against all his domestic challengers."
And your final paragraph is at odds with the introduction, which introduces the idea that the commentariat is overreacting, refusing to be clear-eyed and strategic, as the region demands. 
That's certainly a situation that *should* alarm anyone with an attachment to the United States or values such as human rights, open societies, and "various freedoms," as you put it.
That the US and Russia have together decided these values are inessential strikes me as good cause for emotion--and even hysteria. Describing YPG as cherubim? No. But who says that? They're widely admired for having fought ISIS successfully. Which Turkey did not.
