Enter the Ottomans: False Hope

[asthfghl]

Many of Trump's supporters, as well as opponents to US interventionism in general who don't pay attention to details would gladly welcome his decision for the Syrian withdrawal as a promise kept, and probably even a step towards peace. But that's the last thing that it is. Now that large parts of Syria have finally been freed of the barbaric rule of the Islamist extremists and have slowly started to return to normalcy, it seems all that horror is about to return, this time the Jihadist hordes ravaging the whole area with Turkey's blessing. NATO's Turkey, if I may add. The world is about to stay a silent witness to another bloodbath that, on top of all, will likely destroy a unique political project in Rojava. It may not be perfect, but it does try to establish values such as democracy, the supremacy of law, and civil liberties in a much more authentic way than many countries claiming to espouse them.

The moment and the circumstances in which Trump announced his decision also cast some doubt on the claim that he's merely fulfilling a campaign promise that he made a couple of years ago. Since he's been in power, the US has actually spent record budgets on "defense", and the US drones, bombings, and spec ops have murdered more civilians than before, which is a remarkable achievement, given the high "standard" that his two predecessors had set. The "awesome young people" in the US military won't really be coming back home - they'll be sent to some of the dozens of US bases in other parts of the world, including places like Africa and Asia.

Let's face it, as much as he may be bashed by his many opponents, Trump is practically maintaining the old US foreign-policy tradition of generating chaos and death in lands far abroad - including through occasional "withdrawals" that in most cases happen in the worst and most chaotic way possible, resulting in the respective administration conveniently washing its hands from any consequences of their previous actions. In fact, the achievement of a state of permanent chaos (the Divide and Rule principle) has been a feature so persistent in US foreign policy that whether it'd be viewed as total fiasco or complete success mostly depends on the point of view you'd choose. One thing remains, though: the amount of chaos and violence that it causes, whether directly or indirectly.

After they occupied Iraq for years and completely dismantled the state structures there, the US created perfect conditions for ethnic and religious conflict, and the flourishing of extremism. Al Qaeda, the supposed main target in the "War on Terror" got the opportunity to expand into areas never before accessible to it, and the Pentagon and CIA-sponsored secret prisons became a breeding ground for new monsters, including those of ISIS. When president Obama finally decided to move out of Iraq, the conditions that had been created by the US occupation finally allowed the horrific "Caliphate" to quickly spread from Aleppo to Baghdad, which again created the "need" of yet another US intervention, and the resulting leveling of a few large cities to the ground.

Probably under the pressure of all the criticism, and in an attempt to appear principled, Trump listened to his ego and announced he'd be significantly cutting the US presence in Afghanistan, too. If that really happens (although it looks a bit less likely than the Syrian withdrawal), it'll put immense pressure on all the minor allies in the so called Afghan coalition (which is held, maintained, dominated and practically sustained by the US). That whole operation for "creating statehood", though being the longest post-war operation in history, has achieved nothing constructive for all those years, and the whole structure is bound to crumble right away, under the tiniest pressure. And it'll inevitably come, once the "statehood"'s enemies sense that the pressure on them is diminishing.

Here's the thing. When you're getting out of a place you weren't supposed to enter in the first place, you should at least make sure you've put out the fires you've lit, or at least refrain from handing a bucket of oil to a renown pyromaniac. The "withdrawal" merely looks like a fake last act in a recurring theatrical play of suffering and destruction. In Syria's case, it's also a death sentence to countless innocent people, a dirty bargain in the interest of blood-thirsty butchers, and a re-inflaming of a fire that had just begun to die out. In this sense, all the Trump detractors who are concerned that he could suddenly put an end to their beloved perpetual warfare, better sleep well, because it seems for the time being that he's about to do the exact opposite.

Of course, one could argue that the Kurds would be too naive to expect that they'd get anything better in return for their sacrifices. History abounds of examples to the validity of the Kurdish proverb that the people's only true friend is the mountain. America's lack of a true political commitment to the Kurds at the international stage, the US passiveness to the Turkish invasion of Afrin, and the refusal to arm the Kurdish militias with heavy equipment are all clear signals that the proverb is sooner or later going to be proven right yet again. But it's also naive to believe that the Kurds had a significantly varied choice of action, and they could've merely switched sides, guaranteeing themselves better results depending on the outcome of the conflict. It's also naive to believe that the Russian concessions to Turkey would somehow lead to a complete and lasting Turkish exit from the American sphere of influence. Erdogan is not that stupid.

There's still a slim chance that the worst scenario could be averted. But the political realities, historical tendencies and personal character of the individuals in position of importance who are involved in all this, do not give any reasons for optimism.

Comments

[johnny9fingers]

Yep.

What Iraq needed was a significant period of allied occupation reinforcing stability and rebuilding its social and political structures. And a Marshall plan, and probably membership of NATO. What Iraq got was a penny-pinching operation overseen by the US but run by private companies with a bottom line and shareholders to service, no significant occupation, no building of stable social and political structures, and a firesale on its remaining assets rather than a Marshall plan with long-term investments.

Having presided over the destruction of Iraq, in some fashion it now becomes imperative and, at the same time, morally acceptable for us to walk away from the mess. To me this doesn't follow; but the corollaries of the mendacious trying to avoid responsibility are shown to me too often by my children for me to accept them easily from grown-up politicians.

[arhalvaztrirjournal]

Whatever Iraq needed, more US soldiers was never in those answers. The USA's role in that country is a clusterfuck on par with our role in Vietnam and with even less coherent a rationale for that. Iraq is the result of a military machine needing and largely inventing an enemy that never was, and not having the good sense to quit and accept sometimes the best you can do is accept a genocidal tyrant will stay in power because the risks of deposing the iron fist can be a terrible alternative.

[oportet]

I understand the 'U.S. shouldn't meddle, UNLESS it is necessary' argument - but I'm just making sure all of you making it realize - that's pretty much been our politicians reasoning for a while now...

[fridi]

What's your alternative to that argument, pray tell?

[oportet]

My argument is there are two arguments - meddle or don't meddle. There is no grey area on this one. You can put the arbitrary line wherever you want, but you can't straddle it.

Simply put - you can't be against US intervention if you want US intervention.

Putting qualifiers on it doesn't change anything.

But...it's a really bad guy this time. But...they really need us this time. But...we contributed to the problem, we must help fix it.

That sounds an awful lot like...us, the approach we've taken forever now (as I mentioned below, the same approach I assumed most of you had a problem with).

[fridi]

Couldn't you want the US intervention to persist, now that it has happened, and still have been against said intervention in the first place?

Couldn't you want a different sort of intervention?

Things are all black and white in your mind, aren't they?

What about you and that approach? Do YOU have a problem with it or not? It doesn't become clear from all your diatribe so far.

[kiaa]

I just love it when someone makes a statement starting with "All you..."... Smells so deliciously of exquisite-quality, subtle-taste, gourmet-style trolling.

[oportet]

As far as this community goes, am I that far off?

I didn't take a poll - this is just my observation - but I'd guess around 90% of Americans, and closer to 100% of non-Americans here have said something along the lines of - the US should mind it's own business/the US should stop policing the world/the US shouldn't be here or there.

If I'm mistaken, and that didn't happen at all - just say so - I won't bother digging through years of posts and comments, I'll simply admit I am mistaken. But....am I?

[mahnmut]

But was it necessary, here?

[asthfghl]

Depends who you ask, I suppose.

[abomvubuso]

"I understand the 'U.S. shouldn't meddle, UNLESS it is necessary' argument"

From all that I've read from you this far, I very much doubt that you do.

[asthfghl]

The US could've joined the so called international community and done a meaningful effort to work with both the regime in Syria and its opponents, and incentivize both sides to maintain democracy in the country. Instead, the US funded some rebel groups to try and topple the regime, because the regime was already becoming too friendly to Iran, and we can't allow Iran to gain geopolitical access to the Mediterranean, can we? The resulting mess is visible to all. Of course, you guys across the Pond don't care much about these things, because they happen thousands of miles away from your homes, where you can comfortably sit in your sofas, eat popcorn and watch it unfold on CNN as if it were an action movie. All the while, we stupid Euros bearing the bulk of the burden, both economically, politically, diplomatically, and in terms of refugee pressure.

But you prefer not to take all these things into account when bashing us stupid Euros who are always so overly concerned about the US meddling in matters in our backyard that they US doesn't understand. It's like releasing your pet gorilla in my kitchen, and then shrugging innocently, "Why are you hatin' on apes, man?"

The US wants to play a dominant role worldwide, and reap all the benfits? Sure thing, sport! But if you want a lasting dominance, and more friends than foes overall, wouldn't it be better to think things through twice or thrice before jumping in? And, fine, once you've messed up (again), isn't it more responsible, and better from the standpoint of winning hearts and minds (and allies to do your adventures for you, and markets to sustain your economy, by extension), if you actually stayed and tried to sort things out? But not by nation-building this time, and not by toppling this unfriendly dictator or the other and replacing them with your friendly crooks and butchers - but this time actually listen to what your partners have to say?

Would it be that hard? Or maybe it's just too un-American for some tastes?

[airiefairie]

Not just could've. Still could. But of course won't. As expected.

[mikeyxw]

"incentivize both sides to maintain democracy"

If this means sending thoughts and prayers while a president-for-life has his military shoot unarmed civilians, I have to respect the purity of such cynicism. The US got involved pretty reluctantly and didn't start providing aid until more than a year into the civil war, after the UN brokered cease fire had failed. Even then, it was non-lethal aid and paled in comparison to what was provided by the gulf states. Saying the Syrian conflict was due to the US trying to prevent Iran from getting access to the Mediterranean is absolutely absurd.

My take is that Europe would have gotten about the same number of Syrian refugees if the US stood by. This was always more of a conflict between the gulf states and Iran than by the US.

[oportet]

Look at your response. The US could've done this, but instead the US did that, and it didn't work.

I agree, 100% - but I seem to have misplaced my time machine.

1) Can the US make the situation better? If no, we should leave. If yes, go to question 2.

2) Will we? (are you really that optimistic that we aren't going to fuck things up more?)

[arhalvaztrirjournal]

On what basis is there even the slightest reason to expect the son of the man whose idea of how to handle dissident was 'open fire and run tanks over the bodies then open fire and add more bodies to the graveyard' was ever interested in even a pretense of democracy? Why would the Assads want that? Their totalitarian regime has been the closest thing Syria had to stability and if the son had been capable of pulling off his own Hama there would have been another gargantuan massacre, absolutely, but there wouldn't have been a war that halved the country and left him master of a ruin.

Add to it as well that Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and even the Saudis have taken proportionately far more refugees than the Europeans without producing their own Trumps demanding properly Turkish, Iraqi, Iranian, or Hijazi societies with massive iron curtains and opening fire on those refugees and I find this view surprisingly naive and detached from reality. Much moreso than I'm used to seeing.

The son understood the lesson of how daddy kept himself in power. He's never been as good at doing it as daddy was, which is why this mess became what it did. And the idea that a society built by this kind of grasp on power *could* produce democracy....

*Points to post-Soviet Russia, points to Orban in Hungary*

Yeah, there's so much reality-based analysis to prove that any kind of outside intervention de facto ending in regime change (which is what's required for an actual democracy in Syria to happen) can or would end well.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/from-the-archive-blog/2011/aug/01/hama-syria-massacre-1982-archive

[nairiporter]

All those conversations that we've had on the topic, and all those thousands of words, people explaining and explaining their POV on this - and all we got in conclusion is, "You guys don't want us to meddle, but maybe sometimes you do".

[airiefairie]

There could be made all sorts of arguments for and against meddling, or a more nuanced set of princples of meddling could be formulated if you are more inclined, but over-simplifications of this sort seldom help promote a constructive approach to issues, not to mention to discourse. So I have to ask, what is the purpose of this comment, and the subsequent doubling-down, but truly?

[oportet]

The purpose is to get everyone to rethink their position - that's the purpose of every comment on every post from every one.

I can see I'm outnumbered - but every single person's disagreement with me hinges on the hope that 'we're going to do it the right way this time!'.

I've never seen this much optimism from y'all about US intervention.

[arhalvaztrirjournal]

As someone who's made this kind of mistake myself I've never really gotten *that* impression. And as per this thread it's never a good idea to tell people what they think en masse whether or not it's true, which is why I'm not going to bother noting what the impression I've gotten is. Just noting belatedly that there are less destructive ways to make a point.

Also to recognize that the arguments that are made here do have some truth and the people here are somewhat smarter than the average person, and more well informed.

[abomvubuso]

The Kurds won't be the only Western allies who'll suffer from Trump's whimsical zigzagging. But the bigger problem is that the US has shown yet again that they have absolutely no idea what they're doing.

[arhalvaztrirjournal]

The Kurds' simple goal is to break up the territorial integrity simultaneously of three states more than sufficiently powerful to clobber them and with serious vested interest in so doing.

I also wonder how frankly the USA expected Turkey to not be alienated when the Syrian regime shelling and raiding its borders wasn't a NATO crisis but an ISIS terrorist attack on a soccer game was. Turkey was alienated for reasons well beyond US involvement, and much of that stems from Europeans thinking NATO stops on the Elbe where Russia knows it very much does not.

Likewise the USA has a rising imperial rival that's finally establishing its own overseas bases. A new Cold War with Red China won't exactly be more polite than the old Soviet version, and at the end of the day if the Chinese become the great power focus that actually matters, European voices will end up being the ones as relevant as the opinions of Yemeni civilians that the war that they died in for eight years mattered back in 2009 and 2010 as much as it started to matter when Trump took office.

Which isn't to say that it shouldn't, but geopolitical imperatives have never been moral considerations.

[johnny9fingers]

Geopolitical imperatives.

Gets us all, every time.

[arhalvaztrirjournal]

Yes, interesting how that works, isn't it?

Why it's like the USA's built the largest empire in human history and is proceeding to act in accordance with classical imperial MOs....while a continent that largely owes its wealth to the very same thing pretends that history didn't exist to wag fingers at the people who benefit out of jealousy and refusal to admit that their 'beneficiaries' threw them out with their tails between their legs the way that will ultimately happen to us, too.

All empires fall, after all.

[airiefairie]

100 comments, wow...