Really, War Against a NATO Ally?

Secretary of State Pompeo previously alluded to the possibility of utilizing military action against Turkey if it continued its offensive against the Kurds in Syria. Although President Trump seems to be unwilling to muster up an American strike force to bomb a NATO ally, the fact that a high U.S. official was even suggesting this is ludicrous and demonstrates the arrogance and sinister intent on the part of many government officials. With so much discontent with the president's withdrawal from Syria, war hawks in the United States government may attempt to pressure him into increasing the troop presence in Syria and keeping them there indefinitely, as well as re-implementing economic sanctions against Turkey.

Both parties are claiming that this extraction will lead to genocide against the Kurds and a resurgence of ISIS (or ISIL or whatever other acronym you prefer). Although these two possible scenarios are a concern, the pulling out of troops from Syria is not what caused this situation in the first place. Many people like to blame the Obama administration’s withdrawal plan from Iraq as a reason that ISIS swept through and conquered vast territory throughout Iraq, Syria, and Libya, but the reality is much more complex. The United States’ invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the regime change operation under President Bush to take out Saddam Hussein, as well as the Obama administration’s decision to support the destabilization of Bashar al-Assad's Syria, was largely what led to an area ripe for the taking by a radical Islamic group. The United States has contributed to the problems plaguing the region, and a continued presence in Syria will only add to this trend. Plus, it will increase government spending and bring more troops home in coffins. The best approach is to withdraw and stop making matters worse in the Middle East.

Although President Trump has decided to halt economic coercion against Turkey for the time being, members of both parties are pushing for punitive action, which just goes to show that an aggressive foreign policy of bullying and policing the world is bipartisan. One party may oppose the actions of an individual president in order to give an illusion that the parties differ on fundamental issues, but at the end of the day, both parties have hawkish tendencies that endure through several presidencies.

Separately, Russia and Turkey have come to their own agreement to patrol the border area between Turkey and Syria, removing Kurdish fighters (considered terrorists by Ankara) further from Turkish territory and sparing the Kurds from slaughter. Although this is a step in the right direction, American war hawks will likely not be impressed because it makes Russia look like a peacemaker and draws a NATO ally closer to what they view as an enemy (a missile deal has already been reached between Turkey and Russia, despite U.S. condemnation), and this is not acceptable to many who see Russia as the great Satan.

Although we may not want to admit it, the United States creates more problems around the world than it solves, and keeping our troops in Syria is not going to make the Middle East a better place. Ultimately, the fate of the countries in that region is up to the people who live there, and a foreign power going in to force democracy and peace on countries will fail. We have seen it time and time again. Plus, despite what the media and government officials will tell you, the primary objectives for waging these wars involving regime change and forcing compliance are to improve the global economic system led by the United States and to enhance the interests of corporate cronies. Where is the cry against oppression and genocide in countries that do not have abundant natural resources or are compliant with U.S. interests (e.g. Saudi Arabia and Israel)?

Thank you for reading, and please check out my book, The Global Bully, and website.
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share twitter circle
Published on October 24, 2019 03:31
No comments have been added yet.