US abandoning Kurds in Syria

[HVC]

America sucks man

Keeping traditions alive!

[Sheilbh]

Show your work. What is the overwhelming liability of protecting them?

They want independence are spread out between their four neighbors each of which don't want them to gain independence.

Strategic value: None, the US shouldn't be there anyway.

Arguably the strategic value is showing the worth and trustworthiness and reliability of an American ally.

If at the end of it, a crisis occurs which forces a dilemma on the Americans, I think that would be one thing. But as I say that hasn't happened, this is a choice by a flighty President for no good strategic reason.

And it probably will cause questions - especially when you add in the stuff with North Korea - about an American alliance that, ultimate, always hangs by the mood of whoever is President at the time.

[chipwich]

Arguably the strategic value is showing the worth and trustworthiness and reliability of an American ally.

The United States needs to reduce it's number of allies and can't go around fighting wars just to maintain the number of deadweight allies it has.

[frunk]

The overwhelming fact is the protecting the Kurds is much more of a liability than strategic value. I wish taht weren't so but it is.

The relatively low cost of protecting Kurds is nothing compared to the much higher cost of current (or potential future) US allies looking in other directions for more reliable partnerships.

See also the US tearing up the Iran agreement.  We have become significantly less reliable and will pay for that going forward.

[chipwich]

The overwhelming fact is the protecting the Kurds is much more of a liability than strategic value. I wish taht weren't so but it is.

The relatively low cost of protecting Kurds ?!?

[Berkut]

I am truly, truly ashamed to call myself an American.

[frunk]

The United States needs to reduce it's number of allies and can't go around fighting wars just to maintain the number of deadweight allies it has.

There's an argument for the US becoming more isolationist.  Negotiating with our allies and gradually pulling back would make sense.  Abandoning positions randomly at the request of foreign Autocrats probably isn't the best way to do that.

[frunk]

The overwhelming fact is the protecting the Kurds is much more of a liability than strategic value. I wish taht weren't so but it is.

The relatively low cost of protecting Kurds ?!?

Our military commitment in Syria is much less than it was in Iraq, or our ongoing commitments in Afghanistan, Europe and Asia.  Not to mention military spending isn't set to be reduced so it's not like we are actually saving anything.

[Valmy]

Arguably the strategic value is showing the worth and trustworthiness and reliability of an American ally.

The United States needs to reduce it's number of allies and can't go around fighting wars just to maintain the number of deadweight allies it has.

The Kurds have fought courageously in the service of our shared interests though, hardly dead weight. They seem an odd choice if you want to shed unreliable, worthless allies. Turkey seems far more in that category than the Kurds.

But if it was part of a strategic reshuffling that involved just leaving the Middle East to China and Russia...ok whatever. But we are likely going to be sucked back into the Middle East over and over again...just now we will be short one reliable and longterm ally who has shown a willingness to fight.

I don't see the logic behind your points here chipwich.

[chipwich]

Arguably the strategic value is showing the worth and trustworthiness and reliability of an American ally.

The United States needs to reduce it's number of allies and can't go around fighting wars just to maintain the number of deadweight allies it has.

The Kurds have fought courageously in the service of our shared interests though, hardly dead weight. They seem an odd choice if you want to shed unreliable, worthless allies. Turkey seems far more in that category than the Kurds.

What shared interests?

[Valmy]

Arguably the strategic value is showing the worth and trustworthiness and reliability of an American ally.

The United States needs to reduce it's number of allies and can't go around fighting wars just to maintain the number of deadweight allies it has.

The Kurds have fought courageously in the service of our shared interests though, hardly dead weight. They seem an odd choice if you want to shed unreliable, worthless allies. Turkey seems far more in that category than the Kurds.

What shared interests?

They seem obvious to me. What is your confusion here? How are our interests divergent when it comes to Iraq and Syria?

[Sheilbh]

Arguably the strategic value is showing the worth and trustworthiness and reliability of an American ally.

The United States needs to reduce it's number of allies and can't go around fighting wars just to maintain the number of deadweight allies it has.

What wars is the US fighting to maintain its allies?

[chipwich]

Arguably the strategic value is showing the worth and trustworthiness and reliability of an American ally.

The United States needs to reduce it's number of allies and can't go around fighting wars just to maintain the number of deadweight allies it has.

The Kurds have fought courageously in the service of our shared interests though, hardly dead weight. They seem an odd choice if you want to shed unreliable, worthless allies. Turkey seems far more in that category than the Kurds.

What shared interests?

They seem obvious to me. What is your confusion here? How are our interests divergent when it comes to Iraq and Syria?

America doesn't have interests in Iraq and Syria.

[chipwich]

Arguably the strategic value is showing the worth and trustworthiness and reliability of an American ally.

The United States needs to reduce it's number of allies and can't go around fighting wars just to maintain the number of deadweight allies it has.

What wars is the US fighting to maintain its allies?

Syria and Korea.

[Razgovory]

I can't help but think of the Vietnamese boat people.  The US took in a whole bunch of people during that which is fair since the US betrayed these folks.  Somehow I doubt that will happen with this.  I do remember a time when Republicans used the issue of the boat people to argue that the leftists in the US were naive and uncaring, and willing to let other people die rather than stand up against murderers and tyrants. It was, in my opinion, a fairly strong argument in that it was true or at least mostly true.

I disagree vehmently with Chip.  We support our allies because we promised to do so.  We promised to support them because it's the right thing to do.