One would mislead the reader if he was to state that the recent aggravation of the Syrian crisis that was triggered by the launch of Turkey’s Operation Olive Branch in the north of the country, which has already resulted in military casualties suffered by both the Turkish and Kurdish side came as a surprise for those who were following Middle Eastern developments carefully. There’s also no denying the fact that the bloody Turkish-Kurdish confrontation that has already resulted in a considerable civilian death toll is an avid example of the two-faced policies of Washington, when former allies of the US are now being used as bargaining chips.
Back in August of 2016, Ankara would show the world that it entered Syria with a fixed goal in mind that had little to nothing in common with fighting ISIS. At that time, when Turkey launched an assault of Jarabulus, numerous media experts were not afraid to openly state that Ankara was going after Kurdish armed groups by making this step.
In particular, back then Le Figaro commented on the Turkish invasion of Syria, noting that Erdogan’ Syrian assault on Jarabulus was not aimed at the destruction of ISIS, but instead was aimed at countering Kurdish advancements in Syria as this step had been on the cards for a long time so ISIS served like a mere excuse. At the time, this position was supported by the German Tagesspiegel that would note that initially Erdogan was supporting Islamists in the fight against Damascus, but when they started to lose their grip over Syrian territories, the Turkish leader showed to everyone that he had a change of hearts, making it clear from that point on he would be using the fight against ISIS as a pretext for future military actions against the Syrian Kurds. Further still, the Swiss Tagesanzeiger back in 2016 was also stressing the fact that the main goal of Turkey’s invasion of Syria was an attempt to prevent the creation of an autonomous Kurdish entity within its borders.
It goes without saying that Ankara’s goals have never been a secret for Washington, that was bold enough to publish its assessments publicly through the Foreign Policy magazine, nothing that the campaign that Ankara launched may mark a new era of US–Turkishcooperation in Syria. This Washington’s mouthpiece would openly admit that Erdogan’s motives for directly entering the Syrian war didn’t not cleanly overlap with Washington’s and were in direct conflict with those of the Kurdish forces which allied themselves with the US. It was also made clear back then that Washington recognized Ankara’s hopes of America assisting it in putting pressure on Kurdish forces in a bid to force them into respecting territorial red lines, such as staying east of the Euphrates River, but Washington was and still is reluctant to fulfill those. The same Foreign Policy would state that (emphasis added):
These dynamics have potentially enormous implications for the war in northern Syria. They may raise Turkish-PYD tensions in the short term, which the United States will have to manage and factor into its anti-Islamic State strategy. On balance, however, Washington has little choice but to embrace Ankara, a NATO ally, over a controversial militia that is Turkey’s enemy. Having Turkey as a full-fledged partner in the anti-Islamic State fight also will give Washington greater leverage with its Kurdish allies.
By reading this lines one can come to a conclusion that Washington was fully aware of the fact that Syrian Kurds have put themselves on a collision course with Turkey, but instead of preventing tragic events we’re seeing today from happening, it preferred to keep quiet about the future clashes between its own regional allies. Even back then the The New York Times hinted its readers that Washington could abandon its support of the Kurdish forces in Syria at any given moment, as it reported that the then US Secretary of State, Joe Biden announced that the Kurds had to return to east of the Euphrates or risk losing American support.
The fact that it’s a risky business being an American ally in any region of the world has been discussed time and time again, and still some of those allies seem surprised when they find themselves being thrown under the bus. It’s been also noted that Washington’s allies are paying a high price in the blood of their soldiers for countless military adventures as they are recruited to fight alongside the US in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other regions of the world.
One can recall how the new Syrian army was defeated on the battlefield by ISIS militants, when US Air Force aircraft abandoned them at the most crucial moment. Back then The Pentagon-backed Mutasim Brigade claimed one of the air strikes hit the brigade. Further still, one can recall how in July of 2015, the so called “worst friendly fire incident” in Afghanistan occurred when ten Afghan soldiers were killed and a lot more were wounded after their compound was fired on by US military helicopters.
The true goals that Washington is pursuing in Syria have been recently revealed during a joint press conference of US Vice President, Michael R. Pence with Jordan’s King Abdullah II in Amman. In particular, he pointed out that the United States remains committed to its perpetual military presence in Syria, not only to fight ISIS but to restrain the allegedly hostile steps that Iran is making in the region that are seen as an attempt to destabilize the situation in the White House. What is noteworthy is that there’s been no mention of Washington’s plans to protect the Kurds from Turkey among the US stated goals.
Therefore, one can only remind how much of a risky endeavor it is to take part in one of the many military adventures of the White House, as the only way to save a nation’s young blood is to abstain from such adventures. There’s little doubt that direct military interventions will remain the primary occupation of the White House for years to come.