Trump can't "lose" a Syria that he never had.

The idea that the Kurds must be protected by the USA from Turkey is a geopolitical argument, NOT a moral one. No one wants to see needless bloodshed, but often these conflicts occur along practical pragmatic lines, NOT ideology or morality. According to many sources the Kurds are now set to be aided by the Assad government in Syria in a new regional conflict with Turkey. The neo-conservatives will label this as Trump "losing" the Kurds to Assad and Putin. But did we ever "have" them? The objective of the operation in Syria was the reversal and defeat of ISIS. That was mostly accomplished in 2017 and it's hard to know when if ever terror will be completely eradicated.

On the other hand Syria as a nation has been allied with the Soviet Union and then Russia since at least the 1960s. The Soviet naval base in Tartus has been active since 1971. The US ambitions in the region are largely part of the broader movement to keep America closely involved in the Middle East. There are already many client states in the region that buy their arms from the USA: Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and since 2004 even former Soviet/Russian client Iraq. Supporters of the Iraq War, namely the neoconservatives like John Bolton, Bill Kristol and their mush-mouthed allies in the Democratic Party like then Sen. John Kerry, assured the public that going to war in 2003 would help create a safer world. It didn't, but Iraq was shifted over from the "theirs" column to the "our" column. Hundreds of thousands of civilians according to The Lancet's detailed study were killed thanks to this calculated decision. Supporters of a sustained commitment of US troops to the defense of the Kurds reason that it is a) a moral imperative since these militias are our allies, b) that withdrawal endangers regional allies like Israel, Iraq and Jordan, and c) that not doing so is pushing the country back into the calloused arms of evil old Vlad Putin.

This faction of the American body politic accuse non-interventionists like myself of being isolationists and lacking the gumption to actually back up our commitments to allies like the Kurds. The contradictions of this position are so glaring that one needs multi-billion dollar media conglomerates to keep them out of view. In case anyone missed it whether one likes it or not, Turkey remains a NATO member. If war hawks like Marco Rubio and Ben Shapiro are so indignant over this invasion by Erdogan, why have they until now not lobbied for the expulsion of Turkey from the alliance? The reason for this is that while they are supposedly repelled by his despotic behaviour, it doesn't stop them from loving the fact that the US has 5 thousand Air Force personnel garrisoned at Incirlik Air Base in southeastern Turkey. This is the same type of self-righteous behaviour that has actually fueled terrorism across the globe and driven legions of youth into the arms of the anti-war left. The Hawks are always willing to volunteer someone else's children to fight other countries' battles, all with other people's money while sacrificing their privacy. Why is anyone surprised then that many of the classmates and siblings of those people serving in the war zones come out in force to oppose them?

The picture that pro-war pundits want to paint of non-interventionists is the wacky appeasement friendly lefty of the Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders breed. The truth is that opposition to foreign entanglements transcends party lines, but unfortunately the trigger happy impulses of the Boltons have created a groundswell of support for these politicians that shores them up with people that may otherwise not be in favour of their domestic agendas. What empowers fruit loops like Corbyn is the tendency of pro-war politicians to close ranks in the interest of delusions of "world peace". Thanks to the Chicken Little mentality of the media, there was even an opinion piece published in The Hill by Brent Budowsky, former aide to Democratic VP candidate Lloyd Bentsen, calling on presidents Obama AND Bush (whose father defeated his boss in 1988) to condemn the Syria pullout. A believer in the "Russian collusion" narrative months before it was fashionable, Budowsky must have been charmed when Bush reportedly answered his prayers by condemning Trump's "isolationist" foreign policy as a threat to "global peace" at a conference at the Nir School of the Heart. This was the same attitude that led to American involvement in regime change efforts that destroyed the nations of Iraq, Libya, and Yemen that have yet to be resolved.

The Worst President sees fit to raise grievances

Let's rewind for a second, the incompetent buffoon who guided the USA into a financial crisis, record debt, and the Iraq quagmire is the person condemning one of his successors for being a threat to "global peace". Unfortunately, the American media has been quick to absolve W of his horrendous performance as president, because he has the countenance of a gentle gorilla infant. The pathetic media coos over him sharing a candy mint with Michelle Obama or chatting at an NFL game with Ellen DeGeneres. Did Bush change into a more tolerable person? No, he also always had the mild personality while in the White House back in the days when reporters hated him. The only thing that's changed is the expediency of using him to maintain the norms of a war hungry yellow press.
Some partisan conservatives will gripe that I am excusing Barack Obama and Bill Clinton by calling Bush the worst president ever. Let's not mince words - Without George W. it is possible there would have been no Obama AND whatever his personal flaws and corruption Bill Clinton was an eminently more skilled leader than Bush.

Kurdistan - Free . . . but autonomous?

During the same news cycle described above the media is not only smearing Donald Trump as the enabler of genocide, it is also attempting to assassinate the candidacy of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), the only Democrat running against Trump to oppose Middle East intervention. CNN commentator Bakari Sellers, a former state legislator and failed candidate for lieutenant governor in South Carolina, called Rep. Gabbard a "puppet for the Russian government" and Assad apologist. Even if one disagrees with Gabbard's approach, those allegations are unfounded. Merely having met Pres. Assad on a fact-finding mission to prevent war does not make her his "apologist" and she has repeatedly condemned him and other regional dictators as autocrats. It was also revealed in an undercover sting by Project Veritas that CNN itself does not like the Hawaii congresswoman. Gabbard responded indignantly to the defamatory coverage both during the debate and on a follow-up appearance on Tucker Carlson's Fox News show.
It would be wrong to celebrate the outcome of the withdrawal of US troops if it results in the loss of innocent life, civilian or military. Those that have gone beyond the position of opposing intervention and claim that Bashar al-Assad is the enlightened dictator that can sort Syria out, or that the Kurds "deserve" to be butchered by Turkey are trying to sell an amoral argument. The only necessary justification for withdrawing US troops is that their presence there needlessly endangers them without assisting US national security interests. Beyond that there are several complicating factors that belie the official media narrative on the Kurds:

1. The US mission in Syria was entirely concentrated on assisting in the mitigation of ISIS expansion in that nation and Iraq.
2. Kurdish sources are now reporting that Russian and Syrian forces are prepared to forge an alliance with the Kurdish militias in the area in question including the Syrian Democratic Forces.
3. The Turks are allied with another supposed US "ally", elements of the Free Syrian Army, who are now releasing ISIS prisoners. At some point every delinquent group in the region was marketed as "freedom fighters".
4. Those claiming that abandoning the Kurds slams the door shut for an independent Kurdistan ought to consider whether even they consider that the goal. In 2016 Hediye Yusuf, the co-chair of the Rojava Constituent Assembly affirmed to Russia's Sputnik News that her movement believed in the "federal system" of governance in Syria. In other words, according to her group the Kurds want more autonomy, not independence from Assad.
5. As of today there is a temporary ceasefire brokered by US Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo between Turkey and the Syrian factions. Hopefully it can lead to a longer term peaceful resolution in the region. That can only happen by coordination with Russia.
6. Notably absent from any blame is the European Union, which has chosen to sell arms to Turkey in order to bolster its defense industry. Germany was reported today to have increased its sales to Turkey this year to the highest level since 2005. Also selling to Erdogan's government have been France, Spain, Finland, Sweden, and the Netherlands. Until now no one has criticized these transactions despite Angela Merkel being labeled the "leader of the free world" by liberal and neo-conservative pundits.

It might be nerve wracking to have to agree with politicians like Trump and Gabbard who supposedly are "isolationist", but the United States cannot place troops in harm's way for the sake of pretending to prevent wars. It is very convenient to advocate for involvement in a country that one might never visit from the convenience of a laptop in Park Slope as many pundits do. We have become disconnected from the people stuck there on our behalf, and those that supposedly they protect for way too long.

The decision to withdraw US troops did create a vacuum, but one that was quickly filled by Russia and Syria. Officially the goal of direct US involvement was never to create an independent Kurdish state, nor was it to remove the Assad government. Will neo-conservatives now admit that they were disingenuous in their goals? If protecting the Kurds is a top priority, then it should not matter who is doing it, but rather that it's being done at all. Those that complain are simply bitter about Syria (or part of it) remaining in the "their" column, and not the "our" column. This was the same rationale used to declare that President Truman "lost" China to communism, only people have to wake up and realize that these countries are not ours to win or lose. The destiny of each nation cannot be in the hands of its armourers.