In comments to reporters on Monday, Kurdish commander Mazloum Kobani, the leader of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), called on the United States to completely halt plans to withdraw from Syria, saying he needs an “enduring” presence from the US-led coalition.
Kobani not only says he wants air support from the US, but a “force on
the ground to coordinate with us.” That ground force, according to the
commander, should include between 1,000 and 1,500 international forces.
This would be expected to be overwhelmingly US troops, of course. There
are an estimated 2,000 US troops in Syria, and a few hundred others from
the coalition, mostly French and British. Kobani’s preference seems to
be that they be Americans.
Saying that Trump has promised to protect the Kurds, he says he expects
the president to “live up to his word,” and as far as he is concerned,
that means continuing the US military presence indefinitely.
Sure he does. Everyone wants the US military at their beck and call, for free, fighting their wars for their interests.
The Kurdish commander and the kurds are traitors to their country.
“Their country,” of course, meaning some government that has demanded their allegiance, whether they consent to be ruled by that government or not.
They are Syrians and have Syrian citizenship, they colluded with an occupying power who funds terrorists, they stole Syrian land and property, destroyed infrastructure, destroyed cities and killed scores of Syrians. Now they ask a foreign power to protect them and occupy stolen land for ever.
In any country they would be tried for their crimes and treason.
“In any country they would be tried for their crimes and treason.”
That’s true. But it doesn’t really answer the question.
How did they become “Syrians” and get “Syrian citizenship?”
The answer is: Winston Churchill drew new gang turf lines on a cocktail napkin 100 years ago.
Yes, if the gang they recently got off their backs temporarily gets back on their backs, there will be reprisals.
That doesn’t mean the gang’s victims are to blame.
Just like the Venezuela discussion……you are making no sense.
you should be on Neocon/Neoliberal sites who are more aligned with your mindset.
i will not waste more time on .you.
Yes, just like the Venezuela discussion — I’m against US interventionism and military adventurism.
Where you, like the neocons, seem to think that a position of non-interventionism/non-adventurism has to rely on one’s judgment as to which side is “right” in a given conflict.
Do I think the US should support Kurdish nationalist aspirations? No.
Do I think the US should oppose Kurdish nationalist aspirations? No.
I think the US should mind its own business.
In order to think that, I do NOT have to pretend that because Winston Churchill drew some lines on a cocktail napkin in 1920, Kurds living within one set of those lines owe their undying loyalty to whatever gang is calling itself “the government of Syria” this week.