Syrian Hmong

[Dill]

(11-13-2019, 03:48 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Turkey is difficult to deal with at this point.  They're a NATO ally, and until recently were an example of a moderate Islamic nation committed to democratic principles.  Erdogan has changed that and I fear they are moving steadily towards theocratic leanings.  The problem with them is if you alienate them then you drive them into the arms of Russia, who have been actively courting the Turks.  Turkey is hugely important strategically as they are the cork in the Black Sea and they control land access from Europe to the Middle East.  Add in their near pathological hatred of the Kurds (which is returned with equal fervor) and our previous support of the Kurds and it's a delicate situation with no right answer.  Personally, I think the right path at the moment is to continue treating them as an ally and attempt to bring them back into the fold. 

I am curious as to what tactic the detractors in this thread think would be appropriate for Turkey at the present time.

I find the bolded statements a bit too ambiguous or vague (not the same as wrong), but the rest seems sensible and comprehensively well stated.

As to "the right path"--the question is HOW we continue treating them as an ally and HOW specifically we "bring them back into the fold."

A clear wrong way to do this would be to behave as if we need Turkey more than they need us, and to subordinate US policy to personal relations between our president and Erdogan--a sure win for Turkey if that president is Trump.  

The unnecessary US pull out from the Syrian-Turkish border has boxed the US into a corner, diminishing our most important ally against ISIS, expanding the influence of Russia and Iran in the region, and tying the US forces to oil fields legally the property of the Syrian state, among other negatives.

And yet, pulling out as a personal favor to Erdogan has not earned his good will, though it has cost us the good will of the Kurds. He is not "out of the fold" yet. But his rhetoric indicates he wants us to believe that he will give up future EU membership and perhaps even NATO unless he can expand his freedom to operate in Syria against the Kurds as he wishes.

So future US policy now has to be exercised from this "corner," with less trust among allies, ground given up to adversaries, etc.

From my position as "detractor," were I advising a reasonable president, I would look first to reassess what US policy goals are or should be in the region. The current mess could look good to an isolationist president.

As an advisor, just as the US is in a corner, so am I. Do we want to cut our losses now, get out, and wait until the next international crisis rocks our economy or terrorist attack threatens our interests to go back in? (1 billion a year to keep Saddam in his box from 1992-2002; 700 billion in direct costs for the 2003 invasion.)  If that is the president's desire, then I offer a letter of resignation, stating the reasons why I cannot support the policy; the president deserves someone fully on board.

If the president agrees we do not want to leave a power vacuum for Russia and Iran to fill, then I would stay and figure out how to work the US out of it's corner. This would require diplomacy and support from Israel, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq in the first rank, and Greece, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the EU and NATO in the second.  It would require a to-date assessment of Turkey's economy and of Erdogan's political support. (E.g., when he threatens to turn Syrian refugees loose on Europe, does that win or lose him support at home?) 

Hard to say anything more specific without the requested intel. It is possible that attempts to restore the US and Kurdish presence in Syria to former levels in the near future, in hopes of preventing a resurgence of ISIS or similar group, are simply no longer cost effective. From the current corner, it might be better, long term, to focus on Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq (especially the latter two) to make them as stable as possible, and models of the benefit of working with the US and Europe. One goal would be to make them better able to police the unrest across their borders.

A concomitant tack would be, also, to see how the US can be of assistance to Turkey in managing its economy and the problem of Syrian refugees.  (Carrot first. Public ultimatums to an authoritarian leader are a last resort before consequences.) Russian resources/solutions here are laughable compared to NATO and the EU and the US leading Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. Russia offers some military support and a willingness to both embrace and hide human rights violations--a much lower bar for alliance than the US and Europe.

A serious Realpolitiker here might even add assurances of support for Turkey's current policy and control in Syrian territory, in return for accommodation of Syrian Kurds in Eastern Syria.

Still thinking this through though--this cannot be managed to expand or restore Assad's control of Syria . . . .