The US Administration has recently announced that “Cooperation with PYD-YPG in Syria, particularly during the Raqqa Operation is a tactical move; it does not bear any strategic quality or continuity.” To what extent, is this explanation satisfying?
Back in the First and the Second Gulf Wars, they similarly argued that the partnership established with Barzani and Talabani was at the “tactical” level. Nevertheless, the Kurdish Autonomous Administration in northern Iraq is about to push the button for a referendum for independence in the upcoming Fall. A CIA report leaked to the press underscores that this development will “irrevocably” end up in independence. There are no guarantees that “tactical partnership” will not pave the way for a de facto divided Syria; nor there are assurances that a terrorist organisation, which has illegally won territory in Syria and executed a “systematic ethnic cleansing” through forced immigration of Arab and Turkmen locals, will not come up against us tomorrow in a similar situation.
We are going through turbulent times in which Turkey’s national interests clash with “American pragmatism.”
“American pragmatism” foresees that US soldiers set foot on Syrian soil only for a limited period and that bloody operations are rather conducted by “local powers.” This is a “self-interested” approach both in terms of casualties and financing. Nevertheless, recent history throws a light upon how such approaches led to very dangerous incidents in the past.
