Turkey, the Kurds, and other complications with US policy in Syria

Trump's impulsive, bumbling, and corrupt approach to foreign policy has recently shown itself in the sputtering policy of withdrawing US troops from Syria and adressing the change that would make in the situation with the Damscus government, Turkey, and the Syrian Kurds.

The Kurds in northern Syria have a fighting group, YPG (People's Protection Units), that has established an momentarily independent region referred to by various names, including Rojava, from Kurdistana Rojava (Western Kurdistan). This autonomous status is not liked or officially recognized by Damascus or Ankara. The YPG has been negotiating with Bashar al-Assad's government apparently angling to have Damascus agree to protect them from Turkey in exchange for the YPG to agreeing to only limited autonomy for Rojava as paart of Syria.

Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan regards the YPG as a terrorist organization aligned with secessionist Kurds in Turkey led by the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party). He would like to send troops into Syria to fight them, as he has been doing during the Syrian civil war to some extent. A continuing risk with those operations has been that of US troops, which have been allied with the YPG against the Islamic State (IS), coming into military clashes with NATO ally Turkey's troops.

Russia, of course, has been a major player backing Assad's government against IS and internal rebels. Although Russia's involvement in that messy situation carries big risks for them as well, it is currently serving the Putin government's goals of becoming a more important world player. And they will also have a say in arrangements over the fate of the YPG.

Events in northern Syria, including a Turkish assault on Rojava or a Syrian assault on Irbil province, can also influence the number of refugees wanting to come into Europe. The current (2016-19) solution to mass immigration into the EU is primarily the EU's 2016 agreement with Turkey to hold refugees there in exchange for payments. Which also gives Turkey leverage against its NATO partners if they decide they need to retaliate for disagreements or military clashes in Syria.

Dilan Okcuoglu (How will Trump’s Withdrawal from Syria Affect the Turkish-Kurdish Conflict? Informed Comment 01/06/2019) explains that the Syrian Kurds "have already emerged as prominent actors who are capable of developing serious diplomatic and political ties." She also argues that US troops withdrawals are "likely to help ISIS adopt a new strategy and expand its territorial control while at the same time continuing its execution of unarmed civilians." And she gives some background on the Turkis-Kurdish conflict.

Steven Cook gives more background on Turkey's policies, including the Iranian angle, in Turkey Is Lying About Fighting ISIS Foreign Policy 12/28/2018:

In an odd way, the president’s moves on Syria and Turkey are related to his Iran policy. There are those within the administration who believe that by giving up the YPG—and agreeing to sell the Turks Patriot missiles — the United States will pull Turkey back into Washington’s orbit. This renewed American-Turkish alignment will in turn render Erdogan a willing partner to contain Iran. Yes, one of the justifications for having U.S. forces in Syria was rolling back Iran, but the Turks had never actually been a partner in this effort. They helped Iran evade sanctions during a good portion of Barack Obama’s presidency, and even now Ankara is demanding a permanent waiver to buy Iranian crude oil.

This is because Turkish officials do not regard Iran as a threat. To them, Turkey’s neighbor is an economic opportunity and provides diplomatic leverage with the United States.

This is important, because National Security Adviser John Bolton's mission in life is to start a war with Iran.

Aljazeera's Inside Story has this discussion of the current state of play, Can US and Turkey find common ground over Syrian Kurds? 01/08/2019:

Turkey is making threats (Turkey says will launch Syria attack if US delays troop pullout Aljazeera 01/10/2019):

Turkey will go ahead with an offensive against Syrian Kurdish fighters in Syria if the United States delays the withdrawal of its troops from the war-torn country, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu has said.

"If the [withdrawal] is put off with ridiculous excuses like Turks are massacring Kurds, which do not reflect the reality, we will implement this decision," he told NTV channel on Thursday.

Cavusoglu said a military operation against the US-allied Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), which it has pledged to carry out in northeastern Syria, is not dependent on the pullout of US troops.

Bolton added to the diplomatic confusion by seeming to say that Trump's troops pullout wouldn't happen any time soon. Erdoğan refused to attend a scheduled meeting with Bolton over his statements. ("Bolton hat einen schweren Fehler begangen" Wiener Zeitung 09.01.2019; Carlotta Gall and Mark Landler, Turkish President Snubs Bolton Over Comments That Turkey Must Protect Kurds New York Times 01/09/2019)

Bolton also said that Turkey had to protect the Syrian Kurds. Which he should. But this is where the NATO alliance with Turkey adds complications. On the one hand, the US has a treaty obligation to protect Turkey against aggression, although it does not mean the support is automatic. So the US has a legitimate interest in Turkey not invading another sovereign state, in this case Syria, which is what cross-border incursions actually are. Implusive decisions and sloppy diplomacy are not how the US should be approaching this situation.