Planned staged confrontation on the Colombia-Venezuela border today

The PBS Newshour actually did a report on Maduro supporters, Why Venezuela's Chavistas are fiercely loyal to Maduro, despite economic crisis 02/22/2019:

The American coup attempt in Venezuela is staging a confrontation today (Saturda) that the leaders apparently hope will provoke (or provide a figleaf excuse for) an American military intervention against the real existing government of Nicolás Maduro.

Alex Daugherty and Franco Ordoñez report (Keeping up momentum in Venezuela hinges on getting humanitarian aid in on Saturday Miami Herald 01/22/2019):

... none of Venezuela’s top military leaders have publicly backed [self-proclaimed "president" Juan] Guaidó’s interim government. Russia and China continue to recognize Maduro. India is buying more Venezuelan oil. Both supporters and critics of the decision to recognize Guaidó are worried about losing momentum for elections if Saturday comes and goes without a change in the status quo, as the full effect of U.S. oil sanctions on Maduro’s inner circle will take months, not weeks. ...

Diplomats from the region are growing concerned that momentum against Maduro is slowing.

“The thought was that when the United States recognized Guaidó that things would fall apart for Maduro,” said one South American diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity because the diplomat was not authorized to publicly discuss U.S. policy. “But that hasn’t happened yet.”

The thinking in the region was that the international pressure campaign would spur top leaders of the military to turn against Maduro and back Guaidó. But that hasn’t happened yet.

After the U.S. imposed financial sanctions on PDVSA, the Venezuelan oil company controlled by the government, “we were thinking this was a turning point,” said the diplomat. “But that was weeks ago.” [my emphasis]

This coup is clearly not unfolding as its backers hoped.

There was some violence on the Brazilian border Friday, with two people reportedly killed by Venezuelan security forces. Here's professional ghoul Elliott Abrams pretending like he actually cares about how many people get killed: "Donald Trump’s Venezuela envoy Elliott Abrams, who was also in Colombia, also blasted Maduro for the clashes along the Brazilian border. Abrams said the two Venezuelans 'were killed trying to get food and medicine for their families. It’s a crime and a disgrace.'" (Jim Wyss, Guaidó makes surprise visit to Colombia as Venezuelans demand aid and Maduro digs in Miami Herald 02/22/2019)

Anne Gearan and Carol Morello give attention to some considerations that should be obvious but don't seem to be aired in most of the news reports I've seen (Trump, in risky gambit, ratchets up pressure on Venezuela as tensions flare at the border Washington Post 02/22/2019):

Elliott Abrams and other State Department officials accompanied an airlift of U.S. humanitarian aid to the Colombian border in a provocative partnership with Maduro’s political rival as tensions rise over the internal power struggle in Venezuela. The Trump administration has not said whether it will attempt to deliver the aid by force Saturday, the day when opposition leader Juan Guaidó, who is supported by the Trump administration, has said the relief supplies will cross into Venezuela.

Trump has repeatedly said that military action is an option, including in remarks Monday to Venezuelan exiles in Miami, setting up a paradox for a president who has argued that the United States wastes money and lives when playing global policeman. ...

Having leaned so heavily into the conflict, Trump risks looking weak or ineffective at home and abroad if the Maduro regime survives in the face of U.S. opposition.

The Trump administration emboldened Guaidó to declare himself Venezuela’s rightful leader last month and has helped rally international diplomatic support behind him. The White House has not said what it will do if Guaidó’s movement collapses in chaos or a bloodbath. [my emphasis]

David Smilde writes in the WOLA blog about the humanitarian aid gambit by the coup leaders (Venezuela Weekly: Battle of the Bands on the Border 2/19/2019):

AN [National Assembly] Deputy Miguel Pizarro who is coordinating the operation has said that it is the Maduro government that is politicizing the aid. The opposition would be quite happy if they could bring it in without confrontation. Yet, aid organizations such as Caritas have made clear that they would only participate in distribution of the aid if it fulfills international standards. The United Nations has also warned about politicization of humanitarian aid. Any efforts or operations on the border that appear like they are intentionally putting people in harm’s way, could generate a backlash.

• It is not completely true that Maduro has blocked all aid. He recently accepted $9 million in health and nutritional aid from the United Nations. There have also been a number of groups getting aid into the country under the radar.

Smilde also makes some points about Trump's major Venezuelan speech this week that need to be kept in mind in relation to the American-directed Venezula regime change policy:

The speech made clear that while in Afghanistan and Syria, Trump’s “America first” vision is holding sway, in Latin America policy it is his neoconservative advisors that are in charge. He represented the push for a transition in Venezuela as just the first step in an effort to free Cuba and Nicaragua as well. When that happens, he said, “this will become the first free hemisphere in all of human history.”

He also mentioned socialism from beginning to end in the speech, repeatedly tying the situation in Venezuela to those who want to install socialism in the United States, implicitly referring to some left democrats who have increasingly adopted the term for their politics.

The centrality that Venezuela has taken in his discourse, and his insertion of Venezuela into broader policy goals for the region, suggest it is unlikely Trump will put Venezuela on the back burner. [my emphasis]

All of which adds up to this: The regime change operation of the Trump-Pence Administration in Venezuela is a high-risk operation that's stalled coming out of the gate. It could lead to a serious war if the US intervenes, which would have major consequences for regional peace, refugee inflows into Brazil and Colombia, and deadly consequences for the people of Venezuela. A foreign policy of going in and breaking things is not a good foreign policy. And invading another country just because you can is literally a crime under international law.

A flashpoint coming in the Venezuela coup attempt?

My main focus of attention on Venezuela is whether the grim triad of Mike Pence, John Bolton, and the thoroughly creepy Elliott Abrams are going to get their regime change war or not.

Before getting into the more current news, I want to call attention to this long read from the longtime left journal Monthly Review: Ana Felicien, Christina Schiavoni and Liccia Romero, The Politics of Food in Venezuela 6/01/2018. It's from the middle of 2018, so it doesn't directly address the current coup attempt. But it has some historical background, including a description of how the development of the oil industry badly disrupted Venezuelan agriculture as early as the 1920s. It's a good antidote the comic-book version of conflict in Venezuela that the US mainstream media is giving us today. (The German and Austrian press reporting on it that I've seen has also often been painfully superficial.)

But, even as lazy as some of the mainstream press articles on the Venezuelan crisis may be, they are worth a close reading, especially the more important parts that are often buried deep in the articles. Ernesto Londoño, for instance, reported for the New York Times almost a week ago in U.S. Military Starts Flying Aid for Venezuela to Colombia 02/16/2019 (Spanish version here):

... the country’s large corps of generals and other high-ranking officers has so far refused to back a plan to oust Mr. Maduro and help opposition leaders convene a new election. ...

Once it became clear to opposition leaders that the military was siding with Mr. Maduro after Mr. Guaidó proclaimed himself the country’s rightful leader on Jan. 23, the opposition mounted a plan to get tens of millions of dollars worth of food and medicine into the country. [my emphasis]

Things have clearly not gone the way the coup planners in Washington and elsewhere expected. The ongoing stunt around humanitarian aid is clearly understood by Washington and pseudo-president Juan Guaidó as a political manuever, even a tripwire for outside military intervention.

But, as Londoño reports:

Rebecca Chavez, who served as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Western Hemisphere during the Obama administration, said it was “very likely” that the American military would be drawn into the crisis in Venezuela as the power struggle between Mr. Maduro and Mr. Guaidó escalates.

But, she argued, “any unilateral military intervention in Venezuela would be a huge mistake.” If the American military does end up delivering aid, or takes part in a peacekeeping mission, Ms. Chavez said, it should be done as part of a coalition.

The recent election of conservative leaders in key Latin American nations, including Brazil, Colombia and Chile, makes that prospect more plausible than in past years. But so far, officials in Colombia and Brazil have signaled deep reservations about military missions in Venezuela. [my emphasis]

We‘re now into the fifth week of what may be the strangest coup attempt Latin America has ever seen. Brazil's fascist-minded President Jair Bolsonaro may be part of the (metaphorical) Nationalist International. But this shows a big problem with expecting “internationalism“ from rightwing nationalists.

Even if they are cynical and corrupt allies of the local oligarchies, they still have to think about their own national interests and their political base has to see them doing nationalist posturing. There are several obvious reasons an even half-sane Brazilian or Colombian government would be worried about this regime change operation. One is that it‘s run by Elliott Abrams. Bolsonaro may admire Abrams‘ passion for murderous savagery in politics. But the fact the Abrams is in charge guarantees that the result will be an awful mess.

Another is that up to three million refugees from Venezuela are already in Brazil and Colombia. Bolsonaro would be glad to demagogue against the refugees. But unlike Trump in the US or Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Brazil and Colombia already have real refugee problems, and an American invasion or civil war in Venezuela will magnify them. Also, the Trump-Pence Administration have been remarkably crass about the fact that Washington is running it. Even pro-American rightwing Latin American government have to worry about the precedent.

And why would Brazil or Colombia choose to kick off the invasion? They know that Trump will be quick to blame them if something goes wrong. And they would be credibly attacked politically for acting as US mercenaries.

Anthony Faiola and Rachelle Krygier reported yesterday (Venezuela braces for possible conflict ahead of opposition’s push to deliver humanitarian aid Washington Post 02/21/2019):

Maduro on Thursday ordered the closure of the border with Brazil and weighed sealing the border with Colombia, not far from this western metropolis, as his government scrambled to respond to the planned Saturday operation. Venezuela’s National Institute of Civil Aviation issued an order grounding private jet traffic nationwide. Commercial flights were still operating, though Air France said it would cancel flights to Caracas through Monday, given the heightened tensions.

In an apparent bid to counter international criticism of turning away the aid — provided by the United States and other countries advocating for Maduro’s ouster — Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, said the government on Thursday had sent the United Nations a list of medicines the country needed for “humanitarian assistance.” Maduro also announced that 7.5 tons of medical supplies had arrived Thursday from Russia and the Pan American Health Organization.

Maduro’s directives came as the U.S.-backed effort to topple his government is entering a critical and potentially more dangerous phase. [my emphasis]

And this is a pretty straightforward attempt by the Coup Triad (Pence, Bolton, Abrams) and Juan Guaidó to provoke a direct military conflict. And if they actually do send unarmed civilians to face off with the Venezuelan army, the ethics of that seem pretty questionable, to put it mildly. How many people will sign up to be human sacrifices to kick off Elliott Abrams' war with Venezuela?

Aljazeera reports on the border closure to Brazil, Maduro shuts Venezuela's border with Brazil amid aid standoff 02/22/2019:

And it really is a question worth asking. Why is the Maduro government, which Trump described in his speech this past week as a "dicatatorship" and a "socialist tyranny", allowing internal opponents to operate out in the open like this inside Venezuela?

Guaidó and his team in a caravan of 10 vans were headed Thursday toward San Cristobal, and ultimately to the Colombia border. Four buses traveling ahead of him with opposition lawmakers, journalists and volunteers were stopped in the state of Carabobo by national guardsmen throwing tear gas, said Roberto Campos, an opposition lawmaker who was on one of the buses.

Some of the lawmakers struggled with the guardsmen, who, Campos said, sought to take their IDs. A Guaidó spokesman confirmed that his vehicle was still making its way west.

The national guard used tear gas and tried to take their IDs, but didn't try to arrest them? A group headed to the border with the expressed purpose of staging a confrontation to justify foreign intervention?

I'm not suggesting that the Maduro government is angelic. Amnesty International says that it's about to put out a report on official abuses they have documented, Venezuela: Hunger, punishment and fear, the formula for repression used by authorities under Nicolás Maduro 02/20/2019. The article linked does not mention the government deliberately using hunger as a political weapon, despite the headline. It does mention that in some poor areas, "residents depend to a large extent on the currently limited state programs to distribute staple foods." The Monthly Review article linked at the top of this post contains a more detailed explanation of those programs and their background against the impact of the oil business on Venezuelan agriculture.

But back to the question why the government is letting the coup participants operate so openly, I don't have any specialized knowledge of the situation there. But it's hard for me to imagine that the government isn't calculating that the coup faction is discrediting itself with the Venezuelan public by their actions, which look from from afar like bumbling and desperate moves. (Obviously, whether the government is right in their estimate.) To be fair, Trump did call Maduro's government a "failed dictatorship." It does seem like a failure at the dictatorship game to allow an internationally back coup that is threatening to invite foreign invastion to run around and operate in public.

A Mike Pence Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine?

A Facebook friend posted a link to this New Statesman piece by George Eaton, The Stalin of the Caribbean: how Nicolás Maduro betrayed the Venezuelan revolution 02/06/2019:

During the 2013 presidential election he claimed that Chávez’s spirit visited him in the form of “a little bird”. On another occasion, Maduro compared himself to Stalin. “I am just like Stalin. The moustache is exactly the same,” he remarked in 2015.

The comparison extends beyond the merely aesthetic. Like Stalin, a party bureaucrat who assumed power after the pioneering Lenin, Maduro will be rembered [sic] not as the revolution’s saviour but as its gravedigger.

Part of the problem of mentioning war propaganda claims is that you wind up spreading them.

I'm going to make a wild guess here. I'm guessing that if Leon Trotsky, or Grigory Zinovyev, or Lev Kamenev had proclaimed themselves head of the government, had been recognized as such by the governments of the US and various European countries, made no secret about taking orders directly from Washington or London or Germany, and had declared themselves ready to accept foreign military intervention to install them as actual head of government in the USSR, they probably would not be giving public speeches and media interviews and driving around Moscow unmolested by the police two and a half weeks after they declared themselves Head Honcho. Which is the case today with Juan Guaidó in Venezuela.

Have I mentioned yet how this is one of the weirdest coup attempts I've ever heard of?

Not that it will make any difference to the characters involved in this effort speadheaded by future Great Statesman and Savior of the American Republic Mike Pence, professional warmonger and National Security Adviser John Bolton, and Iran-Contra criminal Elliott Abrams. But here's a slight bit of perspective on this particular bit of propaganda, from Jon Lee Anderson, Nicolás Maduro’s Accelerating Revolution New Yorker 12/11/2017, describing a public event:

Delcy Rodríguez, the [Constituent] assembly’s president, led a tour of an exhibition of photographs documenting the President’s life. There were photos showing him as a young union leader, with Chávez, with Fidel Castro; one showed him as a toddler wearing a mariachi’s sombrero. Rodríguez narrated as the group walked: “You’re a good man, Mr. President. Here you are with the Pope.” She came to a black-and-white image of a young Maduro, addressing a crowd with a handheld megaphone. “You’re a man of many facets, which have not been shown, because of the media lynching you’ve been subjected to, Mr. President,” she said. “But here, in the constituent assembly, we want to show you as you really are.”

When the tour was over, Maduro, smiling broadly, thanked Rodríguez, and joked about how he was usually portrayed as a villainous “tropical Stalin.” Turning to the audience, he said, “No one will take the good out of me. In all my humility, here I am.” [my emphasis]

Also of some interest from the same article:

... as José (Pepe) Mujica, a left-wing former President of Uruguay, told me, “What helps Maduro most is the nature of his opposition.” The opposition is divided into three major parties and several smaller ones, with little in common other than the desire to resist Maduro. After the elections in 2015, it appeared united by the mandate to recall him but then spent months bickering over the right way to do so. During the protests, as scores of young demonstrators were killed, it was unable to convert widespread outrage into a political program. “The Venezuelan opposition is truly the gang that cannot shoot straight,” an American official who has worked for decades in the region told me. “Over the years, they’ve had every opportunity to kick out Chávez and now Maduro, and they always fuck it up.”

Few people in Venezuela seem to believe that the opposition speaks for the poor, or for the country’s large mixed-race population. When I visited early in Chávez’s Presidency, business executives—who were universally white—referred to him unabashedly as “that ape.” With Maduro, the disdain is subtler, but only a little: they call him “that bus driver.” In response to Maduro, the opposition has tilted even farther to the right, reaching out to conservative allies, including the government of Mariano Rajoy, in Spain. Last February, Lilian Tintori, the wife of Leopoldo López, met with Donald and Melania Trump to talk about human rights in Venezuela. (When Tintori spoke of her husband’s imprisonment, Melania reportedly commiserated that the White House could feel similarly confining.) A photograph of Tintori posing with Trump circulated in Venezuela, where it was widely seen as evidence of crass opportunism.

Threat inflation is one of the worst plagues of American foreign policy. "Hitler", "Stalin" and "Munich" are three stock magic words in the incantation.

I wonder how long it will be before the Triad of War (Pence, Bolton, and Abrams) start calling Maduro "Hitler."

If we're going to have open US military action in Venezuela, we have to get there because we only even go to war against "Hitler". Ho Chi Minh was "Hitler", Saddam Hussein was "Hitler", etc.

To be fair to George Eaton's piece, this is a decent capsule description of recent history and one important to remember:

Between 1998 and 2012 GDP per capita more than tripled, and the country, long exploited by an entrenched oligarchy, achieved the lowest level of inequality in the region.

But its overdependence on oil – the “resource curse” that has haunted Venezuela – left it perilously exposed to a 40 per cent collapse in prices in 2014. ... The haphazard nationalisation of companies – with experienced managers removed – led to a sharp fall in investment and the rise of a new kleptocratic elite.

Venezuela is a petrostate, hugely dependent on world oil prices. It's reasonable to ask why the Chávez and Maduro regimes didn't do more to diversify the economy or invest more capital in development of the oil industry itself. Americans and Europeans have a bad habit of using "corruption" as a blanket description for the problems of any country poorer than their own. Which is partially true in Veneuela's case. But that belongs to the "curse" part of the blessing-curse of being a petrostate. That's true in good times as well as bad. And corruption doesn't stop the bonanza of high oil price years. For people who pay attention to such things, the Chávez government did have some success in promoting the construction industry and made a serious attempt to develop Venezuela's stagnant agriculture. But "keepin' 'em down on the farm" proved to be in insuperable challenge when urban opportunities generated by the oil industry were so attractice.

Does Guaidó's "government"-in-waiting have such plans? Will American TV pundits ask? (Yes, those are rhetorical questions!)

"Protecting" Latin America from Europe, Theodore Roosevelt style
(Wikimedia Commons)

I was just reminded recently that there was a (Teddy) Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1905 after England, Germany, and Italy blockaded Venezuela in 1902. It basically said the US would block other powers from intervening but we would do it any time we wanted. From President Roosevelt's message of 1905 on the subject (Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite, 2014):

It must be understood that under no circumstances will the United States use the Monroe Doctrine as a cloak for territorial aggression. We desire peace with all the world, but perhaps most of all with the other peoples of the American continent. There are, of course, limits to the wrongs which any self-respecting nation can endure. It is always possible that wrong actions toward this nation or toward citizens of this nation in some state unable to keep order among its own people, unable to secure justice from outsiders, and unwilling to do justice to those outsiders who treat it well, may result in our having to take action to protect our rights; but such action will not be taken with a view to territorial aggression, and it will be taken at all only with extreme reluctance and when it has become evident that every other resource has been exhausted.

Moreover, we must make it evident that we do not intend to permit the Monroe Doctrine to be used by any nation on this continent as a shield to protect it from the consequences of its own misdeeds against foreign nations. If a republic to the south of us commits a tort against a foreign nation, such as an outrage against a citizen of that nation, then the Monroe Doctrine does not force us to interfere to prevent punishment of the tort, save to see that the punishment does not assume the form of territorial occupation in any shape.

The case is more difficult when it refers to a contractual obligation. Our own government has always refused to enforce such contractual obligations on behalf of its citizens by an appeal to arms. It is much to be wished that all foreign governments would take the same view. But they do not; and in consequence we are liable at any time to be brought face to face with disagreeable alternatives. On the one hand, this country would certainly decline to go to war to prevent a foreign government from collecting a just debt; on the other hand, it is very inadvisable to permit any foreign power to take possession, even temporarily, of the custom-houses of an American republic in order to enforce the payment of its obligations; for such temporary occupation might turn into a permanent occupation.

The only escape from these alternatives may at any time be that we must ourselves undertake to bring about some arrangement by which so much as possible of a just obligation shall be paid. It is far better that this country should put through such an arrangement, rather than allow any foreign country to undertake it. To do so insures the defaulting republic from having to pay debt of an improper character under duress, while it also insures honest creditors of the republic from being passed by in the interest of dishonest or grasping creditors. Moreover, for the United States to take such a position offers the only possible way of insuring us against a clash with some foreign power. The position is, therefore, in the interest of peace as well as in the interest of justice. It is of benefit to our people; it is of benefit to foreign peoples; and most of all it is really of benefit to the people of the country concerned. [my emphasis]

So I guess we don't need a Mike Pence Corollary to send in the troops to install Juan Guaidó. But with seriously bad actors like Pence, Bolton, and Abrams running the show, this will not end well. At this point, it's only a question of how much damage they will do.

John Bolton is pushing for war with Iran - like thousands of days before

If National Security Adviser John Bolton wants anything, it's are with Iran.

But as Joe Cirincione explains in Bolton’s Big Iran Con DefenseOne 01/12/2019:

Trump’s mendacity may encourage Bolton’s, but he needs precious little prompting. As the secretary of state continues this week and next on his overlapping anti-Iran tour of the Middle East, we should brace for a stream of false claims every bit as strong as the ones coming from the White House.

In particular, we should spend at least as much time fact-checking their claims as we do those of the youngest member of Congress [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez], whose exaggerations may prove embarrassing, but are unlikely to be fatal. Bolton’s and Pompeo’s falsehoods are paving the way for a Middle East war that will make the dispute over the wall with Mexico look like a border dust-up.

I would say his comparison in that last sentence understates the seriousness of what Bolton is pushing for. But there are various kinds of Middle East wars that don't necesssarily involve an invasion of Iran. The neocon plague of promoting war in the Greater Middle East has done way too much damage already.

And, of course, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has been in Egypt pushing for war against Iran, too. (Paul Pillar, Pompeo In Cairo: Anti-Obama, Anti-Iran, And Little Else LobeLog 01/11/2019; In Cairo, Pompeo delivers Trump's vision: Confrontation with Iran Aljazeera 01/13/2019)

Pillar comments that Pompeo's speech "seemed written to please an audience of one—President Donald Trump - along with the domestic political base to which Trump’s own rhetoric is designed to appeal." He notes that a Pompeo's advocated "that nearly everything in U.S. foreign policy ought to be subordinated to confronting Iran."

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.