Opinion: Why abandoning the Kurds neglects America’s responsibility as an ally

States’ foreign policy regarding Syria. The second opinion article will run next issue.

Every country has an identity. History, culture and perspective create a set of needs and desires that make a country unique, defining its place on the world stage. Sweden’s historical background gives it an inherently different view of the world to Japan’s. Bolivia’s views of government come from a totally different perspective than Egypt’s. 

But America, an ideological rather than ethnic nation, has always struggled to find that identity. From the isolationism of George Washington to the interventionism of George W. Bush, our views of America’s unique influence often contradict themselves from year to year, president to president. Some Americans believe that the nation’s influence makes it the world’s policeman, duty-bound to destroy tyranny wherever it rears its head. Others believe that America should never intervene in areas it does not have a vested interest in. 

Enter President Donald Trump. 

Last week, he shocked the world by announcing that he would be pulling American soldiers out of northern Syria, giving Turkish President Recep Tayipp Erdogan the freedom to begin his planned offensive against Kurdish forces in the region. 

Though the Kurds do not have a recognized nation-state, the people group lives within parts of Iraq, Syria and Turkey, governing themselves in areas of Iraq and Syria.  

American troops have fought alongside Kurdish members of the S.D.F. (Syrian Democratic Forces) for roughly four years since the beginning of the war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq, helping to eliminate the terrorist threat plaguing the world. But Trump’s decision to remove those soldiers, giving Erdogan free rein to begin an offensive against American allies that Turkey claims are terrorists, has sent the world into an uproar, with the House issuing a bipartisan condemnation of the decision Oct. 16. 

The widespread condemnation of Trump’s decision, from Democrats and Republicans alike, points toward an unusually unified belief that America has a responsibility to its allies – people that Americans have fought and died alongside in the face of vicious terrorism. Even politicians like Sen. Lindsey Graham who often support Trump’s policies have vehemently opposed the move.

Trump, however, has claimed that keeping troops in Syria is unnecessary and against American interests in the region, stating that a cease-fire Vice President Mike Pence recently negotiated will keep the area in balance, though Fox News reports of continued fighting in the area brings that confidence into question. It is still unknown how many Kurdish troops remain in the Turkish-claimed territory or how far Erdogan’s troops intend to advance past their stated goal of a 20-mile-deep buffer zone. 

As the situation in Syria develops, the questions surrounding American intervention in previous wars from Vietnam to Afghanistan resurface. Trump seems to be backing the traditional isolationist view of American foreign policy – we look out for our own interests, keep our troops at home and let the world (in this case Russia, Syria and Turkey) figure itself out. 

However, alliances are based on mutual trust. We fight alongside our allies in their wars and expect them to aid us in our own. Yet after fighting terrorism alongside the Kurds, America has left its former allies to face the weight of a dictatorial regime that oppresses free speech and religious expression, leaving the Kurds with no choice but to ally with their former enemies, the Russia-aligned Assad regime in Syria, according to BBC News. 

Though Turkey is technically part of NATO, the current situation and the imprisonment of Pastor Andrew Brunson, among many other instances, point toward how far from American ideals Erdogan stands. 

And though some might argue that America no longer has a vested interest in keeping troops in Syria, the very concept of an alliance means that nations commit to aiding each other, even at inconvenient times. 

This is not the first time the current administration’s views of foreign alliances have come into question. Trump has publicly questioned the motivations of longstanding allies from Japan to France, but confusingly, in this circumstance he seems willing to hand the initiative to Erdogan rather than maintain stability in the region. 

America has no legal obligation to continue supporting the Kurds in Syria – they are an unrecognized nation trying to establish their own national identity after years of oppression by neighboring countries. But choosing to abandon the Kurds to their fate after the lives they have sacrificed in the war against ISIS undermines our reputation as reliable allies on the world stage.

America is not the world’s policeman – but that doesn’t mean we can pretend we have no responsibility in the world.  

A haphazard approach to international diplomacy of snap decisions and vague threats smacks of irresponsibility. Our allies matter – and if we act on the world stage as if they don’t, one day they might view us the same way.