Ethical concerns and the Kurds

[creslaw]

There are certainly political, military and strategic considerations to the present situation in Turkey & Syria, but what I seem to hear most often is that the US has an ethical responsibility to support the Kurds. Criticism of President Trump's policy is often framed as "betrayal". So what I am wondering is whether the ethical aspect of the situation is the most important consideration.

 

[Anguspure]

There are certainly political, military and strategic considerations to the present situation in Turkey & Syria, but what I seem to hear most often is that the US has an ethical responsibility to support the Kurds. Criticism of President Trump's policy is often framed as "betrayal". So what I am wondering is whether the ethical aspect of the situation is the most important consideration.

From the point of view of a NZer it is indeed an interesting question. We often decry the meddling of the US when it acts as the police man for the world, and yet here we see what happens when they abdicate.
I can see a vacuum in the Middle East that will be quickly filled by powers who have considerably less ethical concern and who have a different perspective on the way things should go.

 

[creslaw]

From the point of view of a NZer it is indeed an interesting question. We often decry the meddling of the US when it acts as the police man for the world, and yet here we see what happens when they abdicate.
I can see a vacuum in the Middle East that will be quickly filled by powers who have considerably less ethical concern and who have a different perspective on the way things should go.

The expression "police man for the world" is certainly often used in a derogatory context by many people outside the US.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

There are certainly political, military and strategic considerations to the present situation in Turkey & Syria, but what I seem to hear most often is that the US has an ethical responsibility to support the Kurds. Criticism of President Trump's policy is often framed as "betrayal". So what I am wondering is whether the ethical aspect of the situation is the most important consideration.

Opponents of the US withdrawal from Syria have to lay the moralizing on thick because there's simply no other argument for keeping them there. There's no US interest in that area, no treaty obligation. So we get these highly emotional appeals that demonize the Turks and put the Kurds on a pedestal.

 

[creslaw]

Opponents of the US withdrawal from Syria have to lay the moralizing on thick because there's simply no other argument for keeping them there. There's no US interest in that area, no treaty obligation. So we get these highly emotional appeals that demonize the Turks and put the Kurds on a pedestal.

I have to try to put aside my natural sympathy for Turkey because of a family connection, but in all of the reporting I have noticed a marked lack of information about Turkey's motivations. Whether they are right or wrong, the actions taken are with some goal in sight. This should at least be considered before taking a position on whether they are right or wrong.

So far I have not seen any compelling ethical reason for continuing to support the Kurds. Their fight against ISIS was so determined because they posed an existential threat to the Kurds. I have heard it said that under Obama the US guaranteed the Kurds a homeland. If true, I'm not sure how that can be valid when it means carving territory out of other countries.

With all the competing interests in this volatile area I am unable to see how it is possible to choose one side on ethical grounds.