Yeah obviously, I agree with everything here. The US only acts on its own interests and protecting the Kurds was temporarily favourable for them.
Now my objection is that the question wasn't 'what do the United States do in Syria' it was 'what should the United States do in Syria'. Here I don't see anything wrong with Chomskys position, as stated in the article “The idea that they should be subjected to an attack by their bitter enemies the Turks, or by the murderous Assad regime, I think is anything should be done to try to prevent that.” If you ask for what should be done, wouldn't you agree that the achievements of the social revolution in Rojava should be secured?
It is clear that pulling the US army completely out of the region - though to the improvement of the situation in greater Syria - would and did lead to a Turkish invasion / the independent regions going under government control again.
Well to be honest I don't see anything wrong with the Chompsky position either because the article was written over 2 years ago when the situation was pretty different.
What should the US do? Well if you want me to engage in the fantasy of the US military and state department acting benevolently? Sure. The US could probably cut a deal with Assad, an independent Rovaja in exchange for peace and reparations. The US should also cut all aid to Turkey, in fact pull out of NATO entirely and implement BDS, and go back to recognizing the Golan Heights as Syrian territory.
That's not going to happen though right? Which is why I talk about just pulling out, I can try to convince myself that the US pulling out of Syria is possible.
Yeah sure. They're already out of the region, now they can fuck off and leave the whole of Syria (and the middle east for that matter and the globe obv.). They won't do that in the near future or even under a second Biden term, but yeah, the push should now be to get all the troops out.
My original comment was just to point out how Joey shit on Chomsky for a (in my opinion) correct take.
Yeah obviously, I agree with everything here. The US only acts on its own interests and protecting the Kurds was temporarily favourable for them.
Now my objection is that the question wasn't 'what do the United States do in Syria' it was 'what should the United States do in Syria'. Here I don't see anything wrong with Chomskys position, as stated in the article “The idea that they should be subjected to an attack by their bitter enemies the Turks, or by the murderous Assad regime, I think is anything should be done to try to prevent that.” If you ask for what should be done, wouldn't you agree that the achievements of the social revolution in Rojava should be secured?
It is clear that pulling the US army completely out of the region - though to the improvement of the situation in greater Syria - would and did lead to a Turkish invasion / the independent regions going under government control again.
Well to be honest I don't see anything wrong with the Chompsky position either because the article was written over 2 years ago when the situation was pretty different.
What should the US do? Well if you want me to engage in the fantasy of the US military and state department acting benevolently? Sure. The US could probably cut a deal with Assad, an independent Rovaja in exchange for peace and reparations. The US should also cut all aid to Turkey, in fact pull out of NATO entirely and implement BDS, and go back to recognizing the Golan Heights as Syrian territory.
That's not going to happen though right? Which is why I talk about just pulling out, I can try to convince myself that the US pulling out of Syria is possible.
Yeah sure. They're already out of the region, now they can fuck off and leave the whole of Syria (and the middle east for that matter and the globe obv.). They won't do that in the near future or even under a second Biden term, but yeah, the push should now be to get all the troops out.
My original comment was just to point out how Joey shit on Chomsky for a (in my opinion) correct take.