Gotcha - sorry, I don't speak anything other than English well enough to have a discussion like this. I'll assume bigotry wasn't what was intended.
Every government from every nation acts in their own self-interest. We may hope that the self-interest of the government aligns with the self-interest of the governed, but that is not always the case.
You can do these kind of geopolitical studies for every nation.
British Isles: Island provides for natural defense, maritime supremacy is a key to protecting the island proper.
Germany: little natural defense, defending itself requires projection east or west and securing deepwater maritime access.
Russia: natural defense-in-depth to the east, defense-in-depth of the heartland requires projection of power into the European plain (i.e., Eastern Europe) and south into the Caucasus mountains. Very little deepwater port access, making Crimea / Sevastopol a key geopolitical target.
Etc., etc., etc. When you look at things this way, many actions of the past few centuries are logical, and you can even predict behavior of nations to some degree. Throw energy into the mix and you can understand almost every conflict from WWII on.
I don't think America makes sense as an empire. She is not a conqueror. Go to Normandy and you'll see the quote: "If ever proof were needed that we fought for a cause and not for conquest, it could be found in these cemeteries. Here was our only conquest: all we asked was enough soil in which to bury our gallant dead." America is, however, a hegemon, and acts as such.
This is why you have no problem with saying America is "responsible". You're identifying the responsibility with a part who has the means to actually effect change. But this is untenable. America is not responsible for the world writ large simply because she can in theory address each individual problem. The reality is we lack both the resources and the will to handle all the problems, and perhaps even the things that are in our rational self-interest go without doing at times because of this.
Yes, I believe there are power-hungry people in positions of power. I think there are people who absolutely put their own self-interest above that of their fellow citizens, and certainly above other people in the world. But this is always the case, and it is true in every country, every nation, every city.
Most people have absolutely no contextual frame of reference for this conflict. The current Kurdish struggle in the Middle East dates back to WWI. The outburst today is simply the outrage du jour. This immediate issue of the Kurds in Syria go back to the Obama Administration's actions when we began to supply arms directly to Kurdish elements of the SDF.
Here's a link from 2016 where the White House is talking about directly arming not only SDF but YPG.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161031120226/http://aranews.net/2016/09/us-sending-arms-kurdish-led-sdf-syria-turkeys-erdogan-outraged/
Of note:
So what do we do? The Syrian civil war is not our fault, it is not our problem. We meddled. We got involved - the "why" is to project power away from the US mainland to disrupt bad actors (i.e., ISIS / Daesh) - but the fact is this isn't our fight. And right there, three years ago!! the outcome was easily seen.
But we didn't "use" the Kurds. This is illogical. We armed them, we trained them. We provided them support, apparently including fighting with them. When you stop providing support, you don't harm people. If you fall on hard times, and I give you $10 a day for food, and then one day I can't any more, have I abandoned you? Betrayed you? No. No, the US helped the Kurds and frankly I'd be extremely surprised if we aren't still arming them.
I agree with you: war is hell. But it is a given, we live in a fallen world filled with bad, mean people who want to do bad, mean things to others. The answer is to do what is best, what is right. I admire that you're not arguing about this as political strategy, but I think 99% of others are.
Forgive me, but this is simply not true. Every nation has geopolitical imperatives. This is why, generally speaking, nations pursue more or less the same interests as leaders and administrations come and go. These are long-term imperatives, not short-term ones. And, of course, dramatic upheaval events like WWII can of course change these dramatically.
Every government from every nation acts in their own self-interest. We may hope that the self-interest of the government aligns with the self-interest of the governed, but that is not always the case.
Depends on how you slice it. If we step back pretty far from this, try to divorce ourselves from emotion and look at this as if we were an alien or outside observer... nothing the US has done in the post-WWII era has been completely, wholly irrational. Yes, errors, but no inexplicable acts. The US has one simple geopolitical imperative: defend the mainland of the US by maintaining maritime supremacy, military, and economic projection of power. They're interrelated. And in a post-9/11 world, the Global War on Terrorism fits this precisely. Our activity in the ME is an extension of this. Our actions against the USSR in the Cold War, including successful and failed proxy wars match this. Our current somewhat belligerent stance against China matches this. This has been good for the people of the United States by almost any measure. And what's more, good for the world. The second half of the 20th century will likely be considered some kind of pax-Americana in history books... it is one of the most peaceful times, globally, in the recorded history of the world.
You can do these kind of geopolitical studies for every nation.
British Isles: Island provides for natural defense, maritime supremacy is a key to protecting the island proper.
Germany: little natural defense, defending itself requires projection east or west and securing deepwater maritime access.
Russia: natural defense-in-depth to the east, defense-in-depth of the heartland requires projection of power into the European plain (i.e., Eastern Europe) and south into the Caucasus mountains. Very little deepwater port access, making Crimea / Sevastopol a key geopolitical target.
Etc., etc., etc. When you look at things this way, many actions of the past few centuries are logical, and you can even predict behavior of nations to some degree. Throw energy into the mix and you can understand almost every conflict from WWII on.
I don't think America makes sense as an empire. She is not a conqueror. Go to Normandy and you'll see the quote: "If ever proof were needed that we fought for a cause and not for conquest, it could be found in these cemeteries. Here was our only conquest: all we asked was enough soil in which to bury our gallant dead." America is, however, a hegemon, and acts as such.
This is why you have no problem with saying America is "responsible". You're identifying the responsibility with a part who has the means to actually effect change. But this is untenable. America is not responsible for the world writ large simply because she can in theory address each individual problem. The reality is we lack both the resources and the will to handle all the problems, and perhaps even the things that are in our rational self-interest go without doing at times because of this.
I think this is both true and false. First, "international law" is a bunch of horsecrap. Nothing done in the ME has been done unilaterally - including this latest foray in Syria. The SDF has been supported by France, the US, Germany and I'm sure others. You want to criticize, criticize policy, not people. Because these policies extend from before and after current administrations in multiple nations.
Yes, I believe there are power-hungry people in positions of power. I think there are people who absolutely put their own self-interest above that of their fellow citizens, and certainly above other people in the world. But this is always the case, and it is true in every country, every nation, every city.
Most people have absolutely no contextual frame of reference for this conflict. The current Kurdish struggle in the Middle East dates back to WWI. The outburst today is simply the outrage du jour. This immediate issue of the Kurds in Syria go back to the Obama Administration's actions when we began to supply arms directly to Kurdish elements of the SDF.
Here's a link from 2016 where the White House is talking about directly arming not only SDF but YPG.
https://web.archive.org/web/20161031120226/http://aranews.net/2016/09/us-sending-arms-kurdish-led-sdf-syria-turkeys-erdogan-outraged/
Of note:
So what do we do? The Syrian civil war is not our fault, it is not our problem. We meddled. We got involved - the "why" is to project power away from the US mainland to disrupt bad actors (i.e., ISIS / Daesh) - but the fact is this isn't our fight. And right there, three years ago!! the outcome was easily seen.
But we didn't "use" the Kurds. This is illogical. We armed them, we trained them. We provided them support, apparently including fighting with them. When you stop providing support, you don't harm people. If you fall on hard times, and I give you $10 a day for food, and then one day I can't any more, have I abandoned you? Betrayed you? No. No, the US helped the Kurds and frankly I'd be extremely surprised if we aren't still arming them.
I agree with you: war is hell. But it is a given, we live in a fallen world filled with bad, mean people who want to do bad, mean things to others. The answer is to do what is best, what is right. I admire that you're not arguing about this as political strategy, but I think 99% of others are.
