In a significant and revealing move, former President Donald Trump engaged in a phone conversation with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in late 2018, a dialogue that would ultimately shift the dynamics on the ground in northeastern Syria. During the call, Erdogan assured Trump that Turkey would assume security responsibilities in the region, leading Trump to agree to withdraw American forces stationed there. This unexpected decision reverberated through the halls of the Pentagon and the State Department, catching U.S. defense officials off-guard.
For years, Turkey had demonstrated a complicated relationship with the Islamic State, a fact that became especially glaring during the siege of Kobane, a predominantly Kurdish border town in Syria. Despite Turkey’s NATO membership, its strategic indifference—or even covert support—regarding ISIS’ advance raised eyebrows in Washington. In response, the Obama administration took bold steps to support Syrian Kurdish forces, recognizing their critical role in halting ISIS’ momentum with decisive assistance and collaboration that led to the Islamist group’s eventual defeat.
The partnership between the United States and the Syrian Kurds became one of the most successful and meaningful alliances, offering tangible results in the global fight against terrorism. Nearly Western in their ideological leanings, the Syrian Kurds emerged as valuable partners. Yet, Trump’s perceived betrayal in negotiating their potential abandonment sent shockwaves across Washington, prompting Defense Secretary James Mattis to resign in protest. This discord underscored the internal conflicts of the administration’s foreign policy agenda.
Fast forward to the current administration, where President Joe Biden’s stance has reignited similar fears and frustrations. Despite earlier gestures, including the dispatch of F-16s to Turkey and vocal support for its regional security role, Erdogan has returned to a contentious posture, launching attacks on Syrian Kurds while threatening their autonomy. Alarmingly, these strikes have occurred perilously close to American troops stationed in the region, risking direct confrontation.
A stark contrast emerges between the actions of the Trump and Biden administrations. Notably, while some of Trump’s appointees resigned in protest at abandoning the Kurds, Biden’s advisors have remained silent. Brett McGurk stands out, his previous resignation during Trump’s tenure now seen by some as opportunistic rather than principled, especially as he refrains from public dissent under Biden. Furthermore, while the Trump administration eventually revised its stance towards the Kurds, the current administration has so far refrained from robust action against Turkey’s aggressive moves.
The potential consequences of inaction are profound. Entrusting Erdogan with preventing an ISIS resurgence is akin to relying on precarious allies to restrain historically linked insurgency groups elsewhere. The Syrian Kurds remain a critical barrier against regional destabilization, yet America’s failure to steadfastly support them could lead to dire future implications for international alliances.
Indeed, the broader question remains: what is the cost of consistently betraying those who stand with us? Kurdish forces, often echoing the sentiment that they have no allies outside their own mountainous terrain, might soon see America as an unreliable partner, jeopardizing years of coalition building and mutual trust. As President Biden navigates these treacherous waters, there lies the potent risk of isolating the very allies that have been instrumental in shared victories against common foes.
