US attacks soldiers armed with weapons we gave them last month
We now have the Kurds reaching out to the last allies standing--Russia. Remember Finland aligning with Hitler since neither the UK nor the US would help them keep the Russians out? That's the situation on the ground in Syria.
Still, for the most part, we'll be in the situation of asking Erdogan/Turkey to stop firing US-manufactured weapons at Kurds carrying (fewer and smaller) US-manufactured weapons.
Thank you, Amanda and Max, for pointing out George W Bush's hypocrisy in condemning our abandonment of the Kurds to death camps. GWB has no standing on this issue--he did the same thing to the allies we'd armed and supported in Iraq 2. Similarly, so did his Dad.
I'd like to add a bit to the cycle, since it's our version of the "Great Game" whereby militia from the various empires of Europe and Central Asia (primarily the British, the Russians, and the 19th Century Swedes, though lots of others got to play).
In my mind the US was relatively good about betraying allies until the Civil War. Most on the left would argue that we didn't need to oppress and fool others because we had our own slave labor--legally in the south and economically in the North. A few very fortunate blacks got to Canada via the Underground Railroad, but the rest suffered in silent brutality, largely keeping the rest of the country in cotton and tobacco.
In addition, of course, the growing US, enraptured by the Jacksonian desire to exterminate our own native population, also had our so our destiny to manifest. By the time the Civil War began, we were repatriating much of the infantry who were at the front lines of that victorious campaign. These were bored, angry and "PTSD" victimized men--having started this peculiar institution of what Arlo Guthrie would describe (many years later) as "burning women and children."
The minute our economy lost our unpaid and tethered agricultural labor pool, a new era began--turn on your friends and take what you need. Fast forward to the NYT's analysis on Syria.
From Manilla to the Syria border. If you accept this as the defining mantra of American geopolitics since 1870, you'd probably rank the Philippines, Cuba, and Hawaii as the first modern exercise of our realpolitik. Despite losing 100% of production from the South, we kept cotton production at pre-war levels every year except 1871, in a truly pathetic colonial murder spree.
Our betrayal of Philippino rebels is the most appalling. We armed the entire rebel force until they won, rounded them up for a party, and massacred the leaders, all pretty much in a day. Sadly, those 3-5,000 dead rebels were not only carrying guns we'd sold them, but nearly all of the dead were carrying American flags, so proud were they of what they'd accomplished on our behalf when they died.
Against that standard, 150 years later, abandoning the Kurds seems routine. Please, if you're a radical in your home country, don't talk to the Americans. It's the last decision you'll ever make.
Still, for the most part, we'll be in the situation of asking Erdogan/Turkey to stop firing US-manufactured weapons at Kurds carrying (fewer and smaller) US-manufactured weapons.
Even the New York Times is now agreeing that the key element of US foreign policy recently has been arming/abondoning/attacking. The NYT's Interpreter newsletter, by Amanda Taub and Max Fisher, who comment on "the sad, cyclical nature of American interventions abroad."
I'd like to add a bit to the cycle, since it's our version of the "Great Game" whereby militia from the various empires of Europe and Central Asia (primarily the British, the Russians, and the 19th Century Swedes, though lots of others got to play).
In my mind the US was relatively good about betraying allies until the Civil War. Most on the left would argue that we didn't need to oppress and fool others because we had our own slave labor--legally in the south and economically in the North. A few very fortunate blacks got to Canada via the Underground Railroad, but the rest suffered in silent brutality, largely keeping the rest of the country in cotton and tobacco.
In addition, of course, the growing US, enraptured by the Jacksonian desire to exterminate our own native population, also had our so our destiny to manifest. By the time the Civil War began, we were repatriating much of the infantry who were at the front lines of that victorious campaign. These were bored, angry and "PTSD" victimized men--having started this peculiar institution of what Arlo Guthrie would describe (many years later) as "burning women and children."
The minute our economy lost our unpaid and tethered agricultural labor pool, a new era began--turn on your friends and take what you need. Fast forward to the NYT's analysis on Syria.
From Manilla to the Syria border. If you accept this as the defining mantra of American geopolitics since 1870, you'd probably rank the Philippines, Cuba, and Hawaii as the first modern exercise of our realpolitik. Despite losing 100% of production from the South, we kept cotton production at pre-war levels every year except 1871, in a truly pathetic colonial murder spree.
Our betrayal of Philippino rebels is the most appalling. We armed the entire rebel force until they won, rounded them up for a party, and massacred the leaders, all pretty much in a day. Sadly, those 3-5,000 dead rebels were not only carrying guns we'd sold them, but nearly all of the dead were carrying American flags, so proud were they of what they'd accomplished on our behalf when they died.
Against that standard, 150 years later, abandoning the Kurds seems routine. Please, if you're a radical in your home country, don't talk to the Americans. It's the last decision you'll ever make.
Comments
Post a Comment