Secretary of State Mike Pompeo & Vice President Mike Pence in Turkey, October 17, 2019. CREDIT: <a href="">The White House/D. Myles Cullen/Public Domain</a>
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo & Vice President Mike Pence in Turkey, October 17, 2019. CREDIT: The White House/D. Myles Cullen/Public Domain

A Russian Take on the Kurds and U.S. Foreign Policy

Oct 18, 2019

This article first appeared on the Ethics & International Affairs blog.

The Russian defense news site Voennoye Obozrenie has a very interesting and caustic take on the U.S. withdrawal from Northern Syria:

. . . the Americans are an unreliable ally . . . And this, by the way, is a good warning to all countries and forces counting on American support. They will not sacrifice their people, or invest big money in "foreign" wars for the sake of other countries and peoples . . .

This ties back, however, to the question of narrative. Americans are prepared to sacrifice, but leaders must connect a specific policy action to a larger, understandable narrative. What we are seeing currently in Washington and around the country is how the Kurdish question fits into larger narratives about the role the U.S. should play in the world and how U.S. commitments and promises should be honored. In particular, what guarantees were given to Syrian Kurds by both the Obama and Trump administrations, both by senior figures as well as U.S. representatives on the ground?

It also speaks to the problem of the forked tongue in foreign affairs. I've always been concerned about the phenomenon of double-dealing when it comes to the question of alliances and commitments. As a way to square the circle in recent years, policymakers have encouraged partners to believe that they have a firmer and more binding relationship with the United States (often conveyed by describing someone as an "ally") while at the same time avoiding the formal and legal treaty commitments that make alliances real. The gamble is that the proverbial check will never be cashed—but the problem is that when a demand is made to honor the commitment, the American public is not in favor and the U.S. government finds the legal rationale to regretfully announce that, after all, there was no actual alliance in terms of law.

You may also like

U.S. servicemembers load humanitarian relief supplies for victims of Cyclone Nargis. Yokota Air Base, Japan, 2008. CREDIT: <a href=>U.S. Air Force (CC)</a>.

SEP 20, 2019 Article

Need for a New Consensus

Foreign policy experts are having difficulty linking the negative implications of a shift towards trasactionalism for U.S. foreign aid to voters. This begs the ...

President Trump at the 2017 UN General Assembly. CREDIT: <a href=>UN Photo/Ariana Lindquist (CC)</a>.

SEP 9, 2019 Article

Transactionalism and U.S. Foreign Aid

A draft of a new presidential directive on American foreign aid suggests that transactionalism will shift from being a rhetorical device to an actual defining ...

Protest against U.S. military attacks in Syria, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 2017. CREDIT: <a href=>Fibonacci Blue (CC)</a>.

SEP 17, 2019 Article

The Narrative IS Changing . . .

The narrative about America's role in the world is changing--and more evidence is accumulating that suggests that no matter how the 2020 presidential and congressional elections ...

JAN 3, 2019 Article

Ethics and the Syria Withdrawal

Referencing an "Atlantic" article by Conor Fridersdorf, Nikolas Gvosdev goes over some important and overlooked ethical questions surrounding Trump's decision to withraw U.S. troops ...

AUG 13, 2018 Article

Ethics, Russia, and Syria

How can Moscow can support a dictator who has used chemical weapons in his desperate attempts to retain power at all costs? And what does ...