Is it the US's job to protect the Kurds?

Given that the DAEŞ threat, which is currently the most important justification the ABD cites for being in Syria, has been eliminated at the 100 percent level, in Trump's phrase, the time for the ABD to leave Syria should in fact have come long ago.

Indeed, already earlier this year Trump uttered the same words and announced that he would withdraw from Syria, saying there was no longer any point in losing more time and more ABD soldiers, money and energy in Syria. Trump's statements about withdrawing from Syria represented the most rational point of view for the ABD.

As we said in our previous piece, it has become very hard for the ABD even to explain its presence in Syria to the American people today. The interesting thing is that Trump, who appears extremely hawkish, has become more of a spokesman for the feelings of the American people on this matter. The circles of the CIA and the Pentagon, and even Republican members of Congress, opposed Trump's intention to withdraw from Syria from the start. So why do they advocate continuing to stay, now that, in Trump's statement and assessment, DAEŞ, the justification for being in Syria, has been completely finished?

The justification they put forward on the surface is not to leave unprotected against Turkey the PYD elements whose help they received in the fight against DAEŞ. Of course I say PYD, but they directly identify this organization in between with the name "Kurds". At this point even Lindsey Graham, the mighty Senator of the Republicans, uses this language.

Yet the same Graham had earlier, in a session in Congress, accused the Democrats and Pentagon officials of both doing wrong against the allied Turkey and of dealing with terrorist organizations by supporting the PYD, the Syrian extension of the PKK, which appears in the ABD's classifications as a terrorist organization. It is necessary to follow and understand well the background of this change of attitude in Graham.

Truly, the ABD's mind was never clear about its reasons for entering, staying in and leaving Syria. If we recall, the ABD first entered Syria in order to overthrow the dictator Esat because he had used chemical weapons and massacred his people. Esad was a supporter of many massacres, crimes against humanity and terror, and was also the reason for the existence of the terrorist organizations that appeared to be fighting against him in Syria. Overthrowing him and opening the way for a new, democratic administration in Syria would have served the stability of the region and the world sufficiently.

However, the ABD cared neither about ending terror wholesale, nor about regional stability, nor about stopping the flow of blood. As soon as it entered Syria it suddenly changed its reason for being here. It made fighting DAEŞ, instead of Esad, its priority goal, and to fight it, it made an ally of another terrorist organization. Instead of solving problems in Syria, it proceeded to deepen the existing problems further and make the matter completely inextricable. Even in the present situation, Esad, the real source of the problem, is still at the top with his evils and massacres against his people and all humanity, yet the ABD proclaims the tragicomic victory of having eliminated DAEŞ.

We say let it do so and go, but now the war lobbies inside the ABD put forward another justification for staying in Syria: protecting the Kurds. From whom? From Turkey. It is unbelievable, but true.

Where did the justification of protecting the Kurds against Turkey come from?

If you mean the PYD, Turkey's reaction against them is not because they are Kurds, but because they are a terrorist organization and because the ABD is trying to have them establish a new Baath regime, contrary to the spirit, demography, history and sociology of the region. The only result of the forced mission the ABD has loaded on them is to cause ethnic cleansing in a part approaching 30 percent of Syria. The Arabs and Kurds who have had to migrate from this region to Turkey, Jordan and Iraq because of PYD oppression are living witnesses of this. This ABD policy does not protect the Kurds; it throws many of them into a ring of fire.

An ABD rhetoric such as "protecting the Kurds against Turkey" is a complete example of impudence.

It already contradicts its own practices, but it has no purpose or function other than sowing discord between Turkey and the Kurds.

The Kurds are not a second party for Turkey, they are an inseparable part of Turkey's body. When a Kurd is hurt, all of Turkey is hurt. It is impossible for any other party that might step in between to give the Kurds or the Turks anything but harm. The Kurds themselves are Turkey. Turkey's operation too is not against the Kurds, but against the terrorist organization.

If the ABD speaks of protecting the Kurds, this must in fact be understood as simply "using" them.

It means it will use the Kurds now as a justification for staying longer in Syria and for prolonging instability in Syria further in Israel's favor. For the ABD, which has neither loyalty nor a feeling of protection toward any friend or ally, has no loyalty or compassion it could show the Kurds.

The Kurds do not need ABD protection, they need protection from the ABD, and Turkey, as always, will continue from now on too, when necessary, to protect the Kurds as if protecting itself.