Turks, Kurds, and Trump’s Destabilization of Northern Syria

On Sunday, October 6, the White House announced that the US would pull back forces in northern Syria in advance of a planned Turkish military offensive against the Kurdish forces in the region. Both Republicans and Democrats criticized the decision who argued the US was abandoning its Kurdish allies in northern Syria and exposing them to potential massacre by Turkish forces. While the US justified its decision by stating that its job in the region was complete, having defeated the ISIS territorial caliphate, the US arguably has a moral responsibility to support its Kurdish allies, who have been an undeniably vital part in the fight against ISIS. Since this initial announcement, the US has continued to play a role in exacerbating Turkish-Kurdish relations and has failed to withdraw without significantly disturbing the status quo. The most recent development is a ceasefire agreement reached with Turkey by Vice President Pence. The agreement is being criticized as a “near-total victory for Turkey’s president,” as Erdoğan has now gained territory and paid little in penalties for his offensive operation. Furthermore, the agreement essentially allows Turkey to annex a part of Syria, displacing tens of thousands of Kurdish residents, and leads to questions about whether Turkey is equipped to deal with the threat of ISIS within the region. The escalation of the conflict in northern Syria following the US’s withdrawal raises questions about whether Turkey is justified in its offensive, how this decision shifts American foreign policy in the region, and whether the US has any moral responsibility regarding this conflict.

For outsiders, the escalation of the Turkish offensive and resulting international reactions may seem sudden, but conflict and tensions between Kurds and Turks have existed for many decades. It is difficult to understand how Trump’s decision to withdraw forces resulted in such grave conflict without first understanding the historical motives of the Kurdish people and Turkey—the former motivated by national security and territorial integrity, and the latter by sovereignty and self-determination. The Kurds are a historically oppressed ethnic group who reside in southeastern Turkey, northern Syria, northern Iraq, and northwestern Iran. The call for a Kurdish state has existed since the early twentieth century, with many Kurds living in Eastern Anatolia (now Turkey) opposing the incorporation of the Kurdish region into Turkey in the 1920s. Kurdish resistance and rebellion in the twentieth century, as a result of opposition to this decision, were forcefully put down by government authorities, and Kurds became significantly oppressed under the Turkish government, with the words “Kurds”, “Kurdish” and “Kurdistan” being officially banned by the government until the end of the twentieth century. 

Current Turkish justification for the offensive is that the Kurds in northern Syria, led by the YPG, have ties to the PKK, an internationally-recognized Kurdish terrorist organization within Turkey. The PKK, which was formed in the late 1970s, has repeatedly launched armed struggles against the Turkish government while calling for an independent Kurdish state within Turkey, one of the largest of which occurred in December 2016 with 46 fatalities. This violent struggle for Kurdish independence within Turkey highlights the strategic importance of undermining a Kurdish state in northern Syria for President Erdogan. The YPG, which seeks autonomy for Syria’s Kurds, is an armed wing of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party of Syria, which formed as an offshoot of the PKK in 2003. If the YPG were successful in their call for independence, the Turkish fear is that the creation of an independent Kurdish state on its border will further encourage the “nationalist” sentiment among Kurds living in Turkey, who are already calling for the creation of an independent Kurdish state within the country. 

While the PKK does pose a legitimate national security threat against Turkey, the argument that an offensive in northern Syria is justified by the YPG’s historic connection to the PKK is not very sound, as there is no clear evidence to suggest that the YPG have aided the terrorist efforts of the PKK in Turkey. The question of whether or not such a state will, or should, arise in coming years is a contentious question, and one that is at the heart of the problem between the Kurdish people and the Turks. However, with President Trump’s withdrawal, the emergence of a potential Kurdish state becomes less likely, as Kurdish efforts will have to be redirected to the Turkish offensive. Due to the unlikely nature of an independent state in the coming years, the Turkish offensive cannot be justified. The YPG poses no feasible threat to Turkish national security; moreover, the Turkish offensive disrupts the significant strategic role of the Kurdish forces in imprisoning ISIS fighters, which further diminishes any Turkish justification. 

Before his decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria, Trump had refrained from destabilizing the precarious equilibrium in Syria and throughout the Middle East. The most recent example of his relatively stable approach was his lack of action against Iran following its attack on Saudi Arabian oil facilities that temporarily halved Saudi oil output. Despite making several threats about being “locked and loaded” for an attack against Iran, the administration did not take any military action. However, Trump threw his cautious Middle East strategy to the wind when he withdrew troops from northern Syria, despite bipartisan criticism of and lack of support for the move. While withdrawal could appear to be a continuation of Trump’s hesitancy to act, as it is in some ways a declaration that he does not want to be an actor in the region, the decision marks  a clear change in US foreign policy: the US actively deserting American allies, which will lead to significant consequences in the region. Regardless of one’s beliefs about the degree to which Trump understands foreign policy and conflict, it is highly unlikely that he did not know about the historical tensions between Turks and Kurds. Therefore, his decision was made with the awareness of the Turkish threat the Kurds faced and the conflict that would arise when the US troops withdrew.

While allowing conflict within a region to resolve itself naturally is generally good for states in the international order, the rashness with which Trump withdrew from northern Syria is not the correct way to implement isolationist policy in the Middle East. Trump’s withdrawal has left a “political and security vacuum” that forces like the Turkish and Syrian government are trying to fill. The power struggle now unfolding in the region threatens the security of not only the Middle East but also of global powers like the US, who still has strategic interests throughout the region, and Russia, who has continually tried to expand its sphere of influence in Syria. Instead of withdrawing troops without warning its Kurdish allies, or effectively attempting to dissuade the Turkish offensive, the US could have used its influence over the two actors to maintain stability in the region. 

Now that the US has withdrawn, it must consider what responsibility it has regarding the conflict. Trump’s inconsistency in his public statements, such as threatening to destroy the Turkish economy and stating that the Kurds are “not angels,” has done nothing to alleviate the conflict, and has instead exacerbated the deeply-rooted tensions in the region. Although the US has no formal responsibility to help the Kurds in northern Syria, Trump still has a moral responsibility to act with respect and consideration when making statements about the conflict. This moral responsibility is grounded in the lack of Turkish justification in its offensive and the fact that Trump has upended decades of US policy toward the Middle East with his new isolationist stance. The United States cannot decide to abandon its role overseeing northeast Syria with such rashness without expecting to face devastating consequences, which have already begun in the form of new violent conflicts, lives lost, and residents displaced. 

While Trump’s desire to stop being the global policeman in the Middle East is understandable, and even commendable in the context of American foreign policy, an abrupt withdrawl is not the correct way to do it. The American government should have attempted to implement a more stable, transparent plan of departure from the region, but, given its rash withdrawal, it is now imperative that the US does not entirely forget its moral responsibility toward its allies within the region.