Quote (endymionlune @ Jan 19 2021 09:30pm)
This is you arguing in bad faith. There are facts.
Obama inherited a shit storm from Bush, and while I don't like what he did he did TRY to wind down the war in Iraq. That is a fact.
Drumpf on the other hand let our allies the Kurds get massacred and gave up all the power we had to Russia in Syria.
Everything Drumpf has done in the middle east has benefited Russia.
The Iran nuclear deal and the aftermath is a case study in how not to conduct foreign affairs. Obama gave up an unassailable strong position against Iran for a promise of good faith, which promptly resulted in years of proxy warfare that led directly to renewed instability in Iraq, the wider Shia crescent, and the Sunni world. It led directly to the power vacuum that gave rise to ISIS.
That is just what happened.
Now, should Trump have intervened on behalf of the Kurds? That's much harder to say. I like the Kurds, personally, and would prefer we support them where we can. But at the same time, one cannot allow minor strategic considerations (i.e. American support for the Kurds) to dictate America's overarching strategy, the goal of which is to further American interests in the region. To say it differently, we are not involved in the Middle East to support the Kurds.
Should Trump have maintained America's position in Syria? Again, there are costs and benefits. Obama was obviously reluctant to put troops on the ground, and foe good reason, these things can become a quagmire.. The United States was unwilling to take the steps necessary to drive Assad from power. That ship had sailed. So for what purpose was the United States in Syria? To deny the Russians the ability to intervene?
To the second question you seem to be asserting that yes, the United States should intervene. to whatever cost, so long as Russia is an any way inconvenienced or stands a chance of benefiting from American inaction. That is an incredibly extreme stance that no one in any position of power would take seriously.