there appears to be a substantial shift in policy under way in the middle east, with the united states actually supporting the kurds.

if you wanted to end the war against isis, this would be the obvious and rational strategy as they are the only force on the ground that is capable of doing so. the problem is that it escalates the broader conflict. the syrians can't let the kurds carve out a state. and, all of a sudden, the russians and turks end up on the same side, again.

more to the point is that the united states has provided weak or even treacherous "support" for the kurds for the precise reason that it hasn't wanted to end the conflict. it's moves have been calculated to keep the region in chaos. it's the same tactic the romans used to distract their foes: divide and conquer. this shift in strategy may in the end be stupid, but you should expect that to be the norm for the next four years - most of the geopolitical decisions that trump signs off on will be foolish, will continue to demonstrate a deficit of understanding of the underlying chess board and will often act against us strategic interests, perhaps even often in ways that are catastrophic, as this might end up.

turkey is fucking nato, dude. you want to hand the russians the dardanelles? like, what the fuck?

but, the shift - clueless or not - seems to be towards pulling out. that's the story: for the first time in years, the united states is genuinely signalling that it wants out of the middle east, and is making decisions to that end, with the sole caveat that it wants isis removed first, regardless of the other consequences.