but, why would america do this? is this just daft, as is suggested here?
tillerson doesn't make these choices, of course. he's reading a script (and sounds like it). these decisions come from inside the establishment that trump has chosen not to turn over. it's the same policy people from the obama admin..
turkey is in nato, but nato is losing turkey to russian influence. nato is also losing the kurds. now, it's not like the kurds can actually fight a war against the turks; they can carry out acts of resistance, but there was no kurdistan on the map, last i checked, and it is for that reason: the kurds have no chance against the turks..this would not be a war, but a slaughter.
why is turkey in nato? because it feared soviet expansion. today, turkey fears saudi expansion, and it is russia that is best positioned to counter-balance it. further, turkey has been poorly integrated into the european side of globalization, forcing it to look to asia for partners. there are no serious economic incentives for turkey to remain in nato, right now, and rather strong incentives to decouple. so, if no action is taken, nato is likely to lose turkey to russian influence.
given that truth, it is in america's interest to generate a conflict between russia and turkey. should the turks refuse to return sovereignty to the syrians, that is likely to create a conflict between the russians and turks. if the kurds are enough of a nuisance, the turks might decide they're not leaving. and, are the russians going to scold them for annexing syrian kurdistan? the turks wouldn't annex, they'd occupy, but you get the point.
but, that is indeed the miscalculation. as, such an occupation would actually serve russian interests, in creating a buffer zone of turkish militarization around their own bases, which are the focal point of the conflict.
this is what america does. because it is the empire. but, it's not always the best at it.
jagmeet singh must cut his beard.