Category: News

  • McMaster to Resign as National Security Adviser, and Will Be Replaced by John Bolton

    McMaster to Resign as National Security Adviser, and Will Be Replaced by John Bolton

    Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster to Leave the Trump White House

    Trump named John R. Bolton, a hard-line former American ambassador to the United Nations, as his third national security adviser on Thursday, continuing a shake-up that creates one of the most hawkish national security teams of any White House in recent history.

    John Bolton
    John Bolton

    Mr. Bolton will replace Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster, the battle-tested Army officer who was tapped last year to stabilize a turbulent foreign policy operation but who never developed a comfortable relationship with the president.

    The move, which was sudden but not unexpected, signals a more confrontational approach in American foreign policy at a time when Mr. Trump faces mounting challenges, including from Iran and North Korea.

    The president replaced Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson last week with the C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo, a former Army officer and Tea Party congressman who has spoken about regime change in Pyongyang and about ripping up the Iran nuclear deal.

    Mr. Bolton, an outspoken advocate of military action who served in the George W. Bush administration, has called for action against Iran and North Korea. In an interview on Thursday on Fox News, soon after his appointment was announced in a presidential tweet, he declined to say whether Mr. Trump should go through with a planned meeting with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un.

    Continue reading the main story

    General McMaster will retire from the military, ending a career that included senior commands in Iraq and Afghanistan. He had discussed his departure with Mr. Trump for several weeks, White House officials said, but decided to speed it up because questions about his status were casting a shadow over his exchanges with foreign officials.

    Mr. Trump, the White House officials said, also wanted to fill out his national security team before his meeting with Mr. Kim, which is scheduled to occur by the end of May.

    Photo

    23dc mcmaster hfo bolton master675 v3

    John Bolton, who will take office April 9, has met regularly with President Trump to discuss foreign policy. Credit Alex Wong/Getty Images

    Mr. Bolton, who will take office April 9, has met regularly with Mr. Trump to discuss foreign policy. Though he has been on a list of candidates for the post since the beginning of the administration, officials said Mr. Trump has hesitated, in part because of his negative reaction to Mr. Bolton’s walrus-style mustache.

    On Thursday, however, Mr. Trump summoned him to the Oval Office to discuss the job. Hours later, Mr. Bolton was on Fox, where he has been an analyst, for a pre-scheduled interview, in which he confessed surprise at how quickly Mr. Trump announced the appointment. “This hasn’t sunk in,” he said.

    The news of the appointment competed with an exclusive interview on CNN of a former Playboy model, Karen McDougal, who described to Anderson Cooper what she said was a nine-month sexual relationship with Mr. Trump in 2006. Mr. Trump has denied the affair.

    In his interview on Fox News, Mr. Bolton declined to discuss his views on Iran, Russia or North Korea, though he acknowledged his positions were hardly a mystery after years of writing and speaking. He described the job of national security adviser as making sure that the bureaucracy did not impede the decisions of the president.

    Officials said that General McMaster’s departure was a mutual decision and amicable, with little of the recrimination that marked Mr. Tillerson’s exit. They said it was not related to a leak on Tuesday of briefing materials for Mr. Trump’s phone call with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, which infuriated the president and did not help General McMaster’s case. Mr. Bolton complained on Fox News that “a munchkin in the executive branch” was responsible for the leak and called it “completely unacceptable.’’

    Mr. Trump issued a statement that coincided with his tweet. “H. R. McMaster has served his country with distinction for more than 30 years,” the statement said. “He has won many battles and his bravery and toughness are legendary. General McMaster’s leadership of the National Security Council staff has helped my administration accomplish great things to bolster America’s national security.”

    General McMaster said in a telephone interview on Thursday that his departure had been under discussion for weeks, and, “really, the only issue that had been left open is timing.” He would have preferred to stay in the West Wing until the summer, but the timing was dictated by “what was best for him and the country,” he said, referring to the president.

    Interactive Graphic

    Turnover at a Constant Clip: The Trump Administration’s Major Departures

    Since President Trump’s inauguration, staffers of the White House and federal agencies have left in firings and resignations, one after the other.

    all the major firings and resignations in trump administration promo 1521556449710 master495
    OPEN Interactive Graphic

    White House officials said the Army sounded out General McMaster, who is a three-star general, about four-star commands after he left the White House, but he declined them. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has had a contentious relationship with General McMaster, and it was not clear what role he played.

    Democrats greeted the news about Mr. Bolton with deep alarm. “The person who will be first in first out of the Oval Office on national security matters passionately believes the U.S. should launch pre-emptive war against both Iran and North Korea with no authorization from Congress,” said Senator Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut. “My God.”

    Republicans, however, expressed satisfaction. “Selecting John Bolton as national security adviser is good news for America’s allies and bad news for America’s enemies,” said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. “He has a firm understanding of the threats we face from North Korea, Iran and radical Islam.”

    Inside the National Security Council on Thursday night, one person described the mood among career officials as somber, with offices largely empty by 9 p.m., unusually early for an agency renowned for its round-the-clock work schedule.

    General McMaster struggled for months to impose order not only on a fractious national security team but on a president who resisted the sort of discipline customary in the military. Although General McMaster has been a maverick voice at times during a long military career, the Washington foreign policy establishment had hoped he would keep the president from making rash decisions.

    Yet the president and the general, who had never met before Mr. Trump interviewed General McMaster for the post, had little chemistry from the start, and often clashed behind the scenes.

    General McMaster’s didactic style and preference for order made him an uncomfortable fit with a president whose style is looser, and who has little patience for the detail and nuance of complex national security issues.

    They had differed on policy, as well, with General McMaster cautioning against ripping up the nuclear deal with Iran without a strategy for what would come next, and tangling with Mr. Trump over the strategy for American forces in Afghanistan.

    Their tensions seeped into public view in February, when General McMaster said at a security conference in Munich that the evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election was beyond dispute. The statement drew a swift rebuke from Mr. Trump, who vented his anger on Twitter.

    “General McMaster forgot to say that the results of the 2016 election were not impacted or changed by the Russians and that the only Collusion was between Russia and Crooked H, the DNC and the Dems,” Mr. Trump wrote, using his campaign nickname for Hillary Clinton. “Remember the Dirty Dossier, Uranium, Speeches, Emails and the Podesta Company!”

    General McMaster also had a difficult relationship with the White House chief of staff, John F. Kelly, people close to the White House said. Mr. Kelly, they said, prevailed in easing out General McMaster but failed to prevent Mr. Trump from hiring Mr. Bolton, whom they said Mr. Kelly fears will behave like a cabinet official rather than a staff member.

    Mr. Trump selected General McMaster last February after pushing out Michael T. Flynn, his first national security adviser, for not being forthright about a conversation with Russia’s ambassador at the time. Mr. Flynn has since pleaded guilty of making a false statement to the F.B.I. and is cooperating with Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election.

    General McMaster carried out a slow-rolling purge of hard-liners at the National Security Council who had been installed by Mr. Flynn and were allied ideologically with Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s former chief strategist, earning the ire of conservatives who complained that his moves represented the foreign policy establishment reasserting itself over a president who had promised a different approach.

    General McMaster’s position at the White House had been seen as precarious for months, and he had become the target of a concerted campaign by hard-line activists outside the administration who accused him of undermining the president’s agenda and pushed for his ouster, even creating a social media effort branded with a #FireMcMaster hashtag.

    Last summer, Mr. Trump balked at a plan General McMaster presented to bolster the presence of United States forces in Afghanistan, although the president ultimately embraced a strategy that would require thousands more American troops.

    General McMaster had been among the most hard-line administration officials in his approach to North Korea, publicly raising the specter of a “preventive war” against the North. He was among those who expressed concerns about Mr. Trump’s abrupt decision this month to meet Mr. Kim, according to a senior official.

  • LETTER TO WALL STREET JOURNAL

    LETTER TO WALL STREET JOURNAL

    Comment on the Wall Street Journal Article, title ;
    “Will Trump Tell the Truth About the Armenian Genocide?”
    By Robert M. Morgenthau
    Jan. 25, 2018 7:11 p.m. ET

    (Prepared by;
    Dr. Yurdagul Atun / Sukru Server Aya/ Prof. Ata Atun

    WSJ & Museum OPEN COVER LETTER (Feb.11, 2018)
    To: a- The Wall Street Journal – Editors
    b- The Washington Holocaust Museum Memorial Council Members and Management
    c- The Office of the U.S.A. President (as supervisors of this state establishment)

    c.c: The U.S.A. Embassy, Ankara, Turkey (Press Attaché)
    The Turkish Embassy, Washington
    Turkish Foreign Affairs Ministry, Ankara
    Press & Academia

    Esteemed Gentlemen, February 13, 2018

    Re: WSJ Article of Jan. 25, 2018https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-trump-tell-the-truth-about-the-armenian-genocide-1516925489

    As private researchers and writers on the WW-1 and WW-2

    The Washington Holocaust Museum alleged Hitler Quote
    The Washington Holocaust Museum

    History and events related to the “mythomania of genocide” (Erich Feigl) we are profoundly disturbed by the domineering tone of the author and feel compelled to refute the contents of this article from A to Z, since almost everything written by former New York District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau is untrue, not evidenced, and flawed with colossal deficiency of knowledge on past and present history. The “alleged Hitler Quote” still standing on the wall of the Museum is a complete forgery, which undoubtedly has been known to the Museum from the very early days for more than twenty years. Regrettably, despite written applications and provided documentary as evidence, the Museum preferred or was probably told to “remain quiet, hide and falsify history” to the public. The Museum has become instrumental in propagating the “genocide palaver”, despite all judicial requirements and verdicts of various authorized courts in Europe.

    We attach our “research refuting the article” and the patronizing remarks of Mr. Morgenthau, who is presumably unaware of WW-2 Nazi Armenian Legion being complicit in rounding up Jews to be sent to death camps, or the books and articles on internet corroborating how Turkish diplomats saved over ten thousand Jews in Vichy France and Rhodes from Nazi persecution and arranging their transfer to Palestine by special chartered trains. This of course, is no surprise given the history of the Armenians and the Turks living in peace and harmony down the street from each other for centuries. We would like to invite Mr. Morgenthau to take time in his retirement to familiarize himself with the history of the Ottoman Empire which lasted over 600 years because of its policy of “live and let live” and mutual tolerance of its people reaching at one time more than thirty ethnic groups stretching from Europe to Indonesia. We attach as a reminder footnote, two excerpts from history for the treat of Jews by the Ottoman Turks which should be self-explanatory to Mr. Morgenthau.

    We believe we have answered the hearsay or prejudiced grandma stories in the attached research paper and hereby cordially ask you to tell the public if the “quote on the Museum wall true?” also keeping in mind to respect the U.N.’s judicial requirements before saying so. If so, then the “Nuremberg Court decision of 1948 deleting this forgery, or the full definition of this alleged quote and meeting of 22.08.1939as narrated in William L. Shirer’s book must be wrong”, as well as the recent confirmation of the very same contents in the Documents of US Military.”

    Gentlemen, you are ethically obligated to clarify the status and rectify the many “empty, dominative and assertive allegations for which not even a page of legally valid document” has ever been submitted to any competent tribunal, let alone any confirming verdict from the same. The US archives are full of official documents bearing references of the US Congress and Senate contradicting his article and yet, Mr. Morgenthau, a celebrity in law and justice, has either ignored or defied by “acting as a persecutor, without hearing any defense, no evidence, and no obedience to nor respect for the laws of this land and as a judge or deity for eternity”.

    We submit that this cannot be accepted, and we respectfully request a statement from Wall Street Journal whether or not it subscribes to Mr. Robert M. Morgenthau’s claims of “Armenian Genocide.” Thank you.

    Cordially yours,

    Dr. Yurdagül Atun
    (Researcher) – International Aydin University
    (yurdagulbeyoglu@hotmail.com)

    Şükrü Server Aya (Researcher) International Aydin University
    (ssaya@superonline.com&ssaya01@gmail.com)

    Prof. Ata Atun (Rector)
    International Aydin University
    (ataatun@gmail.com)

    “Jewish communities in Anatolia flourished and continued to prosper throughout the Turkish rule. When the Ottomans captured Bursa in 1326 and made it their capital, Jews welcomed the Ottomans as saviors. Sultan Orhan gave them permission to build the Etz ha-Hayyim (Tree of Life) Synagogue, which remained in service until the 1940s.”

    The Chief Rabbi of Edirne between 1454-69, Isaac Sarfati wrote his famous “Edirne Letter” during this same period. It concerns several German Jewish families, which had immigrated to the Ottoman Empire.

    “I have heard of the afflictions, more bitter than death, that have befallen our brethren in Germany, of the tyrannical laws, the compulsory baptism and the banishment, which are of daily occurrence.
    …Brothers and teachers, friends and acquaintances! I, Isaac Sarfati… I proclaim to you that Turkey is a land wherein nothing is lacking, and where, if you will, all shall yet be well with you… Here every man may dwell at peace under his own vine and fig tree… Here you are allowed to wear the most precious garments”..
    # 1 . Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics & Politics, George Allen-Unwin Ltd. London 1954, pg.218.
    # 2. Courtesy, Museum of Turkish Jews, The Quincentennial Foundation, Istanbul pg.76-77 “Bernard Lewis, Jews of Islam”

    Mektubun Türkçe çevirisi

  • Afrin seems quite intact After Turks took control. Does the Kurdish media lie about invasion and destruction?

    Afrin seems quite intact After Turks took control. Does the Kurdish media lie about invasion and destruction?

    Adnan Hakoun, studied at Damascus University – Faculty of Economics

    i am syrian who live in turkey now..i lived in syria for the whole 7 years of war and just left the country last year..i came to turkey illeagely (walking through mountains not by plane) so i had to cross those areas on my way from Damascus (my home city) to turkey and i had to live in the north of syria fo 40 days befor i managed to enter turkey…
    so what i have learned is this:

    every side is lying about what is happening and every side has his own media which make them appear as the rightful and good side…what is rally happening is that the militias which claim to protect the KURDS in the north of syria are actually protecting them frome ISIS and those other extremist militias in the area..but at the same time they made some really horrible crimes against the NON-KURD civilians (arabs , turkmans and arminyans) in the same areas..trying to kick them out of what (so-called) Kurdish lands..so they can proclaim there own country (kurdistan)…a story which i didn’t hear from media but from my friends from DEİR-ALZOR whos actually kicked out of thier homes and saw thier village distroyed completly by those militias because its a NON-KURD village.. here the turkish goverment moved to stop them from what they are doing and enterd the area and took control over it .. kicking those militias out..and again the real loser every time is the civilians who pay the real price in every political conflict..maybe Afrine seems intact when you compare it with AL-RAQA after recapturing it from ISIS but thats does not mean that there is no civilians suffering or no people have been killed by mistake… because it’s IMPOSSIBLE to make any war for either a good reason or bad reason without killing any innocent people….and more important is that those soldier on the ground are not robots they have there minds and feelings there mercyness or savageness and with all this amount of chaos in the war its really hard to ensure that they are Committing to the rules and commands.

    sorry for the long answer but it’s not a yes or no question.

  • Poland’s Misunderstood Holocaust Law

    Poland’s Misunderstood Holocaust Law

    My government wants to ban accusations of Polish wartime complicity for the sake of honoring history.

    Mateusz Morawiecki

    Nazi'lerin toplama kampı, Auschwitz, Birkenau, Polonya
    A visitor is seen behind the lettering “Arbeit macht frei” (work makes you free) at the entrance of the memorial site of the former Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau in Oswiecim, Poland, on January 25, 2015. Seventy years after it was liberated, 300 Auschwitz survivors — most now in their nineties — will on January 27, 2015 return to the former Nazi death camp, the site of the largest single number of murders committed during World War II. AFP PHOTO / JOEL SAGET (Photo credit should read JOEL SAGET/AFP/Getty Images)

    World War II altered not only the fate of nations but also that of millions of families in Europe. From the viewpoint of Poland, it was the end of a multicultural, multiethnic world that had flourished for more than seven centuries. The borders of prewar Poland in the east included cities such as Nowogrodek, Rowne, and Stanislawow.

    Nowogrodek was the birthplace of Adam Mickiewicz, one of the greatest ever Polish poets, who was personally involved in the process of creating a Jewish legion as part of his efforts to fight for Polish independence in the 19th century. Rowne was the birthplace of the mother of Israeli author Amos Oz, whose novel A Tale of Love and Darkness inspired actress Natalie Portman to make a brilliant movie about Israel’s difficult beginnings seen through the lens of a family of Polish Jews. As for Stanislawow, it is a place close to my heart. My mother’s family comes from this city, which is now called Ivano-Frankivsk and lies within Ukrainian borders.

    continious foreignpolicy.com/2018/03/19/polands-misunderstood-holocaust-law

  • Germany’s Post-Merkel Power Fraus

    Germany’s Post-Merkel Power Fraus

    The German chancellor’s most likely successors are both women — but the similarities end there.

    It shouldn’t surprise that Angela Merkel, as the leader of Germany’s biggest conservative party, has shied away from being called a “feminist.” But it’s indisputable that her three terms as chancellor (the fourth term began last week) have changed the lives of German women for good. Doors previously shut to them have been opened — nowhere more pronouncedly than in German politics itself.

    Even as a new four-year term gets underway, the outlines of the post-Merkel era have already come into view. Germany’s cabinet has been stocked with new female faces, including atop both Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), which means women are likely to lead the country for years to come. And nobody is better situated to compete to replace Merkel as chancellor four years from now than the SPD’s freshly installed leader, Andrea Nahles, and the CDU’s new general secretary, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer.

    Powered By

    The two politicians — Nahles, 47, and Kramp-Karrenbauer, 55 — have been tasked by their respective parties to do what their male predecessors couldn’t: namely, stop the disintegration of Germany’s big-tent postwar establishment. In the September 2017 election, both parties chalked up record losses — the CDU with 33 percent of the vote (which includes its partner the Christian Social Union), the SPD with a lowly 21 percent — leaving them with few alternatives but to reluctantly join forces again in a “grand coalition,” for the third time since 2005. But this latest halfhearted, cobbled-together partnership will likely accelerate the trend. The SPD now stands at 19 percent in polls, just five points ahead of the far-right Alternative for Germany. Two weeks ago, they were even at 15 percent a piece.

    Both Nahles and Kramp-Karrenbauer clearly believe that they are equal to the generational task of pulling their parties out of their death spirals. Both are career politicos, practicing Catholics, and hail from small German towns along France’s borderlands just over a hundred miles from each other. Unlike Merkel, both are mothers: Kramp-Karrenbauer of three, Nahles of one. Like the present chancellor, both project an air of serious professionalism while also steering clear of the arrogant style common among the alpha males who still populate much of their respective parties’ ranks.

    But that’s where their similarities stop.

    Nahles is a known commodity on the German national stage, having nimbly climbed the party’s hierarchy since her entry into the SPD as an 18-year-old. Initially on the party’s anti-capitalist left, she has since mellowed without relinquishing her Attac membership. In the party’s executive since 1997, she has held half a dozen posts, though not one of them determined by popular vote. Most recently, from 2013 to 2017, she served as the federal minister for labor and social issues, where she muscled through the term’s most impressive socially minded legislation: a national minimum wage, pension reform, and safeguards for the temporarily employed. Today, her expertise and pragmatism are appreciated even in the CDU, which originally doubted that it could work with such a wild-haired rebel on anything.

    The German media have dubbed Nahles “the boxer” — and not only because of her tenacity, toughness, and broad shoulders. In the thunderous speeches that have become her trademark — whether at union halls or at the SPD’s headquarters in Berlin — Nahles can look like a prize fighter in the ring, stabbing the air with clenched fists, her face grimaced and scarlet, eyes blazing.

    Yet she also has a reputation for sometimes hitting too hard. Her diction can occasionally be churlish, almost adolescent. A few days after last year’s national vote, pledging vigorous opposition to a CDU-led government without the SPD, she said her party would deliver the CDU a “good smack in the kisser.” She had to apologize for that — and eat humble pie, too, when it became clear that another grand coalition was in the offing.

    But Nahles has come as far as she has because Germans have largely been willing to chalk up her excesses to her working-class authenticity. Indeed, her father was a master mason, her mother a financial clerk. Nahles is a social democrat through and through, a true believer in social justice and respect for the working classes. Nahles was largely responsible for shoring up SDP support for the new coalition government, which many in the party, especially on the left, resisted. They argued that after hemorrhaging so much support the party needed a term in opposition, outside of Merkel’s long shadow, to renew itself. On a whirlwind journey across the country, Nahles won over reluctant comrades one local branch at a time.

    In return, the SPD elected Nahles to the highest post in the historic party of August Bebel and Willy Brandt: the first chairwoman ever in the party’s 154-year history. “This is really something extraordinary,” explains Tina Hildebrandt, an editor at the weekly Die Zeit. “The SPD sees itself as the party of women’s rights, which historically it has been, but it’s always been a real men’s club. Men have always had the say. Nahles’s tenure is a kind of reality test for the SPD.”

  • The U.S. Alliance With Turkey Is Worth Preserving

    The U.S. Alliance With Turkey Is Worth Preserving

    Ankara is a difficult friend. That doesn’t mean the United States should cut it loose.

    If the United States didn’t already face enough troubles in Syria, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recently threatened American troops with an “Ottoman slap” if they interfered with Turkey’s military incursion into northwestern Syria. The threat, coming two days before a visit to Turkey by then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, underscored just how contentious relations between Ankara and Washington have become, and how close this historic alliance is to crumbling altogether — to the detriment of both states.

    The list of issues dividing the United States and Turkey is a long one. U.S. and other Western officials look with alarm on Erdogan’s Putinesque consolidation of power and disregard for human rights, and have protested the arrest of U.S. citizens and Turks employed by American diplomatic missions. Turkish officials, for their part, accuse the United States of instigating a July 2016 coup attempt against Erdogan and harboring the man most Turks believe was its mastermind: the spiritual leader, erstwhile Erdogan ally, and Pennsylvania resident Fethullah Gulen.

    Even more sharply dividing Washington and Ankara are the divergent paths they have tread in Syria for the better part of a decade. Erdogan was furious at the Obama administration for what Turks perceived as U.S. indifference to the threat the Syrian conflict posed to their country. When the United States finally did intercede, only to make allies of the Turks’ mortal enemies — the People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia, a Syrian offshoot of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) — Ankara’s anger mounted. For their part, U.S. officials were troubled by Ankara co-opting jihadis as allies in the Syrian fight, and more recently with its cooperation with Russia, which has extended to the purchase of a Russian air defense system that complicates Turkey’s NATO commitments.

    The temptation is strong in Washington to simply jettison the foundering alliance with Turkey

    The temptation is strong in Washington to simply jettison the foundering alliance with Turkey

    — as was recently done with Pakistan — and even to impose sanctions on Ankara for its actions. And the feeling in Turkey, where 67 percent of the population harbors an unfavorable view of Americans, is surely mutual.

    Yet cutting Turkey loose would constitute a self-inflicted wound. Turkey is not just President Erdogan but a regional geographic and economic giant that stands as a buffer between Europe and the Middle East, and between the Middle East and Russia. Losing Turkey as a Western ally would mean bringing the Mideast to Europe’s threshold, and the potential frontier of Russian influence into the heart of the Middle East. Turkey is also the state best positioned to balance against Iran, whose ambitions and influence are growing along with its partnership with Russia. The dependency is mutual; without the United States, Turkey would be left to Tehran and Moscow’s tender mercies.

    Preserving the Turkish-American alliance and the strategic value both sides derive from it will require refocusing on shared strategic threats, such as the growing Russia-Iran alliance, while compromising on the disagreements distracting from that focus. While there is little the United States can do to assuage Erdogan’s more paranoid concerns, greater flexibility is possible when it comes to the Syrian Kurds.

    Vital to reaching a compromise are commitments made during Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s recent visit to Ankara. According to Turkish officials, the United States has reportedly agreed to decrease the Kurdish militia presence west of the Euphrates River around the strategic town of Manbij, which Turks fear is aimed at creating a contiguous zone of Kurdish control along Turkey’s southern border with Syria. Turkey, in turn, could tolerate a continued American and YPG presence in the Kurdish areas of northern Syria east of the Euphrates as the only way to keep the U.S. in Syria.

    Some in the United States see any accommodation of Turkish concerns regarding the Syrian Kurds as a betrayal of a partner that proved doughty in the fight against the Islamic State. Yet the proposed arrangement holds advantages for all parties involved. For all its bluster, Turkey would be far worse off without the United States as an ally; what’s more, U.S. influence is the best chance of convincing Syrian Kurds to break with the PKK and forge their own path, as Iraqi Kurds did.

    As for the Kurds, the United States would not abandon them in their homeland east of the Euphrates, but simply turn Manbij over to local officials under U.S. and Turkish security guarantees. Kurdish aspirations may be grander, but the United States is not obligated to entertain its allies’ every ambition here or elsewhere, especially when those aims threaten another ally or the stability of the region.

    For the United States, it would make little strategic sense to alienate Turkey over the Kurdish issue. Turkey, the world’s 17th largest economy and one of the Middle East’s primary military powers. In Syria itself, the approximately 2,000 U.S. troops now in the country’s northeast cannot be reliably supplied without air and land access through Turkey, given Iraq’s susceptibility to Iranian influence. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine the United States accomplishing much of anything in Syria militarily or diplomatically in the face of determined Iranian and Russian resistance if we cannot even manage to find common ground there with our putative ally.