Quote from a Syrian Kurd in the article:
This is so weird. I thought ISIS was the one running around remorselessly killing people (like the Kurds) and that we were there helping the Kurds defend themselves from them. Now the story seems to be that we weren't defending the Kurds at all, they were fighting for us to help us get what we wanted or something?"If they [US forces] will leave, we will curse them as traitors," he says. "The Kurds helped them to destroy ISIS. ... I have seven people from my family who were fighting ISIS and who were killed. And they were very young, not even in their 20s."
It's so difficult to follow who is helping who anymore. This is why I really hate it when our leaders send our troops ANYWHERE for ANYTHING (unless it was to actually repel an invasion force that was about to land on US soil or something). We literally can't do ANYTYHING right. If we keep our troops there, we're just a bunch of militarists who are interfering in someone else's politics. If we withdraw, then we're betraying the people we were supposed to have been defending. It sounds like what happened with Vietnam when the "communists" finally won and people were fleeing in droves from all their reprisals. Or maybe that's what happened with OBL when the US stopped funding the rebels in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets. OBL suddenly found himself surrounded by a bunch of poorly armed but angry malcontents who decided to turn around and take it out on the people who were at first aiding them. International politics is nothing but a shit show.
Had we just stayed out of all this to begin with, things would have been so much better. There wouldn't have been anything to have reprisals over. No one would be angry at us or feel like we betrayed them. Or maybe we should just stick it out and "finish what we started". Maybe the problem is that we're giving up when we should be fighting harder and fighting to the finish?