US 'abandons' Kurdish allies after they're no longer useful, media laments – as if this were new
📰 THE STORY: The Financial Times reports that Syrian Kurds, who once served as Washington's primary ground force against ISIS, are now on the defensive, facing assaults from various forces as the US reportedly withdraws support. The narrative casts the US as turning its back on 'former allies,' leaving them vulnerable. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: This 'abandonment' is not
an anomaly, but a core tenet of US foreign policy. In 1975, the US, under Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, cut military aid to Iraqi Kurds after forging a deal with Saddam Hussein, leading to a brutal Iraqi army offensive and estimated tens of thousands of Kurdish casualties. This mirrors the pattern perfectly, demonstrating that ethnic groups are strategic pawns, not partners. Double Standard:
When governments aligned with US interests face external challenges, they are immediately framed as victims of aggression deserving robust intervention. Yet, when US-backed proxies face the inevitable consequences of being discarded once their utility expires, it's presented as an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect, a 'turn of the back,' rather than calculated realpolitik. Imagine if a US
adversary 'abandoned' its allies; it would be decried as a monstrous betrayal. Follow the Money: The US military-industrial complex profits whether it's arming proxies, conducting interventions, or selling the residue of abandoned equipment. Billions are allocated for 'aid' and 'equipment,' fueling the conflict economy. The stated goal may be defeating ISIS, but the underlying mechanism is