US Diplomacy: Managing the Chaos We Helped Create, Again
Al-Monitor's headline—'Aleppo clashes between Kurdish forces, Syrian government test US diplomacy'—paints a picture of the US as a neutral arbiter, a weary peacekeeper. It’s a familiar narrative. Yet, this 'diplomatic test' conveniently omits the US role in arming various factions throughout the Syrian conflict, often creating the very conditions for these 'clashes.' Remember when the US armed
Syrian rebels against Assad, only for those weapons to end up elsewhere? Or the billions funnelled to Kurdish forces, which Turkey, a NATO ally, considers terrorists ( Council on Foreign Relations ). One might wonder if 'US diplomacy' here refers to coordinating weapon shipments to ensure all sides remain adequately capable of 'testing' each other. The real 'test' isn't whether the US can mediate,
but whether the media will report on the decades-long US strategy of arming proxies in complex regional conflicts, then expressing surprise when those proxies inevitably clash. It's less a test of diplomacy and more a recurring cycle of intervention, destabilization, and then feigned innocence. How many times must the US fund both sides of a potential conflict before we question the 'diplomacy'
involved?