US Urges 'Talks' After Funding One Side of Syrian Street Fights
The United States, after years of heavily backing and arming various Kurdish factions in Syria to fight ISIS (and effectively carve out a semi-autonomous zone), now urges 'negotiations' between these groups and the Assad government. One might recall that direct negotiations were less of a priority when the US was actively supporting these same Kurdish forces with military aid and blocking Syrian
government access. It appears 'diplomacy' becomes attractive only when proxies start clashing with inconvenient consequences, or perhaps when the US has exhausted its other options in destabilizing the region. This isn't about peace; it's about managing blowback. The US strategy in Syria has consistently involved arming and disarming groups as geopolitical winds shift (remember the 'moderate
rebels' that mysteriously ceased to exist?). Now, with its proxies fighting each other, the 'adults' in Washington swoop in, offering to mediate conflicts they arguably helped create—a classic move from the imperial playbook that leaves a trail of shifting alliances and perpetual instability. How many times must the US fund one side of a conflict, only to later 'urge talks' between the warring
parties it empowered?