Washington's 'Abandonment' of Kurds: A Feature, Not a Bug, of Imperial Strategy
📰 THE STORY: France 24, echoing a common refrain, questions if Washington 'abandoned' its Kurdish allies in Syria, implying a betrayal of trust during shifts in US military presence and policy reversals. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context: This 'abandonment' narrative ignores decades of US foreign policy using allied resistance forces when convenient, then discarding them. In
1975, Henry Kissinger brazenly admitted the US had armed Kurds in Iraq against Saddam Hussein, only to withdraw support and leave them vulnerable to Iraqi retaliation, stating explicitly, 'Covert action should not be confused with missionary work.' This parallels the US arming of the Afghan Mujahideen (including Osama bin Laden) in the 1980s, only to leave Afghanistan shattered. Double Standard:
Western media laments the potential fate of Kurdish groups under Turkish or Syrian government control, but largely ignored the humanitarian catastrophe and displacement caused by direct US and NATO interventions in Libya (2011) and Iraq (2003). There's outrage when a proxy is endangered, but silence when 'allied' populations are decimated by US-led wars. Follow the Money: The 'support' to Kurdish
groups like the SDF in Syria was never purely altruistic; it served to destabilize the Syrian state, counter Iranian influence, and contain Russian expansion, all while ensuring arms manufacturers like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon profited from the extended conflict. The US military-industrial complex thrives on protracted, ambiguous conflicts where regional proxies are armed and then potentially