The U.S., which set foot in the Middle East following the atrocious terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001, is still present in the region. The ground for this mandatory visit is still the same. Ending terrorism at its roots and protecting the U.S. from afar.It is highly questionable if the source of terrorism is the "natural" political condition of the region or the oppressive and exploitative policies of countries such as the U.S.
For the sake of our purpose, let us assume for a moment that the justifications of Washington are true. Let us focus solely on what is happening in the field and examine whom the U.S. acted with in the last few years to introduce "stability and democracy" to Syria and Iraq.
The Democratic Union Party (PYD) is one of Washington's allies in Syria. As is already known, this group is the Syrian offshoot of the outlawed PKK, which is listed as a terrorist group by Turkey, the EU and the U.S. This relation is official. So the PKK and the PYD do not even need to conceal the fact that they are strategically and administratively the same organization.
Nevertheless, while legitimate groups, such as the moderate Free Syria Army (FSA) are present in Syria, the U.S. government chose to ally with PYD militants. Moreover, they did this explicitly before the eyes of Turkey, which has been an ally of the U.S. for a half century and lost innumerable citizens to PKK terror.
The situation in Iraq is also similar. In the Mosul operation that kicked off a few days ago, the U.S. chose to ally with radical Shiite groups instead of its strategic partners.
Even Muqtada al-Sadr, who is one of the symbolic figures of the anti-U.S. stance in the region, de facto advocates the presence of the U.S. in the latest operation.
Sadr's supporters, who gathered in Baghdad yesterday in turbans and cloaks, did not even mention the U.S. at the protests they made.
So, is it possible for the U.S. to end terrorism by acting with terrorist groups and radical components of religious conflicts in the region?
Of course not.
The developments indicate that Washington aims to sustain the chaos in the Middle East. In so doing, it will be able to keep playing an influential role in determining policies in the oil basin. The terror states legitimized through relations will facilitate a flourishing weapons industry.
No matter how insistently the U.S. denies this scenario, it is commonly accepted by the people of the Middle East. The U.S. clearly reveals its true intentions by acting with questionable formations instead of acting with NATO member Turkey, which is determinedly fighting against the PKK, the PYD and Daesh.
What I really wonder is when will U.S. citizens and intellectuals start to react against the spending of taxes to support terrorist organizations and radical religious groups located thousands of kilometers away.