As for the United States: There is a legitimate and very good argument that can be made for a U.S. withdrawal from the Middle East, and specifically from Syria. The U.S. has spent significant blood and treasure in the region with little to show for it. The United States’ surge in recoverable energy resources has severed the last real strategic interest it has in the Middle East beyond preventing the emergence of a hostile regional hegemonic power. As former President Barack Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq showed, however, the “how” of a withdrawal is crucial. The U.S. does not seem to have secured any concessions from Turkey that would make the move strategically logical – however morally unsatisfying. If the U.S. wanted to let the region stew in its own juice and work with another country (i.e. Russia) to maintain a stable balance of power, that could also be a viable strategy. Letting Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt foot the bill for supporting the Syrian Kurds could work. Supporting the Syrian Kurds – and funneling aid and money to the development of a broader Kurdish national identity –would also be an interesting strategy, the long-term goal being a U.S.-allied buffer state between Turkey and Iran.Instead, the U.S. is engaging in exactly the kind of ad hoc decision-making that countermands strategy. The U.S. has abandoned the Syrian Kurds, antagonized Turkey, opened up the space for the Islamic State to re-emerge, and created a power vacuum that either Turkey or Iran will fill. Whether in the Middle East, in East Asia or in Europe, the Trump administration has no strategy to speak of. It has, in its place, the whims of a mercurial real estate developer. That’s why the Syrian Kurds never stood a chance.