President Trump’s decision surely amounts to a betrayal of the Kurd “rebel” forces in Syria. Despite the hatred that exists between the Erdogan and Assad governments, what still unites them is the fear that the Kurds could one day eventually accede to their own country on territory made from chunks of Turkey, Iraq and Syria.
But beyond this, the US withdrawal from Syria on the excuse that the jihadist forces have been defeated (even if ex-US defence secretary Mattis disagrees that such is the case) raises a much deeper issue. What role should the US undertake in global diplomacy?
Trump seems to be claiming that the US should not act like they have to supply the world’s police force (as if there were so many voices making this request). His argument on this point is that to run such a police force, you need loads of money and why should the US have to pay?
If not, who should? Which countries have a vested interest to appoint the US as the ultimate world policeman?
The truth is that when the US takes up such an assignment, it does so because that happens to be in its own interest. There is a need for this whole complex of issues to be considered dispassionately, without falling in with the complacencies of both right and left.
***
Selective
Some people in the so-called independent media employ very selective methods by which to judge what is in the public interest when questions arise relating to family or health issues about persons in the public arena, mostly politics, but not only. When such persons happen to be close to them or are members of the dominant cliques who believe they should run the country as a matter of divine right, then the respect of privacy becomes supreme. So nothing is released about what this or that one are undergoing.
When however, the personality in question is not an insider, or has different ideas to that of the so-called elites, and if for instance an archbishop needs to be undermined, unless it is a minister who is not well regarded... ah, then, the public’s right to know everything from beginning to end must be given full importance. Indeed, for the news to really travel, even comments about it must be considered as news.
This crass hypocrisy is deployed before one and all with a total, undiluted sanctimoniousness.
***
Grisham
In “The Racketeer”, the main character is lawyer Malcolm Bannister who is in prison after having been found guilty of having participated in the laundering of criminal money. To get an early release, he offers information to the FBI about who murdered a federal judge. This he obtained from conversations with fellow convicts. The man he accuses of the murder is arrested and the FBI makes arrangements for Bannister to have a change of face and identity. So he goes on to lay a trap for the real killer while taking over the gold cache he had stolen from the judge.
The plot unfolds in the most ingenious manner. Taken by itself, each and every incident is credible and gripping.
It is only when one gets to the end of the novel that one realizes how improbable the whole tale actually is. Which, I guess, confirms John Grisham’s preeminence when it comes to the writing of “popular” novels.