The point I was trying to make, which went over your head (my fault, not yours because it is my responsibility to communicate clearly) is that there is a long history of our failed involvement in the Middle East.
Now I was actually in favor of the first Iraqi war. And I reluctantly supported Bush II in the second. I said "reluctantly" because, after Bosnia and Mogadishu, I was beginning to have doubts about our intervention policy and I didn't like the way the Afghan war was progressing with no apparent end in sight. But Bush II said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and I believed that the president had information sources that he couldn't share with us.
Then we found out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but was hoodwinked into war by an Iraqi dissident who wanted us to kick Saddam out and put him in power. (And thank you, CIA, for doing a such a wonderful job of giving us this intelligence before we went to war.)
So I learned to be very skeptical when our leaders involve us in new wars. What happened in Libya and Egypt showed I was right to be skeptical. Then we got involved in Syria.
You wonder what will happen to the (Syrian) Kurds if we pull out? The same thing that will happen if we pull out next year, or in two years, or in twenty years: they will be left surrounded by hostile regimes. The same regimes that surrounded them before we intervened.
There are no good options, but, perhaps, we should have had the foresight to recognize a fools errand before we invaded a sovereign nation that was never a threat to our national interest.
And, yeah, that's what Nationalist means for those of us who voted for Trump.
