I think the idea that US tax payers funding a military effort that isn’t involved in actually protecting the US should be considered here too, especially since we’ve probably endured more actual American deaths because of such activity.
Spending money not protecting the people who are funding it is bad enough but putting the people funding it in more danger than they were before is really bad, that’s the opposite of what the military is for.
And so you sell out and instantly betray your allies against ISIS the second they're not immediately useful anymore?
Aside from the deeply troubling morality expressed there, you're setting yourself up to never have local allies in any future conflicts as we can all see just how well that's worked out in the past.
The answer to "how do we not fund and die in foreign wars?" isn't "go to war in foreign countries over and over again and then abandon our allies as soon as our immediate objectives are apparently met", it's gotta be more like "stop picking fights in foreign countries".
these loyalty types seem to suffer from classic irrational doubling-down syndrome where because the US made various mistakes in the past, we must atone for them by supporting our "allies" (often complicated, not-so-nice groups who contribute to regional instability even more once armed with latest US gadgets) in perpetuity. after all, what's a couple more military outposts given 100s already exist across the world?
the best time to bring all US troops home was 74 years ago. the second best time is today. perpetual atonement for mistakes made in the past is really just air cover for maintain tentacles across the world, which are tantalizingly useful for continued regime change/provocation/etc.
I understand this point of view and am sympathetic to it, but that's not what is happening here. This isn't an overture of non-interventionism from a Changed America, it's Erdogan calling in a favor in order to extend his human rights abuses from an increasingly authoritarian USA; there isn't some concomitant immediate pulling out of troops in Afghanistan or any of our many other foreign footholds. Framing it as such is mistaken, and maybe disingenuous.
So, to the sentiment you express, I agree! But still think this specific incident is not an example of that sentiment, and I still think it's really, really shitty.
Spending money not protecting the people who are funding it is bad enough but putting the people funding it in more danger than they were before is really bad, that’s the opposite of what the military is for.