I have to disagree with the OP. A number of very smart people I know who are knowledgeable about the situation have pointed out the following:
The Kurds don't have a state. They are scattered across Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. Where should we help them and what lines should we draw?
The Kurds themselves are not monolithic. Much of the problem in Syria is the PKK or Kurdistan Workers Party. They are a Communist militant group listed as a terrorist group by a number of countries, including the US.
The PKK is different from the mostly moderate Kurds in northern Iraq (aka Kurdistan) that many of us are most familiar with.
Turkey is a NATO ally, technically. They aren't great people but it's a fact.
Do we attack an ally to defend a terrorist group? And what is our desired end goal? Even if we wanted to suddenly push to support the establishment of an official Kurdish state, something NONE of the countries in the area support, how do we make that happen? We have to leave eventually. Will leaving now versus later make any difference in the long run?
As my old boss, a recently retired Colonel who is very smart on the area, pointed out, this is the problem with an alliance of convenience with a stateless people. At some point we have to leave.
Domestically, I agree with MechAg94. The same people that had us in Iraq for almost a decade and have had us in Afghanistan for almost two decades with no result are insisting that this time absolutely need to stay just a little longer. And it looks like Turkey's much feared attack when the US left is already bogging down. Great. Not our problem. Let them sort it out.
