I agree with the UN doing something. But, since half the countries don't pay their money, the UN can't afford it and we shouldn't keep footing the bill. You're right on some of the upsides, but I disagree with pulling out will reduces reasons for targeting by terrorists. Having troops is the Middle East, while they say that's the reason, is not the reason why America is targeted. While I disagree with him abandoning the Kurds, people also have to remember that Turkey is a NATO member. Unless Congress goes on record with authorizing force against another NATO member and an ally in the region, I'm not sure why everyone is bitching.

Everyone is bitching because Trump owns two huge hotels in Turkey and has even publicly admitted that it's a conflict of interests for his presidency. So, with that in some people's minds, anything he does to benefit the government of Turkey is quid pro quo. Amplify that by the fact that he's under some sort of impeachment investigation from congress over sketchy quid prop quo stuff with the Ukraine at the same time that he's making these calls with Turkey contrary to the stated interests of his diplomatic advisors and congress, and the whole thing looks very fishy to people who like to see everything as a conspiracy. Personally, though, from my perspective, this is a Middle East issue, not a USA issue. We shouldn't be beholden to fixing every mess caused by the fact that the UN can't even wipe its own ass without at least two years of council debates and bureaucracy hell. Trying to get involved with every ounce of bullshit happening in the middle east is how we got ourselves on the radar of terrorist organizations in the first place. Not that anyone is to blame for 911 besides the people who blew themselves up, but just because shooting people is against the law doesn't mean people should walk around Detroit at night with blinking LED targets on their shirts.

Sadam came to power through USA and USSR influences, because he was willing to trade oil for weapons and he upset the Iranian leaders who were hostile to both superpowers at the time. Only when the shenanigans between Iran and Iraq threatened to spread to Saudi Arabia, where top US politicians had business interests, did the US authorize threats to Saddam, going so far as to get the daughter of a diplomat to lie in a public testimony and hide her identity in order to garner public support and win over congress members who didn't benefit financially from the war.

The situation in Syria in, indeed, similar in many ways. Whatever happens in Syria has no direct effect on your average American. But a lot of the rich and powerful have business interests there. Assad's dad was a mentor to Saddam, they were both enemies of ISIL, etc. But Ba'athist oppression of ISIL as well as US involvement in the region galvanized the organization, at first. Now that ISIL is essentially out of Syria, and the US has pulled out, it may return. But we can't stay there forever, without serious sacrifices. Are those sacrifices worth protecting the business interests of a handful of the wealthiest Americans?