But Washington position is indeed ambiguous

Submitted by BorisG (Australia), Feb 21, 2016 at 11:00

But Washington's position is indeed ambiguous. If they limit their involvement to telling the Turks, the Kurds and the Russians to 'exercise restraint', they will lose whatever remains of their influence, and not without consequencies for the US interests.

They could tell the Kurds to stop at the red lines 'or they will lose US air support'.
They can advise Erdogan that he needs to restart talks with the PKK if he wants any diplomatic support in Syria.
They can tell the Russians that if they do not stop shelling 'moderate' opposition, it will give them surface to air missiles.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".