RAQQA, Syria — When President Trump announced his troop withdrawal in Syria, he was met with great opposition from both parties. Neocons and liberals rallied together and found the common belief that we should not leave our “long ally” behind: the Kurds. For several reasons, Trump is correct to withdraw troops from Syria against the wishes of many, which includes Lindsay Graham, Larry Elder, Mark Levine, James Mattis, Dan Crenshaw, and others.

Here’s why he is correct:

First, Trump promised on the campaign to leave Middle Eastern conflicts to their local jurisdictions. No more unnecessary American blood would be spilled on a pile of sand according to Trump. By leaving a small number of troops rotated from Iraq to protect the oil fields in eastern Syria, Trump has fulfilled that promise.

Secondly, this is not our problem. Kurdistan was created after the Treaty of Sevre was signed by the British, the French, and the Ottomans post WWI. However, Turkish nationalism took hold and fought off the British, French, Italians, Greeks, and Armenians and established modern day Turkey. As a result, the new Turkish government out of Ankara wanted another treaty to be signed. The British were happy to receive oil rich Iraq, the French were content with Syria, and the Kurds were then split into different countries. This was called the Treaty of Lausanne—and Trump had nothing to do with this. More importantly, its impact is still felt today.

Thirdly, Trump inherited a problem created by the Obama administration. Obama decided to give military and humanitarian aid to YPG Kurds starting in 2014. By 2015, we began sending ground troops. This was direct sleight against Erdogan’s wishes (who is a NATO ally with great geopolitical importance). Obama knew he was creating a problem that was being kicked down the road once ISIS was defeated. For those unaware, YPG is viewed as a terrorist group by Turkey—and I am by no means a fan of Erdogan or Turkey (being Greek-American and remembering the Pontic-Armenian Genocide).

So, this poses the question: why do Turks hate the Kurds so much? After the Treaty of Lausanne, Kurdish elements revolted on several occasions throughout the 20th century. Each successive time, they were violently put down. Turkey began to implement harsh policies against the Kurds, whether it was the ability to speak their language, name businesses in Kurdish, have television and radio shows, etc. Only recently have Kurds been able to have television and radio shows—as long as they are only an hour long. Turkey fears the communist group PKK will use airtime as propaganda.

Geographically, PKK and the Kurds mostly reside in the Southeastern portion of Turkey. About 13 million reside in Turkey, making it the largest concentration of Kurds in the world. Turkey fears they will try to break away (again), and this area represents their greatest resource: water. 90% of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers flow from this mountainous region. The Arabic countries control the oil–but Turkey, for now, controls the water. In addition, this area represents a massive financial investment by the Turks. A project called GAP cost about $17 billion and created the largest commercial airport in Turkey, six other airports, 22 dams, and 19 power plants all located in the Kurdish Southeast region. PKK knows the strategic and economic value of this project and has been sabotaging with bombs and other means for years.

This brings us to the YPG Kurds. YPG was created as a direct offshoot of PKK in 2003 hence why Turks view them as a terror group even though they’re Syrian Kurds. Once Obama began to back them, it greatly angered the Turks and Erdogan. It is also interesting to note Democrat support of a group connected to communists.

Moreover, in order to further understand Erdogan’s interest in Syria, one must understand its direct implications on Turkey. Once the Syrian War began in 2011, millions of refugees streamed across the Turkish border and settled within its territory due to Erdogan’s open border policy. This greatly angered the Turkish Nationalist party, MHP. As a result, Erdogan’s party AKP ended up losing Parliament control in 2015 due to stagflation and the refugee crisis. Thus, Erdogan decided to make a coalition with MHP and took it upon himself to solve the refugee problem in order to placate his new nationalist allies.

According to international law refugees cannot be sent into a war zone. Simply put, Erdogan’s “Operation Peace Spring” killed two birds with one stone. It placed the refugees back into Syria legally and put a buffer between PKK and YPG (protecting his $17 billion investment in Southeast Turkey).

Trump correctly assessed the situation. He identified Turkey’s motives and delegated responsibility in the region by using their economic, cultural, and geopolitical interests to America’s benefit. Additionally, many pundits and politicians have misled America when addressing YPG as long-time allies and using the blanket term “Kurds” when describing YPG Kurds. In actuality, they have only been our allies since 2014 and we have helped other Kurds such as the Peshmerga Kurds in Iraq for much longer and continue to do so.

It’s pretty simple. Turkey (albeit ran by an immoral leader) possesses greater political importance over YPG Kurds due to their location on the map, water resources, large ground force, and longtime membership in NATO since 1952. Furthermore, Turkey was also effective against ISIS. YPG struggled to exist without American aid and ISIS was able to control 50% of Syria before we sent ground troops. With American support, YPG was given a life preserver.

Overall, the troop withdrawal was a win-win for the Trump administration. Trump played peacekeeper once the treaty was signed between YPG and Turkey while simultaneously removing our troops. Those who disagree seem to support the military-industrial complex. Perhaps they should listen to Eisenhower’s farewell speech. Or perhaps they should give Trump a Nobel. I hear they’re handing them out like hot cakes these days.