I will repeat that I have limited interest in sustained disagreements, but I would make a handful of notes, mostly to cover my previous curtness.
First, there is rather a significant difference between avoiding conflict with an opponent deemed too powerful and your own characterization. If one were to view any given faction in the war through the lens of end goals, it's rather easy to see that the YPG is distinctly opposing the central government. There is no scenario in which both sides get what they want, therefore they are opposed to one another.
Secondly, I made no note of their "assorted high ideals," nor did I ascribe any particular value to said ideals or their efforts to achieve them. I said quite plainly, they represent elements of an anarchic system as I view it. Nothing more, nothing less. (Upon rereading my post, I must admit that I only barely gleaned through what BV said, so it may be the case that putting us together there gave the wrong impression.)
Third and finally, I bristle at the suggestion now and earlier that one ought to judge systems of governance based on their ability to make and survive war. Democracy is not better than Monarchy because some colonists ~200 years ago murdered enough of their opponents to establish their own government. It's better because it - presumably - brings about the most good for the highest amount of people. By far the most-discussed military achievements of the last two centuries were carried out by Revolutionary France and Nazi Germany. I'd like to think none of us are going to ascribe any further value to either system of governance beyond their ability to make war.
last edited at Apr 12, 2020 9:03PM