We probably all remember playing as children and immersing ourselves in fantasies in which we were the star: saving the world, beating the baddies, the belle of the ball.
While all of that is natural and an important part of human development and a growth in self-awareness, assuming the world is a stage upon which we are the pre-eminent player is problematic when applied to real life — particularly if we happen to have some advantage which allows us to get away with the illusion for a time. The perils of such hubris can be seen particularly acutely in the current Syrian situation.
The US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (pictured) recently announced that the indispensable power was staying permanently. It is, after all, the most heavily armed and funded military in the world and nothing seemed to stand in its way of its dream of another Middle East conquest. Admittedly, President Assad had stayed in office against all expectations (with the help of Russia, Iran, Iraqi militias and Hezbollah). Nevertheless, he was tied up fighting Al Qaeda in the north-west and his battered army certainly wasn't about to open another front.
Considerations of domestic or international legality were not mentioned and don't seem to have factored too highly into Tillerson's calculations. Certainly, the annexation of territory is illegal at international law, as Russia is often reminded, and Congress is supposed to approve declarations of war. Nevertheless, the invasion of Iraq, the extraction of Kossovo from Yugoslavia and the initial US deployments to Syria were not approved by the UN or the relevant governments. Congress seems to have little say in the US's wars anymore — even when it is functioning.
A Pentagon spokesman accordingly informed the world that the US would establish a Kurdish-led 'Border Force' (formed from the existing Syrian Democratic Forces and such other allies — mostly ISIS defectors and Eastern Syrian tribes — as it could muster) which would defend the areas it controlled against all comers.
It might, however, have occurred to a more empathetic and humble (and better advised) administration that the prospect of a Kurdish-dominated state would be the one and only way to instantly unite Shi'a Iran, Baathist Syria, Muslim Brotherhood-favouring Turkey and multi-confessional Iraq (all with their own restive Kurdish populations) in opposition to the idea.
In particular, NATO ally Turkey, led by the nationalistic Recep Tayip Erdogan, had already been chafing at being forced to cooperate,