The Kurds, who had apparently previously agreed to what the US was proposing, were already withdrawing their troops from the so-called "safe zone" for the repatriation of refugees Turkey wants to establish in northern Syria, Pence said on Friday.

Five days, or 120 hours, of valuable time has been bought for the Kurds to reposition their forces in line with the deal struck with the Russians and the Syrian government earlier in the week and to evacuate non-combatants from the danger zone.

The agreement should also be seen as a positive step in that it has opened the door to further negotiations, albeit through an intermediary, between the Kurds and Ankara.

While the deal has been roundly condemned by those who seem to be advocating the West should commit itself to a modern day crusade to establish an independent Kurdish state within what is currently Syrian territory and on Turkey's border, it is difficult to see how this is either possible or desirable.

Yes, Erdogan has largely got what he wanted, including the lifting of US sanctions before they were even imposed, but what was the alternative?

Neither America, or any of the other countries currently engaged in the region, went into Syria with the avowed intention of liberating the Kurds from either the 21^st century descendants of their former Ottoman overlords or the government of Bashar al Assad.

The immediate goals were always to contain and eliminate Islamic State and to restore some form of order and equilibrium in the wake of the disruption created by the "Arab spring".

It is hard to see how the establishment of an American-backed, quasi-autonomous Kurdish state within Syria on the border of a long-standing NATO member would help achieve either of these outcomes.

It would be much more likely, in the longer term, to further disrupt an already volatile part of the world, creating a legacy of conflict, terrorism and repression for decades to come.

That said, Trump's peremptory withdrawal of US forces earlier this month may, in a bizarre and roundabout way, have broken a deadlock and brought the aggrieved parties closer to the negotiating table and, ultimately, to some form of equilibrium.

It has also played out well for the Republicans, despite the fact many have been critical of the move, at home. A large part of the US electorate strongly endorses Trump's push to extricate America from the costly, often fruitless, and "endless" wars initiated under his predecessors, George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

American foreign policy is usually best viewed through the lens of the domestic political landscape, especially under this president.

Moody's Analytics this week released modelling suggesting the 2020 presidential election will be a bloodbath for the Democrats with Trump likely to receive up 351 of a possible 538 electoral college votes, 34 more than in 2016.

Closer to home, the Australian government would be well advised to use this breathing space to revisit the possibility of rescuing the 60 Australian women and children held in the Al Hawl refugee camp.

We cannot abandon these people, especially innocent children who have committed no crime, to an uncertain and possibly horrible fate. If they do come to harm those responsible will almost certainly pay a heavy price at the next election.