i mean i know you really want to lay all of this at the feet of Obama but I fail to see how supporting the overthrow of a Baathist dictator be a departure from US policy
in fact just reinforces the fact that Obama was a pub
Overthrowing the Asad/Baathist regime in SYR is not really the issue or the primary criticism of former Pres Obama. Changing the mission after you've both approved the plan and deployed the force is. We tasked the U.S. military (and the CIA prior to that) with creating an anti-Asad force. We then changed the endgame to not overthrowing the regime but "defeating" ISIL and subsequently ISIS. Nobody asked, after we'd created the SDF to do that, what happens after? We knew no one, Turkey, Syria, Iraq or Iran, would allow the Kurds to become more independent that they already were. We also knew that Turkey, as they had in the past, would react militarily and physically to any real or perceived movement by the Kurds (aka to them at least, the PKK) that threatened Turkish security.
IMO, we need to tell both Turkey and Iraq that they now "own" the ISIS problem if it resurrects itself. Turkey decided to stir things up in Syria and Iraq can't seem to get beyond internal strife between Shia and Sunni and focus on what actually threatens their country. The Kurds do not threaten our national security and never will and while ISIS 2.0 may, it should now become and Arab problem to solve. Similar to what Saudi Arabia and the Emirates did once they decided that the Houthis in Yemen threatened them and the region.
We can and should support them with arms, equipment, INTEL and other support but they need to do away with this problem themselves. If not, maybe we need to negotiate with whoever wins, before they win, so that our actual national interests (and the rest of the world's) are protected. You may not like him or believe it IMO, Pres Trump sees things similarly.