Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bat guano

US blocks attempts by Arab allies to fly heavy weapons directly to Kurds to fight Islamic State

Rate this topic

21 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

The Kurds have been fighting ISIS.They are possibly the most motivated of any of the groups we have armed in the region. Why not arm them in the fight against the junior varsity?

 

 

The United States has blocked attempts by its Middle East allies to fly heavy weapons directly to the Kurds fighting Islamic State jihadists in Iraq, The Telegraph has learnt. Some of America’s closest allies say President Barack Obama and other Western leaders, including David Cameron, are failing to show strategic leadership over the world’s gravest security crisis for decades.

They now say they are willing to “go it alone” in supplying heavy weapons to the Kurds, even if means defying the Iraqi authorities and their American backers, who demand all weapons be channelled through Baghdad.

High level officials from Gulf and other states have told this newspaper that all attempts to persuade Mr Obama of the need to arm the Kurds directly as part of more vigorous plans to take on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) have failed. The Senate voted down one attempt by supporters of the Kurdish cause last month. The officials say they are looking at new ways to take the fight to Isil without seeking US approval. “If the Americans and the West are not prepared to do anything serious about defeating Isil, then we will have to find new ways of dealing with the threat,” said a senior Arab government official. “With Isil making ground all the time we simply cannot afford to wait for Washington to wake up to the enormity of the threat we face.”

 

The Peshmerga have been successfully fighting Isil, driving them back from the gates of Erbil and, with the support of Kurds from neighbouring Syria, re-establishing control over parts of Iraq’s north-west. But they are doing so with a makeshift armoury. Millions of pounds-worth of weapons have been bought by a number of European countries to arm the Kurds, but American commanders, who are overseeing all military operations against Isil, are blocking the arms transfers. One of the core complaints of the Kurds is that the Iraqi army has abandoned so many weapons in the face of Isil attack, the Peshmerga are fighting modern American weaponry with out-of-date Soviet equipment. At least one Arab state is understood to be considering arming the Peshmerga directly, despite US opposition. The US has also infuriated its allies, particularly Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf states, by what they perceive to be a lack of clear purpose and vacillation in how they conduct the bombing campaign.

 

Other members of the coalition say they have identified clear Isil targets but then been blocked by US veto from firing at them. “There is simply no strategic approach,” one senior Gulf official said. “There is a lack of coordination in selecting targets, and there is no overall plan for defeating Isil.” Western leaders increasingly accept that the “war on Isil” has not gone well, from the moment last year Mr Obama called the group a “JV [junior varsity] team” of jihadists compared with al-Qaeda. At that point, Isil had seized Fallujah, which US forces took in a bloody battle in 2004. It went on to take much of western Iraq and large areas of Syria, and in May took Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province. Britain is moving closer to expanding its role in the war. The Government on Wednesday gave its strongest indication yet that MPs will be given a new vote on whether to bomb Isil in Syria. Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, said it was “illogical” that British planes were able to hit extremists in Iraq but not across the border. Any decision to bomb in Syria would have to be approved by MPs.

 

In 2013, the Prime Minister lost a vote for British military action in Syria. However, Mr Fallon said: “It is a new Parliament and I think new Members of Parliament will want to think very carefully about how we best deal with Isil, and the illogicality of Isil not respecting the borderlines.” Mr Fallon suggested that a bombing campaign could be mounted in revenge for the terror attacks in Tunisia if a link could be proved between the killer and Isil in Libya. Britain would only take military action in Libya “where we think there is an imminent threat, a very direct to British lives or, for example, to British hostages”, he said. Senior Whitehall sources did not distance themselves from Mr Fallon’s comments but insisted there was no immediate prospect of military action. The Telegraph understands that Mr Cameron is concerned that Labour might force the Government into another defeat over Syria. Middle East allies accuse Barack Obama and David Cameron of failing to show strategic leadership in fight against Islamic State By Con Coughlin, Defence Editor

Edited by bat guano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 “If the Americans and the West are not prepared to do anything serious about defeating Isil, then we will have to find new ways of dealing with the threat,” said a senior Arab government official. “With Isil making ground all the time we simply cannot afford to wait for Washington to wake up to the enormity of the threat we face.

 

Good, they are finally getting it.  They need to fight this themselves.  There are plenty of arms over there.  Hell, we armed the Iraqi Army and they dropped the weapons and ran, now ISIL has them.  Let the Saudis arm them, they have the money.  Time for us to back out of there, before we're there forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, they are finally getting it.  They need to fight this themselves.  There are plenty of arms over there.  Hell, we armed the Iraqi Army and they dropped the weapons and ran, now ISIL has them.  Let the Saudis arm them, they have the money.  Time for us to back out of there, before we're there forever.[/font][/color][/background][/b]

I'm all for that. If this is what it takes to get those sleazy rulers off their arses, so be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 “If the Americans and the West are not prepared to do anything serious about defeating Isil, then we will have to find new ways of dealing with the threat,” said a senior Arab government official. “With Isil making ground all the time we simply cannot afford to wait for Washington to wake up to the enormity of the threat we face.

 

Good, they are finally getting it.  They need to fight this themselves.  There are plenty of arms over there.  Hell, we armed the Iraqi Army and they dropped the weapons and ran, now ISIL has them.  Let the Saudis arm them, they have the money.  Time for us to back out of there, before we're there forever.

 

Couldn't agree more, but how about this WH administration stops playing political endgames and stops blocking heavy arms shipments to the Kurds.

 

Hussein is appeasing both the Turks and the Iranians, and to a lesser extent the Baghdad Iraqis with his actions and inactions. After all a Kurdish army, armed with modern heavy armament will be a force to be reckoned with.

 

Could the reason be that the map of a potential resurgent Kurdistan sloughs off a good section of Turkish and Iranian turf, as well as giving the Kurds complete control and autonomy of Iraqs northern oil fields.

 

My solution is to get out of their way, and let them all sort it out themselves, Western European and US powers have been meddling there for far too long.

Edited by zybathegeek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of today's neocons were in the Reagan administration. And some got kicked out because they were considered crazies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama doesn't want the Kurds to win, he's a fan of the JV team.

Right.

 

Nobody, including he US, trusts the Iraqi *government*. Through them, Daesh already got a lot of US equpment. I think he's sending a message to the KSA and the Gulf States that they'd better do something themselves. It's about time on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama doesn't want the Kurds to win, he's a fan of the JV team.

the Kurds don't care about ISIL as much as establishing their own country. Over arming them to the point that they would be a threat to Turkey down the road would just be another screw up on our part IMO. We don't need to meddle over there anymore. The players in that region have proven they can't be trusted, and we've proven that we stink at picking the right people to back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more, but how about this WH administration stops playing political endgames and stops blocking heavy arms shipments to the Kurds.

 

Hussein is appeasing both the Turks and the Iranians, and to a lesser extent the Baghdad Iraqis with his actions and inactions. After all a Kurdish army, armed with modern heavy armament will be a force to be reckoned with.

 

Could the reason be that the map of a potential resurgent Kurdistan sloughs off a good section of Turkish and Iranian turf, as well as giving the Kurds complete control and autonomy of Iraqs northern oil fields.

 

My solution is to get out of their way, and let them all sort it out themselves, Western European and US powers have been meddling there for far too long.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Kurds don't care about ISIL as much as establishing their own country. Over arming them to the point that they would be a threat to Turkey down the road would just be another screw up on our part IMO. We don't need to meddle over there anymore. The players in that region have proven they can't be trusted, and we've proven that we stink at picking the right people to back.

This is the simple truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the Kurds don't care about ISIL as much as establishing their own country. Over arming them to the point that they would be a threat to Turkey down the road would just be another screw up on our part IMO. We don't need to meddle over there anymore. The players in that region have proven they can't be trusted, and we've proven that we stink at picking the right people to back.

The Kurds are fighting ISIS,those fights are to the death,so they do care ,or they would cut and run. Of,course they want their own territory,doesn't everyone?

Over arming them? What is over arming them? They need to have at least parity if not better arms than ISIS. The Turks don't want the Kurds to be strong,I wonder if they would prefer ISIS? The Turks would deal with the Kurd just like they did with the Armenians if they could get away with it.

We should just get out of the way and let those countries willing to help the Kurds do so.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-with-isis-the-kurdish-forces-providing-a-lesson-in-how-courage-discipline-and-us-air-strikes-can-defeat-militants-in-syria-10271351.html#

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of,course they want their own territory,doesn't everyone?

During the part of the war when it looked like political accommodation might be possible, it was a big deal about sharing of oil revenue. It's my impression that the Kurds don't want to enlarge their territory per se, but they really want the Kirkuk oil fields next to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

The Kurds are fighting ISIS,those fights are to the death,so they do care ,or they would cut and run. Of,course they want their own territory,doesn't everyone?

Over arming them? What is over arming them? They need to have at least parity if not better arms than ISIS. The Turks don't want the Kurds to be strong,I wonder if they would prefer ISIS? The Turks would deal with the Kurd just like they did with the Armenians if they could get away with it.

We should just get out of the way and let those countries willing to help the Kurds do so.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-with-isis-the-kurdish-forces-providing-a-lesson-in-how-courage-discipline-and-us-air-strikes-can-defeat-militants-in-syria-10271351.html#

By over arming, I mean they don't need any more technology than is necessary to be on par with ISIL.  They don't need to have a tech advantage that could be used against someone else in the future.  We have seen that failure in Afganistan and Iraq, where arms we supplied ended up in the wrong hands.  They don't need better arms, there's no reason to trust them with them.  No one in that region has earned that trust.  The media has done a bang up job painting the Kurds as heroic fighters, taking on deadly ISIL against all odds.  Makes a good story, but do we have any idea who's in charge of the Kurds?  Their end game is to have their own state (and I agree, who wouldn't want that?), but we have no idea what that state will look like or what their plans are, long term.  Do we want to arm them to the point that they are bold enough to take on Turkey over territory?  Maybe I should remind you that Turkey is in NATO and an ally of ours that we are treaty bound to help in case they are attacked.  It would be kind of stupid to see the Kurds get overwhelming firepower only to see it used against one of our allies IMO.

We thought we had friends in Afganistan when the Northern Alliance helped fight the Taliban, but then they switched sides.  We thought we had friends in Iraq when we got rid of Saddam for them, but they turned out to be inept at best and cowards at worst. We thought Pakistan was an ally, only to find out they were harboring Bin Laden, and letting foriegn fighters into Afganistan.  We do not have a good track record of picking the "good guys" in that region. The Kurds as "good guys", IMO is a media creation, as we simply don't know much about them.

As far as ISIL, we could kill them all tomorrow, and something new would pop up in a month to attract nut jobs from around the world.  At this point, they have no air power or quick way to get around, so they really are no threat to us.  Let the countries of the ME deal with them, they can certainly afford to.

One last point, Syria was a rouge state that we were trying to covertly topple before ISIL.  Why on God's green earth would we help those people now?

Edited by MikeMunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we still backing Turkey, worse allies then Saudi Arabia. If anybody deserves a homeland, it is the Kurds, they have been screwed over by the west for centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Why are we still backing Turkey, worse allies then Saudi Arabia. If anybody deserves a homeland, it is the Kurds, they have been screwed over by the west for centuries.

Turkey is in NATO, and the only Muslim country in NATO at that.  They have not been that bad an ally, and certainly not as costly as protecting Saudi has been.  What has the west done to the Kurds?  Honestly, who ever heard of the Kurds prior to Saddam gassing them prior to Desert Storm?

I'm 100% against running around trying to provide homelands for everyone we think "deserves it".  It's been a mess since we first set up Israel.

Edited by MikeMunn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.