Posted on 10/11/2014 8:25:31 AM PDT by darkwing104
According to Secretary of State John Kerry, preventing the fall of the Kurdish town of Kobani,
“was not a strategic objective for the United States.” Across town in D.C. Barack Obama’s White House Press Secretary admitted that the advances made by the Islamic State’s (ISIS) military thugs represented a setback for Obama’s “leading from behind policy.”
It has been Obama’s strategy to use and then “roll back” American combat aircraft without committing ground forces; his fancy way of doing very little to nothing. White House spokesman Josh Earnest went on to state “Our strategy [in Syria] is reliant on something that is not yet in place … a Syrian opposition that can take the fight to ISIL.” Someone needs to inform this White House that not coming to the aid of the only force fighting the Islamic State terrorists in Syria isn’t good strategy.
Although Turkey had pledged to prevent Kobani from falling, Turkish troops are just watching ISIS take the town.
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
It is 100 years since the GENOCIDE of the Kurds
by Turkey.
Why would ANYONE expect either Turkey
or genocide-loving Kerry/Obola
to help these poor people ... from the very
terrorists which Obola and Kerry created?
Obama is a closet Muslim. His speeches sent the signals that he would not do anything that would seriously damage their move toward a caliphate. Sure a little muzzie blood has to be spilled but its nothing in his/their grand scheme.
Exactly!
“Leading from behind” sounds gay. I suppose it correlates with Obama’s hatred for Americans leading the world, and so it signifies that American power has to be tiptoed throughout the world so as to not be visible, if asserted at all. We are governed by either the most craven fools, or our enemies.
The strategic end of securing Kurdistan by recognizing its sovereignty as a nation is feasible, suitable, but not acceptable.
1) We just spent 10 years, thousands of lives, and God-knows-how-many billions of dollars to secure Iraq in its current state. While those of us who were there know for a fact that Kurdistan is, in fact, a country, the national effort was to preserve Iraq as it’s existed on the map for decades since the Brits artificially created its current borders. The lack of acceptability domestically will come from the out-of-power party criticizing the in-power party for completely throwing away what we fought so long to sustain.
2) The lack of acceptability internationally stems from our “allies” in the Middle East, most notably Turkey. I’m not sure of Saudi Arabia’s stand on the matter, but since Arabs are pretty racist, I doubt they’d like Arab nations split apart for non-Arabs. Turkey has been at war in the south with PUK in the north part of Kurdistan for a long time, and Kurdistan would likely claim that section of Turkey as part of their territory. The Kurds would also likely use the weapons we supply them with against our own NATO allies.
3) While acceptability from a non-ally is a very low priority consideration, we have to be aware of the possible retaliation from Iran against the Kurds if Iran loses a chunk of its sovereign territory to Kurdistan.
4) There’s also the possibility of a Kurdish civil war between the PUK and the PRK. This isn’t likely to occur while ISIS is keeping everyone busy on the south end, but eventually one party will demand control over the other.
While I’m not saying recognizing Kurdistan as a sovereign state is the wrong thing to do, there are significant strategic implications of such a decision that can’t be ignored.
“Our strategy [in Syria] is reliant on something that is not yet in place “
Morons, the lot of them.
I’d be for it, and make it a bastion of pro-Americanism in a bad neighborhood. Support them to the hilt, starting with an air bridge of supplies, advisers, and FACs. They have earned nationhood, IMHO, and they are 100X more reliable than Iraqis.
My guess is Baghdad will fall before the end of the year. You can’t defend any city with Sunni troops, not when half of them will defect to ISIS at the first chance, and the rest will run away. At “best” Baghdad will be another bloodbath, with a war between the Sunnis and Shias. At worst, the Sunnis will drive out or mass-murder the non-Sunnis, and Abu-Bakr al-BAGHDADI will install himself as Caliph, with Baghdad the capital of the Caliphate.
If this happens, Katie bar the door. We may see a shockingly rapid advance of the Caliphate, including in Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, etc.
Baghdad will be a bloody fight. The city is fairly evenly split between Shi'ites and Sunnis, and it is HUGE. I can see block-by-block fighting going on for months. Sadr City alone would take forever for ISIS to pacify. Even with air support and heavy armor, we treated Sadr City with respect. The Dora and Jihad regions also come to mind as very tough fights for Sunni invaders. Now that the military is bound to be split along mostly sectarian lines, we're not likely to see another Mosul-style blitzkrieg.
The domino effect is a real concern, you're right. We've already seen it on a fairly large scale after our own government backed the worst horse possible in Egypt. There's no reason to think it won't accelerate if ISIS declares and implements a true caliphate, though I think we're pretty far out from that happening.
For an interesting take on the whole deal, an old friend of mine I served with in the 3d Stryker BDE has written this article with his own thoughts on what to do. He starts with the history of the region, some of the backstory on where AQ and ISIS scumbags come from, and how he thinks we can handle them. I think his solutions are a bit Pollyanna-ish, but the breakdown on why we are where we are is pretty interesting reading.
The fall of Kobani is a religious objective of President Soetoro, the Sultan in Washington.
Obama is not, I repeat is not, a closet Muslim. In an often quoted remark made a few years back, he was quoted publicly as saying something to the extent that if a choice had to be made he would be on the side of his Muslim heritage.
He also referred to “My Muslim religion” and has made many other inadvertent slips. He also recited Shaheed publicly in Cairo and his education in Djakarta is sufficient to guarantee that he knows the significance of that act. He is Moslem. His actions show that he is Sunni. He must therefore support the Caliphate though he must politically make a show of opposing it. His opposition has been desultory at best. The way the bombing was originally announced I am convinced the military made the first attacks without telling him then told him he had better own it. He has managed to put reins on the action since.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.