Obama Plans To Fight ISIS By... Giving More Weapons To ISIS?

Zero Hedge ^ | 09/10/2014 | Tyler Durden

[SeekAndFind]

It appears that, in a rush to get his strategy out the door, President Obama overlooked his key "do nothing stupid" foreign policy plan.

• OBAMA SAID TO SEEK CONGRESS AUTHORITY TO ARM SYRIAN REBELS

So - to be clear - the strategy to defeat ISIS is to arm more of the same "rebels" that ultimately split off and became, well, ISIS?

Perhaps it's better if Obama sticks to his original "no strategy" plan after all... if only for the people, not so much the military-industrial complex of course.

*  *  *

Remember Those ‘Moderate’ Syrian Rebels That The U.S. Armed? ISIS Got Some Of Those Weapons Too

As the Syrian Civil War has waged on over the past few years, the United States, along with Arab states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, decided to arm the Syrian rebels under the “Free Syrian Army” umbrella.

The shipments of former Yugoslavian Army weapons held by the Croatians, along with newly manufactured Croatian weapons, began in November 2012, according to The Telegraph UK. The weapons were flown out of Croatia on chartered flights to Jordan and then smuggled into Syria.

Fast forward to the rise of ISIS and their blitzkreig campaign across northern Iraq. An investigation by the arms control organization Conflict Armament Research has found that various U.S. supplied weapons have wound up in the hands of ISIS.

AFP reports:

The study by the London-based small-arms research organisation Conflict Armament Research documented weapons seized by Kurdish forces from militants in Iraq and Syria over a 10-day period in July.

 

The report said the jihadists disposed of “significant quantities” of US-made small arms including M16 assault rifles and included photos showing the markings “Property of US Govt”.

 

[airborne]

And he plans to announce it tomorrow - on 9/11

[entropy12]

Arming any muzzie group/country in the middle-east is a dumb azz policy. We can not solve 1300 year old problems in 13 weeks on 13 months by taking sides.

In every instant, whoever we armed have come back to bite us in the azz. Most of the better weapons ISIS has were given by us to Iraq.

I harken back to the days when middle-east dictators loved us and were happy with American oil companies extracting their oil. No one hated us. Until that is we took sides and helped engineer removal of the Shah of Iran, then got involved in Kuwait in a war with Iraq, etc. If we had kept out military out of the middle-east, there would be no 911.

The middle-east may have internal fights between various entities but they are all united by their prophet.

[dforest]

I agree with that. Arming so called moderates in Syria is a big mistake. I cannot believe we would do that at this point unless we want Syria in jihad i hands.

[laplata]

Yes, we sided with Sadam against Iran.

[Ray76]

It’s not that clear cut.

Various groups in Syria are not formal groups, their membership is a fluid collection of terrorists. Some indigenous, some foreign, some al Aqeada. To overthrow the Syrian government the US has “partnered” with these terrorist groups, arming them. It is not clear why the US seeks to overthrow Syria.

Once armed these groups, or their members reformed as new groups, attacked Iraq. They have since seized half a billion dollars by looting Iraqi banks and a large quantity US equipment, tanks, humvees, etc.

This is now known as ISIS/ISIL/Islamic State.

Here is a summary of some of my notes. No doubt this is not complete or accurate in every detail but it is my opinion of what is happening. Corrections and additions are certainly welcome.

In May 2013, Elizabeth O’Bagy arranged for McCain to meet with the Free Syrian Army. This is the famed photo-op of McCain with “Syrian rebels”.

In an August 30, 2013 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled “On the Front Lines of Syria’s Civil War” O’Bagy promoted the idea that the Free Syrian Army are not jihadists:

“Moderate opposition forces—a collection of groups known as the Free Syrian Army—continue to lead the fight against the Syrian regime. While traveling with some of these Free Syrian Army battalions, I’ve watched them defend Alawi and Christian villages from government forces and extremist groups. They’ve demonstrated a willingness to submit to civilian authority, working closely with local administrative councils. And they have struggled to ensure that their fight against Assad will pave the way for a flourishing civil society.”

In Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings regarding a possible attack on Syria McCain cited this op-ed to support the idea that the Free Syrian Army are not jihadists.

The next day Secretary of State John Kerry encouraged members of the House of Representatives to read this op-ed.

Shortly after her op-ed O’Bagy was exposed as a fraud. She did not have a PhD from Georgetown as she had claimed and her connections with the Syrian Emergency Task Force where she was Political Director also came to light. She joined the Syrian Emergency Task Force on May 13.

Prior to her exposure O’Bagy also was employed as a Senior Research Analyst and Syria Team Lead by the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington, DC based foreign policy advisory group focused on the Middle East. She was hired in either August or September 2012 (unclear) and fired September 11, 2013.

The WSJ subsequently issued this clarification:

“In addition to her role at the Institute for the Study of War, Ms. O’Bagy is affiliated with the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a nonprofit operating as a 501(c)(3) pending IRS approval that subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments to provide aid to the Syrian opposition.”

The Syrian Emergency Task Force is a Washington, DC based lobbying group working for the overthrow of the Syrian government.

The Syrian Emergency Task Force receives funding from the Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations, itself funded by the State Department.

After being fired by Institute For The Study of War O’Bagy was hired by McCain as a “legislative assistant”.

>> The State Department, working through the Syrian Emergency Task Force, and indirectly through O’Bagy, manuevered McCain into supporting an attack on Syria and/or arming the “good” jihadists either method with the goal of overthrowing the Syrian government. <<

Whether McCain was a willing and knowledgable participant or a dupe is an open question.

The Free Syrian Army is a loose association of groups. Theses groups have names like the Harmoush Battalion, the Omari Battalion, Freedom Brigade, and the Syrian Falcons Brigade. How large, well organized, their intentions, or how “real” any of these groups are is not clear (to me).

In June 2013 Obama claimed that Syrian President Assad used sarin. This was Obama’s (in)famous “red line”. This provided the justification or pretense (whatever your point of view) to arm some of these groups through the Free Syria Army.

In May 2013 when McCain visited Syria he met with Salim Idriss, general in the Free Syria Army, and later said he is “a fine leader”.

Before the June 2013 crossing of the “red line”, in early 2012, the CIA had been working with Turkey to arm these groups.

This raises the question of just how legitimate is the “red line” justification for arming the Free Syria Army to overthrow the Syrian government.

Given that US actions against Syria have dubious justification, the Turkey connection (reportedly a ship left Libya to deliver arms to Turkey, allegedly destined for Syrian “rebels”), all the unanswered questions about Benghazi, the US involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and now the “Islamic State” - what is going on? Why was ISIS allowed to possess US equipment when they could have been wiped out (think “highway of death”)?

I have paid attention to the news, paid attention to current events, and tried to understand what is happening. In my opinion - at that is all it is - in my opinion the case can be made that it appears that Obama is using the US to install “islamists” in a new transnational caliphate. I don’t believe he is operating alone, but that others may be supporting the same outcome but for their own reasons ($$$). It’s also possible that some of these others may be working to prevent any one ME country from becoming too powerful and that this is “blowback”. I am of the opinion though that Obama is working for a caliphate.

The Islamic State is now well funded and well armed. What happens next? Will we “partner” with some other groups in an attempt (ostensibly) to combat Islamic State, but end up only strengthening them?

Time will tell.

[Justa]

“...in my opinion the case can be made that it appears that Obama is using the US to install “islamists” in a new transnational caliphate....”

And this is accomplished by bombing and providing coordinated air support with the Kurds, Iraqis and Syrian Arab Army against ISIS, the main Islamist group in Syria and Iraq? Because you believe this is of less significance then some former FSA-aligned units defecting to ISIS during the two year FSA-ISIS war?

[Ray76]

It’s accomplished by allowing jihadis to seize a large quantity US equipment, tanks, anti-aricraft, and humvees. It’s accomplished by providing small arms, body armor, grenades, etc to jihadis.

Ignore the show, look at the results.

[Justa]

“Ignore the show, look at the results.”

By this logic we armed the North Vietnamese in April 1975 and are therefore responsible for their subsequent invasion of Cambodia -”because we armed them”.

Try thinking a little deeper. Did we directly arm ISIS? This is the flawed pretense of your argument. And the answer is no, we have never armed ISIS. We also vetted those we have supported for Islamist ties. If some of their weapons fell into Islmasist hands that is not the purpose of our policy just an unfortunate result.

We’re doing much more against ISIS than we did against the Khmer Rouge following their defeat of the Cambodia army or the Vietnamese communists when they invaded Cambodia in 1978. By your reasoning we armed both the Khmer Rouge and Vietnamese communists since they obtained weapons from our allies after defeating them. It’s just plain nuts.

[Ray76]

>> an unfortunate result.

A foreseeable result.

>> Did we directly arm ISIS?

Yes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-syria-used-chemical-weapons-crossing-red-line/

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/13/red_lined_white_house_says_it_knows_for_sure_that_assad_used_chemical_weapons

Further commentary: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3202804/posts

[Justa]

There is nothing in any of those citations saying or proving we provided arms to ISIS. There is only speculation. Unsourced speculation is not proof. If we provided arms to ISIS then why did we train and arm FSA which is fighting ISIS? Why are we bombing ISIS? Why are we coordinating attacks against ISIS with the Kurds, Iraqis and Syrians?

....So the British armed Hitler at Dunkirk?

[Ray76]

From CBS as cited in post 49

"The president has made a decision about providing more support to the opposition that will involve providing direct support to the [Supreme Military Council]. That includes military support," Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication Ben Rhodes told reporters.

"direct [] military support". It could not be more clear.

From Foreign Policy as cited in post 49

"The decision saddles the CIA with providing arms to vetted rebel fighters in the country."

Again, it could not be more clear.

The US has been arming Syrian rebels. It's indisputable.

I reiterate the second sentence of my original post (45), "Various groups in Syria are not formal groups, their membership is a fluid collection of terrorists." This is why it was foreseeable that "bad" rebels would obtain these arms. In fact is was foreseen, this from October 2012:

For months, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been funneling money and small arms to Syria’s rebels but have refused to provide heavier weapons, like shoulder-fired missiles, that could allow opposition fighters to bring down government aircraft, take out armored vehicles and turn the war’s tide.

While they have publicly called for arming the rebels, they have held back, officials in both countries said, in part because they have been discouraged by the United States, which fears the heavier weapons could end up in the hands of terrorists.[1]

Petraeus coordinated an airlift of materiel from these other countries to Adana, Turkey, and then to the Syrian rebels. The US clandestinely supplied arms prior to the "red line", and overtly thereafter.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/world/middleeast/citing-us-fears-arab-allies-limit-aid-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all

[Justa]

Why don’t you at least learn ~SOMETHING~ about the Syrian Opposition forces before equating “Syrian opposition” with ISIS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Overall_conflict_.282011.E2.80.93present.29

[Justa]

Here is some more educational, pre-posting reading for you Ray:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-rebel_conflict_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Find the Free Syrian Army in this link.
Find ISIS in this link.

-What is their relationship?
-Which one was Senator McCain pictured with?
-Which one has the US trained and supported?
-Which one is the US bombing?

[Ray76]

I have not equated “Syrian opposition” with ISIS.

I have stated the US has been arming Syrian rebels and that those arms have flowed to ISIS. That this was foreseeable and was foreseen. That flimsy excuses have been used to support arming these rebels. That this may be “blowback” and that Obama may be, and in my opinion is, exploiting this to pursue a different goal.

[Ray76]

You apparently enjoy knocking down strawmen.

Here is what I said about McCain:

>> The State Department, working through the Syrian Emergency Task Force, and indirectly through O’Bagy, manuevered McCain into supporting an attack on Syria and/or arming the “good” jihadists either method with the goal of overthrowing the Syrian government. <<

[Ray76]

"As President Obama laid out his 'strategy' last night for dealing with ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and as bipartisan leadership in Congress push to approve as much as $4 billion to arm the Syrian 'rebels,' it should be noted that the keystone to his anti-Assad policy — the 'vetted moderate' Free Syrian Army (FSA) — is now admitting that they, too, are working with the Islamic State."

‘Vetted Moderate’ Free Syrian Army Commander Admits Alliance with ISIS