"U.S. Will Not Permit The Arab States To Supply The..." Topic

… Kurds With Heavy Weapons In Their War Against The Islamic State.

"Middle East allies accuse Barack Obama and David Cameron of failing to show strategic leadership in fight against Islamic State

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…"
Full article here
link

The Kurds have been pleading for heavy weapons since last year, but the truth is now finally out and from America's closest allies in the region. Bottom line the U.S. has no plan or strategy to defeat the Islamic State, and the White House will not support those groups (in this case the Kurds) with supplies of needed weapons who have proven (more than once) to be able to combat and to defeat the Islamic State on the ground. It is now easy to predict what will happen next our Middle Eastern allies are going to start shipping heavy weapons to the Kurds, they are going to alienate Turkey and Iraq who do not want to see such arms shipments to the Kurds, and the U.S. will be shown to be impotent in influencing any of these actions. In the interim as all of these divisions keep dividing the "alliance" the Islamic State will continue to consolidate its territories and to gain more recruits.

Amicalement
Armand

I don't understand why we can't have the CIA secretly funnel weapons to the Kurds through back channels. Say, secretly airlift in weapons in Iraqi markings to some backwater village for the Kurds to 'liberate' from Daesh, who we could say must have captured it from the Iraqis.

Seems that would accomplish everything – help the Kurds, keep the Turks in the dark, etc. Isn't situations like this the reason we have the CIA in the first place?

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…"

If it turns out to be true, good for them. There is no Iraq!

I wonder specifically which allies are involved? The body of the story refers to Arab and Gulf allies. Who specifically is ready to step over the Shia Iraqi government in order to aid the Kurds against the Caliphate?

The crisis in Kurdistan seem to be building to a head, faster than I would have predicted. In this story, the Iraqi Kurds are ready to push for independence:

link

I was just predicting that the Kurdish leadership would be too smart to do this…Meanwhile, Erdogan has ordered the Turkish army to enter Syrian Kurdistan, but his generals are stalling until the new government can be formed.

All I'm going to say about American policy is that it's on the verge of complete collapse.

If we arm the Kurds, we turn it into even more of a sectarian war than it already is. The Kurds and Sunni are at each others' throats, and arming the Kurds means that all the Sunni shift to supporting ISIS (granted, not many neutral left at this point).

How are they going to stop them?

We can't even fight poorly organized, and haphazardly funded guerrilla organizations.

If they do make a real attempt to interdict shipments from various Arab nations in the region, it will just go to confirm the suspicions of many that we are siding with the Iranians.

The last time the CIA secretly supplied arms via a third party was to the "Contra" rebels in Nicaragua with Iran as the intermediary. It blew up in their faces and hamstrung Reagan's foreign policy for the rest of his term in office.

The way to do it is out in the open. Otherwise it would appear to lack legitimacy. I think Iran would welcome it since the kurds are their de facto allies in the fight against ISIS but Erdogan would be incensed. I say let him stew.

It's a disgrace how we, the US, aren't' supporting the Kurds – the only secular nation in the area. They deserve their own state. I don't want to delve into too much politics, but Damn does it make me ashamed.

The US unfortunately or fortunately can only send arms to legal governments under current law. So can only send them to the Iraqi government in Baghdad. The vote the other day in the Senate was to allow arms to go directly to the Kurds. While I am all for supporting the Kurds, I much prefer we do it legally and change the law. Or we just ship the arms to another country, change ownership and let them ship to the Kurds.

Or just ship arms for the Iraqi government via the Kurds…

"The last time the CIA secretly supplied arms via a third party was to the "Contra" rebels in Nicaragua with Iran as the intermediary. It blew up in their faces and hamstrung Reagan's foreign policy for the rest of his term in office."

Not quite. It was *not* the CIA who did it (it was the NSC), and it was not providing arms to the Contras (arms to Iran, the money to the Contras, the sale was direct to Iran for Iran's use, i.e. Iran was not the intermediary). Very true it blew up in their face, though.

"It's a disgrace how we, the US, aren't' supporting the Kurds – the only secular nation in the area. They deserve their own state."

But remember – the Kurds have never done anything for us. Ever.

I wonder if the Israelis are providing any kind of support to the Kurds. I know they have collaborated before.

I wonder the same thing, PAR. That's why I was trying to parse the story's various references to 'middle east', 'Arab' and 'Gulf' allies, looking for a veiled reference to Israel. Couldn't find one, though, not in that story.

Saudi and UAE maybe, perhaps Jordan. Egypt would make sense – al-Sissi is at odds with Erdogan and might favor the Kurds over the Turks.

The next question is whether these restive 'middle east allies' will arm the Kurds in defiance of the US.

Speculative and not in evidence at this point.

But remember – the Kurds have never done anything for us. Ever.

So that pretty much can be said about most in the region. The US does not what anyone to arm the Kurds directly. As it will upset the [weak, corrupt, polarized, etc.] Persian supported Shia Iraqi gov't. And some fear well armed Kurds will eventually claim independence. Which I'd laud. And of course the Turks [the most worthless member of NATO, with the 2d largest military], do not like the Kurds. For one, their decades long insurgency and now the Kurds are legally gaining political power in Turkey. As as some mentioned, if given the greenlight … the CIA could arm the Kurds covertly. But again, that would not be in keeping with current US policy. In light of the US appeasing the Iraqi and Turkish leadership. Who again I think both are worthless as allies. And we know the Iraqis are worthless as soldiers as opposed to the Kurds …

But remember – the Kurds have never done anything for us. Ever.

Specifically for us out of the goodness of their hearts? Probably not but then again who does? However, they have established a functioning government, a bulwark against the onslaught of Daesh and do not donate US weaponry to Daesh like the Iraqi government does.

Back the best runner in the race……nation building in the ME is a pointless waste of resources as each faction will turn and bite the hand that feeds it…..especially if it comes from the West with 'strings' attached…….
Main priority is to contain and defeat Dash, arm the Kurds because of their stand up performance in comparison to the forces and militias of Baghdad, let the Turks sweat awhile………….prime territory for another 'Egypt' scenario…….

So, no arms from Libya, and/or other locations were provided by the US to the Free Syrian Army, despite all the rumors/evidence/missing and/or destroyed e-mails to the contrary?

I find that hard to believe.

The Kurds so far have proven to be the best fighters in the region … save for the IDF, of course.

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.

At least one Arab state is understood to be considering arming the Peshmerga directly, despite US opposition.

So the U.S. is blocking arms transfers, big deal. Just go around them. There's not a thing the U.S. can really do.

Let's say I am the country of Mideuropa, any ally of the U.S. and a participant in NATO, but I wish to directly arm the Kurds. The U.S. isn't going to declare war on me, can't get anything, but, at best, unilateral sanctions which are meaningless. Shoot my planes down? Doubt it. Destroy me with harsh language? Oooh!
I'm the leader of The United Water Emirates. I light my cigars and wipe my butt with $100 USD bills. I wish to arm to arm the Kurds.I've backed the U.S. in the past, clandestinely, in several ventures and will do so again. Look at the options again and tell me what is the U.S. really going to do?
These agreements of putting the U.S. in charge militarily are only as good as all the participants playing from the same page. Otherwise, one way or another, they can get around them.

maybe they should be looking at obtaining Russian weapons seems a lot of it is getting lost in ukraine

I think as long as talks are going on with Iran the US will not openly support the Kurds. Hopefully, we are doing something quietly but I doubt it.

The Kurds have been highly effective and providing them support would lessen the need for American forces in the region.

I'm all for arming the Kurds, but the US has dug itself a hole by supporting the Iraqi Govt.

If they start supporting the Kurds directly, this would be equivalent to authorizing the break-up of Iraq as a single country. If Iraq breaks up, this may strenghten ISIS' control. It would definitely allow Iran to swallow-up 1/3 of Iraq.

Cost of oil and stabity of world financial markets will be affected.

Then there is the delicate line of keeping Turkey within the Western fold.

Nothing is easy in that part of the world.

Tell the Turks to shove it!US should supply the kurds now and recongnize the Armenian genocide

Yeah! It's that easy!

Tell the Turks to shove it…

They open the door and let IS funnel more troops & weapons into the Middle East AND back into Europe since Turkey is part of the EU and has open borders with Europe.

Turkey decides there is nothing to lose in going to war against all Kurd factions. Turkish, Syrian Kurds get massacred. Only open doorway into Iraqi Kurdistan is closed and their democracy gets strangled.

Turkey decides to cosey up to Russia (temporarily) just to screw with the West.

Turkey moves away from being a secular state and gives Erdogan an excuse to welcome Islamist extremism into mainstream politics.

"So, no arms from Libya, and/or other locations were provided by the US to the Free Syrian Army, despite all the rumors/evidence/missing and/or destroyed e-mails to the contrary? I find that hard to believe."

If (pretty obvious from media accounts) the U.S. is, and has been, supporting the FSA, why would we need weapons from Libya to do it? The U.S. has a second to none arms industry, we have access to AK-47 family of weapons from dozens of manufacturers all over the world, and the Libyan arms, by all media accounts, are in poor shape and a lot of testing would be required before they could be issued.

Why would we use Libyan arms? I don't see it, myself.

Consistently, throughout Al Qa'ida's lifespan and ISIS's lifespan, media reports indicate the bulk of their financing comes from private Arab peninsula donors (Saudi, Qatar, etc etc).

The more the U.S. gets involved, the more the Saudis et al can shut their eyes to the internal inconsistencies in their own culture. U.S. intervention just enables the Saudi government to pretend extremism is the West's problem more than theirs.

I am more for the U.S. standing back and letting the Saudis deal with it.

Lawrence of Arabia could tell you why. He wanted the British Government to give the Arabs artillery. He was refused repeatedly by the Home Office (Was it called the Home Office then?) and the Military.
Heavy weapons mean independence. Independence means statehood. Statehood means war with Turkey. War with Turkey means war with NATO. War with NATO means those weapons could be used to kill American service men and women. Try explaining that to a war-weary and angry American public.
Rod Robertson

That's quite a chain of hypotheticals you've constructed there, Rod I. A could mean B could mean C could mean D could mean E…or maybe not.

NATO is a defensive alliance. If the Kurds attack Turkey, the Kurds have a war with NATO. If Turkey attacks Kurdistan, the Turks have their own war with the Kurds.

tuscaloosa says the Kurds are socialists. I have seen pro-Turkish rabble rousers call the Kurds 'ethnic fascists', which is a funny thing for a Turkish nationalist to call a Kurdish nationalist. I guess if you go far enough right into nationalism, you wind up at national socialism, like the Baathists did. I thought you liked socialists?

"tuscaloosa says the Kurds are socialists"

Me? Never said that ever.

"I thought you liked socialists?"

Me? Nope, never said that ever, either. But the word "socialist" is thrown around by all kinds of people who had it quoted to them and don't really know what it means.

zippyfusenet:
I did not say this chain of events will happen. I said it might happen. And should it happen, no US government would want to have to explain how US heavy weapons or US sponsored heavy weapons came into the hands of potential enemies. The possible blowback from such a programme probably scares the crap out of the US Gov't even if the possibility of it coming to pass is small.
If you were a US Congressman or Senator, would you want to be put into such a position?
The Kurds have been accused by the Syrians and the Iraqi Sunni's of driving out Arabs from the territories they have been occupying along the Syrian frontier. The Turks have called this policy of the Kurds a kind of Ethnic Cleansing. The Iraqi Kurds are calling upon their cousins in Syria, Turkey and Iran to join them in forming a Kurdish homeland and state. While Syria may be in no position to prevent this from happening, Turkey and Iran are and at least Turkey has said it will not allow the formation of such a state. It does not matter to Turkey whether the Kurds are Socialists, Fascists, or Laisse Faire Capitalists. What matters to Turkey is that they're Kurds and in Turkey's eyes they must be stopped.
Turkey could easily shape a potential conflict with the Kurds to make it look like the Kurds had attacked Turkey, thus triggering the involvement of NATO.
Rod Robertson.

Sorry to misquote you tuscaloosa, I apologise. I thought Rod liked socialists, don't think I know your opinion on the subject.

Turkey could easily shape a potential conflict with the Kurds to make it look like the Kurds had attacked Turkey, thus triggering the involvement of NATO.

These things are only as automatic as the parties want them to be. Remember the last time the Turks and the Greeks had a shoot-out? Which side were we on then? Could anyone tell? When are we going to force the Turks out of North Cyprus?

There's lots of wiggle-room in alliances, as the Turks have demonstrated.

youtu.be/3XkxM0buUFI

NATO collective defence is only activated when a NATO nation is attacked by another nation-state (or agents of that nation state) that is external to NATO. The attack must also occur within NATO's sphere of influence.

For example:

The UK had absolutely no call on NATO when Argentina attacked the Falklands, as it's outside the sphere of influence.

NATO is under no obligation to get involved in a war between Greece and Turkey, as it does not involve an external enemy.

NATO is under no obligation to get involved in Turkey's problems with the Kurds, as the Kurds are neither a nation-state or state actor… yet. The creation of a Kurdish state could change that and cause all manner of poo.

If we arm the Kurds, we turn it into even more of a sectarian war than it already is. The Kurds and Sunni are at each others' throats, and arming the Kurds means that all the Sunni shift to supporting ISIS (granted, not many neutral left at this point).

The body of the story refers to Arab and Gulf allies. Who specifically is ready to step over the Shia Iraqi government in order to aid the Kurds against the Caliphate?

Am I missing something here? Arabs and Gulf allies are Sunni. So it's a group of Sunni states who are wanting to arm the Kurds to fight ISIS.

Or am I missing something???

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."

I might be wrong, but this article is all but saying that this "official" is either a Saudi or Jordanian. These facts don't match up with what some posters are saying.

Go figure.