Speaking today about the growing tensions between Turkey and the US over the Syrian Civil War, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan told reporters he’d confronted Obama months ago over a series of arms shipments into northern Syria, reporting that half went to the Syrian Kurds, and the other half ended up with ISIS.
This likely refers to the October US airdrops into northern Syria, though this was the first suggestion that ISIS had not only received a huge cash of weapons, but Erdogan’s comments gave the impression the arming was deliberate.
The US State Department, for its part, responded to the comments by insisting they had never armed the Syrian Kurds, noteworthy both in totally ignoring the much more serious allegation of arming ISIS, and for being a flat out lie.
The October drops were nominally to the Syrian Arab Coalition, a faction which included a handful of tiny factions, but dominated by the Kurdish YPG, which confirmed that it recovered the bulk of the arms in the airdrops.
ISIS, of course, is also awash in US arms, though it has generally been assumed that this was a result of sacking Iraqi cities and looting what was left behind by the Iraqi military. Turkey, which itself is embroiled in scandals surrounding its military arming ISIS.
.
I’m shocked, shocked to find that lying is going on here…
Both ignore the point and lie about the rest. Yup, that’s our government.
So do we vote to keep on keeping on, with incremental adjustments, or do we vote for bigger ambitions to change course?
“But we can’t” seems like an excuse, made by those who don’t want to.
With the planes and s 300 s400 missels Russia has in Syria . NATO Turkey and the United States could not put up a no fly zone against Russia but Russia could put up a no fly zone against them . Unless of course the United States can bring in some of their experimental super planes over there .
In this case, where Erdogan claims the US deliberately armed ISIS, I suspect he’s right. The funny part is that this guy, who’s arming Al Qaeda and probably ISIS and definitely buying oil from ISIS, is now blaming Obama for arming ISIS.
You can’t make this stuff up, folks.
I suspect, however, that this is all shadow-play for the public’s benefit in the US and Turkey. In reality, I believe Obama behind the scenes is encouraging Erdogan to invade Syria.
This is the perfect scenario for Obama’s “lead from behind” and back-stabbing approach to foreign policy. If he can get Turkey to invade Syria, and then can get Russia to continue bombing in the “buffer zone”, he can then impose a “no-fly zone” over Syria and get the US and NATO to conduct an air campaign against Syria a la Libya – which has been the goal all along. He can also deflect blame for the escalation on to Turkey and Russia and further demonize Putin for being an “aggressor”. He also gets to backstab Turkey by getting it involved in a conflict with Russia if Russia decides to engage Turkish forces in Syria.
It’s a win-win for Obama. The problem for Putin is that he gets put between a rock and a hard place. He either backs down from confronting Turkey, NATO and the US and sees his plan to seal the Turkish border and defeat ISIS on the ground fail, or he risks escalating to WWIII over a country that really isn’t worth WWIIIt in terms of existential Russian interests.
This is why I believe Obama is behind all of this. It fits his personality and his approach to foreign policy – lying and secret deals and secret operations behind the scenes while publicly proclaiming his innocence and letting everyone believe he is “reluctant” to start more war.
It’s far more complicated than that or what you allege in the rest of your comment. I have no doubt that Obama was from Day 1 a devout believer in the bi-partisan US policy of regime change everywhere, all the time. That’s why he appointed Clinton SoS and allowed her to fill important diplomatic posts with neocons like Victoria Nuland and R2P liberal interventionists like Samantha Power and Susan Rice.
Thierry Meyssan wrote an article in September, 2015, suggesting that Obama’s stance changed in early 2012: http://www.voltairenet.org/article188860.html
Meyssan may be correct. Without doubt, there are warring factions within the US government and foreign policy establishment. As most of us who recognize the difference between our own anus and a whole in the ground by now are aware, the DIA issued a report in 2012 warning that continued support of rebel groups in Syria would result in the takeover of Syria by “IS” and the declaration of a caliphate. Lt. Gen. Flynn (Ret.), the head of DIA at that time, has charged that the White House “willfully” ignored that determination and continued to support the rebels. Flynn and Meyssan may both be correct, as the President is not the only powerful person in the White House, and the CIA essentially does what it wants to and has for the last 70 years.
Of course, none of this absolves Obama of any blame. He is the one who appointed Clinton, Petraeus and all the other interventionists. Still, I think you give Obama too much credit as the master manipulator. He probably does still want “regime change” and the dismemberment of Syria (and Iraq), but I doubt he’s willing to risk a direct confrontation between the US and Russian militaries. Therein lies his dilemma.
What’s scary is that most of the Presidential candidates would see no dilemma and would be perfectly willing to risk WW III, as would a large number of US voters. It’s small comfort that much of the military brass recognizes the dangers and will try to restrain the hawks. Small because others actually believe the US can “win” a nuclear war with Russia and a few believe it necessary for the “rapture.” I hope the Russian demonstration of its Kalibr Cruise Missiles has reduced those of the Buck Turgidson mindset if not the Jack D. Ripper mindset.
Pakistan of 1982 is Turkey of 2016. Both could admit of having a handler oneday more openly .That handler is US. But Russia is not Soviet . So an inevitable defeat of Erdogan in Syria will bring the swift quck deadly retribution from IS much earlier .This pathetic scoundrel monster of a man will be hiding behind his wife’s and daughter in law’s Hijab.
What could be more profitable than arming both sides in a conflict? It worked well in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Successful policies are repeated.
This is really funny. Here is one supporter of ISIS accusing another supporter of ISIS of supporting ISIS. ROFL
How obvious does it have to be?
cache not cash