First of all, I don't have an answer, just a few observations.
1) Syria has almost no good guys and all the relationships are confusing as hell.
2) I generally support Obama, but Syria is perhaps his biggest foreign policy screw up.
3) The Iraqi Kurds are one of our best allies, but so are the Turks.
4) Despite its Muslim orientation, Turkey recently re-established diplomatic ties with Israel.
5) Turkey has been at war with its own Kurds for decades.
6) Turkey recently got closer to the Russians, but with our support drove ISIS out of the border area in northern Syria.
If you are confused as me about all this, why would be even think about the possibility the US is MIGHT arm the Syrian Kurds.
So to hell with the Kurds!
I say what about the WHEY?
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is weighing a military plan to directly arm Syrian Kurdish fighters combating the Islamic State, a major policy shift that could speed up the offensive against the terrorist group but also sharply escalate tensions between Turkey and the United States.
Full article linked.
What facts on the ground have changed that would cause such a major policy shift if this is indeed the truth?
My natural cynicism leans STRONGLY towards believing its a political play for home grown audiences of upcoming voters in a certain election right around the corner.
But maybe not.
So I can understand some contingency plans. The real problem is the Turks would be pissed, and we need them.
and allowed the Russians to bomb - while our Generals were forced to watch
humiliating
That really is the part that confuses me about this change in strategy, and why I have my suspicions his motives lie closer to home.
Turkey for the longest time was a secular Muslim society, modern and moderate by comparison to the majority of Islamic leadership in the ME theatre. It wasn't until Erdogan rose to power that Turkey started leaning towards the more radical side of the Islamic spectrum, even going so far as to attempt to justify the Armenian genocide as a necessity of the times.
Skip ahead to the Syrian civil war, and now we're looking at a scenario where US forces are in conflict with forces supported by our allies who have agendas contrary to our interests in the area and are successfully minimizing our leadership position. Yes folks, I'm talking about Vladimir Putin taking advantage of the power vacuum caused when we left Iraq, and most especially after the "line in the sand" was obliterated with no tactical response from us. I believed it to be an egregious error at the time. Subsequent events have borne out my concerns.
Let's for the moment give benefit of the doubt that this about face is due to new facts on the ground you and I are not privy to and that Obama can justify this strategy to the doubters and cynics.
What is there to gain by our lending support to the Kurds at this late stage of the game. I'm not against the idea of lending support to the Kurds. But why only now? I can't figure out a reasonable rationale behind it.
First of all, I don't have an answer, just a few observations.
1) Syria has almost no good guys and all the relationships are confusing as hell.
2) I generally support Obama, but Syria is perhaps his biggest foreign policy screw up.
3) The Iraqi Kurds are one of our best allies, but so are the Turks.
4) Despite its Muslim orientation, Turkey recently re-established diplomatic ties with Israel.
5) Turkey has been at war with its own Kurds for decades.
6) Turkey recently got closer to the Russians, but with our support drove ISIS out of the border area in northern Syria.
If you are confused as me about all this, why would be even think about the possibility the US is MIGHT arm the Syrian Kurds.
So to hell with the Kurds!
I say what about the WHEY?
Obama is a pussy and bitch-slapped by EVERYONE.
why didn't you just say so and admit that I was right? 