Obama Disarming Kurds Against ISIS

by JASmius



Evidently when the Obama Regime was determining which faction to "degrade" in Iraq and Syria, their aim was rather drastically off:

The Obama administration is blocking allies in the Middle East from supplying heavy artillery directly to Kurdish forces battling the Islamic State, according to a news report.

"If the Americans and the West are not prepared to do anything serious about defeating ISIS, then we will have to find new ways of dealing with the threat," a senior Arab government official told the [London] Telegraph on Wednesday, using an alternative name for the terrorist group.

Like...WMDs, perhaps?

"With ISIS making ground all the time, we simply cannot afford to wait for Washington to wake up to the enormity of the threat we face."

Oh, they're aware of it.  In fact, they're counting on it.

Some allies told the Telegraph that Barack Obama and other Western leaders, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, have not stepped up to assist them in defeating ISIS.

And why do you think that could be?

The allies now want to supply the heavy weapons directly to the Kurdish Peshmerga forces, even though the United States had demanded that all such gear be channeled through Baghdad. [emphasis added]

Which means all the heavy weaponry would wind up in ISIS hands.

Many European countries have bought weapons to arm the Kurds, the Telegraph reports, but they have been blocked from getting them to the fighters by U.S. commanders. [emphasis added]

Wasn't the whole idea of building a "grand coalition" to "degrade" the Islamic State to get "allies" to do all of our fighting for us - cannon fodder, for all intents and purposes?  And aren't the Kurds ostensibly our allies against ISIS, and the group that is most gung-ho about fighting and defeating them?  Would it not then logically stand to reason that arming the Kurds to the teeth is not just a very good idea, but the whole point of this phony exercise?

And yet the Obama White House is not only refusing to do so, but requiring all in-flowing armaments and munitions to flow through Baghdad to the same Iraqi "army" that doesn't want to fight and has provided a bonanza of U.S. heavy weapons to the Islamic State over the past year following their cowardly, pell-mell retreats.

You know how I've argued over the past year that Barack Obama is only pretending to resist ISIS and is in fact on their side?  Has been arming them going all the way back to the so-called "Arab Spring" four years ago?  Is that assertion even the slightest bit arguable at this point?