What's new

US blocks attempts by Arab allies to fly heavy weapons directly to Kurds to fight Islamic State

pakdefender

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
5,671
Reaction score
-8
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
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.

High level officials from Gulf and other states have told this newspaper that all attempts to persuade Mr Obama of the need to arm the Kurds directly as part of more vigorous plans to take on Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) have failed. The Senate voted down one attempt by supporters of the Kurdish cause last month.

The officials say they are looking at new ways to take the fight to Isil without seeking US approval.

West is losing the Twitter battle with fanatics, says general
Allison Pearson: We should demand military action against Islamic State

“If the Americans and the West are not prepared to do anything serious about defeating Isil, then we will have to find new ways of dealing with the threat,” said a senior Arab government official. “With Isil making ground all the time we simply cannot afford to wait for Washington to wake up to the enormity of the threat we face.”

Kurdish-weapons_3361377b.jpg

Kurdish Peshmerga fighters train on a weapon during a training session with British military advisers

The Peshmerga have been successfully fighting Isil, driving them back from the gates of Erbil and, with the support of Kurds from neighbouring Syria, re-establishing control over parts of Iraq’s north-west.

But they are doing so with a makeshift armoury. 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.

One of the core complaints of the Kurds is that the Iraqi army has abandoned so many weapons in the face of Isil attack, the Peshmerga are fighting modern American weaponry with out-of-date Soviet equipment.

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





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.”

Western leaders increasingly accept that the “war on Isil” has not gone well, from the moment last year Mr Obama called the group a “JV [junior varsity] team” of jihadists compared with al-Qaeda. At that point, Isil had seized Fallujah, which US forces took in a bloody battle in 2004. It went on to take much of western Iraq and large areas of Syria, and in May took Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province.

Britain is moving closer to expanding its role in the war. The Government on Wednesday gave its strongest indication yet that MPs will be given a new vote on whether to bomb Isil in Syria.

Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary, said it was “illogical” that British planes were able to hit extremists in Iraq but not across the border.

Any decision to bomb in Syria would have to be approved by MPs. In 2013, the Prime Minister lost a vote for British military action in Syria. However, Mr Fallon said: “It is a new Parliament and I think new Members of Parliament will want to think very carefully about how we best deal with Isil, and the illogicality of Isil not respecting the borderlines.”

Mr Fallon suggested that a bombing campaign could be mounted in revenge for the terror attacks in Tunisia if a link could be proved between the killer and Isil in Libya. Britain would only take military action in Libya “where we think there is an imminent threat, a very direct to British lives or, for example, to British hostages”, he said.





Senior Whitehall sources did not distance themselves from Mr Fallon’s comments but insisted there was no immediate prospect of military action.

The Telegraph understands that Mr Cameron is concerned that Labour might force the Government into another defeat over Syria.

US blocks attempts by Arab allies to fly heavy weapons directly to Kurds to fight Islamic State - Telegraph
 
.
I'm no defender of Obamas policy but he can hardly supply arms to a secessionist region and also cooperate with the Iraqi government.
Also, the Arab air strikes are in Syria not Iraq.
 
.
The last thing the world want and US want is to stir up the flare between secessionist and government regime the US support, that will give reason to hard-line and some moderate Muslim nation another bullet and excuse to shoot at US once more, then the situation will be a lot more complicated.

Problem with US and the West toward this ISIS threat is, they don't think it is their problem, and it actually was not their problem, and if they are engaging in a regional conflict like that, it will only do more harm than good to the region. The situation will be like back in Gulf War, what if Israel actually did fought in Coalition side?

US support Iraqi Government, and that would be all the support will be.
 
.
Problem with US and the West toward this ISIS threat is, they don't think it is their problem, and it actually was not their problem, and if they are engaging in a regional conflict like that, it will only do more harm than good to the region. The situation will be like back in Gulf War, what if Israel actually did fought in Coalition side?

The West thinks that this is not their problem, but I have a bad feeling that it could become a global problem if ISIS is allowed to expand un-checked. Lets remind ourselves all OBL needed was a war-torn country wedged between Iran and Pakistan to create the Global Islamist Movement. ISIS has already begun setting up militant schools and training camps to pump out operatives. Combined with the fact that it is attracting individuals from all over the world, we might see even more Islamist uprisings in hotspots around the world. This is a problem for the entire world.
 
.
The West thinks that this is not their problem, but I have a bad feeling that it could become a global problem if ISIS is allowed to expand un-checked. Lets remind ourselves all OBL needed was a war-torn country wedged between Iran and Pakistan to create the Global Islamist Movement. ISIS has already begun setting up militant schools and training camps to pump out operatives. Combined with the fact that it is attracting individuals from all over the world, we might see even more Islamist uprisings in hotspots around the world. This is a problem for the entire world.

While I agree with you that ISIS is nothing but an international cancer in dire need to be removed from the international community, the problem is, ISIS play the situation very smart.

Conventional wisdom suggested that Shall ISIS took control the whole Iraq, or the whole Syria, the US or any allies force can send troop in one particular country and get the Islamic State threat out and leave the country back to its status quo. So FSA would going back to siege Assad regime and Kurds keep on fighting the Iraqi, no harm no foul.

Now, the "Beauty" of IS strategy is simple, involve enough faction to the fray and simple put in a situation where removing ISIS would help dominate one or the other part of the equation, and effectively place ISIS in the middle. As neither countries was totally controlled by ISIS, starting a 3 way fight in both situation would become increasing confused due to a simple fact that one party do not trust the other party completely to join hand and fight ISIS and if US or the West or even Muslim allies trying to fight without knowing what they are getting into, the result will be disastrous..

Right now, the US or the west did not have a government that have the balls to take charge and invade both country as one, Which may sound insane but it is the only solution shall the west want to directly intervene.
 
.
The West thinks that this is not their problem, but I have a bad feeling that it could become a global problem if ISIS is allowed to expand un-checked. Lets remind ourselves all OBL needed was a war-torn country wedged between Iran and Pakistan to create the Global Islamist Movement. ISIS has already begun setting up militant schools and training camps to pump out operatives. Combined with the fact that it is attracting individuals from all over the world, we might see even more Islamist uprisings in hotspots around the world. This is a problem for the entire world.
Its already a global problem, I would love to volunteer for the Kurds as they are seriously up against it but I fear it would be a death sentence. We need a proper military alliance that can deal with them and then build upon it to ease current tensions between many nations.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom