August 9, 2014 by JImbo
Interestingly, this is the first story I’ve seen that uses the term “Kurds.” Normally the White House has been using the term “Yezedi minority.” Who are they? Well, they’re one of the Kurdish groups.
Why can’t the President just say “Kurds?” We’re helping the “Kurds” in Northern Iraq. Maybe because he’s trying to hide the fact we’re about to seriously incite the situation worse?
The Kurds are enemies of Turkey (our allies…sorta) and the Shi’ites in Southern Iraq (our allies… sorta.) Both of them have asked us to help them against ISIS terrorists. Instead, we ONLY help some Kurds and flip them both the finger.
Yes, we ARE bombing ISIS terrorists, but we’re thumbing our nose at those two “allies” and supporting the Kurds… who for the last 23 years have been our most successful and loyal allies in Iraq.
Sounds like we’ve chosen a horse in this fight.
When Southern Iraq (Shi’ite) chose to invite Iran in, and Western Iraq chose to invite ISIS in (Sunni) we appear to have chosen to help the Kurds in the North.
I predicted this would turn into at least a three-way “limited war” scenario by proxy for the major powers in the region. Sounds like we’re moving closer and closer to that.
The only part missing is more coverage of the weapons shipments to ISIS from Saudi Arabia and Qatar (also our “allies” on paper.) That will really close the loop.
Sunnis (Saudi/Qatar) vs Shit’ites (Iran) vs Kurds (USA)
If there were a “good” side to support here, I guess it would be the Kurds. They’ve been the beaten redheaded step children of the region for a long time and have only been loyal to us for years.
Then again, if given a choice to help NONE OF THE ABOVE I’d probably pick that option. To get to the Kurds means crossing other countries’ airspace and if we’re not getting along that’s really dangerous. Do we really want to stretch ourselves out like that?
We did that in Afghanistan by putting supply lines through Pakistan and the Russian republics. This isn’t a short hop of a few miles over the Berlin Wall like in the Berlin Airlift of 1948 either. It’s a whole city hundreds of miles up in the mountains surrounded by dangerous heavily armed enemies.
Have we thought this through? How is this NOT an escalation of force? What about “Those advisors sent to Iraq will just be around the embassy in Baghdad?”
Now they’re on rooftops in Irbil guiding in airstrikes?
And TWO fighter jets? That’s all we sent? We blew up ONE artillery piece?
What is that gonna do? It’s an insignificant pinprick. If you’re up against a bear you don’t poke it with a stick. You either KILL IT or LEAVE IT ALONE.
Repeatedly poking it with a very small twig is not a successful strategy.