In the fight against ISIS in Iraq, four groups have felt the most pain. The Yazidi minority has been the target of a genocidal attack by the ISIS crazies. Tens of thousands of these people have been murdered, raped or enslaved and many, many more have been driven from their homes. The Christian community of northern Iraq has also been attacked and forced to flee, although the ISIS forces do not kill all Christian men on sight as they do with the Yazidis. Then there are the Kurds. These people are Sunni Moslems like the ISIS thugs, but the Kurds will not accept rule by ISIS or follow its religious dictates. As a result of that refusal, ISIS has been attacking the Kurds from the start and the Kurdish fighters, the Peshmerga, have been to strongest and most consistent force on the ground to oppose any advance by ISIS. Lastly, there are the forces of the Shiite dominated Iraqi central government. It is these Iraqi forces that, despite overwhelming superiority over ISIS in both numbers and weapons, just ran away in the face of the ISIS attacks. Even today, the forces of the Iraqi central government are weak and unreliable at best. On occasion, the Iraqi forces fight and move forward, but then we get moments where cowardice wins again and they flee.
President Obama's policy in Iraq has been to create a phantom coalition to degrade and destroy ISIS. In the last ten months, American planes have launched over 12,000 flights to bomb ISIS positions in Iraq and Syria although those planes have fired on ISIS in only about 3000 of those flights. This is roughly the level of aerial bombardment that the USA used against Iraqi forces during the first two days of the Gulf War. Other countries have participated in the air campaign, but their total raids come to just about 20% of what the USA has done. There have been no American ground forces involved in the battles with ISIS. President Obama has repeatedly announced, however, that the USA will help those who fight against ISIS. We have sent billions of dollars of material and assistance to the Iraqi government. Obama has pledged to provide weapons and assistance to the Kurds so that they can arm the Peshmerga with more modern weapons. At the moment, the majority of the Kurdish forces are fighting ISIS with World War II weapons.
Despite Obama's pledges of support for the Kurds, there has been essentially no actual support by America for the Kurdish fighters. There have been no weapons deliveries or even ammunition deliveries that might allow the Kurds to better defend themselves from the ISIS murderers.
To remedy the lack of weapons deliveries to the Kurds, Congress has included a direction for direct aid to the Kurds in the new Defense Appropriations bill currently under debate. That bill provides funding for the US military at the levels sought by president Obama with the recognition that because of the serious terrorist threat, there needed to be increased expenditures. So far, support for the bill in both houses has been strongly bipartisan.
President Obama's response has been to threaten to veto the funding measure for the military. Obama's reason has been that he does not want America to send weapons directly to the Kurds. Think about that. Obama pledges support for the Kurds; he pledges that we will help arm the Kurds; but when Congress attempts to carry out what Obama pledged we would do, he threatens a veto.
Once again, the United States is being shown as an unreliable ally. What must those Arab countries who attended Obama's recent summit meeting have thought as they heard that Obama was threatening a veto because Congress was actually going to do what Obama himself had promised would be done? Why would any of those Arab countries accept the oral promises of support that Obama made to them at Camp David as anything other than lies. Why should promises to the Gulf Cooperation Council countries be any more likely to be kept than promises from the same man to the Kurdish government and people?
The bitter truth is that Obama's actions have destroyed the credibility of the USA in the Middle East. We need a new and honest president. We need someone who can bring back belief that the word of an American president means something other than a photo op.
President Obama's policy in Iraq has been to create a phantom coalition to degrade and destroy ISIS. In the last ten months, American planes have launched over 12,000 flights to bomb ISIS positions in Iraq and Syria although those planes have fired on ISIS in only about 3000 of those flights. This is roughly the level of aerial bombardment that the USA used against Iraqi forces during the first two days of the Gulf War. Other countries have participated in the air campaign, but their total raids come to just about 20% of what the USA has done. There have been no American ground forces involved in the battles with ISIS. President Obama has repeatedly announced, however, that the USA will help those who fight against ISIS. We have sent billions of dollars of material and assistance to the Iraqi government. Obama has pledged to provide weapons and assistance to the Kurds so that they can arm the Peshmerga with more modern weapons. At the moment, the majority of the Kurdish forces are fighting ISIS with World War II weapons.
Despite Obama's pledges of support for the Kurds, there has been essentially no actual support by America for the Kurdish fighters. There have been no weapons deliveries or even ammunition deliveries that might allow the Kurds to better defend themselves from the ISIS murderers.
To remedy the lack of weapons deliveries to the Kurds, Congress has included a direction for direct aid to the Kurds in the new Defense Appropriations bill currently under debate. That bill provides funding for the US military at the levels sought by president Obama with the recognition that because of the serious terrorist threat, there needed to be increased expenditures. So far, support for the bill in both houses has been strongly bipartisan.
President Obama's response has been to threaten to veto the funding measure for the military. Obama's reason has been that he does not want America to send weapons directly to the Kurds. Think about that. Obama pledges support for the Kurds; he pledges that we will help arm the Kurds; but when Congress attempts to carry out what Obama pledged we would do, he threatens a veto.
Once again, the United States is being shown as an unreliable ally. What must those Arab countries who attended Obama's recent summit meeting have thought as they heard that Obama was threatening a veto because Congress was actually going to do what Obama himself had promised would be done? Why would any of those Arab countries accept the oral promises of support that Obama made to them at Camp David as anything other than lies. Why should promises to the Gulf Cooperation Council countries be any more likely to be kept than promises from the same man to the Kurdish government and people?
The bitter truth is that Obama's actions have destroyed the credibility of the USA in the Middle East. We need a new and honest president. We need someone who can bring back belief that the word of an American president means something other than a photo op.
No comments:
Post a Comment