Syria "Strategy" In Complete Disarray As "Ally" Turkey Bombs US-Armed Rebels!

Anyone else have the feeling that these fools pulling are random choices out of a hat when it comes to foreign policy? Is this administration the most incompetent in history or is there some "unseen genius plan" that we are not seeing?

(Long article, introduction below
www.zerohedge.com...

A little over a week ago in “Full Metal Retard: US Launches ‘Performance-Based’ Ammo Paradrop Program For Make-Believe ‘Syrian Arabs’” we outlined what is perhaps the most hilarious Pentagon scheme designed to arm rebels in Syria to date (and that’s saying something).

Following the comical demise of the latest “train and equip” program, the US is out of options for supporting the opposition in Syria and so Washington decided to go back to Old Faithful: the Kurds.

But that presents a problem.

The US is now flying sorties from Incirlik and Turkish autocrat President Recep Tayyip Erdogan hates the Kurds and has gone out of his way to make it clear that Ankara doesn’t distinguish between the PKK and the YPG. For the uninitiated, here’s the problem broken down in bullet points:

The US is flying from a Turkish airbase

Access to that airbase came with NATO’s tacit approval of Erdogan’s move to crack down on the Kurdish PKK operating in Turkey (that crackdown is designed to bolster support for the government ahead of elections next month)

Both the US and Turkey designate PKK as a “terrorist” group

BUT while Ankara equates the PKK with the Kurdish rebels battling ISIS in Syria, Washington actually supports those same rebels, setting up a conflict of interest

Now clearly, this is beyond absurd. That is, Turkey only got NATOs support for the politically motivated crackdown on the PKK because Ankara agreed to bundle said crackdown with a military campaign against ISIS. But the Syrian Kurds are the most effective ground force of them all when it comes to combating Islamic State. Because those Syrian Kurds are aligned with the PKK, Turkey is effectively trying to say its army is fighting ISIS, the PKK, and YPG all at once even as both the PKK and the YPG are also fighting ISIS.

And so, in an unbelievably silly attempt to keep from angering Erdogan, the US effectively created a fictional group of "Syrain Arabs" and then claimed that YPG had formed an alliance with the made-up army. Next, Washington dropped 50 tons of ammo into the desert (literally) and claimed that the "Syrian Arab Coalition" had retrieved it. Of course it was the Kurds who actually picked it up, the Pentagon just needed a cover story to feed to Ankara in case Erdogan lost his mind. Which he did.

www.npr.org...

www.nytimes.com...

a reply to: infolurker

Elections have consequences.

Name me one thing the Obama administration has done that has actually created or contributed to stability in the Middle East.

a reply to: infolurker

Is this administration the most incompetent in history or is there some "unseen genius plan" that we are not seeing?

Kill everyone, take everything, burn whats left.

The "genius plan" is to supplant authority (regime change), foment insurrection (train and arm the worst criminals) and kill as many people as possible in the oil bearing regions of the Middle East. Side benefits are sales or arms, and cheap natural resources.

Even the refugees are future consumers, come one come all.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: infolurker

Elections have consequences.

Name me one thing the Obama administration has done that has actually created or contributed to stability in the Middle East.

We are giving it to the Russians?

a reply to: infolurker

Talk about back stabbing your ally...hahahaha

So much for creating fictional armies only for Erdogan to find out. It's just getting too silly by the minute, but hey what can Turkey do, block the US from using their airspace?

I bet Erdogan is afraid he maybe the next inline to go

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: infolurker

Elections have consequences.

Name me one thing the Obama administration has done that has actually created or contributed to stability in the Middle East.

That's an easy one, none at all. Stability is not about arming terrorist groups to bring down legitimate governments of sovereign nations in the guise of bringing an end to dictatorship that doesn't exist.

Do I win a prize?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: infolurker

Elections have consequences.

Name me one thing the Obama administration has done that has actually created or contributed to stability in the Middle East.

I agree. I hate his Middle East policy. However, let's be honest here. Both major US political parties want turmoil in the Middle East, not just Pres Obama's administration. Let's not forget Reagan supported the future Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan during Russia's invasion of Afghanistan; supported Saddam in the Iraq-Iran War; and secretly armed Iran in the Iran-Contra Scandal.

The next President, the first Bush, attacked Iraq in the Gulf War. The next President, Clinton, then had crushing sanctions on Iraq which crippled Iraq's economy & starved half a million Iraqi kids to death. The next President, Dubya , invaded the now-crippled Iraq, launched the "War on Terror" on Reagan's former Afghan proxies, & threatened to invade Iran. The next President, Obama, placed major sanctions on Iran while taking down Qaddafi in Libya. And he's trying to take down Assad in Syria as we speak.

None of them has actually helped create stability in the Middle East. And the next US President will probably continue the cycle of meddling in or flat out crushing Middle Eastern countries.

a reply to: infolurker

Well put! I don't think it is possible to be this incompetent... I hope we all like the master plan

Its being reported in this mornings news that the US is going to embed troops in Iraq front line now. I think the US will leave Syria to the Russians and try to hold on to Iraq.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

The policy as it stood before this past few administrations (Bush/Obama) was one of détente. The aim was to keep the situation more or less balanced between the Shi'as and the Sunnis with everyone hating Israel but not moving against her because they were afraid to possibly expose themselves in doing so.

The Russians have backed the Shi'a and the US has stood with the Sunni.

After 9/11, this all went off the rails.

Like it or not, Obama is anti-colonialist and a radical. He also spent a decent number of his formative years in an Islamic school. No, I am not saying this makes him a closet Muslim, but I am saying it makes him sympathetic. He hates the US, he sees this country as the cause of everything in the world, and he sympathizes with the radicals working against the old regimes.

He told Medvedev over an open mic that he'd be more flexible after his next election, and we're seeing the results of that. He's doing everything he can to upset the old orders of the ME and put Russia in the driver's seat. Only time will tell how that will shake the world when Putin controls via proxy most of Europe's energy supplies.

originally posted by: weirdguy
Its being reported in this mornings news that the US is going to embed troops in Iraq front line now. I think the US will leave Syria to the Russians and try to hold on to Iraq.

Nothing good is going to come of it.

a reply to: ketsuko

LOL You should really stop believing everything you hear. The majority of Syrians & nearly all of the Syrian Army are Sunnis, and they're fighting to support Assad. So Russia is backing a Sunni majority country & its Alawite/Shiite leader against the Wahhabi groups like ISIS & al-Nusra.

And if Pres Obama is "sympathetic" to Muslims, then why has he ordered air campaigns against 7 Muslim countries? Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and Somalia. And he's still supporting Israel with weapons & grants, even when Israel went to war with Lebanon & the Palestinians. And let's not mention how he didn't step in to try to stop the Anti-Sharia laws right here in America. With "sympathizers" like that, who needs enemies?

The turmoil in the Middle East will not end, as the constant conflicts in Africa will never end for very simple reasons- Economics. It's good for (western) business. A more on topic point, the Turks have been messing with the Kurds since before the break-out of conflict in Syria - They're just using the whole "war on terror" excuse every other country uses when attacking their enemies now-a-days. We just have a new geo-politically PC word to use to label our enemies, and the public will lap it up like peanut butter.

a reply to: infolurker

Do you actually think Russia will have better luck ?
I say LET them try.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Well, maybe slightly better in that they'll brutally support whoever they decide to put on the throne without concern for public opinion on the home front or abroad. They'll have to get their hands pretty dirty before they achieve stability though.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I somehow fdoubt they will be successful..www.msn.com...
ALSO judging by how they fight ,I don't think they should try a face to face assault enmasse.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

If they really want to get involved, they're going to have to get their hands dirty and not just provide airsupport. I don't know how many Hezbollah and Iranians they can feed into the meat grinder.

We need to be giving the Kurds a lot more than ammo. I'm sure they could use some tanks, maybe even an F-16 or 30. I think we should kick Turkey to the curb and set up a Kurdish state in northern Iraq/west Turkey and build them up into the greatest military power in the M.E. Then whenever we need something done, we can just call them up and have them sort things out themselves. I think the middle east would be much more peaceful with a strong Kurdish state in play.

a reply to: infolurker

Of course they dont use a hat silly!

The US government are far more sophisticated. Didnt you know they spent trillions comeing up with this: