[QUOTE=Vice]US officials are really worried about the fast advancement of Islamic State fighters in northern Iraq, so much so that they have begun arming the Kurdish peshmerga troops that are attempting to fend off the militants’ offensive — a significant shift in US involvement in the country.
The US has traditionally only armed Iraq’s central government, including by providing much of the equipment that Islamic State (then known as ISIS) fighters stole from Iraqi soldiers in the early days of their offensive in June.
But as the Kurdish troops are pretty much the only ones standing up to the Islamic State — despite losing several towns to them in recent days — the Obama administration has started bypassing Baghdad, using [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/11/us-arm-peshmerga-iraq-kurdistan-isis"]the CIA[/URL] to provide the peshmerga with light arms and ammunition.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-arms-kurdish-troops-as-a-political-crisis-brews-in-baghdad[/url]
[QUOTE=The Guardian]The Obama administration has announced it will arm the militia forces of Iraqi Kurdistan, to prevent the fall of the final bastion of pro-US territory in Iraq.
The weaponry is said to be light arms and ammunition, brokered not through the Department of Defense – which supplies Baghdad and its security forces with heavy weaponry – but the CIA, which is better positioned to supply the Kurdish peshmerga with Russian-made guns like AK-47s that the US military does not use. The news was first reported by the Associated Press.
US officials say they are not currently considering providing Kurdish forces, which are not under the control of the Iraqi government in Baghdad, with missiles, armored vehicles or helicopters. The move to arm them raises questions about how the US-provided rifles will affect the military balance against the Islamic State (Isis), which has captured US-supplied armored Humvees and other heavy weapons from the Iraqi military.
The CIA declined to comment.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/11/us-arm-peshmerga-iraq-kurdistan-isis[/url]
I'm sorry Turkey, but this is awesome news.
[editline]11th August 2014[/editline]
Oh, I'm late. Only CTRL-f'd 'kurd', 'iraq' and 'arms' before posting.
Why not give em M16s
IS is already using them anyway
If you fund plenty of factions, you're bound to eventually fund the right ones.
[QUOTE=Megadave;45661443]If you fund plenty of factions, you're bound to eventually fund the right ones.[/QUOTE]
The spaghetti method of international relations.
[QUOTE=Jund;45661421]Why not give em M16s
IS is already using them anyway[/QUOTE]
easier to PR image manage
[QUOTE=Megadave;45661443]If you fund plenty of factions, you're bound to eventually fund the right ones.[/QUOTE]
You're going to have to wait a few decades before you can call these 'the right ones'.
[editline]11th August 2014[/editline]
double post like i don't give a fuck
[QUOTE=Jund;45661421]Why not give em M16s
IS is already using them anyway[/QUOTE]
It's what they have tons of already, makes supply management and training easier.
[QUOTE=Gentry;45661449]easier to PR image manage[/QUOTE]
What's the PR image gonna be when we're funding Kurds while IS have ARs
It's a shame we have to tiptoe around throwing in with the Kurds because of "public opinion". The Iraqi government has repeatedly proven itself to be incapable
[editline]11th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Riller;45661526]It's what they have tons of already, makes supply management and training easier.[/QUOTE]
From what I've seen only the elite units use them
The grunts mostly use AKMs
[QUOTE=Jund;45661534]From what I've seen only the elite units use them
The grunts mostly use AKMs[/QUOTE]
That's what I meant. Giving them AKs makes sense because that way, they only have to manage supply lines of 7.62x39 and 7.62x54r to the frontline infantry, ammo which is already plentiful in the region; as opposed to adding a third round to the mix.
[QUOTE=Jund;45661534]What's the PR image gonna be when we're funding Kurds while IS have ARs[/QUOTE]
because they're stolen
[QUOTE=Riller;45661564]That's what I meant. Giving them AKs makes sense because that way, they only have to manage supply lines of 7.62x39 and 7.62x54r to the frontline infantry, ammo which is already plentiful in the region; as opposed to adding a third round to the mix.[/QUOTE]
I'd think that giving them American guns would be a far greater boost to our relations though, as well as painting them as a legitimate military force. A full scale DoD operation would probably be cheaper and easier than CIA arms procurement
... yeah so there's no way in hell we'd want to do that huh
[editline]11th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gentry;45661629]because they're stolen[/QUOTE]
Obviously
When al Qaeda turned up with our weapons it wasn't very pretty either
People shouldn't forget that Kurds and Turks still have issues to iron out. Turkey is a NATO ally.
Therefore, we have to be very careful what we give the Kurds. It would be very awkward if sometime down the line Kurds killed Turkish troops or civilians with weapons we, a NATO ally, gave them. This is why it's more acceptable for us to give Iraq the weapons, then the Iraqi government passes them to the Kurds. The problem has been the Iraqi government does not pass the weapons on to the Kurds, since that might also backfire on the Iraqi government and make the Kurds more powerful.
[QUOTE=Jund;45661633]I'd think that giving them American guns would be a far greater boost to our relations though, as well as painting them as a legitimate military force. A full scale DoD operation would probably be cheaper and easier than CIA arms procurement[/QUOTE]
You're missing the point. They already use Russian AK's, the troops are familliar with them, they know how to maintain and use them, they have supply lines for that ammunition, etc. If we gave them 5.56x45 NATO rifles, then they'd have to manage not only the different rounds for the AKM and AK-74 rifles that they undoubtedly use a mix of, but also a third type of ammunition, all new magazines, non-compatable parts, etc. It's all about logistics and what they can already support.
[QUOTE=Jund;45661421]Why not give em M16s
IS is already using them anyway[/QUOTE]
We could've totally cornered the whole rebel/insurgent arms market if we had mass-produced the AR-18. It's like the peanut butter of the AK meets the chocolate of the AR.
Wonderful. More weapons in the region for ISIS to potentially capture, AND we're blatantly taking sides in an ethnic conflict.
We could very easily end up in a war with the entirety of Sunni Islam...
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;45664434]Wonderful. More weapons in the region for ISIS to potentially capture, AND we're blatantly taking sides in an ethnic conflict.
We could very easily end up in a war with the entirety of Sunni Islam...[/QUOTE]
1. Peshmerga is the strongest resistance to ISIS in the area. Their troops and commanders were very critical of the Iraqi Army when they fled the area.
2. Peshmerga is a US Ally, and Iraqi Kurdistan is one of the most US-friendly areas in the country. Peshmerga fought with us during the second Iraq War.
3. ISIS wants territory held by Turkey and Israel. If they're successful here, we'll just end up fighting a much stronger ISIS later on. And Israel doesn't fuck around.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;45664434]Wonderful. More weapons in the region for ISIS to potentially capture, AND we're blatantly taking sides in an ethnic conflict.
We could very easily end up in a war with the entirety of Sunni Islam...[/QUOTE]
You're acting like ISIS has a huge global Sunni support base.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;45664434]Wonderful. More weapons in the region for ISIS to potentially capture, AND we're blatantly taking sides in an ethnic conflict.
We could very easily end up in a war with the entirety of Sunni Islam...[/QUOTE]
You mean the crazy orthodox sect of Islam that we don't want anything to do with anyways and, politically, consistently fail to gain any ground with?
Over the much more reasonable, conceptually anyways, Shia sect? And the Kurds who are very reasonable compared to their cultural surroundings?
I'm hard pressed to feel bad about picking sides in a conflict where it is [I]everyone[/I] vs a bunch of religious zealot assholes.
[QUOTE=GunFox;45664561]You mean the crazy orthodox sect of Islam that we don't want anything to do with anyways and, politically, consistently fail to gain any ground with?
Over the much more reasonable, conceptually anyways, Shia sect? And the Kurds who are very reasonable compared to their cultural surroundings?
I'm hard pressed to feel bad about picking sides in a conflict where it is [I]everyone[/I] vs a bunch of religious zealot assholes.[/QUOTE]
Are you thinking of Wahhabism or something? Sunni Islam constitutes about 75-90% of the world's Muslim population and has around 1.25 billion followers as well as being the overwhelming majority in all Muslim countries except Iran and Iraq; antagonising that entire group would not be a smart move.
[QUOTE=Megadave;45661443]If you fund plenty of factions, you're bound to eventually fund the right ones.[/QUOTE]
There's a method to your madness.
Here, have a billion dollars.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/XXXkjvw.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=GunFox;45664561]You mean the crazy orthodox sect of Islam that we don't want anything to do with anyways and, politically, consistently fail to gain any ground with?
Over the much more reasonable, conceptually anyways, Shia sect? And the Kurds who are very reasonable compared to their cultural surroundings?
I'm hard pressed to feel bad about picking sides in a conflict where it is [I]everyone[/I] vs a bunch of religious zealot assholes.[/QUOTE]
sunni islam is far from a sect
Don't get me wrong, if we're gonna give weapons to somebody, I'd rather it be the "not ISIS" side. But, look where arming the mujahideen because they were "better than the Soviets" got us. The ISIS issue is also just one facet of the ever-expanding regional conflict between Sunni and Shia. Traditionally, the US has preferred to ally itself with more Sunni-controlled countries like Saudi Arabia, in opposition to predominately Shia Iran. Trying to control ISIS could just lead to the US being perceived as siding against Sunnis in general, especially after we tacitly supported Malaki's Shia government (who kind of caused this in the first place).
If proper rule of law continues to deteriorate and it turns into a big damn war of sectarian score-settling, the last thing we need is the US fighting on one side. That is the kind of thing that could actually blow back on us in the form of more terrorism attacks in the US. There are plenty of Sunnis living in the US who would be extremely angry to see the US supporting Shia thugs in their quest to cleanse the region of Sunnis. The number one justification given by Islamic radicals who attempt to attack Americans isn't "Because I hate their freedom", it's "Because they kill Muslims and support regimes that kill Muslims".
ISIS is terrible and shitty and absolutely worth being rid of. But, we gotta start thinking about these things in the long term. Arming one side or another in a foreign conflict always creates unintended consequences. It happens again, and again, and again. Unfortunately, this country's leaders suffer from an obsession with what polls well here and now, and a pervasive attitude of "It'll be the next guy's problem".
[QUOTE=smurfy;45664895]Are you thinking of Wahhabism or something? Sunni Islam constitutes about 75-90% of the world's Muslim population and has around 1.25 billion followers as well as being the overwhelming majority in all Muslim countries except Iran and Iraq; antagonising that entire group would not be a smart move.[/QUOTE]
And if they agree with ISIS and take issue with us stopping them, then they can hate us all they want. I'd rather be hated for doing the right thing than loved for allowing genocide.
[editline]11th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;45664951]Don't get me wrong, if we're gonna give weapons to somebody, I'd rather it be the "not ISIS" side. But, look where arming the mujahideen because they were "better than the Soviets" got us. The ISIS issue is also just one facet of the ever-expanding regional conflict between Sunni and Shia. Traditionally, the US has preferred to ally itself with more Sunni-controlled countries like Saudi Arabia, in opposition to predominately Shia Iran. Trying to control ISIS could just lead to the US being perceived as siding against Sunnis in general, especially after we tacitly supported Malaki's Shia government (who kind of caused this in the first place).
If proper rule of law continues to deteriorate and it turns into a big damn war of sectarian score-settling, the last thing we need is the US fighting on one side. That is the kind of thing that could actually blow back on us in the form of more terrorism attacks in the US. There are plenty of Sunnis living in the US who would be extremely angry to see the US supporting Shia thugs in their quest to cleanse the region of Sunnis. The number one justification given by Islamic radicals who attempt to attack Americans isn't "Because I hate their freedom", it's "Because they kill Muslims and support regimes that kill Muslims".
ISIS is terrible and shitty and absolutely worth being rid of. But, we gotta start thinking about these things in the long term. Arming one side or another in a foreign conflict always creates unintended consequences. It happens again, and again, and again. Unfortunately, this country's leaders suffer from an obsession with what polls well here and now, and a pervasive attitude of "It'll be the next guy's problem".[/QUOTE]
How about we just kill the side who captures and beheads children in large numbers.
If they change places in a few years, then we'll stop them too. Not gonna regret putting a stop to genocide.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;45664387]You're missing the point. They already use Russian AK's, the troops are familliar with them, they know how to maintain and use them, they have supply lines for that ammunition, etc. If we gave them 5.56x45 NATO rifles, then they'd have to manage not only the different rounds for the AKM and AK-74 rifles that they undoubtedly use a mix of, but also a third type of ammunition, all new magazines, non-compatable parts, etc. It's all about logistics and what they can already support.[/QUOTE]
If they had functioning supply lines (or supplies for that matter) they wouldn't be asking for ammo and weapons in the first place. If a bunch of fundies can learn how to use an AR platform and its attachments, I would think a peshmerga would too
[editline]11th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Grimhound;45664410]We could've totally cornered the whole rebel/insurgent arms market if we had mass-produced the AR-18. It's like the peanut butter of the AK meets the chocolate of the AR.[/QUOTE]
If you're going to arm a group, might as well make a quick buck instead of doing shady dealings with Chinese/ex-bloc manufacturers
[editline]11th August 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;45664954]
How about we just kill the side who captures and beheads children in large numbers.
If they change places in a few years, then we'll stop them too. Not gonna regret putting a stop to genocide.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes trying to see the bigger picture makes you miss what's right in front of you
For a progressive he sure is American-centric
[editline]11th August 2014[/editline]
Last I checked the Kurds were pretty much only interested in not getting gassed by a maniac dictator and not get shot by religious extremists. And they didn't, say, fund anti-Western terrorist groups or slaughter innocent people over some clay like our other "allies in the Middle East", so they're already ahead of the game.
In global politics everyone will always have an enemy somewhere, at some point or another, so at least you can make some damn good friends along the way.
[QUOTE=Jund;45665063]Last I checked the Kurds were pretty much only interested in not getting gassed by a maniac dictator and not get shot by religious extremists. [B]And they didn't, say, fund anti-Western terrorist groups [/B]or slaughter innocent people over some clay like our other "allies in the Middle East", so they're already ahead of the game.[/QUOTE]
Depending on how western you need to be to be western in your world view, this is actually quite wrong. Kurds backed the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which was a militant organization in Turkey; a major NATO player; active up to as recently as last year, where they negotiated a ceasefire and redirected their fighters to battle ISIS. The Kurds are probably the least shitty faction in this conflict, but being the least shitty doesn't make them [I]all[/I] good.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;45664951]Don't get me wrong, if we're gonna give weapons to somebody, I'd rather it be the "not ISIS" side. But, look where arming the mujahideen because they were "better than the Soviets" got us. The ISIS issue is also just one facet of the ever-expanding regional conflict between Sunni and Shia. Traditionally, the US has preferred to ally itself with more Sunni-controlled countries like Saudi Arabia, in opposition to predominately Shia Iran. Trying to control ISIS could just lead to the US being perceived as siding against Sunnis in general, especially after we tacitly supported Malaki's Shia government (who kind of caused this in the first place).
If proper rule of law continues to deteriorate and it turns into a big damn war of sectarian score-settling, the last thing we need is the US fighting on one side. That is the kind of thing that could actually blow back on us in the form of more terrorism attacks in the US. There are plenty of Sunnis living in the US who would be extremely angry to see the US supporting Shia thugs in their quest to cleanse the region of Sunnis. The number one justification given by Islamic radicals who attempt to attack Americans isn't "Because I hate their freedom", it's "Because they kill Muslims and support regimes that kill Muslims".
ISIS is terrible and shitty and absolutely worth being rid of. But, we gotta start thinking about these things in the long term. Arming one side or another in a foreign conflict always creates unintended consequences. It happens again, and again, and again. Unfortunately, this country's leaders suffer from an obsession with what polls well here and now, and a pervasive attitude of "It'll be the next guy's problem".[/QUOTE]
I'd wait, go to wikipedia and read up on the Kurdish people before you start talking again.
They're one of our best damn allies in the region. Also, arming and using Kurdish soldiers has actually never backfired on us, ever. If anything, us supporting them has backfired on them more often.
Y'all should watch the Vice News [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RojiK_l45hY"]Battle for Iraq Dispatches[/URL] and the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsCZzpmbEcs&list=PLw613M86o5o7ELT6LKyJFKawB6gUsZSf7"]Islamic State documentary[/URL]. They're really insightful on the mess this is. My chips go to the Kurds being the only ones that could turn the tide by being supported by the US.
[QUOTE=OvB;45665933]Y'all should watch the Vice News [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RojiK_l45hY"]Battle for Iraq Dispatches[/URL] and the [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsCZzpmbEcs&list=PLw613M86o5o7ELT6LKyJFKawB6gUsZSf7"]Islamic State documentary[/URL]. They're really insightful on the mess this is. My chips go to the Kurds being the only ones that could turn the tide by being supported by the US.[/QUOTE]
Add to the fact that if we do put troops on the ground, it'll be out of Kurdish territory.
[QUOTE=Jund;45661421]Why not give em M16s
IS is already using them anyway[/QUOTE]
warpac munitions.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
