A McClatchy news report indicates the United States has stopped funding and supplying “moderate” Syrian rebels who were supposed to help contain ISIS in Syria.
While rebel leaders told McClatchy that a few months ago they were receiving “all kinds of support,” the well has apparently gone dry.
The reason given for the new lack of support is that the allegedly pro-Western rebels haven’t done anything to stop al-Nusra, the al-Qaida wing in Syria.
Call this yet another told-ya-so moment for conservatives, brought to you courtesy of the Obama Administration and the “don’t read before voting” Congress — which includes a number of Republican hawks.
When the Congress stupidly agreed to support Obama’s plan to throw money at Syrian rebels in the hope that they would do our fighting for us against ISIS, anybody with any sense knew what was going to happen.
Within days — possibly moments — of the first U.S. aid drop of supplies and delivery of funds, that same aid was making its way into al-Qaida and ISIS hands.
The Syrian opposition, which was never united to begin with, fractured completely along lines of who got the most spoils from the U.S. giveaway.
Al-Nusra/al-Qaida/ISIS quickly gained the edge, and the rest was destiny, sealed by the stupidity of Congress and the complicity of the Obama Administration.
Somebody in the chain of command must have caught on because the spigot for now seems to have been turned off, and not a moment too soon for Kurdish fighters and those remaining Iraqi forces that have been combating ISIS as it has pushed to establish a secure supply corridor across Syria, from Iraq to Turkey.
Since Obama’s announcement that he was going to commence airstrikes on ISIS targets and openly aid Syrian rebels, my own feeling has been that at some point, the fight against ISIS will morph into a fight to overthrow Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, which Obama has covertly — and occasionally openly — been trying to do for years.
One U.S. contractor told McClatchy that the aid cut-off would affect 8,000 to 10,000 Syrian rebels.
Another consideration is whether Obama’s entire ISIS battle plan wasn’t anything more than a half-hearted attempt to shore up voter support leading to the recent election.
It’s been discussed before that Obama really has no incentive to stop ISIS because his entire Middle East policy in retrospect seems custom-made to create the conditions for the rise of ISIS or another similar group.
Remember Obama’s insistence that the Islamic State was neither Islamic nor a state, and the Administration vs. Pentagon banter about whether this was a war or not?
If the battle plan and sudden tough talk were just another cynical ploy to encourage supporters to vote Democrat, then that would be more in line with this Administration’s unwritten mission statement, and it would explain the overall weakness of the American strategy against ISIS.
Obama’s absurd statement about ISIS not being Islamic nor a state always had an apologetic air to it.
One rebel commander told McClatchy, “In November we received all kinds of support, including salaries. This month support stopped completely.”
The election’s over, and Obama has led his party to a thumping defeat, so maybe now it’s time to go back to ignoring the thousands of Christians, Yazidis, Kurds and other people ISIS has murdered.
Before he momentarily tried to tough-talk his way back into America’s heart, Obama was content to watch the ISIS Caliphate grow and consolidate its power.
One possible side effect of withdrawing aid to “moderates,” is that ISIS will now have increased incentive to make up the lost income by taking new territory to keep its coffers full with the fruits of pillaging.
We’ll have to wait and see what our leaders do then.