Not much air between Obama and Erdogan... and the Saudis, for that matter.

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Nov 9, 2015 at 04:31

Hi, George

I briefly checked out all the links you gave. The Obama Administration certainly seems to have been sucked in by Muslim Brotherhood tactics. In fact, the MB leaders themselves claim to be Salfists (fundamentalist Islamists bent on dominating the world with Fundamentalist Islam). Those Muslims plainly identifying as Salafists are not an organized movement, so the Saudis and others are not afraid of them. They are afraid of the MB, however, and have outlawed it; because MB is organized. The two are simply sides of the same coin; and yet a third partner in all this are the Saudis themselves, whose official Wahabbi religion is Salafist in its doctrine. Islamic State, Al Qaeda and all the other most "extreme" (which is to say, most "obvious") Jihadi movements are all Salafists and Wahabbis. I imagine you know this.

Concerning the apparent "twist" in Obama's Middle East strategy. I noted that the Americans are backing the Syrian Kurds with 50 Special Forces troops, at the same time the Turks are attacking them. Both we and the Kurds are NATO allies, so I was wondering where in NATO the "twist" in strategy happens: Are just the Turks against the Syrian Kurds, for instance? or other NATO members as well?

I did some lookups and answered my own question: The US, in fact, is not really at war with ISIS: That's why, when the Russians appeared on the scene actually fighting ISIS wholeheartedly, Mr. Obama and crew felt the need to make a show of support for our anti-ISIS allies there, namely, the Syrian Kurds. It is just a show: We will never do something that is so seriously against the Turks as to truly fight ISIS and support the Syrian Kurds in a substantial way. For their part, the Kurds do lip service to fighting ISIS while they are in fact deeply involved with helping them. The Kurds themselves are divided, with the ruling Barzani faction in Iraq openly allied with the Turks and hosting Turkish attacks against the PKK (the Turkish wing of the Northern Kurds, the Syrian Kurds being the other wing). As for the Syrian Kurds, they weren't born yesterday; and are dealing with the Russians at the same thime that they make a show of being allies of the US.

The upshot of the war in Syria, is that the NATO allies and the Russians are both interested in maintaining a status quo that allows the continued existence of the Islamic Caliphate while keeping Assad in power and de facto recognizing the existence of separate Kurdish enclaves in Syria and Iraq. I don't know what will happen with the "moderate" Islamist rebels, who are supplied by the Saudis and loyal to Al Qaeda. The last I heard, they were throwing in their lot with the Caliphate while putting on a show of independence.

NATO's alliance with Turkey is very strong, much stronger than Obama's dalliances with other parties. The Turkish ruling party, of course, is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Even so, the Turks hold several American nuclear weapons in a "sharing" arrangement, and are privy to top secret information about our cutting-edge F-35, which they were partners in developing. Erdogan's party and policies certainly are against the interests of the American people; but so, in fact, are Obama's; so there's not much air between the two men.

A member of the Saudi Arabian royal family, by the way, has recently been caught in the biggest drug bust in history. All sides in the Syrian War, apparently, are keeping high and awake on amphetamines; and they produce so much of this stuff that they are exporting it with Saudi middlemen. That brings in needed revenue for the combatants in Syria while providing a handsome profit for the royals. The only ones suffering from this arrangement are the Syrians themselves, who have become pawns in "European Chess".

Does this all sound cold-blooded and sinister beyond belief? Maybe; but I, for one, believe it; and I think I have much company.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".