As part of the new phase of maybe-kinda-probably war against ISIS, Obama is seeking to arm the Syrian rebels, hoping they’ll fight against the ravenous terrorists who cut through the Iraqi army like a hot Jihadist knife through butter.
There’s just one tiny problem with this strategy – those rebels have signed a non-aggression pact with ISIS:
The U.S. backed, Syrian Revolutionary Front (SRF), have signed a ceasefire agreement with members of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) in the Rif Dimashq Governate. According to the ceasefire agreement, the two militant groups will not engage in violence with one another in the densely populated city of Hajar Al-Aswad, just south of Damascus. The agreement outlines the purpose of the ceasefire, alluding to their mutual interest in usurping the “Nusayri Government” (Nusayri is a derogatory word used to insult Alawi Muslims) in Damascus.
So, then, arming them would accomplish what now?
The President has already asked Congress for the authority to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels to fight ISIS, administration and congressional sources told CNN. Obama is seeking the authority under Title 10 of U.S. Code, which deals with military powers. His request was sent soon after he met with Congressional leadership Tuesday night.
The authority, if granted, would allow the U.S. to accept money from other countries as well for this purpose.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called on Congress to support the request.
“It is clear to me that we need to train and equip Syrian rebels and other groups in the Middle East that need some help,” Reid said Wednesday. “It is called Title 10 authority. The President has tried to get that from us and we should give it to him. That is one way of helping to build an international coalition. Congress should do that.”
It’s clear then that the weaponry and aid we’d be giving to the Syrian rebels would just be used against Assad, and not ISIS, which is the reason for the authorization. Does this make any sense whatsoever?