Not Destroying ISIS

image_update_img (1)Frontpage, By Adam Turner:

Let me be clear:

Now is not the time for a hard rhetorical “red line“ by the Obama Administration against sending American troops into Iraq or Syria to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) threat.  U.S. Presidents should not fight wars focused on political slogans – “no boots on the ground” – that show weakness and limit them from getting the job done.  Besides which, it is simply not true; the U.S. already has sixteen hundred troops “on the ground.”

Now is also not the time to focus on building a new force of Syrian rebels that will actually be trustworthy, pro-American, and well-trained. A project like this will take months, if not years, to bear fruit.

Now is also not the time for indecision about whether to “manage” or “degrade and destroy” ISIS.

Now is not the time for theoretical discussions about the nature of Islam, especially when the Obama Administration has no actual expertise on this subject.

Now is not the time to focus on getting the support of the U.N. for anything, as it is an international group of anti-American, anti-Semitic, extremists, and brutal dictators.

Now is not the time to limit our air strikes to nighttime raids that minimize the death and damage to ISIS.

Now is not the time for the U.S. to consider the Iranians as an ally against ISIS. Iran is an even more powerful Islamist enemy of the U.S., who is still engaging in a thirty-five year bloody war directed against the U.S.  Besides which, the pro-Western Arab nations – Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia – are unlikely to cooperate with the U.S. if there is a real collaboration between the U.S. and Iran.

And perhaps most importantly, now is not the time for more superfluous blather by President Obama, Secretary Kerry, or any other member of the Administration about this crisis.   The problem with this administration is not that outside observers believe they are reticent to express their views on this, or any other, topic. It is that outside observers believe that all the Administration does is talk, but never do they follow their talk with any real action.

And the U.S. must act, now.

Let me be clear – ISIS is an immediate danger to the U.S.  ISIS terrorists beheaded two American citizens, laughing and insulting the U.S. and President Obama as they did so.  ISIS has its own state, two billion dollars in its bank accounts, oil fields, tons of modern weaponry, along with thousands of dedicated terrorists ready to kill infidels and crusaders.   It also has, and has used, chemical weapons.   U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has acknowledged that more than 100 U.S. citizens with passports have fought alongside the terrorist organization in the Middle East.  Some of them already have, and all of them can, easily return to the U.S. to conduct terror attacks.   And who knows how many Americans still within the continental states are sympathizers of ISIS.  Further, the leadership of ISIS has time and again threatened President Obama, the U.S. and Americans throughout the world and at home in America.

ISIS is electrifying the extremist Islamist world with its battlefield successes and flaunting of American power, making the U.S. look weak in front of the rest of the world.  Having heard President’s speech to Americans about ISIS and Iraq, the ISIS barbarians posted a video, which in the words of the Weekly Standard, can be summarized by the title “ISIS to U.S.: Bring It On.”

This situation is extremely dangerous.  Because of the President’s current show of weakness, and his previous foreign policy mistakes, ISIS, Iran, Russia, North Korea, and every other bad actor in this world have taken measure of President Obama and they have determined him to be a feeble and indecisive man.  None fear him.   And now, they are continually taking advantage of him.  That, more than anything else, is what is driving the increasing chaos and danger throughout the world.

Let me be clear – President Obama needs to brush up on his Machiavelli; “whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? …because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.”

And there is only one way that he can create fear in the hearts of ISIS.  The U.S. must destroy ISIS.  The U.S. must kill “Caliph Ibrahim.”  And the U.S. must execute the jihadists who personally beheaded the two American citizens.

TO BETTER PROTECT MUSLIMS, AG HOLDER SET TO BAN ‘RELIGIOUS PROFILING’

eric-holder-teal-painting-apBreitbart, by HOMAS ROSE, Sep. 30, 2014:

If one is looking for reasons why Washington has become so caustic, divisive and bitter, look no further than retiring Attorney General Eric Holder. If reportsfirst published by the Los Angeles Times are correct, the always controversial Holder, aged 63, will soon announce a new and permanent ban on so-called ‘religious profiling’ designed to better protect those suspected of jihadist or Islamist activities from federal surveillance.

At the very moment the American state, local and federal law enforcement are trying to get a handle on a spate of Islamist-inspired beheadings and the discovery that Islamic State terror cells are active in at least three major US cities (LA, Boston, and Minneapolis), the US attorney general seems prepared to make it even harder for US law enforcement to crack down against jihadist recruiters and terrorist plots.

Despite the rise of the Islamic State’s terrorist army that proudly boasts of its US citizen-fighters, as well as growing evidence that domestic jihadist extremism is far more prevalent inside the United States than previously thought, the always controversial Holder appears undeterred in his quest to ban federal agents from trying to prevent domestic Islamist terrorism by investigating hubs of suspected jihadist activities. If the ban on ‘religious profiling’ is enforced, federal agents will no longer be able to conduct surveillance inside even the most radical of US mosques, where nearly all recent US based jihadists have been recruited, trained and dispatched.

The LA Times even reports that Holder’s ban will no longer even include “an exemption for national security investigations.” Without pre-existing, admissible evidence that ongoing criminal activity is occurring, federal agents will no longer be permitted to conduct any undercover surveillance in any clearly identified Islamic institution. If enacted, such a policy would represent the starkest reversal yet to bi-partisan post 9/11 changes that permitted law enforcement agencies like the FBI greater ability to monitor suspected Islamist outfits, including mosques.

The FBI claims that those standards have enabled them to disrupt or scuttle at least 42 planned Islamist attacks against the US homeland adopted since 2001.

How extending greater legal protections to those suspected of jihadist plots against US citizens will help protect law abiding citizens from those plots remains to be seen. The connections between Islamic State operatives, recent domestic terrorist acts, and several radical US mosques are undeniable. The recent Muslim convert in Oklahoma who murdered and decapitated a 54-year-old grandmother was radicalized in a mosque run by the very same people who run a Boston mosque that served as headquarters for ISIS’s US social media campaign.

Terrorism authority Steve Emerson told IBD this could be just the tip of the ISIS-ice berg. “There are tens of thousands of others like him lurking in the United States who haven’t done this but are jihadists just waiting to do it,” Emerson, who runs the New York-basedInvestigative Project for Terrorism, says the Islamic State is actually pre-selecting new US based recruits based upon their state willingness to conduct suicide/terrorist operations against innocents inside the US.

Of course, since Attorney General Holder had previously ordered the Justice Department and the FBI to scrub all its training manuals and support documentation to insure words like “jihad” and “Islamic terrorism” do not appear, it is difficult to predict how such directives will even be adequately conveyed to US law enforcement personnel.

Had such prohibitions against even considering the religious beliefs or associations of suspected jihadist elements been in effect, many recent Federal indictments of terrorists could never have been obtained, since nearly ever single one of them contained evidence demonstrating their connections with and radicalizations inside US mosques. Nearly every single defendant so indicted has confessed that their motivations were religiously based upon their interpretation of Islam and its commands to attack non-believers.

The same Eric Holder now considering increased protections for those suspected of jihadist activities authorized domestic illegal surveillance actions, including wiretapping, against reporters at the Associated Press and sought to prosecute Fox News’ James Rosen under, of all things, the Espionage Act.

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, “You know the famous American saying that all politics is local? Well, for militant Islamists, all politics is global, because their ultimate goal is to dominate the world.” If Holder has his way and can prohibit US law enforcement from investigating domestic militants Islamists in places where militants Islamists plot and plan, American jihadists will be able to pursue that ultimate goal of global dominance with greater freedom and security than ever before.

TEN POINTS ABOUT ISLAMIC JIHAD IN AMERICA

5337518453_e6b02f3a2a_zSpectator, By Scott McKay:

Let’s see if we can all agree on a few points:

1. Whether our leaders wish to accept it or not, it is a fact that throughout America’s history, including current times, there have been and are people who do not subscribe to our way of life and wish to destroy us. Such people have been adherents to any number of noxious ideologies. In the past, they’ve been secessionists, anarchists, Bolsheviks, Nazis, black separatists, among other things.

2. Today, the most prominent and worrisome group is Islamists — more precisely, Muslim adherents to the doctrine of Sharia.

3. Sharia — a system of law that includes a definition of jihad as a program of violent subjugation and/or conversion of the infidel—is properly described as a hostile doctrine. That it derives from a major religious text does not change the fact that it represents a threat to the American way of life. The incompatibility of Sharia and pluralistic, democratic Western culture based on individual rights easily merits its own column; for a good summary,click here.

4. Yet Sharia is being preached in mosques across America. Those mosques are not just houses of worship; they are cultural and political centers, and they are vehicles for organization of communities. Let’s be clear: some mosques are upstanding assets to their communities. But let’s be equally clear: others are not. The Islamic Society of Boston, which spawned the Tsarnaev brothers who bombed the Boston marathon, is an example of the latter. Though numbers are difficult to come by, it is believed that many American mosques and Islamic organizations receive foreign funding from Sharia states such as Saudi Arabia. These can only be prudently viewed as centers of foreign, and at least potentially hostile, influence.

5. We have history to draw upon here: The Roosevelt administration came down hard on theGerman-American Bund, an effort to organize Americans of German descent into a foreign influence operation, and ultimately put it out of business. This action seems to have been accepted as advancing a legitimate government interest, since virtually no one looks upon the treatment of the German-American Bund as a black mark on our national escutcheon.

6. In contrast, nothing whatsoever has been done to rein in Sharia mosques. To the contrary, there is even evidence that Sharia adherents are proselytizing their brand of Islam in our prisons on a wide scale. The security implications of this are staggering.

7. This prison outreach appears to have had an role in radicalizing Alton Nolen, who beheaded a woman at a food processing plant in Moore, Oklahoma, last week. Nolen was converted to Islam while serving prison time, and he attended a mosque in Oklahoma City with connections to jihad. Yet the case is being processed—as were terror attacks at Ft. Hood and the Army recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas—as workplace violence.

8. This problem didn’t originate with the Obama administration, but it has certainly become far, far worse since he was inaugurated president and his attorney general Eric Holder took office. Moreover, it appears to be getting worse. Just days after Nolen’s savage attack, which coincided with another incident in which a woman was threatened with beheading in Oklahoma City, the Justice Department announced it would no longer allow religious profiling in law enforcement — even in cases where national security is involved.

9. We are therefore less safe from lone-wolf jihadists than we have ever been, at a time when we are actively bombing the most high-profile jihadist organization on earth and giving them a real-time rationale for inciting jihadist attacksand beheadings in particular — against us.

10. It is untenable and dangerous to have a government that abdicates its proper duty to keep the public safe from enemies foreign and domestic. We are increasingly playing with fire.

Video: EMET’s Annual 9/11 Memorial Dinner

watch-9-11-memorial-live-stream

EMET, Sep. 11, 2014:

On the thirteenth anniversary of the horrific events of September 11, 2001, the United States and the Western world face the same threat by genocidal Islamic terrorists that were responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans on U.S. soil.
The so called Islamic State, or ISIS, has brutally murdered thousands of innocent civilians, and has extended its reach deep into western and northern Iraq and across Syria. The so called Islamic State’s beheading of American journalist James Wright Foley prompted limited US airstrikes in Iraq.  ISIS leader Al-Baghdadi recently said in a video interview “We will humiliate them [U.S. soldiers] everywhere, God willing, and we will raise the flag of Allah in the White House.”  At the same time, the threat of homegrown terrorism is on the rise; more than 100 Americans have traveled to Syria to join Al Qaeda-inspired terror groups, and two Americans who have joined ISIS have already been killed. In the past few months, terrorism charges have been filed against several Americans to prevent homegrown terrorists.
What are the critical lessons that the U.S. should take from the 9/11 attacks? What should the United States do to safeguard our homeland and prevent future attacks on U.S. soil? How can the U.S. stop the rise of homegrown terrorism?
Please join us as we hear from national security and counterterrorism experts on these issues, and more.  EMET is privileged to host author and scholar Dr. Walid Phares; co-founder of the Reform Party of Syria Farid Ghadry; Muslim Brotherhood expert Kyle Shideler; and Founder and President of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, Sarah Stern.

Dr. Walid Phares

Dr. Phares serves as an Advisor to the Anti-Terrorism Caucus in the US House of Representatives and is a Co-Secretary General of the Transatlantic Legislative Group on Counter Terrorism, a Euro-American Caucus, since 2009. Dr. Phares briefs and testifies to the US Congress, the European Parliament and the United Nations Security Council on matters related to international security and Middle East conflict. He now teaches Global Strategies at the National Defense University.

 

Farid Ghadry

Farid Ghadry is a Syrian-American businessman committed to peace in the Middle East. His concerns about Islamic extremism is a mobilizing factor for other Syrian-Americans to combat terror. Mr. Ghadry is the only Syrian-American ever to be invited to address the Knesset in Israel. He also addressed the EU Parliament as well as US Congress on matters related to freedom and human rights in the Middle East.

 

Sarah Stern

Sarah Stern is the Founder and President of EMET. Sarah has more than 30 years of experience on Capitol Hill, and has helped pass many pieces of legislation, speeches and congressional resolutions. Her work has appeared in The New Republic, The Middle East Quarterly, Israel Today, Frontpagemag.com, Breitbart, InFocus, The American Thinker, The Jerusalem Post, and the Washington Jewish Week.

 

Kyle Shideler

Kyle Shideler is the Director of the Threat Information Office (TIO) at the Center for Security Policy. Kyle has preciously served as the Director of Research and Communications for the Endowment for Middle East Truth, as well as the Senior Researcher, and Public Information Officer for several organizations in the field of Middle East and terrorism policy since 2006. He is a contributing author to “Saudi Arabia and the Global islamic Terrorist Network: America and the West’s Fatal Embrace,” and has written for numerous publications as well as briefed legislative aides, intelligence and law enforcement officials and the general public on national security issues.

USA Policy on Nigeria – See No Jihad, Hear No Jihad, Say No Jihad

J. Peter Pham PhD of the Atlantic Center; Emmanuel Ogebe of Jubilee; Anselm John-Miller of the Movement for Ogoni People; and Robin Renee Sanders former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria. Note the Nigerian Ambassador seated behind Mr. Ogebe. http://jubileecampaign.org/congressional-hearing-on-boko-haram-and-the-continued-violence-in-nigeria/

J. Peter Pham PhD of the Atlantic Center; Emmanuel Ogebe of Jubilee; Anselm John-Miller of the Movement for Ogoni People; and Robin Renee Sanders former U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria. Note the Nigerian Ambassador seated behind Mr. Ogebe. http://jubileecampaign.org/congressional-hearing-on-boko-haram-and-the-continued-violence-in-nigeria/

Obama Administration can find no jihad in murders and kidnappings in the name of Islam in Nigeria

By Andrew Harrod:

American Nigerian policy is to “see no jihad, hear no jihad, say no jihad,” the Nigerian human rights activist Emmanuel Ogebe from the Jubilee Campaign criticized in submitted testimony for a September 18 congressional hearing.  Along with Christian girls who escaped kidnapping by the jihadist group Boko Haram (BH), Ogebe and others at recent Washington, DC, briefings analyzed Nigeria’s bloody security crisis.

“Stop the denial,” Ogebe stated at the hearing while his prepared remarks criticized United States government agencies for blaming Nigerian conflict on socioeconomic grievances.  “Contrary to” this “recurring…narrative,” BH has “made amply and repeatedly clear” that it is an “Islamist insurgency” seeking an “Islamic Sharia state,” Ogebe wrote.  A BH video, for example, proclaimed “Jihad war against…Christianity…western education, democracy.”

The result is “possibly the worst on-going genocide against Christians” even as globally “Christianity is the most persecuted religion.” “More Christians were killed in Northern Nigeria in 2012 than the rest of the world,” for example, while official reports ranked BH the “second most deadly terrorist group in the world right below the Taliban.”  In total, BH has killed over “10,000 people since 2009, both Nigerian nationals and international victims…from over 15 nations—far more than ISIS, AL Qaeda and possibly the Taliban.”

BH has “not beheaded an American…not for want of trying,” given several abduction attempts in northern Nigeria.  “I want to cut White people,” BH leader Abubaker Shekau stated in a video shortly after the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq (ISIS) beheaded American journalist James Foley.  Several Americans, though, survived an August 26, 2011, BH bombing of United Nations’ Nigerian headquarters in the capital Abuja, including one recently identified.

BH’s “threat to not only Nigerian people but also the world” has a “well documented nexus with global jihad,” as shown by Nigerians captured fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary visiting Nigeria.  Groups like BH and ISIS globally “feed off each other,” as BH schoolgirl kidnappings have inspired ISIS sex slavery and BH has emulated ISIS’ caliphate declaration.  BH is “paralleling” ISIS atrocities, religious freedom expert Nina Shea seconded Ogebe on a September 19 Hudson Institute (HI) panel, with “clear confirmation” of BH Islamization in Nigeria under a “very brutal religious cleansing.”

“Starving refugees on mountaintops, towns overrun and their Christian population exterminated, children decapitated” characterize not just Iraq, but northern Nigeria, Ogebe wrote.  “Practically every ignoble deed” of ISIS “has been done by Boko Haram in the last three years.”  A “putative third world war” is occurring in an “incremental,” “retail,” or “franchise” manner or, as Pope Francis I recently declared, “piecemeal, with crimes, massacres, destruction.”  An “iron veil” in some countries has replaced the iron curtain’s tyranny, Ogebe assessed.  “We are all in this together,” Ogebe stated at HI given jihad’s global reach in countries like Iraq, Nigeria, and the Philippines.

“Violent Jihad is as Violent Jihad does” and “cannot be rationalized,” Ogebe’s congressional testimony criticized in assessing American attributions of BH violence to, for example, deprivation.  Nigeria is Africa’s wealthiest economy and BH bribes people from neighboring Niger to fight, Ogebe argued at a September 9 Rayburn House Office Building briefing.  The “good old days” before BH, in contrast, already exhibited Muslim animus against Nigerian Christians; Ogebe recalled a Christian student illegally forced to kneel in the sun while receiving Islamic instruction in a Muslim-majority area.  “Violent jihadist groups are never about an inclusive government,” Ogebe meanwhile qualifies American concerns about sectarianism in Iraq and Nigeria, “they are about an exclusive government.”

Yet “Violent Extremist Organization” or VEO, not jihadist, is the description for groups like BH in American training undergone by African military officers.  An equally anodyne “junket-filled tenure” marked America’s last Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom, Suzan Johnson Cook.  She covered a “record 27 countries in 29 months” with equal time in Nigeria and Ghana, a country with few religious freedom concerns.  While the presumptive presidential candidate Hillary Clinton “is playing to the gallery” now by calling BH terrorists, Ogebe noted on September 9, she resisted this designation as secretary of state.

Media such as the Wall Street Journal and American officials have often presented BH as equal opportunity killer. BH’s “campaign against all Nigerians,” for example, concerned Undersecretary of State Sarah Sewall at the September 18 hearing.  (Sewall also did not “have numbers in front of me” concerning Christianity as the world’s most persecuted faith and speculated that claims of more Christians killed in Nigeria in 2012 than the rest of the world “might not be accurate.”)  Yet BH only attacks Muslims “for cause” such as government collaboration in the midst of wholesale targeting of Christians.  Thus about 90% of the 276 schoolgirlskidnapped by BH on April 14 were Christian from Chibok, a specifically targeted majority-Christian community.

Read more at Religious Freedom Coalition

POLL: Americans reject “sugarcoating” of the threat from Islamic extremism

3271114909Center For Security Policy:

A new poll released by Kellyanne Conway’s The Polling Company finds that Islamic extremism is viewed as a threat to peace in the Middle East and home in the United States. There is near consensus that “the religious and ideological teachings of fundamental Islam extremists (not all) are the root cause of terror.”

Other key findings include:

  • “Security” is the dominant theme. Whether preceded by the words “financial,” “border,” or “national,” Americans have elevated safety and survival to top-of-list concerns
  • Familiarity with both “Jihad” and “Sharia law” fell short of actual knowledge, but Americans know enough to cause concern. With Americans paying renewed attention, the time is ripe for an information and education campaign
  • “Security Mom” has returned – if in fact she’d ever receded. Female focus on national security (and border security) is increasing and crystallizing
  • The power grid is seen as a vulnerable piece of the national infrastructure (83%), while a 44% plurality say that securing the grid is a top-three issue

See the embedded top line information and slide presentation at CSP or click on the links below to download a PDF version:

CSP Nationwide Survey – TOPLINE DATA – 9.27.2014

Nationwide_Survey_and Focus_Group_Findings_Conway_Sept201 [PDF]

Allen West speaks at National Security Action Summit II

Allen West Republic:

National Security Action Summit II 29.9.2014  – Allen West speaks on US military strategy in the new front against Islamic jihad.

Why U.S. Should Avoid Sending Its Ground Troops to Fight ISIS

US Navy U.S. Army Sgt. Mark Phiffer on guard duty near a burning oil well in the Rumaylah Oil Fields in Southern Iraq in 2003

US Navy U.S. Army Sgt. Mark Phiffer on guard duty near a burning oil well in the Rumaylah Oil Fields in Southern Iraq in 2003

BY RYAN MAURO:

A new poll shows that 45% of Americans would support sending ground troops to Iraq to defeat the Islamic State terrorist group (ISIS) and 37% are opposed. Despite the majority opinion that  boots are needed on the ground to uproot ISIS, but there are grave dangers for a strategy where those boots are American.

President Obama has ruled out a combat role for U.S. soldiers in Iraq, but the question is what constitutes a “combat role.” The Deputy National Security Advisor says a combat role is “where Americans are on the ground leading the fight.”

About 1,600 American troops have already been sent to protect diplomatic facilities and to advise the Iraqi and Kurdish forces. As I wrote when Obama’s Islamic State strategy was first announced, there’s a realistic possibility that these non-combat troops will find themselves in a combat situation.

The White House is open to the possibility that American advisors could be in “forward-deployed positions” to help Iraqis in combat without engaging in combat themselves. President Obama is understandably hesitant to take that step.

He rejected the advice of General Lloyd Austin, who leads the military in the region as commander of Central Command. Austin wanted a “modest” amount of troops, mostly special operations forces, to become advisors in the battlefield.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey,testified to Congress that requests for U.S. advisors to join Iraqi soldiers in combat were denied. However, President Obama told him that he’d consider each individual request. Meaning, he has not did not ruled it out.

It is unclear if raids on high-value targets by the CIA or military special operators qualify as a forbidden “combat role.”  It is very possible that a target like the Islamic State’s “caliph,” Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, could be located and sharing the intelligence with Iraqis deemed too risky. If an airstrike is not possible, then a raid must commence.

The Obama Administration is right in its avoidance of a military role in Iraq similar to what existed before December 2011 when the withdrawal was completed.

From the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003 to the ending of combat operations on August 31, 2010, a total of 4,409 U.S. troops and 13 Defense Department civilians were killed and 31,925 troops were injured.

Even after combat operations ended and Operation New Dawn took place from September 2010 to December 2011, 66 U.S. troops were killed and 295 were wounded. This does not count the psychological damage to the U.S. soldiers and the personal toll their families faced.

In addition to the prospective casualties, there are seven reasons to believe that such a role would not be worth the cost and could actually be counterproductive to the goal of destroying the Islamic State.

Read more at Clarion Project

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S 5 STRATEGIC MISTAKES IN THE WAR AGAINST ISIS

obama-hmm-APBreitbart, by DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA:

First it was 1991, then we returned in 2003. Today, it is 2014, and America is again at war in the Middle East–but now it is Syria and not just Iraq.

Despite decades’ worth of analysis followed by military actions, we are, as a nation, making cardinal mistakes once again. Given how different the enemy we face today is, these mistakes will likely have a strategic impact on the safety of all Americans.
In 1991, we deployed US forces to the Middle East to eject the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from the nation of Kuwait, which he had just invaded, and to stop him before he went further and destabilized the whole region.
In 2003, the Bush Administration decided that, after taking down the Taleban government in Afghanistan–which had harbored Osama bin Laden– and destroying Al Qaeda’s camps, Iraq would be next. The reasoning was twofold. Saddam was a brutal dictator and his replacement by a representative government could help stabilize the region. Second, Saddam was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) which could potentially be used against US targets. (Let us not open the issue of what happened to those weapons, given that even the United Nations chronicled Saddam’s use of WMD against Iran and even his own citizens, and also that almost every Democrat on Capitol Hill agreed that the evidence indicated that he had not gotten rid of his WMD capabilities.)
Now, America has returned to the region in force, but this time it faces a new type of threat. Not a rogue nation invading its neighbors, nor a fundamentalist government providing sanctuary to jihadist terrorists, but a jihadi threat that is on the verge of capturing a whole country and which has declared the re-establishment of the Caliphate, the theocratic empire of Islam.
Despite our experience with the region and the missions of the last 13 years since the horrific attacks of September 2001, the administration is making five crucial mistakes as it deploys our brave men and women to the war-zone once more:
ISIS – or more correctly: The Islamic State (IS), since it changed its name recently – is not just a terrorist group like Al Qaeda. With the influx of thousands of foreign fighters, the US weapons it has captured, and the obvious charisma of its leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, IS is now a true insurgency, meaning it controls territory in daylight. In fact, the most recent estimate is that The Islamic State now controls a combined area of Syria and Iraq larger that the landmass of the United Kingdom. In no way it is a “JV team.” As a result the current “counterterrorism” approach of the government will by definition prove inadequate.
Never in the history of modern warfare has an insurgency been defeated by airpower. This is not a state-actor enemy with static targets which can be pummeled from the sky. It is an unconventional threat group which is hyper-mobile. After several days of bombings, IS will simply retreat into areas we cannot target from the air, such as heavily populated towns or cities. Such enemies can be defeated, but only if we use the Foreign Internal Defense (FID) model developed by US Special Forces, the “Green Berets,” under which local ground assets take the fight to the jihadists with a proportionally small number of US units acting as special advisers and providers of unique capabilities and intelligence platforms.
The Islamic State is already in a league all of its own and represents a new level of threat which far exceeds al Qaeda (AQ) and which will not be vanquished by the methods the Bush and Obama administrations have used against AQ. By all measures, IS has outdone al Qaeda. From the number of Westerners it has recruited– including women– to the amount of money it has, to its sophisticated use of social media for propaganda purposes, it has proven itself to be the jihadist movement al Qaeda always dreamt of being but never was.
Treating the Islamic State as the problem misses the central nature of the jihadi threat, the fact that it is global. Whether the group is called ISIS or IS, or it is the al Nusra Front in Syria, or Al Shabaab in North Africa, or Boko Haram in Nigeria, these are all one and the same threat. Every member of each of these groups– and the hundreds of other groups fighting in theaters as dispersed geographically as Chechnya or the Philippines– believes exactly the same thing: that they are the best Muslims, true warriors of Allah, and the West is un-Islamic and must be destroyed so a new theocratic empire of Islam can be re-established and expand to cover the world. Focusing on one threat at a time– al Qaeda, then ISIS, and then the next one– will only mean we will be fighting such groups for decades if not centuries.
Given the last point, it is clear that The Islamic State is simply the manifestation of a problem, not the cause of the problem itself. The disease which links all the aforementioned threat groups – which are symptoms – is the ideology of Global Jihad. It is the narrative of Holy War which unites bin Laden to the Boston Bombers, which unites the Boston Bombers to al Baghdadi. One cannot defeat an ideology with bombing runs. You can’t even destroy it with boots on the ground. The final victory against a totalitarian ideology – as in WWII, or even the Cold War – can only come when one discredits the enemy’s message, when you delegitimize his narrative. Unfortunately, with his recent speech to the United Nations, in which he compared the problems of the Middle East to the shooting of a suspected shoplifter in Ferguson, Missouri, the President once more reinforced the administration line that ideology is irrelevant to the threat we all face today.
To quote a British specialist on Islamist radicalism, writing recently on the utter failure of the British approach to jihadism: “it is also unclear if a state or society can win an ideology-based conflict if it ceases defending, advocating, believing in, and seeking to spread its own ideals.”
Can one win this type of war if you do not believe America is an exceptional nation?

Sebastian Gorka, Ph.D., is the Matthew C. Horner Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University and the National Security and Foreign Affairs Editor for Breitbart News. You can follow him at @SebGorka.

For more on the global threat of radical Islam, please watch Dr. Gorka’s Presentation to the ICT 9/11 World Summit on Counterterrorism: ISIS: Jihad 2.0 below:

Why Obama Can’t Say His Spies Underestimated ISIS

1411957280530.cached
Daily Beast, by Eli Lake, 9/28/14:
On ‘60 Minutes,’ the president faulted his spies for failing to predict the rise of ISIS. There’s one problem with that statement: The intelligence analysts did warn about the group.
Nearly eight months ago, some of President Obama’s senior intelligence officials were already warning that ISIS was on the move. In the beginning of 2014, ISIS fighters had defeated Iraqi forces in Fallujah, leading much of the U.S. intelligence community to assess they would try to take more of Iraq.

But in an interview that aired Sunday evening, the president told 60 Minutes that the rise of the group now proclaiming itself a caliphate in territory between Syria and Iraq caught the U.S. intelligence community off guard. Obama specifically blamed James Clapper, the current director of national intelligence: “Our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that, I think, they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” he said.

Reached by The Daily Beast after Obama’s interview aired, one former senior Pentagon official who worked closely on the threat posed by Sunni jihadists in Syria and Iraq was flabbergasted. “Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting,” the former official said.

Clapper did tell The Washington Post’s David Ignatius this month that he underestimated the will of the ISIS fighters in Iraq and overestimated the ability of Iraq’s security forces in northern Iraq to counter ISIS. (He also said his analysts warned about the “prowess and capability” of the group.)

Still, other senior intelligence officials have been warning about ISIS for months. In prepared testimony before the annual House and Senate intelligence committees’ threat hearings in January and February, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, the recently departed director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said the group would likely make a grab for land before the end of the year. ISIS “probably will attempt to take territory in Iraq and Syria to exhibit its strength in 2014, as demonstrated recently in Ramadi and Fallujah, and the group’s ability to concurrently maintain multiple safe havens in Syria,” he said.

The ability of ISIS to hold that territory will depend on its “resources, local support, as well as the responses of [Iraqi security forces] and other opposition groups in Syria,” Flynn added. He noted that while many Sunnis likely opposed ISIS, “some Sunni tribes and insurgent groups appear willing to work tactically with [ISIS] as they share common anti-government goals.”

Flynn was not alone. Clapper himself in that hearing warned that the three most effective jihadist groups in Syria—one of which he said was ISIS—presented a threat as a magnet for attracting foreign fighters. John Brennan, Obama’s CIA director, said he thought both ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda’s formal franchise in Syria, presented a threat to launch external operations against the West.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said February 4 that because of areas of Syria that are “beyond the regime’s control or that of the moderate opposition,” a “major concern” was “the establishment of a safe haven, and the real prospect that Syria could become a launching point or way station for terrorists seeking to attack the United States or other nations.”

*********

Also see:

**********

 Brit Hume’s Spot On Commentary regarding Barack Obama’s Underestimation of ISIS.

Published on Sep 29, 2014 by RightSightings2

Emerson with Judge Jeanine: The Jihadists in Oklahoma and the Obama Administration’s Blinders on Islamic Extremism

 

by Steven Emerson
Interview on Fox News
September 28, 2014

Judge Jeanine Pirro: And with me now the founder of the Investigative Project, Steve Emerson. All right Steve, welcome. A great night for you to be on. Alton Nolen’s Facebook page. You’ve seen it. What does it tell you about him and what his intentions are?

Steve Emerson: His Facebook page is replete with statements, pictures that emphatically reveal his allegiance to radical Islam, his hatred of the United States, his support of 9/11 attacks, his support of killing Americans, his support of Osama bin Laden. It’s a road map to his affiliation and his support to radical Islam. It’s proof of the fact that he’s a jihadist.

Judge Jeanine: So when you say that he has the markings of a jihadist, tell us why.

Emerson: Let me add a couple of other things here. Not only does the Facebook page prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt [that he was a jihadist], but the fact that his computers that were seized by law enforcement show that the websites he visited also revealed that he was looking at radical websites that were radical Islamic websites going for the killing of Americans. He was converted in jail to be a radical Muslim. The first step that is done by jihadists to prove, after when they start converting people, which he was doing, after he was released from jail, to prove that they can carry out acts of terrorism. So I’m looking at a scenario here, we don’t know, let me say Jeanine, what actually prompted him to pop. He was fired from his job. We don’t know that he was carrying out this beheading as a jihadist or that he was carrying it out because he was fired. But he carried it out as a jihadist in a jihadist manner, a decapitation which is an Islamic way.

But this guy was a ticking time bomb and I’m positive in saying this. That if he didn’t carry out this attack now at this point he would have done it in the future. And there are tens of thousands of others like him lurking outside, in the United States who haven’t done this but are jihadists and are just waiting to do it. And that’s the problem. Because as you know as a judge, you need a criminal predicate in order to charge somebody. Just because they express their support for jihad and willingness to kill, you can’t charge them, you can’t open up an investigation.

Judge Jeanine: Of course not, but Steve let me say that it is the intent, it’s the circumstances surrounding the crime both before and after that give us some sense of what the individual was thinking. And I think for the American people they’re wondering if this is a carrying out of a jihadi, a lone wolf carrying out his own jihad or if this is something bigger than that. But make no mistake Steve, this guy is imprisoned and actually tried to escape from detention and did escape. He was charged with assaulting an officer. He just got out of state prison. And we’re going to talk a little later in the show about the radicalization of some of our inmates to Islam based upon what they’re learning in prison. But with this case, how do we know whether or not his trying to recruit other people to join Islam is indicative f his being a jihadist?

Emerson: Well first of all there were profiles done [by the FBI and CIA] a couple years ago about Muslim inmates who are converted to Islam and what they actually do in prison and what they do after they get out of prison. The first thing they do out of prison in order to prove their loyalty to Islam is to actually try to convert people to Islam to prove that they are true Muslims. The second thing they do after they prove that is to do other steps [that prove they can be trusted to carry out terrorist acts]. I believe this [current situation] is going to lead to other people involved, [like] somebody who was running this guy frankly.

Number two, I believe that if we find out that he popped or that he carried out this killing because he was angry about being fired, [that] if he wasn’t fired he would have [ultimately] carried out…[sometime] else, a jihadist killing, because he was a radical jihadist that believed in killing Americans. And frankly Jeanine, there are tens of thousands of others like him in this country. I have no doubt that we are going to see other things like this, like are going on around the world. We are entering a global jihad. And the fact is this administration, the Attorney General, the White House, they have banned the use of the term ‘Islamic terrorism.’ He, [the] Attorney General who is retiring should be tried on obstruction of justice because I can tell you, [and] this is not publicly known, he has quashed the indictments of terrorist charges against known terrorist charities because he didn’t want to alienate Islamic communities in the US.

Judge Jeanine: I wish I had more time Steve to talk to you about that. Steve Emerson, thanks so much for being with us this evening.

Emerson: You’re welcome.

Qatar: A backer of international jihad terror from Nigeria to Gaza to Syria and Iraq

qatar_awareness_campaign_logo

To the American Public:

In light of the wars and violent turbulence that currently engulf the Middle East and parts of Africa, a coalition of concerned citizens, journalists, and activists are launching a campaign to expose a most infamous and pernicious sponsor of Islamic terror: the Gulf state of Qatar.

Qatar, (pronounced “cutter,” or “gutter”), is, per capita, the richest country in the world ($93,352 in 2013).  This is partly due to the fact that they control the third largest natural gas reserves in the world, the North Dome field in the Persian Gulf.  It is also because Qatar has a mere 278,000 citizens, with a total population of 2.05 million; the remaining people in Qatar are a mix of well-paid ex-pats from countries such as the United States and Great Britain, and a substantial slave labor population.

A backer of international terror from Nigeria to Gaza to Syria and Iraq, the Qatari ruling family, the al-Thanis, exploit Islamic jihadi groups and their ties to illicit smuggling.

What is being smuggled?  Mostly narcotics and people – slaves.

Unfortunately, the United States is integrated into the Qatari “economy” as much as any other developed nation.  Doha, Qatar’s capital, is home to two of the largest American military bases in the entire world, as well as familiar companies like ExxonMobil, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin.  Doha also hosts a number of campuses for prestigious American universities, such as Georgetown, Carnegie Mellon, and Cornell.  Other companies and organizations, ranging from the film production company Miramax to financial behemoths like Bank of America, have accepted significant amounts of investment by the al-Thanis.

Hamas, a Qatari client, launched a war against Israel this summer.  There is an ongoing genocide across Iraq and Syria, with mass graves and grisly beheadings of Christians and Shiite Muslims.  Boko Haram continues to rampage across Nigeria, threatening the political stability of Africa’s largest economy and population.  Qatari fingerprints are on each of crises.

Over the course of the next month, companies, organizations, and individuals with significant investments and activities with and in Qatar will be identified and contacted with the reality of their host country.  These letters, once published, will be sent to press outlets around the world.

We call on the parties identified in this campaign to review the evidence, which is all credibly sourced and vetted.  In light of the terror, slavery, genocide, and narcotics trafficking, we urge the parties to demand that Qatar immediately cease any and all involvement in these activities.

Sincerely,

Robert Spencer
Jihad Watch

Pamela Geller
Atlas Shrugs

Lt. Col. Allen B. West (US Army, Ret)
AllenBWest.com

Walid Shoebat
Shoebat.com

Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret)
Chairman, Stand Up America

Charles Ortel
Washington Times

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Center for Security Policy

**

& the entire Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition.

Qatar Research Report: http://www.stopqatarnow.com/p/research-report.html
Sign the Petition! Visit www.stopqatarnow.com
Facebook: Stop Qatar Now
Twitter: @stopqatarnow

** Select signatures as of 9/27. The Qatar Awareness Campaign Coalition is comprised of more than 25 journalists, national security experts, publishers, and independent researchers. To view all Coalition participants, please visit the Campaign’s website.

PIRRO: ISLAMIC TERRORISM ‘NOT JUST A THREAT, IT IS A REALITY’

Published on Sep 27, 2014 by RightSightings2

 

Breitbart, Sep. 27, 2014:

The Fox News Channel’s “Justice with Judge Jeanine” anchor Judge Jeanine Pirro declared Islamist terrorism was “not just a threat, it is a reality,” and argued the US must do more to fight it on Saturday.

“What this country faces is not just a threat, it is a reality. No longer free and easy or live and let live, and now you must adapt to this frightening new reality. To them we’re the Great Satan. To them we’re the infidel, and them includes now-radicalized Americans, arrested here as lone wolves. One charged with the killing of four Americans. Last week in Australia, a plot to horrify and shock the public with planned beheadings, and this week an Oklahoma man beheads a woman, completely decapitates her, and then he’s in the midst of attacking yet another woman with a knife when he is stopped. That man, 30-year-old Alton Nolen, a recent convert to Islam. Now Nolen visited a mosque whose former leader reportedly had ties with al Qaeda mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki” she stated.

Pirro argued that the US must take aggressive action against Islamic extremism, saying “until we put the Fear of God in them, they’re going to keep coming. We can’t negotiate with them, we can’t trade with them. We can’t let them out of Guantanamo. In fact, even Guantanamo is too good for them, and I don’t personally care what the rest of the world thinks of us. Until we get this country back on track with our military superiority, the hallmark of a strong and a free nation, then our enemies will continue to attack us as lone wolves or as legion.”

She further expressed that one of the key steps to combatting radical Islamic terrorism is to acknowledge that Islamic extremism exists “we can start by calling things what they are. when a Ft. Hood shooter guns down his fellow soldiers yelling ‘Allahu Akbar’ with a business card that says ‘soldier of Allah,’ and who communicated with that same al-Awlaki, it’s not workplace violence, it’s terrorism, and he’s a terrorist. And I don’t want to hear the acting head of the CIA tell me that he took the word ‘Islamic’ out from in front of the word ‘extremist’ because he didn’t want to inflame passions. And I don’t want the word ‘jihad’ scrubbed from the FBI training manuals. And I don’t want to hear that ISIS is not an Islamic State any more than the USA is not the United States of America, or that we’re not states, or that we’re not united. And I’m tired of taking outside ads to apologize to other religions while our government drags and sues the Little Sisters of the Poor to the United States Supreme Court for simply expressing their religious beliefs. I’m tired of the charades.”

Other recommendations given by Pirro to fight Islamic terrorism were closing the borders, stripping citizenship, implementing anti-terrorism technology that measures things such body temperature and blood pressure used by the Israelis, and ending gun control so that Americans can defend themselves against violent terrorists in the same way Mark Vaughan stopped Alton Nolen’s attack with a firearm.

The Khorosan Group Does Not Exist

pic_giant_092714_SM_Barack-Obama-Khorasan-Group-GBy Andrew C. McCarthy:

We’re being had. Again.

For six years, President Obama has endeavored to will the country into accepting two pillars of his alternative national-security reality. First, he claims to have dealt decisively with the terrorist threat, rendering it a disparate series of ragtag jayvees. Second, he asserts that the threat is unrelated to Islam, which is innately peaceful, moderate, and opposed to the wanton “violent extremists” who purport to act in its name.

Now, the president has been compelled to act against a jihad that has neither ended nor been “decimated.” The jihad, in fact, has inevitably intensified under his counterfactual worldview, which holds that empowering Islamic supremacists is the path to security and stability. Yet even as war intensifies in Iraq and Syria — even as jihadists continue advancing, continue killing and capturing hapless opposition forces on the ground despite Obama’s futile air raids — the president won’t let go of the charade.

Hence, Obama gives us theKhorosan Group.The who?

There is a reason that no one had heard of such a group until a nanosecond ago, when the “Khorosan Group” suddenly went from anonymity to the “imminent threat” that became the rationale for an emergency air war there was supposedly no time to ask Congress to authorize.

You haven’t heard of the Khorosan Group because there isn’t one. It is a name the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the –Iranian–​Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.

The “Khorosan Group” is al-Qaeda. It is simply a faction within the global terror network’s Syrian franchise, “Jabhat al-Nusra.” Its leader, Mushin al-Fadhli (believed to have been killed in this week’s U.S.-led air strikes), was an intimate of Ayman al-Zawahiri, the emir of al-Qaeda who dispatched him to the jihad in Syria. Except that if you listen to administration officials long enough, you come away thinking that Zawahiri is not really al-Qaeda, either. Instead, he’s something the administration is at pains to call “core al-Qaeda.”

“Core al-Qaeda,” you are to understand, is different from “Jabhat al-Nusra,” which in turn is distinct from “al-Qaeda in Iraq” (formerly “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia,” now the “Islamic State” al-Qaeda spin-off that is, itself, formerly “al-Qaeda in Iraq and al-Sham” or “al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant”). That al-Qaeda, don’t you know, is a different outfit from al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula . . . which, of course, should never be mistaken for “al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb,” “Boko Haram,” “Ansar al-Sharia,” or the latest entry, “al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent.”

Coming soon, “al-Qaeda on Hollywood and Vine.” In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if, come 2015, Obama issued an executive order decreeing twelve new jihad jayvees stretching from al-Qaeda in January through al-Qaeda in December.

Except you’ll hear only about the jayvees, not the jihad. You see, there is a purpose behind this dizzying proliferation of names assigned to what, in reality, is a global network with multiple tentacles and occasional internecine rivalries.

As these columns have long contended, Obama has not quelled our enemies; he hasminiaturized them. The jihad and the sharia supremacism that fuels it form the glue that unites the parts into a whole — a worldwide, ideologically connected movement rooted in Islamic scripture that can project power on the scale of a nation-state and that seeks to conquer the West. The president does not want us to see the threat this way.

For a product of the radical Left like Obama, terrorism is a regrettable but understandable consequence of American arrogance. That it happens to involve Muslims is just the coincidental fallout of Western imperialism in the Middle East, not the doctrinal command of a belief system that perceives itself as engaged in an inter-civilizational conflict. For the Left, America has to be the culprit. Despite its inbred pathologies, which we had no role in cultivating, Islam must be the victim, not the cause. As you’ll hear from Obama’s Islamist allies, who often double as Democrat activists, the problem is “Islamophobia,” not Muslim terrorism.

This is a gross distortion of reality, so the Left has to do some very heavy lifting to pull it off. Since the Islamic-supremacist ideology that unites the jihadists won’t disappear, it has to be denied and purged. The “real” jihad becomes the “internal struggle to become a better person.” The scriptural and scholarly underpinnings of Islamic supremacism must be bleached out of the materials used to train our national-security agents, and the instructors who resist going along with the program must be ostracized. The global terror network must be atomized into discrete, disconnected cells moved to violence by parochial political or territorial disputes, with no overarching unity or hegemonic ambition. That way, they can be limned as a manageable law-enforcement problem fit for the courts to address, not a national-security challenge requiring the armed forces.

The president has been telling us for years that he handled al-Qaeda by killing bin Laden. He has been telling us for weeks that the Islamic State — an al-Qaeda renegade that will soon reconcile with the mother ship for the greater good of unity in the anti-American jihad — is a regional nuisance that posed no threat to the United States. In recent days, however, reality intruded on this fiction. Suddenly, tens of thousands of terrorists, armed to the teeth, were demolishing American-trained armies, beheading American journalists, and threatening American targets.

Read more at National Review

**********

Cultural Jihad did some fact checking:

 

  •   A Wikipedia check showed entries and sources no older than September 2014
  •  The group is not listed by the Dept of State as a designated terrorist organization
  •  The group’s reported leader, Muhsin al-Fadhli is listed on the National Counter-terrorism website as part of  al-Qaeda but no mention of  a Khorosan/Khurasan Group.