Iran, Russia Scooping Up Disgruntled U.S. Allies

A U.S. Apache helicopter in flight

A U.S. Apache helicopter in flight

BY RYAN MAURO:

The Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. and a major pro-American Iraqi political leader are voicing their frustration with a lack of counter-terrorism assistance from the U.S.

Former Prime Minister Allawi says a Russian “crescent” has developed over the region and blasted America’s treatment of Iran.

The Iraqi government has requested U.S. military assistance in combating the Islamic State (formerly known as  ISIS) terrorist group that controls significant parts of Iraq and Syria. The Obama Administration has sent about 750 advisors to Iraq. The Iraqis are requesting military equipment and airstrikes, not combat forces.

Iran and Russia are moving in to fill the void. The Iranian regime is ramping up covert operations in support of Prime Minister al-Maliki, and Russia has provided fighter jets and reportedly even pilots.

Ayad Allawi, Iraq’s interim Prime Minister from 2004 to 2005, is widely regarded as one of the most pro-American figures in the country. He is a Shiite, but his secular orientation and staunch opposition to Iran has made him well-liked by Sunnis. His cross-sectarian bloc won the most votes in the 2010 elections.

His voice is precisely the kind we need to be listening to. And he does not speak well of current U.S. policy:

“U.S. policy has been without [a] compass and sailed in rough seas, which the United States helped make rough—whether intentionally or unintentionally, the result in the same,” Allawi said.

He specifically cited the U.S. backing of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in 2010, even though his coalition won the most votes. He cited it as “further evidence of the U.S. disarray, as is siding with Iran.”

Allawi has previously asserted that the U.S. and Iran backed his rival. His account is backed up by Ali Khedery, the longest continuously serving U.S. official in Iraq.

“Many now doubt [American] abilities and whether it has a clear orientation,” Allawi explains.

Read more at Clarion Project

The Palestinian Authority’s Cash for Killers Program: US Funding Palestinian Terrorists?

StakelbackTerror_BlogThe Watchman, By Erick Stakelbeck:

As Israel continues its defensive action to protect its citizens and eliminate Hamas rocket barrages out of Gaza, remember that Mahmoud Abbas, who the Obama administration continues to trumpet as a “man of peace,” recently forged a unity government with Hamas. Yet this should have come as no surprise, as Abbas is no stranger to terror.

His Palestinian Authority has long provided generous salaries to terrorists convicted of murdering Israelis.

And those PA terrorist salaries are paid for, in part, by U. S. taxpayers.

If We Want to Beat Al Qaeda, We Have to Stop Arming It

23by Daniel Greenfield:

Obama’s call for $500 million to arm and train Syrian Jihadist fighters couldn’t have possibly come at a more inappropriate time as Al Qaeda in Iraq menaces both countries.

It wasn’t the Iraq War that made the Al Qaeda affiliate so dangerous. In 2008 it specialized in suicide bombings. It wasn’t marching on Baghdad with an army behind it.

The Arab Spring destabilized the region while money, weapons and recruits poured into Libya and Syria. Obama’s regime change war in Libya led not only to the takeover of entire Libyan cities by Al Qaeda, culminating in the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, but to an Al Qaeda affiliate seizing much of neighboring Mali. Libyan terror training camps also led to an attack on the Amenas gas plant in Algeria.

Three Americans were killed in that attack bringing the US death toll from Obama’s Libyan War up to seven.

But that was last year. This year it’s the Syrian Civil War that turned its local Al Qaeda affiliates into breakout Jihadi stars seizing entire cities and terrorizing the region.

Obama’s solution is to direct money intended for counterterrorism partnerships to terrorists in Syria.

This may be one of the worst ideas that he has ever come up with. Attempts to control the flow of weapons likely played a role in the Benghazi attacks. NATO forces enforcing an arms embargo on Libya had been told to ignore Qatari weapons shipments that were meant for “moderates”.

Instead they went to Al Qaeda.

Obama and Kerry, not to mention Graham and McCain, believe that weapons can be directed to “moderate” Syrian groups and that by arming the “good” terrorists, we’ll stop the “bad” terrorists.

But there are no “good” terrorists. Promises of delivering weapons only to “pre-vetted” groups are worth as much as Obama’s assurances that Al Qaeda was on the run and that ISIS is only a jayvee team.

Kerry met with Ahmad al-Jarba, the President of the Syrian National Coalition. Al-Jarba said that $500 million wouldn’t be enough and demanded more weapons. Meanwhile Al-Jarba was feuding with Ahmad Tohme, the Prime Minister of the SNC’s fictional government. Tohme had attempted to disband the Supreme Military Council over corruption charges while firing the head of the Free Syrian Army.

None of this really matters because the SNC is a puppet regime with many puppet masters and no puppets. The Syrian front men for the Saudis, Qataris, the Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey and other factions are constantly firing each other. Their Free Syrian Army is a label stamped on a bunch of Islamist militias, many of whom openly support Al Qaeda.

Four out of five of the FSA’s front commanders had demanded to work with Al Qaeda last year. Parts of the FSA joined the Islamic Front and seized the FSA’s weapons warehouses taking anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. The FSA fighters fled. Earlier ISIS had seized USAID items intended for the FSA.

After these embarrassments Obama was forced to temporarily suspend aid to the Free Syrian Army.

A senior Al Qaeda terrorist who answered to Ayman Al-Zawahiri was a leading figure in the Islamic Front through Ahrar al Sham, which operated alongside the FSA, until he was killed in an attack by ISIS. Ahrar al Sham had a powerful role in the Supreme Military Council through Deputy Chief of Staff Abdel-basset Tawil.

The FSA, to the extent that it exists, consists of bearded Salafist fighters and commanders in the field and “moderate” leaders in suits in Qatar and Turkey who usually never set foot in Syria. They obtain weapons and money from the West for Jihadists who are much less camera friendly.

Groups such as Liwa al Ummah choose to affiliate with the FSA even while they continue fighting alongside the Al Nusra Front. Experts label some Syrian Jihadist groups as moderate and others as extremist, but the “moderates” and “extremists” fly the black flag of Jihad and fight for an Islamic state.

Pre-vetting the groups means nothing because names like the Free Syrian Army or the Supreme Military Council are only fronts for outside interests. Even the names of the individual militias are often meaningless because new groups and new umbrella groups are constantly being created and dissolved.  Fighters and commanders move from one group to another taking their weapons with them.

Keeping track of the various pseudonyms used by the commanders is already a full time job. It is often impossible to tell whether two Jihadist commanders with the same pseudonym are even the same person. Figuring out the relationship between various groups means depending on intelligence from those groups and various activists on the ground who all have their own alliances and agendas.

No meaningful vetting is possible under these circumstances and supplying weapons to “pre-vetted” groups is as good as supplying them to Al Qaeda. Supplying weapons to pre-vetted groups only  means that it will take longer for those weapons to reach Al Qaeda through barter, alliance or capture.

And even if the weapons don’t end up with Al Qaeda, they will go to Salafist groups that share its goals. The difference is that those have not yet officially declared war on us. That same false sense of security led to the murder of four Americans in Benghazi.

Read more at Front Page

Video: Robert Spencer and Michael Coren on the jihad in Iraq

By Robert Spencer:

On my regular weekly Jihad Watch segment on Michael’s Sun TV program, we discussed the jihad in Iraq and the Obama Administration’s naivete regarding the Muslim Brotherhood.

Video thanks to AlohaSnackbar01.

In Egypt, Kerry has sympathetic words for Muslim Brotherhood. Whose side is he on?

javadi20130815073631807-300x180by Allen West:

I’ve asked the question before and continue to ask, whose side is the Obama administration — if not all Democrats — on? According to Foxnews.com, “In a hastily-organized trip marked by extraordinarily tight security, Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Egypt on Sunday, embarking on a weeklong tour of Middle Eastern and European capitals where he will try to rally support for the embattled central government in Iraq.”

Wait a minute — I thought it was up to the Iraqi government to figure this little situation out for themselves? ISIS marches on and Shiite clerics are threatening the United States of America, all the while Iran is poised to become a regional hegemony. And the Obama administration hints that it’s willing to work with Iran to resolve the crisis in Iraq. Confused yet? So far lots of talk and declarations, but nothing to halt the advance of a radical Islamist army.

But what really alarmed me were these words from a Kerry aide:

“We do not share the view of the Egyptian government about links between the Muslim Brothers and terrorist groups like ISIS [the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq]. [Egyptian leaders] need to include, and find ways to reach out to, the Muslim Brothers. … With regard to the challenge that the Muslim Brothers pose, I would characterize it more as a political challenge than a security challenge.”

Lunacy, pure unadulterated lunacy and this is what we’re sending to represent the United States? This is naiveté and incompetence but the more frightening prospect is collusion and complicity.

Read more 

Don’t Blame Bush for Al Qaeda in Iraq, Blame Obama

lk-450x337by Daniel Greenfield:

Like Birkenstocks and ironic t-shirts, blaming Bush has never gone out of style on the left. When Al Qaeda’s resurgence in Iraq became so obvious that even the media, which had been pretending that Obama’s claims about a successful withdrawal were true, could no longer ignore them, their talking points were all lined up and ready.

It was all Bush’s fault.

Defenses of the war by pivotal figures like Dick Cheney and Tony Blair only enraged them further. “Why wouldn’t they admit it was all their fault?”

But the left’s lazy talking points about Iraq, like their talking points about the economy, ignore everything that has happened since 2008.

The leading factor behind the resurgence of Al Qaeda in Iraq didn’t come from Iraq. It came from Syria.

From the “Islamic State of Iraq” under Bush to the ”Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant” under Obama, it’s all in the name. The variations of ISIS and ISIL show a regional shift toward Syria. Al Qaeda in Iraq was a vicious terrorist organization before the Arab Spring, but it was not capable of menacing Baghdad with a sizable army while crushing numerically superior forces along the way.

That didn’t happen in Iraq. It happened in Syria.

If you believe liberal supporters of Obama and opponents of the Iraq War, regime change in Iraq disastrously destabilized the region, but regime change in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen and Syria didn’t.

But the theory that turned Al Qaeda into a regional monster didn’t come from Dick Cheney. It came from Obama’s Presidential Study Directive 11 which helped pave the way for the Arab Spring. The definitive speech that opened the gates of hell wasn’t Bush’s speech on Iraq, but Obama’s Cairo speech.

That speech and the policy implemented with it led to the fall of allied governments and the rise of Islamist militias aligned with Al Qaeda. The Arab Spring was a regime change operation on a much larger scale than the Iraq War. Unlike the Iraq War, it was completely unsupervised and uncontrolled.

And it favored America’s enemies from the very outset.

ISIS picked up its weapons and manpower as a consequence of the conflicts in Libya and Syria. Obama chose to fight on the side of Al Qaeda in Libya. That led to the murder of four Americans in Benghazi after Islamic militias took over major cities.

Obama chose to facilitate the smuggling of weapons to Islamic militias by Qatar and other Gulf states. The White House endorsed the weapons smuggling, but then claimed to be surprised that the weapons were going to “more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam” fighters.

The White House didn’t shut down the smuggling operation. Instead a senior official claimed not to be able to control the Qataris; not to mention the Saudis, Kuwaitis and the rest of the state-sponsored terrorism gang.

After Libya many of the fighters and weapons went to Syria where different factions of Al Qaeda were battling it out with the Syrian government and each other. And some of those weapons didn’t just end up in Syria.

Read more at Front Page

Judge Jeanine: Obama ‘Didn’t Have The Balls’ To Try Terrorists In Gitmo

 

Truth Revolt, by  Caleb Howe:

This weekend, Judge Jeanine let loose on President Obama over Iraq in a brutal opening statement that called him out over numerous foreign policy failures. The Judge said he thinks of himself as a war hero, but that in reality terrorism has increased dramatically during his tenure and that he released terrorists he was too afraid to prosecute.

“You just keep letting these guys out. Like the Bergdahl trade and the five terrorists you didn’t have the balls to try in Gitmo or federal court.  You are simply clueless. A paper tiger who only knows how to cut and run.”

Jeanine also blasts the President over the capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala, much bragged about on the left and in the mainstream press as a major Obama victory.

“So now that your numbers are in the tank – 54% say you’re not able to lead, you have a 41% job approval rating, 37% foreign policy approval – you now pick up the ringleader of that Benghazi massacre? Our special forces now arrest Khattala? Wow. The guy was in plain sight for two years, interviewed by the New York Times, the London Times, CBS, CNN, Reuters, and Fox. We all found him. We all chatted with him. And as American drones flew overhead, he flips them the bird.

So why two years? Why did you wait? Could it be, Mr. President, that if you arrested him sooner he could have debunked that ‘despicable video’ theory? You know, the one you all lied about?”

The Judge said Obama is creating a “danger zone for all Americans,” echoing remarks from last week that we should all be worried. She closed by saying Americans have good reason not to trust President Obama, and that he doesn’t really know who the enemy is.

“You are playing a very dangerous game,” says the Judge, “for which you are ill-prepared. And it is the American people who will suffer.”

US document reveals cooperation between Washington and Brotherhood

ohm2Gulf News, June 18, 2014: (H/T Halal Pork Shop)

Dubai: For the past decade, two successive US administrations have maintained close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria and Libya, to name just the most prominent cases.

The Obama administration conducted an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2010 and 2011, beginning even before the events known as the “Arab Spring” erupted in Tunisia and in Egypt. The President personally issued Presidential Study Directive 11 (PSD-11) in 2010, ordering an assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood and other “political Islamist” movements, including the ruling AKP in Turkey, ultimately concluding that the United States should shift from its longstanding policy of supporting “stability” in the Middle East and North Africa (that is, support for “stable regimes” even if they were authoritarian), to a policy of backing “moderate” Islamic political movements.

To this day, PSD-11 remains classified, in part because it reveals an embarrassingly naïve and uninformed view of trends in the Middle East and North Africa (Mena) region.

The revelations were made by Al Hewar centre in Washington, DC, which obtained the documents in question.

Through an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit, thousands of pages of documentation of the US State Department’s dealings with the Muslim Brotherhood are in the process of being declassified and released to the public.

US State Department documents obtained under the FOIA confirm that the Obama administration maintained frequent contact and ties with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood. At one point, in April 2012, US officials arranged for the public relations director of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammad Gaair, to come to Washington to speak at a conference on “Islamists in Power” hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

A State Department Cable classified “Confidential” report says the following: “Benghazi Meeting With Libyan Muslim Brotherhood: On April 2 [2012] Mission Benghazi met with a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood steering committee, who will speak at the April 5 Carnegie Endowment `Islamist in Power’ conference in Washington, D.C. He described the Muslim Brotherhood’s decision to form a political party as both an opportunity and an obligation in post-revolution Libya after years of operating underground. The Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction Party would likely have a strong showing in the upcoming elections, he said, based on the strength of the Brotherhood’s network in Libya, its broad support, the fact that it is a truly national party, and that 25 per cent of its members were women. He described the current relationship between the Brotherhood and the TNC (Transitional National Council) as `lukewarm.’”

Another State Department paper marked “Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU)” contained talking points for Deputy Secretary of State William Burns’ scheduled July 14, 2012 meeting with Mohammad Sawan, the Muslim Brotherhood leader who was also head of the Brotherhood’s Justice and Construction Party. The document is heavily redacted, but nevertheless provides clear indication of Washington’s sympathies for the emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood as a major political force in the post-Gaddafi Libya. The talking points recommended that Secretary Burns tell Sawan that the US government entities “share your party’s concerns in ensuring that a comprehensive transitional justice process is undertaken to address past violations so that they do not spark new discontent.”

The Burns paper described the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood: “Prior to last year’s revolution, the Muslim Brotherhood was banned for over three decades and its members were fiercely pursued by the Gaddafi regime. The Libyan Muslim Brotherhood (LMB) returned to Libya last year after years in exile in Europe and the United States, selected new leadership and immediately began to plan for an active role in Libya’s political future.” After a redacted section, the document continued, “The LMB-affiliated Justice and Construction party, led by Misratan and former political prisoner under Gaddafi Mohammad Sawan, was created in March 2012. Sawan himself was not a candidate in the elections but wields significant influence as the head of the largest political party and most influential Islamist party in Libya.”

The July 14 meeting was attended by both Secretary Burns and Ambassador Christopher Stevens. On September 11, 2012, Ambassador Stevens and three other American diplomats were killed in a premeditated terrorist attack on US mission and CIA facilities in Benghazi.

An undated State Department cable revealed further courting of the LMB and its Justice and Construction Party. “Mohammad Sawan, Chairman of Justice and Construction Party, received yesterday at his office in Tripoli, Ambassadors of US, UK, FR and IT. The Ambassadors requested the meeting to get acquainted with the party’s position on the current events in Libya, the Government, the Party’s demand to sack the Prime Minister, the Constitution, GNC lifetime arguments, dialogue initiatives and Party’s assessment of political and security situation in Libya and the region. During the meeting, which took an hour and a half and attended by Mohammad Talb, party’s International Relations officer, and Hussam Naeli, acting liaison officer, Sawan explained that the Government has not been able to achieve any success in the core files such as security and local government, which both are under the direct supervision of the Prime Minister. Such a failure resulted in the lack of security, continuous assassinations, kidnappings, crimes, smuggling and attacks on public and private property, halt oil exports and disruption of water and electricity supply. Sawan stressed that a solution is possible and the party presented a clear solution, but the Government is not in harmony. He added we are responsible only for ministries that we take part in.”

The State Department cable noted that “On their part, the Ambassadors praised the active role of the Party in the political scene and confirmed their standing with the Libyan people and Government despite its weaknesses and they are keen to stabilize the region… At the end of the meeting, Sawan thanked his guests and all stressed the need to communicate. The guests affirmed that they will assist through Libyan legitimate entities as they did during the revolution.”

Also see:

The story is from the Gulf News, which operates out of the Anti-Brotherhood UAE. Al-Hewar, which actually got hold of the documents, is linked to the International Institute of Islamic Thought… which is a Muslim Brotherhood front group.

Figures in the Muslim Brotherhood had threatened to leak understandings with Obama Inc. This is the next best thing. It warns Obama that if he tries to forget about them, they can prove that the relationship was official policy.

 

Megyn Kelly: Is Barack Obama’s Presidency Imploding?

 

“The American public overwhelmingly regrets ObamaCare, our veterans are dying waiting to see doctors, the IRS intimidates conservative groups, the southern border is compared to a sieve and the president assures us not to worry – smiling, golfing and at this very moment partying… Because the fundraising never stops – not when four Americans die in Benghazi, and not when Baghdad is at the brink.” —Megyn Kelly

Fox News Insider:

With the deteriorating security situation in Iraq and the White House facing scandal after scandal, Megyn Kelly asked at the top of her show: is Barack Obama’s presidency imploding?

She kicked off her commentary by noting that the U.S. is now looking into working with Iran to push back ISIS militants, who’ve overtaken several key cities in Iraq.

“A terrorist regime responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans. What could possibly go wrong?” she asked, adding that President Obama drew a red line in Syria that he refused to enforce and “stood by” as Russia seized part of Ukraine.

“The American public overwhelmingly regrets ObamaCare. Our veterans are dying waiting to see doctors. The IRS intimidates conservative groups. The southern border is compared to a sieve and the president assures us not to worry – smiling, golfing and at this very moment partying with fashion queen Anna Wintour. Because the fundraising never stops – not when four Americans die in Benghazi, and not when Baghdad is at the brink,” she said.

Kelly recalled that one of the country’s most respected liberal law professors even called President Obama “the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid,” adding Obama has bypassed Congress on issues ranging from ObamaCare to immigration.

Brit Hume then joined The Kelly File to give his take, saying he would add the economy to Megyn’s introduction. Hume said there has never been a “robust recovery” after the recession and that unemployment has only dropped slightly due to a shrinking workforce.

He said the Obama foreign policy was a “big idea” that the world would be better off if the U.S. “footprint” was reduced.

“He says now that he believes deeply in American exceptionalism, and I think that he’s just saying that,” said Hume, who argued that George W. Bush got us into Iraq, but “bequeathed to President Obama a lot better situation than we have there now.”

Hume said in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama “kind of believes that leaving is winning and we’re finding out that that’s not true.”

Megyn asked how history will view the Obama presidency, noting Republicans’ comparisons to Jimmy Carter. Hume answered that as an American, he wanted a “robust recovery and a more peaceful world” and the president is failing to deliver.

“Things I suppose could turn around. It’s hard for me to imagine that the same policies, which he seems hesitant to change, are going to bring anything but similar results going forward. So I think we’re looking at a failed presidency.”

Watch the commentary and discussion above.

**********

Also see:

article-0-1EE369F000000578-329_640x526

Bill Whittle: NOT ONE OF US

Published June 18, 2014 by TruthRevoltOriginals:

A Nation is a family. And those that swear an oath to defend that nation form a tighter family – one that depends on the loyalty of each and every member to protect their very lives. In this latest FIREWALL, Bill Whittle discusses the cultural disconnect, not only of Bowe Bergdahl, but of the people that traded the five deadly terrorists for his reutrn.

 

TRANSCRIPT

What Obama Hath Wrought

pic_giant_061614_SM_What-Obama-Hath-Wrought-GBy Quin Hillyer:

Mark Helprin, author, journalist, and military-affairs instructor, was being interviewed by Frank Gaffney, hawkish defense expert, when Helprin summed up in one sentence what I hear so many people say to me in coffee shops and after church and at the park and in the grocery store: “Everything that made us what we once were is under attack.”

Part of the attack is cultural, with radicals running our colleges, anti-competitive nonsense peddled in our elementary schools and playgrounds, filth dominating the entertainment industry, traditional faith sneered at (and increasingly disfavored by public policy), and the idea of American exceptionalism (along with appreciation for its constituent parts) denied from the Oval Office itself.

And our president — “a particularly virulent manifestation of this kind of ideology,” said Helprin — is leading the assault. Barack Obama acts lawlessly, makes choices alien to the American tradition, denigratesachievement, tramples religious liberty, encourages our borders to be massively and illegally overrun, and burdens us with unfathomable public debt. And, of particular and rightful interest to Gaffney and Helprin — even though too little of the public thinks it important — Obama has aggressively overseen what Gaffney called “thehollowing out of the United States military.”

Reductions in force, cancellations of weapons programs, and mistreatment of our armed personnel and veterans: All have been adjoined to a foreign policy that A) is usually feckless and B) on those few occasions when it is energetic, aggressively undermines traditional American interests and allies.

All of which has resulted, as we read recent headlines, in what might best be described (apologies to P. J. O’Rourke) as “all the trouble in the world.”

So, while our internal fabric is fraying, our national interests and our safety are suddenly under serious assault everywhere we look. Barack Obama threw away our victory in Iraq, for example, and most Americans do not yet realize just how serious a disaster is unfolding. With two major Iraqi cities having fallen not just to “insurgents” but to outright terrorists, there is serious risk that the government might fall to what one writer accurately called “the best-funded, best-equipped terror group in history.” What could ensue is not just massive instability in the region, but a witches’ brew of horrendous outcomes ranging from increased Iranian power to a regime of al-Qaeda allies who directly threaten Israel and harbor murderers planning terrorism against the United States.

Read more at National Review

HOW US POLICY ENABLED THE RISE OF AL QAEDA 2.0 AND THE COLLAPSE OF IRAQ

obama-among-red-berets-afpBreitbart, by DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA:

Policy decisions and politically driven censorship of the American national security establishment have helped strengthen Al Qaeda’s successor and hastened the collapse of the nation of Iraq.

​The current administration and the President represented Operation Iraqi Freedom as the “wrong war,” as opposed to the “good war” that was Afghanistan. The Vice President even called the end of our involvement in Iraq one of the great achievements of Obama’s tenure.

 

With the jihadi group ISIS now in control of parts of the country that together equal the size of Syria, taking over former US bases, and moving toward the capital of Baghdad, the “achievement” has vanished.

The chaos and murder unleashed in the last few days are beyond the comprehension of the majority of Americans who have never served or lived in a war zone. According to the vicar of Baghdad Andrew White, Iraq is now witnessing mass violence and atrocities worse than anything seen since the invasion in 2003.

Almost 4,500 American servicemen and women died in OIF, and the US taxpayers havespent $20 billion to equip and train the Iraqi security forces. So how did we arrive at this apocalyptic horror?

The fact is that ISIS – The Islamic State of Iraq and the Sham (or the Levant) – has grown in strength and ferocity in the last three years to a point that it now is more powerful and capable than the original Al Qaeda whence it came. It has become Al Qaeda 2.0. ISIS’s growth is in part a result of conscious actions and policy decisions taken by the current US administration.

  • First, since very early on in his presidential campaign and then after becoming the Commander-in-Chief, it became obvious that the President had little interest in international affairs and national security. In fact, in his first speech to graduating West Point cadets in 2009, he was unequivocal. It was time to “end the war in Iraq” because “we must rebuild our strength here at home.” The White House agenda since 2008 has primarily been driven by domestic projects aimed at expanding the state such as Obamacare. That is why none of the National Security Advisers appointed by the White House since General Jim Jones was ignominiously replaced in 2010 have been recognized names in the world of national security. The issue just does not interest the incumbent, and therefore there was no need for a Kissinger- or Brzezinski-caliber replacement.
  • As attested to by a remarkably in-depth 2011 article in The New Yorker, the administration sees all crises as unique and unrelated to one another. So great is this belief that America does not need a strategy to deal with the world and inform our national actions in a consistent fashion that the President, when interviewed on national television, actually stated that having “blanket policies” can get you “into trouble.” As a result, the idea that the chaos in Syria, where ISIS built its forces, was connected to the future stability of Iraq did not occur to the administration until Mosul, Fallujah, and Tikrit had fallen to fighters trained and hardened in the war against Assad just next door. Our government cannot connect the dots if the Commander-in-Chief openly believes that doing so is a bad idea.
  • This lack of any strategic approach to the global threat of jihadi groups is compounded by politically-driven censorship of the national security and defense establishment. As documented elsewhere, in 2011 putative “representatives” of the Muslim communities in the US demanded that the White House review and censor all counterterrorism training materials and trainers used by the Defense Department and Department of Justice, their claim being that existing materials and trainers were un-Islamic or “Islamaphobic.” This event that has come to be known as “the purge” – see this documentary for the full story – and led to the forced removal of any mention of Islam or jihad from all governmental training materials used by our armed forces or the FBI. As a result, as a government, we have blinded ourselves to such an extent that it has become practically impossible for a national security professional to understand what is going on in the Middle East and what drives groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda without getting into trouble for being politically incorrect.

    Of course, trying to understand the decapitation of enemy forces or the tactic of suicide attacks without referring to, or being allowed to refer to, jihad is analogous to our trying to understand the Third Reich in 1944 while banning our soldiers and intelligence professionals from talking about and analyzing Nazism.

  • Lastly, the fact that Senator Obama built a campaign narrative on the foundation that Afghanistan is the “good war” and Iraq was the “bad war” locked his administration onto a politically defined track that short-changed America’s national security interests. Once in office, commitment to this narrative – that was deemed to have helped him win office – meant that the Iraqi campaign had to end at all costs. So great was the pressure that the administration was prepared to pull all US forces out in 2011 without securing the standard Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Baghdad that would have allowed us to leave enough forces in country to suppress and deter violence against the Maliki regime and keep the country functioning after more than 4,000 Americans had died to free it from Saddam Hussein.

You don’t have to be a dastardly neoconservative to understand that the events occurring now in Iraq – and Syria, and Libya, and even Egypt – have direct implications for the security of America. We know that Westerners, including Americans, are going to the Middle East to fight the jihad. If they win, or simply survive to come back home, they will present a clear threat to any political system such as ours that is not sharia-compliant or theocratic.

But there is a bigger danger.

Al Qaeda was formed out of an organization not dissimilar to ISIS. In the 1980s a Palestinian-Jordanian called Abdullah Azzam created the Services Bureau (MAK) to fight the Soviet military units in Afghanistan just as ISIS is fighting the military units in Iraq that they consider to be kufr (unbelievers) because they are Shia and not Sunni. Azzam’s deputy was a Saudi named Osama bin Laden who inherited the MAK when Azzam was assassinated. Bin Laden then turned the MAK into Al Qaeda, the same Al Qaeda that killed almost 3,000 Americans in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on September 11th, 2001.

According to the official investigation, the 9/11 attacks cost Al Qaeda $500,000. On its murderous rampage to Baghdad, ISIS has captured $430,000,000 from Iraqi government coffers. Should these jihadists, who are now stronger than the original Al Qaeda they grew out of, capture all of Iraq, or Iraq and Syria, they will likely turn their sights on the “Far Enemy” as the MAK/Al Qaeda turned against us when the Soviets were defeated.

In this case, however, they will have enough money for at least 800 9/11-scale attacks.

Dr. Sebastian Gorka has been appointed the Major General Horner Chair of Military Theory at Marine Corps University and is the National Security Affairs editor of Breitbart.com.

Judge Jeanine: No Matter Where You Live In America, You Need To Be Afraid

 

Truth Revolt, by Caleb Howe:

On Saturday night’s Justice with Judge Jeanine, the fiery host’s opening statement was a stern warning about the situation in Iraq and in the world as a result of President Obama’s “feckless” foreign policy.

“Barack Obama left Iraq contrary to the advice of military leaders and those like Senator John McCain who said he left too early,” the Judge said, adding McCain’s comments that the decision was motivated solely by political concerns.

Jeanine calls ISIS leader Abu al-Baghdadi, who was released by President Obama, the “new Osama bin Laden,” and points out he specifically told his American captors he would “see them in New York.”

From releasing fighters and leaders back into the ranks of terror groups to his leaving Iraq a “burning cauldron” in the Middle East, Judge Jeanine says every American should be worried about their safety and security under the leadership of President Obama.

Resignation or Impeachment?

20130605_OBAMA_SMIRK_SMUG_DENY_LARGE Family Security Matters, by COLONEL KENNETH ALLARD (US ARMY, RET.)

Many self-respecting countries might have a coup: But let’s see if September 11th really taught us how to connect the dots.

The black flags of Al Qaeda are now flying over once-liberated Iraqi cities like a 21st century version of the Tet Offensive. Will Baghdad soon fall as Saigon once did? If it does, then how can we justify the sacrifice of 4500 soldiers who died to win an against-all-odds victory comparable to any in American military history?

Closer to home: Despite being told repeatedly that the American homeland was secure, our borders are being over-run with refugees, including thousands of women and children. Their numbers and locations are inexact because, as Michelle Malkin reported on Thursday, “What we do know for sure is that the Obama administration already has converted …military bases across the country into outposts for tens of thousands of illegal aliens from Central and South America.” Not only are military bases in my home state of Texas being used as refugee centers but Ms Malkin reports that some have been spirited all the way to Hanscom Air Force Base outside Boston. The objectives: “more illegal immigration and more Democratic voters.”

The common factor in the collapse of American interests abroad and domestic defenses at home: The second presidential term of Barack Hussein Obama.

You may remember that we re-elected him amidst that endless stream of media approval punctuated by the Hallelujah Chorus: “General Motors is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead.” Not so fast, Kemo Sabe, because while Mr. Obama was leading from behind and presiding over the systematic destruction of American power, our enemies were watching. From Ayman Zawahiri to Vladimir Putin, those adversaries understand very well that power abhors a vacuum. So don’t be surprised that, when a stalk of celery presides over our defenses, those enemies will lose little time in rushing forward. Who could blame them for assuming that we’re no longer serious about protecting our interests – except with empty rhetoric and an endless supply of red lines?

One of the subtle but unmistakable ironies in the sudden collapse of Iraq is that, against all military advice and simple common-sense, Al Qaeda was allowed the priceless luxury of time and space to recover from their disastrous defeat in Anbar province. American military power was completely withdrawn three years ago, leaving our investment of treasure and blood unprotected. Even worse was: the characteristic ebbs and flows of the administration’s alleged policies on Syria translated into simple indecision. The resulting power vacuum allowed Al Qaeda to metastasize into a regional threat that now includes parts of both Syria and Iraq. And nicely augmented in recent days with American weaponry and sophisticated equipment left behind for our overrun, one-time allies.

While Americans are notoriously indifferent to foreign policy, we pay attention when bad leadership leads to disaster, when the lives of our soldiers are wasted – and especially when those mistakes abroad come home to roost. All of those elements are present in today’s national security crisis, just as they were on September 12, 2001 when we last began to examine first causes.

Last year, Egyptians found themselves in eerily similar circumstances, taking to the streets to demand that their military oust the deeply oppressive Moslem Brotherhood government led by Mohammed Morsi. In closed-door meetings, senior Egyptian military leaders have told me how their decision to oust Morsi was the country’s only alternative to civil war, even its survival. Recently, Egyptians elected as their new president Abdel Fatteh Al-Sisi, the former general who led that coup. Upon being sworn into office, his first official act was a resounding pledge to Egypt’s women, vowing to punish those found guilty of sexual assaults. Mr. Obama, notorious for siding with the Morsi regime, dismissed the popular revolution, reversed a generation of American statecraft and ushered the Egyptians into a budding new relationship with Vladimir Putin.

Unlike Egyptians, Americans have two hundred years of constitutional history to sustain us. That history bequeathed us with a presidential rather than a parliamentary system, where the government of Barack Obama might be instantly terminated through a no-confidence vote. Instead, we must be patient and determined, recognizing that history judges nations by their coolness in moments of danger just like this. But these latest events highlight earlier, troubling indications that the Republic’s leadership was going awry, that heritage had given way to expediency.

So the only question for the 2014 elections is this: Where do you stand on the impeachment of Barack Obama? And for Mr. Obama himself: Will you resign from office or be driven from it?

Also see:

 

Daniel Greenfield on “How Obama Surrendered Iraq” – on The Glazov Gang

Front Page:

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He writes the blog, The Point, at Frontpagemag.com.

Daniel discussed “How Obama Surrendered Iraq,” outlining a Radical-in-Chief’s suicidal foreign policy [starting at the 8:30 mark].

The dialogue also involved an analysis of Obama’s disastrous Afghanistan give-away, more revelations on the Benghazi betrayal, the scandalous Taliban-Bergdahl swap, and much, much more:

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,523 other followers

%d bloggers like this: