Israel and the Obama-Qatari Axis

US-Turkeyby Joseph Puder:

When considering the geo-political map of the current Middle East, not everything is negative or alarming, at least from an Israeli point of view. Although the Middle East is more splintered today than ever before, Israel’s political and diplomatic isolation in the region has faded. The Middle East is now composed of three main blocs and Israel is a partner with one major bloc, which also happens to be its immediate neighbors, or the inner circle of moderate-Sunni and hitherto pro-American Arab states: Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Emirates.  However, what is counter-intuitive is the Obama administration’s choice of partners in the region. It is not the moderate Sunni-Muslim states and Israel that Washington sought out as mediators for a Hamas-Israel cease-fire, but the Muslim Brotherhood bloc of Turkey and Qatar.

David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister and one of the founding fathers of the Jewish State recognized early on that the State of Israel had no chance to develop friendly relations with its neighboring Arab states. Pan-Arab leaders such as Egypt’s president Gamal Abdul Nasser fanned the flames of hatred and revenge against the Jewish state, as did fellow Arab dictators in Syria and elsewhere. As a result, Israel’s leadership sought to develop friendly relations with its outer-circle non-Arab states such as Iran, Ethiopia, and Turkey.

The rise of the Islamic Republic in Iran under Khomeini following the Iranian revolution in 1979, and the departure of the Israel-friendly Shah of Iran ended Israeli-Iranian relations. Iran became the arms supplier of Israel’s Palestinian enemies and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and with its nuclear ambition, it constitutes an existential threat to the Jewish State.

Turkey was the only Muslim state to have a steady and rather friendly relationship with the Jewish state. Until the electoral triumph of the AK Party (Justice and Development Party) in 2002, Israel’s trade and military cooperation with Turkey was significant to both countries. The AK Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan changed all of that. His hostility to Israel intensified with each successive electoral victory. Following his second parliamentary victory in 2007, he began tangling with Israel. In late May 2010, Erdogan gave the green light to a Gaza flotilla headed by the Mavi Marmara. It was a deliberate provocation by Erdogan to break through the Israeli blocade. The subsequent AK victory in the 2011 parliamentary elections increased Erdogan’s arrogance and simultaneously his anti-Israel and anti-Semitic outbursts. His latest 2014 presidential victory and his unmitigated support for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood severed the special relations Israel has had with Turkey.

Turkey is, in fact, part of the radical Sunni, pro-Muslim Brotherhood bloc, that includes Qatar and Hamas.

The radical Shia bloc led by Iran, which includes Shiite Iraq, the Assad regime in Syria, and the Hezbollah in Lebanon, comprise the third bloc.

The puzzling question is why Washington chose to align itself with the Sunni radical Muslim Brotherhood bloc (Qatar and Turkey), and not with the more moderate bloc led by Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Both the Egyptian regime under President Abdel Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and the Saudi royals are upset with the Obama administration. Cairo resents Washington’s support for the deposed Muslim Brotherhood President Mohammad Morsi. Washington withheld arms delivery to Egypt because it considered Morsi’s removal illegitimate, albeit, over 30 million Egyptians demanded Morsi’s removal because of his gross mismanagement of the economy, his authoritarian style, his promotion of sectorial Brotherhood ideals and the erosion of civil liberties.

Read more at Front Page

The Trouble Is that Obama DOES Have a Strategy

obama_iran_crossed_fingers_4-20-14-1

PJ Media, by David P. Goldman:

Obama’s “we-don’t-have-a-strategy” gaffe was so egregious as to distract attention from the fact that he does indeed have a strategy, which has blown up in his face. His strategy is accommodation with Iran at all costs. As I wrote earlier this month, our ISIS problem derives from our Iran problem: Bashar Assad’s ethnic cleansing, which has displaced 4 million Syrians internally and driven 3 million out of the country, was possible because of Iranian backing. The refugee flood in Iraq and Syria gives ISIS an unlimited pool of recruits. Iraqi Sunni support for ISIS, including the participation of some of Saddam Hussein’s best officers, is a response to Iran’s de facto takeover of Iraq.

Now we have analysts as diverse as Karen Elliott House and Angelo Codevilla proposing that the Saudis should use their considerable air force to degrade ISIS. Unless the U.S. commits its own forces in depth, the Saudis never will do so (unless they are defending their own territory, which ISIS is not stupid enough to attack). It is a sad day when America’s appetite for a fight is so weak that we count on the Saudi monarchy to do our dirty work for us. Codevilla writes:

Day after day after day, hundreds of Saudi (and Jordanian) fighters, directed by American AWACS radar planes, could systematically destroy the Islamic State—literally anything of value to military or even to civil life. It is essential to keep in mind that the Islamic State exists in a desert region which offers no place to hide and where clear skies permit constant, pitiless bombing and strafing. These militaries do not have the excessive aversions to collateral damage that Americans have imposed upon themselves.

That is entirely correct: in that region, air power could drastically weaken ISIS, if not quite eradicate it. It certainly could contain its advances (as fewer than 100 American sorties already have in northern Iraq). But the underlying problem will remain: Iran’s depredations have triggered an economic and demographic catastrophe in the region, and that catastrophe has created the snowball effect we call ISIS.

It may be entirely academic to argue that America should bomb not only ISIS, but also Iran’s nuclear facilities and the bases of its Revolutionary Guards. No Republican candidate I know is willing to argue this in advance of elections. Nonetheless, I repeat what I wrote Aug. 12: “The region’s security will hinge on the ultimate reckoning with Iran.”

On Canada’s Sun TV earlier today, commentator Ezra Levant asked me what Obama will do now. My guess is: very little. The reported Egyptian-UAE attack on Libyan Islamists is a harbinger of the future. Other countries in the region will take matters into their own hands in despair at American paralysis. Russia and China will play much bigger roles. And the new Thirty Year War will grind on indefinitely.

**********

As Daniel Greenfield observes, Obama has a Strategy for the Things He Cares About:

Obama has no strategy for ISIS, but he does have a strategy for shutting down every coal plant in America.

Obama has no strategy for dealing with Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, but he does have a strategy for mass illegal alien amnesty.

Obama has no strategy for defeating Islamic terrorism, he does however have a strategy for defeating the Republicans in the midterm elections.

Obama has no strategy for protecting the United States from Ebola, he does have a strategy for exploiting racial tensions in Ferguson.

Obama has no strategy for rescuing Christians women from ISIS rape prisons, he does have a strategy for convincing single women that Christian organizations should be paying for their birth control.

Obama has no strategy for stopping Iran from getting the bomb, but he does have a strategy for stopping anyone from making YouTube videos mocking Mohammed. (Send them to prison.)

Obama has no strategy for protecting the United States, but he has a strategy for maximizing his time golfing, fundraising and partying.

It’s not that Obama doesn’t have a strategy or isn’t capable of forming one. It’s that he reserves those strategies for the things that he truly cares about.

Stopping ISIS or Putin isn’t one of them.

**********

Michael Ledeen –  Latest Big Lie: ‘We Have No Strategy’

They DO have a strategy, but they prefer to appear indecisive. That’s because the strategy would likely provoke even greater criticism than the false confession of endless dithering.

The actual strategy is detente first, and then a full alliance with Iran throughout the Middle East and North Africa. It has been on display since before the beginning of the Obama administration. During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.
Ever since, President Obama’s quest for an alliance with Iran has been conducted through at least four channels: Iraq, Switzerland (the official U.S. representative to Tehran), Oman and a variety of American intermediaries, the most notable of whom is probably Valerie Jarrett, his closest adviser. In recent months, Middle Eastern leaders reported personal visits from Ms. Jarrett, who briefed them on her efforts to manage the Iranian relationship. This was confirmed to me by a former high-ranking American official who says he was so informed by several Middle Eastern leaders.

The central theme in Obama’s outreach to Iran is his conviction that the United States has historically played a wicked role in the Middle East, and that the best things he can do for that part of the world is to limit and withdraw American military might, and empower our self-declared enemies, whose hostility to traditional American policies he largely shares.

***********

Clare Lopez explains —> CIA expert: Obama switched sides in war on terror

In Search of a Strategy

U.S. President Obama addresses reporters ahead of national security council meeting at the White House in WashingtonNational Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy, Aug.30, 2014:

Is it better to have no strategy or a delusional strategy?

The question arises, of course, after President Obama’s startling confession on Thursday that he has not yet developed a strategy for confronting the Islamic State, the al-Qaeda-rooted terrorist organization still often called by its former name, ISIS – an acronym for the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. Al-Sham refers to Greater Syria.

You may have noticed that President Obama calls the group ISIL, preferring the acronym that refers to the Levant to the one referring to al-Sham. After all, anything that invokes Syria might remind you of red lines that turned out not to be red lines and the administration’s facilitation of the arming of “moderate rebels” who turned out to include, well, ISIS. The fact is that the president has never had a Syria strategy, either — careening from Assad the Reformer, to Assad the Iranian puppet who must be toppled, to Assad who maybe we should consider aligning with against ISIS — ISIS being the “rebels” we used to support in Syria . . . unless they crossed into Iraq, in which case they were no longer rebels but terrorists . . . to be “rebels” again, they’d have to cross back into Syria or cruise east to Libya, where they used to be enemy jihadists spied on by our ally Qaddafi until they became “McCain’s heroes” overthrowing our enemy Qaddafi.

Got it?

No? Well, congratulations, you may have caught mental health, a condition to be envied even if it would disqualify you from serving as a foreign-policy and national-security expert in Washington. In either party.

The Islamic State’s recent beheading of American journalist James Foley is not the only thing that captured Washington’s attention of late. The Beltway was also left aghast at the jihadist’ rounding up of over 150 Syrian soldiers, forcing them to strip down to their underpants for a march through the desert, and then mass-killing them execution style.

Shocking, sure, but isn’t that what the GOP’s foreign-policy gurus were telling us they wanted up until about five minutes ago? Not the cruel method but the mass killing of Assad’s forces. Nothing oh nothing, we were told, could possibly be worse than the barbaric Assad regime. As naysayers — like your faithful correspondent— urged the government to refrain from backing “rebels” who teem with rabidly anti-American Islamic-supremacist savages, top Republicans scoffed. It was paramount that we arm the rebels in order to oust Assad, even though “we understand [that means] some people are going to get arms that should not be getting arms,” insisted Bob Corker (R., Tenn.), ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Turns out that quite a lot of people who shouldn’t have gotten arms have gotten quite a lot of arms. And that is because Syria is not the only place as to which Republicans urged Obama to ignore federal laws against arming and otherwise supporting terrorists. They did it in Libya, too.

We have several times documented here that influential Republicans led by Senator John McCain were champions of Moammar Qaddafi before they suddenly switched sides — along with President Obama — in campaigning to oust the Libyan regime they had only recently treated (and funded) as a key American counterterrorism ally. The resulting (and utterly foreseeable) empowerment of Islamic supremacists in eastern Libya directly contributed to the Benghazi Massacre of four Americans on September 11, 2012; to the rise of the Islamic State and the expansion of al-Qaeda franchises in Africa, all of which were substantially strengthened by the jihadist capture of much of Qaddafi’s arsenal; and to what has become the collapse of Libya into a virulently anti-American no-man’s land of competing militias in which jihadists now have the upper hand.

The disastrous flip-flop was no surprise. When Mubarak fell in Egypt, Senator McCain stressed that the Brotherhood must be kept out of any replacement government because the Brothers are anti-democratic supporters of repressive sharia and terrorism. He was right on both scores . . . but he soon reversed himself, deciding that the Brotherhood was an outfit Americans could work with after all — even support with sophisticated American weaponry and billions in taxpayer dollars. The Brothers were in power because, in the interim, McCain’s good friend Secretary Clinton pressured Egypt’s transitional military government to step down so the elected “Islamic democracy” could flourish. When the Brothers took the reins, they promptly installed a sharia constitution, demanded that the U.S. release the Blind Sheikh (convicted of running a New York–based terror cell in the 1990s), rolled out the red carpet for Hamas (the terror organization that is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch), and gave free reign to terrorist leaders — including the brother of al-Qaeda’s leader and members of the Blind Sheikh’s Egyptian jihadist organization — who proceeded to foment the violent rioting at the U.S. embassy in Cairo the same day as the Benghazi Massacre.

I could go on, but you get the point. While ripping Obama for having no Islamic State strategy, Republicans are now reviving the inane strategy of supporting the illusory “moderate Syrian opposition.” Those would be the same forces they wanted to support against Assad. The only problem was that there aren’t enough real moderates in Syria to mount a meaningful challenge to the regime. The backbone of the opposition to Assad has always been the Muslim Brotherhood, and the most effective fighters against the regime have always been the jihadists. So we’re back to where we started from: Let’s pretend that there is a viable, moderate, democratic Syrian opposition and that we have sufficient intelligence — in a place where we have sparse intelligence — to vet them so we arm only the good guys; and then let’s arm them, knowing that they have seamlessly allied for years with the anti-American terrorists we are delegating them to fight on our behalf. Perfect.

There is no excuse for a president of the United States to have no strategy against an obvious threat to the United States. But at least with Obama, it is understandable. He is hemmed in by his own ideology and demagoguery. The main challenge in the Middle East is not the Islamic State; it is the fact that the Islamic State and its al-Qaeda forebears have been fueled by Iran, which supports both Sunni and Shiite terrorism as long as it is directed at the United States. There cannot be a coherent strategy against Islamic supremacism unless the state sponsors of terrorism are accounted for, but Obama insists on seeing Iran as a potential ally rather than an incorrigible enemy.

Moreover, the combined jihadist threat is not a regional one merely seeking to capture territory in the Middle East; it is a global one that regards the United States as its primary enemy and that can be defeated only by America and its real allies. This is not a problem we can delegate to the basket-case governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, or to the “moderate” Syrian “rebels.” Yet the Obama Left’s relentless indictment of American self-defensive action in the Middle East has sapped the domestic political support necessary for vigorous military action against our enemies — action that will eventually have to include aggressive American combat operations on the ground.

But the GOP should take note: The jihad is not a problem we can delegate to the Muslim Brotherhood, either. We will not defeat our enemies until we finally recognize who they are — all of them.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book, Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment, was released by Encounter Books on June 3.

 

 

 

CIA expert: Obama switched sides in war on terror

President Obama appears to bow to Saudi King Abdullah, on April 1, 2009, in London

President Obama appears to bow to Saudi King Abdullah, on April 1, 2009, in London

By GARTH KANT:

WASHINGTON – It’s an explosive charge, one that practically accuses the president of treason.

A former CIA agent bluntly told WND, America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama.

Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have confided to WND in private, but declined to say on-the-record.

She said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates.

Why the switch?

Lopez explained, when the so-called Arab Spring appeared in late 2010, “It was time to bring down the secular Muslim rulers who did not enforce Islamic law. And America helped.”

And why would Obama want to do that?

As she told WND earlier this month, Lopez believed the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government.

She also came to the conclusion Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.”

Why would Obama order the killing of bin Laden?

Because the president “couldn’t delay any longer,” once the opportunity was presented, Lopez told WND.

There were “no more excuses” available to avoid it and he “thought it might look good,” she mused.

The former CIA operative’s perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.

While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.

Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror.

Lopez’s insights are backed by an impressive array of credentials.

She spent two decades in the field as a CIA operations officer; was an instructor for military intelligence and special forces students; has been a consultant, intelligence analyst and researcher within the defense sector; and has published two books on Iran. Lopez currently manages the counter-jihad and Shariah programs at the Center for Security Policy, run by Frank Gaffney, former assistant secretary of defense for international security policy during the Reagan administration.

In a previous interview with WND, Lopez described the stunning extent of infiltration of the administration and other branches of the federal government by the jihadist group the Muslim Brotherhood.

She said the infiltration began under former President Bill Clinton but really took hold under the Obama administration, which, she said, “includes various levels of understanding and misunderstanding of Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

“Some in the administration genuinely appear to believe the Muslim Brotherhood can act as a foil or counterweight to al-Qaida, although with what’s going on in Syria, it’s hard to understand how they would still think that,” she observed.

Lopez felt it was impossible to understand why the president and some of his top appointees, such as CIA Director John Brennan, “consistently seem to apologize for Islam, even in the face of such atrocities as the Foley beheading,” adding, they “take pains to assure the world they don’t think IS, (or the Islamic State, also called ISIS) or whichever perpetrator it was, has anything to do with Islam. How can they possibly believe that genuinely when everything these jihadis do tracks directly to the literal text of Quran, hadiths and Shariah?”

“In any case, and for whatever motivations, there is no doubt this administration switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror,” she said. “Even though President George W. Bush was obviously confused and mistaken when he called Islam a ‘religion of peace’ the day after 9/11, he wasn’t deliberately exonerating the perpetrators. Surrounded by Muslim Brotherhood agents of influence, he simply didn’t understand.”

Much more at WND

Security Expert: Our Southern Border Is A War Zone

cl

Center For Security Policy:

In Part 2 of The Daily Caller’s video interview with Clare Lopez, a senior official with the Center for Security Policy, she explains how the collapse of America’s southern border was a planned, willful refusal to maintain national sovereignty. Citing a January budget request from the Department of Homeland Security requesting funding based on the expectation of new flows of some 65,000 immigrants including children, Lopez thinks Americans, especially at the border, are threatened.

She discusses how narco-traffickers are flowing through, organized in columns at night in military formations guarded by sentinels and scouts, and armed with advanced weaponry. To her, the southern border is a war zone. As these undocumented immigrants are dispersed by air or bus throughout America, the threat widens, she reports.

To Lopez, President Obama is “consciously trying to diminish America’s leadership in the world.” She discusses the “great purge” that occurred early in the Obama administration where there was a comprehensive removal of training materials from departments and agencies who were engaged in ferreting out jihadi threats from radical Islamic terrorists. This purge, Lopez says in this video interview, “crippled and neutralized American national security interests.”

Discussing lessons learned from the Iraq war, Lopez says, “the U.S. never understood the “fundamental incompatibility between Islamic law and liberal western democracy, and in particular, the U.S. Constitution.” She continues, “Islamic law and Islam’s doctrine mandates inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims, between men and women.” She ends by stating, “As long as a people remain enthralled to Islamic law, there cannot be genuine, true liberal Western style democracy.”

To view Part 1, Clare Lopez on Benghazi, click here.

US reportedly recruiting allies to support expanded airstrikes, Syrian opposition

 

Fox News:

The Obama administration is pressing U.S. allies to increase their support for moderate rebel groups in Syria, as well as possible military operations, according to a published report.

The New York Times reported late Tuesday that White House officials believe that Great Britain and Australia would be willing to join the United States in a campaign of airstrikes in Syria, while the administration hoped that Turkey would give it access to key military bases.

The Times also reported that the U.S. has asked Turkish government to help seal that country’s border with Syria, which has proven to be an easy crossing point for foreign militants looking to join up with the Islamic State, the militant group formerly known as ISIS, in northern Syria. The paper reported that the White House is also seeking intelligence help from Jordan, as well as financial support for groups like the moderate Free Syrian Army from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

The political calculus of such maneuvering among America’s Western allies is unclear. Last year, British Prime Minister David Cameron experienced one of the most humiliating defeats of his premiership when a motion to join potential airstrikes against Bashar al-Assad’s government was rejected by Parliament. However, the atrocities committed by ISIS since its overrunning of broad swathes of Syria and Iraq, have seemingly galvanized Cameron to press for action. In a recent opinion piece in the Sunday Telegraph, Cameron said that Britain was “in the middle of a generational struggle against a poisonous and extremist ideology.”

Late Monday, the Pentagon began sending surveillance drones on flights over Syria to gather intelligence on ISIS positions after Obama approved their use over the weekend. The Times cited a report from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights that “non-Syrian spy planes” on Monday carried out surveillance of ISIS positions in the eastern province of Deir Ezzor.

The Assad government in Damascus has warned the U.S. not to strike ISIS positions on Syrian territory without asking permission. However, on Tuesday, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki emphatically rejected that condition, telling reporters “We’re not going to ask permission from the Syrian regime.” However, Psaki also noted that Obama had not made a final decision on whether to approve airstrikes in Syria.

The Times also reported that the White House was also close to a decision to authorize airstrikes and aid drops around the town of Amerli in northern Iraq, home to a community of ethnic Turkmens, which has been besieged by ISIS for more than two months. The Turkmens, as Shiite Muslims, are thought of as infidels by the Sunni members of ISIS.

Over the weekend, the United Nations’ special representative to Iraq, Nickolay Mladenov, said the situation in Amerli was “desperate, and called for “immediate action to prevent the possible massacre of its citizens.” The BBC reported Saturday that the town had no electricity or drinking water, and is running out of food and medical supplies.

McCarthy: Obama Administration ‘Ideologically Entrenched’ in Not Calling IS a Serious Threat

National Review:

Andrew recently wrote about the growing threat of the Islamic State in the Middle East, “Obama’s America Is September 10th America.”

Obama’s Escape from Planet Reality

By David Wood at Answering Muslims:

Just minutes after defending Islam in a speech about the beheading of James Foley by the Islamic State (ISIS), President Barack Obama was back on the golf course. There’s something quite significant and symbolic about the President rushing to the golf course to avoid the horrors of a beheading. It’s analogous to the mental running our leaders have to do in order to avoid the truth about Islam.

 

Also see:

 

What Obama doesn’t get about the Islamic State

!cid_image008_jpg@01CFC0D5By Marc A. Thiessen:

A day before the Islamic State released a video of the brutal execution of American journalist James Foley, President Obama declared at a White House news conference that defeating the Islamic State was not his responsibility. “We’re not the Iraqi military, we’re not even the Iraqi air force,” Obama said, adding “I am the commander in chief of the United States armed forces, and Iraq is gonna have to ultimately provide for its own security.”

That attitude — that refusal to lead — is precisely why the Islamic State has been able to take control of a swath of the Middle East the size of Belgium and carry out the crimes against humanity we are witnessing today, from burying women and children alive to crucifixions to the beheading of a U.S. citizen.

Even after that horrific act, Obama continued to play down the threat posed by the Islamic State and United States’ responsibility to stop the militants. At a second news conference after the Foley execution, Obama once again dismissed the idea that the United States was at war with the Islamic State.“They may claim out of expediency that they are at war with the United States or the West, but the fact is they terrorize their neighbors,” Obama said.

They do not claim to be at war with the United States. They are at war with the United States. Even Obama’s own deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, admitted that the Foley execution “represents a terrorist attack against our country.” And for the Islamic State, that was only the beginning. It will not be satisfied with killing one U.S. citizen in the deserts of the Middle East. It wants to kill many thousands right here in the United States of America.

Even more disturbing was Obama’s assessment of how the Islamic State will meet its demise. “People like this ultimately fail,” Obama declared passively, “because the future is won by those who build and not destroy.” Sorry, Mr. President, the Islamic State is not going to somehow magically collapse under the weight of its bankrupt ideology. People like this don’t “fail.” They have to be stopped. Nazi Germany didn’t fail. It was defeated. And the Islamic State needs to be defeated — something that will not happen without vigorous U.S. leadership.

Over at the Pentagon, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, seemed to understand this. “This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated,” Dempsey said last week. “Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no.”

Apparently that was too forward-leaning for the Obama White House. On Sunday, Dempsey suddenly and mysteriously reversed himself, telling CBS News “he still believes the insurgent group is still more a regional threat and is not plotting or planning attacks against either the U.S. or Europe.”

But Dempsey was not alone in his original, candid assessment of the danger posed by the Islamic State. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel went so far as to call the Islamic State “an imminent threat.” Well, if the Islamic State is an “imminent threat” and needs to be “defeated,” what is the holdup in attacking its command, control and communications in Syria? Why isn’t the United States going beyond its current pinprick strikes in Iraq designed to contain the Islamic State, and executing a comprehensive military strategy to defeat the Islamic State?

Read more at Washington Post

Also see:

An American-Led Coalition Can Defeat ISIS

BN-EF900_edp082_G_20140824115055By JACK KEANE And DANIELLE PLETKA:

Two months ago we laid out a plan on these pages to bring Iraq back from the abyss of terrorist domination, turn the tide in the Syria conflict, and crush the advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham. The need for such a plan is now more urgent as ISIS has since advanced dramatically, the Iraqi army and Kurdish militia initially performed poorly, and the terror group has threatened to kill more Americans as it did James Foley last week.

President Obama has so far ordered some 1,100 troops into Iraq and conducted close to 100 airstrikes. While it is important that the president has recognized the growing threat to U.S. security, these limited tactical measures will neither permanently reverse ISIS gains nor address the maelstrom in the Middle East. A combined political, economic and military strategy is needed, and one element without the others will likely doom the effort.

First, the political challenge: The Islamic State, like its predecessor al Qaeda in Iraq and al Qaeda itself, has its roots in the swamp of Arab political life. Extremists gain purchase because the region’s leaders have delivered so little to the hundreds of millions over whom they rule. The Obama administration appeared to recognize this problem when it demanded the ouster of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who had estranged the nation’s Sunni tribes, leading some to welcome ISIS from Syria.

Regional leaders are aware of these problems and exploit them through proxy wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and the Palestinian territories. This is a recipe for endless conflict, and those leaders should be forced into a dialogue to resolve grievances and develop a regional strategy to defeat ISIS, al Qaeda and their ideological brethren.

Only the United States has the clout to convene such a summit. Only the U.S. can demand real change, and only the U.S can offer security reassurances to turn the political tide in the Middle East.

In particular, the time has come to confront the government of Qatar, which funds and arms ISIS and other Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas. The tiny Gulf potentate has never had to choose between membership in the civilized world or continuing its sponsorship of regional killers. The U.S. has the most leverage. We have alternatives to our Combined Air and Operations Center in Doha, the al Udeid air base, other bases and prepositioned materiel. We should tell Qatar to end its support for terrorism or we leave.

Second, the economic challenge: ISIS may now be the richest terror group in the world. Through hostage taking, criminality, conquest and outside financial support, ISIS is building a war chest measuring in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It has portfolio managers, bankers and other accouterments of a proto-Treasury.

These facilitators have not come under pressure in the way the West has challenged al Qaeda and Iran’s bankers. The intelligence is available to exert this pressure, but the U.S., Europe and the rest of the world are moving at a glacial pace.

Third, the military component: ISIS is at war and wants to control as much territory as possible. Jordan, Kuwait and Lebanon are in the group’s sights. The Islamic State wants to control oil fields, financial and political centers and create a quasi-state with self-proclaimed emir Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in charge.

Read more at WSJ

Gen. Keane, a retired four-star general and former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army, is the chairman of the Institute for the Study of War. Ms. Pletka is the senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Destroy the ‘Islamic State’

pic_giant_082514_SM_ISIS-FightersBy John R. Bolton:

The recent military successes of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS and ISIL, and the ongoing disintegration of Iraq’s “central” government have created a strategic crisis for the United States. Barack Obama’s belated, narrow authorization to use military force against the Islamic State does not constitute a coherent response, let alone a comprehensive one. The president seems curiously inactive, even as American influence in the region collapses and, not coincidentally, his political-approval ratings suffer. From the outset of the Islamic State’s campaign, his policies have been haphazard and confused, especially the halting, timid decision to intervene militarily. And, based on his record as president, there is no reason to believe a strategic vision of the Middle East’s future will ultimately emerge from his administration.

Approving U.S. military force against the Islamic State on August 7, Obama stressed two limited goals: protecting U.S. civilian and military personnel in Irbil, the Kurdish capital, which the Islamic State was rapidly nearing; and aiding refugees who had fled as the group advanced into Iraq from Syria. These are legitimate objectives, but they are far too constrained even in humanitarian terms, let alone against the serious regional and global strategic threats the Islamic State poses. The approximately 40,000 Yazidis were clearly in dire straits, but their plight had been preceded months earlier by the even greater number of fleeing Christian families. Obama stood by while the Islamic State butchered its way around Iraq.

Although the initial U.S. air strikes provided the refugees breathing space, the Islamic State still basically has the initiative. Ironically, Obama the multilateralist has not yet followed George H. W. Bush’s roadmap after the first Persian Gulf War in assembling an international coalition to achieve his humanitarian objectives. In April 1991, Kurdish refugees fled Saddam Hussein’s repression, and Bush persuaded the U.N. Security Council to adopt Resolution 688, declaring the refugee flows a threat to international peace and security. He then launched Operation Provide Comfort, later supplemented by aid to the Shiites in southern Iraq.

Today’s ongoing tragedy would have been entirely avoidable had Obama not withdrawn U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011. By so doing, he eliminated a considerable element of U.S. leverage in Baghdad, one that had significantly limited Iran’s ability to expand its influence inside Iraq. With substantial U.S. forces still present, Iraq’s various ethnic and confessional groups were more likely to make progress knitting together a sustainable national government and to lessen their profound, longstanding mistrust, which existed well before the Islamic State erupted from Syria.

We must now decide on U.S. strategic objectives in light of the dramatic, albeit still-tenuous, territorial gains by the Islamic State; the unfolding disarray in Iraq’s government; the grinding conflict in Syria; and the looming threats to stability in Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey. This will require some unpleasant choices, as well as recognition of the obvious reality that many policy options are simply unavailable until Obama leaves office in 2017.

America’s basic objective is clear: We must seek to destroy the Islamic State. It is simply not enough to block the group’s threat to the Kurds or other vulnerable minorities in the region. The risks of even a relatively small “state” (or “caliphate,” as they proclaim it) are chilling. Leaving the Islamic State in place and in control only of its current turf in Iraq and Syria (including northern-Iraqi hydrocarbon deposits and associated infrastructure) would make it viable economically and a fearsome refuge for terrorists of all sorts. Just as Afghanistan’s Taliban gave al-Qaeda a base of operations to launch terrorist attacks culminating in 9/11, a similar result could follow if the Islamic State successfully erased and then redrew existing boundaries.

Read more at National Review

Fox News Sunday, Gen. Jack Keane, John McCain and Rogers on ISIS Threat

 

Truth Revolt, by Trey Sanchez:

 

Rogers: ISIS ‘One Plane Ticket Away from U.S. Shores’

Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee Mike Rogers appeared on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday and warned that ISIS is a “very real threat” and is currently “one plane ticket away form U.S. shores.”

Amidst the ongoing debate within the mainstream media of whether or not ISIS is a “real threat” to America, Rogers clearly indicated to MTP‘s guest host Chris Jansing that the threat is as real as it gets:

It’s a very real threat and you saw the very barbaric behavior.  And one of the problems is, it’s gone unabated for nearly two years and that draws people from Britain to across Europe, even the United States, to go and join the fight. They see that as a winning ideology, a winning strategy, and they want to be a part of it. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. They are one plane ticket away from U.S. shores. And that’s why we’re so concerned about it.

Jansing indicated that the Pentagon does not believe that ISIS is in a position to launch an attack on the United States. Rogers was happy to dispute that claim. According to his intelligence numbers, well over 2,000 Westerners involved with ISIS have Western passports and can travel abroad, through Europe and into the United States — even without a Visa. Add to that the fact that the whole reason that al Qaeda and ISIS fought and split in Syria was over the fact that they desired “Western-style operations,” as Rogers indicated. Al Qaeda considers ISIS “too barbaric” — a notion that Rogers said seems “laughable” in light of the fact that they were the ones who flew planes into buildings killing 3,000 people on 9/11. Now the two organizations are competing for “points,” as Rogers put it,  to see who can attract the most people and money. Once this “game” reaches the next level, it would be safe to assume they will plan attacks that one-up each other and all sights will be set on America.

However, Jansing presumes that the U.S. is safer from terrorist attacks than when 9/11 happened. And while Rogers agrees that America “might be” safer now, it is the sheer number of recruits that ISIS is attracting on a daily basis. Couple that with the fact that they had “nothing deterring them for years” to train, recruit, and finance, being safer is beside the point. Rogers warns that, for instance, the people involved in making the video of the beheading of James Foley, believed to be a British citizen, could get back home and then fly to America without ever being found out until it is too late. “That’s what’s so dangerous about this,” said Rogers.

Concluding the segment, Rogers slammed the Obama administration’s failures in stopping these terrorist groups. “There’s no mulligans in foreign policy,” he said. Rogers reminds that this is not only about Foley’s brutal execution, but not forgetting that these terrorists have slaughtered, beheaded, executed, what have you, thousands of people and sold women into slavery. They will continue this practice. Stopping them, or “disrupting” them as Rogers says, is the key in dealing with ISIS.

Rogers said President Obama now has an opportunity to change his policies — those same policies that have led to missing “dozens and dozens of opportunities to take really bad people off the battlefield in the last two years.”

Jansing’s final question asked Rogers’s confidence level in the U.S. defeating ISIS. “We have the capability to defeat it, we now have to have the political will and we have to have the policy to do it. We have the first, we don’t have the second two,” Rogers said.

******

Feckless‘: McCain Slams Obama’s Foreign Policy:

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) was as kind as he could be when he called President Obama’s foreign policy “feckless” on Fox News Sunday.

McCain said the administration has failed in carving out a leadership role in the world thanks to Obama’s “leading from behind” strategy. From how he handles Vladimir Putin to taking the troops out of Iraq, Obama consistently shows the world his weaknesses and inability to be a strong leader.

McCain said one of the main reasons that the U.S. is now dealing with a terrorist group like ISIS is because Obama pulled the troops and didn’t leave a residual force behind in Iraq. “All of this could have been avoided,” McCain said.

Here is his full statement:

The president has got to come forward with a cohesive, comprehensive strategy, not only in Iraq, but also in Ukraine, also in other parts of the world. This is an administration, which the kindest word I can use, is feckless — where they have not outlined a role that the United States of America has to play and that’s a leadership role.

No more leading from behind. No more don’t do stupid stuff. No more tell Vladimir that I’m going to be more flexible if I am — when I’m re-elected. The president has to understand that America must lead and when America hasn’t, a lot of bad things happen. This is not like the earthquake in San Francisco — all of this could have been avoided, like leaving a residual force behind in Iraq. And obviously the challenge is now much greater than it would have been when the president made the decision not to leave a residual force in Iraq, among other things.

 

**********

Fox News Sunday  full transcript  (If I find the video of Gen. Jack Keane I will add it here)

 081014_fnewssunday_keane_640

 

Gen. Keane breaks down options against ISIS:

GEN. JACK KEANE, FORMER VICE CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. ARMY: Well, Chris, the way to look at this is, we need an air campaign first. And quite frankly, the United States would be in the lead there with our coalition partners. And also a ground campaign where we would be with our coalition partners in a support role only.

The air campaign would be designed to deny ISIS freedom of movement and take away their initiative to attack at will throughout Iraq, and also to destroy their support infrastructure, most of which frankly is in Syria. So, the strike targets would be in Syria, in Iraq, and it would be against staging bases with troops and equipments, supply bases, training areas for the foreign fighters that are streaming into Syria. Also, command and control and front line troop positions.

The ground campaign would be Free Syrian Army in the lead in Syria. They need to be robustly armed and equipped. What we’re doing right now is inadequate.

Second, in Iraq, the Iraqi army would be in the lead, coordinating with Peshmerga, Sunni tribes, and Shia militia. That campaign on the ground would be to defend what we have, but also to conduct a counteroffensive to retake lost territory.

The map there shows the two biblical rivers that make their way through Iraq. The one in the west, the Euphrates River Valley, that would be an effort to retake Fallujah dam, Fallujah, and the towns that surround it. In the north, the Tigris River Valley, to retake oil fields, Baji Refinery, Tikrit and eventually Mosul.

That counteroffensive would have to be supported by air support. We call that close air support. We would need air ground controllers to facilitate the use of air power while those attacks are going on. And also, Chris, we need special operators on the ground to go after and target ISIS leadership and high value targets, critical infrastructure and the same. That’s what an air and ground campaign would look like.

WALLACE: So, General, are we talking about hundreds of U.S. ground forces or thousands of U.S. ground forces? And is this an effort, if you’re going to really obliterate ISIS, is this going to take weeks, months, years?

KEANE: OK. First of all, we have been dribbling in trainers and advisers that we have all been observing. And we’ve got hundreds there. I think this is thousands of trainers and advisers. Some of the Iraqi army, as we know, has to be reconstituted.

So, the fact of the matter is that our forces on the ground, not in a combat role, except for the special operators, they would I think number in the thousands. That’s realistic.    In terms of the time, Chris, to be honest, no one knows. And why is that? Because we do not know how effective those ground units are going to be against ISIS.

We have — we’ve seen the Peshmerga have recent success. The Iraqi army are holding their own by the Haditha dam. But that’s not a counteroffensive campaign. We’ll have to find that out. That will drive how long this takes.

WALLACE: Finally, General, what kind of support are we going to need from other countries, both to start helping us and helping in the fight against ISIS and to stop helping ISIS? And I know there’s a lot of financial support coming from other countries.

KEANE: Well, that is really a crucial question, Chris. The fact of the matter is, I think the United States should host an international summit to develop a comprehensive strategy to defeat ISIS in conjunction with coalition partners.

What is the objective? How are we going to achieve it? Put all of that together.

On the political side, we’ve got to crack down on our allies in the region who have their citizens who are funding ISIS and other radical Islamist groups. We know who they are. Some of them obviously are in Saudi Arabia. We have to crack down on Qatar, who we treat as an ally. We have bases there. We have support equipment.

But the fact of the matter is, ISIS funds and it helped arm — excuse me. Qatar has funded and helped arm ISIS. They also as we all know fund Hamas. That’s got to stop. And we’ve got to use our pressure against that country to knock that stuff off.

Economically, ISIS is making money every day on the black market with their oil fields. But they are also putting money in banks. We know where those banks are. We should go after the banks and the facilitators using them.

The coalition brings what they can to help. And we take all that help, and we help coordinate it. We know how to do that. We’ve done that before.

WALLACE: So, this is a big, complicated, and prolonged effort.

General Keane, thank you so much for joining us today, sir.

KEANE: You’re welcome, Chris.

 

Also see video at Fox News:

James Woolsey discusses US intelligence on ISIS

“ISIS are Theocratic, totalitarian, genocidal imperialists…much worse than just terrorists and individual killers”

Oliver North: Can the US defeat ISIS in Syria?

 

 

Judge Jeanine Calls Obama Response to Foley Beheading Wimpy and Pathetic

Published on Aug 24, 2014 by Steven Laboe

Judge Jeanine Pirro’s Opening Statement blasts Obama for playing golf instead of dealing with ISIS.

 

Is ISIS Already Here?

Published on Aug 24, 2014 by Steven Laboe

Brigitte Gabriel joins Judge Jeanine to address the domestic terrorist threat by ISIS upon U.S. soil.

 

Also see:

And now we have ISIS.  The terror group that will stop at nothing to destroy our nation.   I know they are here.  I know this because there is a congressional report from 2012 that states the drug cartels are working with terror networks.  I know it because I have seen places along the border where the fence has been cut down on 50 separate occasions to allow huge trucks of drugs to drive through.  Despite all the technology and border patrol station presence, not once has a truck been stopped.   I understand that Anthrax, the makings for dirty bombs, radio-active material and explosive devices can be smuggled across the border without anyone or anything stopping the evil folks who smuggle them through.

I know what I know, and I have been ahead of this story for years.  It’s a matter of time before a city is destroyed.  I guess the only line of defense you have at this point is prayer.  Pray it isn’t your city.

OBAMA’S POST-FOLEY FRAUD ABOUT SHARIAH

isil-journalistBreitbart, by FRANK J. GAFFNEY, JR.:

President Barack Obama found time between golf rounds Thursday to condemn the beheading of American journalist James Foley by the Islamic State (also known as the Islamic State in the Levant or ISIL) and to assure the American people that he was all about protecting them against similar fates.

Unfortunately, aside from the President’s welcome condolences to the Foley family, the rest of his remarks amounted to serial misrepresentations about this latest act of terrorist violence at the hands of shariah-adherent jihadists. Such conduct can only assure that more of us will die at their hands.

For example, Mr. Obama declared: “No faith teaches people to massacre innocents.” Actually, the authoritative Islamic doctrine (or ideology) known as shariah explicitly calls for violent jihad to force infidels to submit to Islam and, as the Koran puts it, “to make them feel subdued.”

The President sought to reinforce the notion that, because ISIL’s “victims are overwhelmingly Muslim,” the group’s terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. In fact, practically from Islam’s inception, innumerable Muslims have been massacred by their co-religionists over such matters as Sunni-Shia differences concerning fine points of theology or insufficient conformity with shariah.

Mr. Obama also asserted that the Islamic State’s “ideology is bankrupt.” Calling that ideology bankrupt at a moment when it is palpably on the march from North and sub-Saharan Africa to the Far East and Latin America bespeaks a contempt for the intelligence of the American people. It is approximately as delusional and misleading as Obama’s previous, electioneering claim that one of shariah’s other jihadist franchises, al Qaeda, is “on the path to defeat.”

In short, President Obama’s comments marking the decapitation of James Foley are but the latest in a series of instances of national security fraud on his part. Intentional or not, they have the effect of engendering a false sense of security at home, even as they embolden our jihadist and other enemies – who are ever-alert to weakness, lack of seriousness, or irresolution on America’s part.

A particularly unsettling example of those qualities was evident in the President’s closing assurance that “we will be vigilant… and relentless” in protecting the American people. Actually, at the moment he is being clueless, disingenuous, and ineffectual in doing so. And that puts us all at risk.

White House Changing Its Tune On ISIS – The Kelly File

Published on Aug 23, 2014 by UNIVERSAL

 

ISIS Communicating With Mexican Cartel – Islamic Extremism On The Rise:

 

Also see: