Free Fire Zone – Bring it Bibi

Published on Jan 30, 2015 by securefreedom

PM Netanyahu of Israel is coming to do the work President Obama won’t- Tell the truth about the threat of Iranian nukes.

Obama’s National Security Wonderland

20150129_nationalsecurity_obama_kerry_hagel_power_rice_mcdonough_By DR. PETER VINCENT PRY:

America is headed for a national security train wreck because President Obama–for reasons of ideology and wishful thinking–believes in some dangerous fantasies:

Fantasy #1

The war on terrorism is against violent extremists, not radical Islam

President Obama argues that ISIS and Al Qaeda are not truly Islamic, and does not want to offend moderate Muslims by implying the U.S. is at war with their religion.

But ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other Jihadists do, in fact, represent a violent faction of Islam that is written into the Koran and is part of the Muslim worldview historically since the birth of Islam with the conquests of Mohammed in the 7th century.

“Violent extremists” is a meaningless phrase in the struggle for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.  It is also dangerous for Obama’s Department of Defense and FBI to abolish scrutiny of the ideologies of radical Islam to “know thy enemy” and better prosecute the war on terrorism.

It may be even more dangerous for liberty when Obama’s focus on “violent extremists”, instead of radical Islam, results in members of the NRA and other domestic critics of the president finding themselves on the Department of Homeland Security’s terrorism watch list!

Nearly twenty years ago, Samuel P. Huntington in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996) predicted a collision between Islam and the West, predicted the present war on terrorism, predicted even that Turkey would drift out of NATO toward its ideological roots in the Muslim world, as is happening now.

Islam is central to the war on terror and to the future of world affairs–a fact President Obama ignores at our peril.

Fantasy #2

North Korea does not have nuclear missiles

Following North Korea’s third illegal nuclear test in February 2013, dictator Kim Jong-Un threatened to make nuclear missile strikes against the U.S. and its allies.  President Obama reassured the public that North Korea could not deliver on its nuclear threats, as the North has not yet developed a small enough “miniaturized” warhead for  missiles, or so Obama claimed.

Yet while Obama was denying the nuclear missile threat from North Korea, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) briefed Congress that North Korea does, in fact, have nuclear armed missiles.

More recently, in January 2015, South Korean military intelligence warned that North Korea does have nuclear missiles.  Obama’s Defense Department tried to silence the South Koreans, claiming there is no “specific evidence” that North Korea has missile warheads.

Evidence that North Korea has nuclear missiles includes that Pyongyang has successfully tested both nuclear weapons and missiles capable of delivering them.  North Korea has also orbited a satellite over the U.S., which in the past has been rightly regarded as crossing the technological threshold from being a nuclear weapons state to posing a nuclear missile threat.  Miniaturizing a nuclear missile warhead is also much easier to accomplish than building long-range missiles and nuclear weapons in the first place.

The intelligence community has known for years that North Korea has nuclear missiles.

In 2011, DIA Director General Ronald Burgess testified to the Senate that North Korea probably has nuclear missiles.  In 2009, NATO’s European intelligence agencies assessed that North Korea has nuclear missiles.  In 2008, CIA East Asia Division Chief Arthur Brown warned the Japanese press that North Korea has nuclear missiles.  There is evidence that North Korea deployed nuclear missiles as far back as 1993.

Nuclear testing is not necessary to develop a nuclear missile warhead–as proven by Israel and South Africa.  Mark Schneider’s excellent article “Does North Korea Have a Missile-Deliverable Nuclear Weapon?” (May 22, 2013) details some of the unclassified “specific evidence”, including from defector testimony, that North Korea has nuclear missiles.

President Obama apparently wants to escape responsibility for the nuclear threat getting much worse on his watch by denying the existence of North Korean nuclear missiles.  Acknowledging that North Korea is a nuclear missile state would also expose as unrealistic Obama’s fantasy of a world without nuclear weapons.

North Korea’s nuclear missiles are a more immediate and far greater threat than President Obama’s panic over “anthropogenic climate change.”

Fantasy #3

Iran will agree to stop development of an “Islamic Bomb”

President Obama’s nuclear negotiations with Iran are premised on the assumption that the intelligence community can warn when Iran is about to build nuclear weapons, and that Iran is not yet a nuclear weapons state.

But providing such warning, when Iran is already so close to the bomb, is a virtual impossibility.

One year ago, in January 2014, Olli Heinonen, the former Deputy Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN watchdog monitoring Iran, warned that Iran could develop a crude atomic bomb in 2-3 weeks.

Seven years ago, in 2008, then IAEA Director General, Mohammed El Baradei, warned that Iran is within 6 months of developing the bomb.  IAEA has repeated the warning that Iran is on the threshold of becoming a nuclear weapons state every year since 2008.

The IAEA has also warned that their intelligence on Iran’s nuclear weapons program is far from perfect, that they do not have access to underground facilities where work on nuclear weapons may be proceeding clandestinely–as was done by North Korea during its eight years of negotiations with the Clinton Administration.  As Heinonen put it diplomatically in a 2014 interview, the IAEA “remains unable to provide credible assurances on the absence of undeclared nuclear facilities and activities.”

Nonetheless, the IAEA has discovered that Iran has conducted experiments with implosion technology, used in more sophisticated nuclear weapons.  IAEA also found plans for a nuclear warhead that would fit on Iran’s missiles.

Iran is allied to North Korea by a treaty that provides for cooperation on military science and technology.  North Korean scientists are known to be in Iran helping their missile and, reportedly, Iran’s nuclear programs.  Iranian scientists reportedly have been present at North Korean nuclear tests.

In September 2013, Israeli government scientists warned that Iran already has the bomb.  Numerous U.S. experts, including former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey and former Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Fritz Ermarth, have also cautioned that Iran may already have nuclear weapons.

Iran is probably using nuclear negotiations to do what North Korea did during its negotiations with the Clinton Administration–building nuclear weapons and advancing its nuclear weapons infrastructure so these facts become irreversible.

Read more at Family Security Matters

***

Obama’s Foreign Policy Pronouncements Undone by Reality

How Long Until ISIS is Elevated to Coveted Position of “Insurgency”

Eric Schultz

Eric Schultz

CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Jan. 29, 2015:

In the kinds of moments we have seen repeatedly from press officials forced to defend the largely indefensible security policies of the Obama Administration, White House Spokesman Eric Schultz struggled to justify to Reporter John Karl why the White House’s decision to release 5 high-level Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for suspected deserter Bowe Bergdahl was some how superior in strategy and morals, to the contemplation of Jordanian officials to return a failed female suicide bomber, in exchange for a Jordanian fighter pilot captured by the Islamic State. Schultz attempted to argue that the Administration released the five, who all held senior positions with the Taliban, because the war in Afghanistan was “winding down” and prisoner exchanges are standard fare at the conclusion of a conflict. Schultz stressed that the Taliban was an “armed insurgency” where as the Islamic state was merely a “terrorist group” and the United States opposes negotiating with terrorists. Despite push back from Karl, who pointed out that there was no qualitative difference in behavior between the two groups, and that the Taliban continued to attack U.S and coalition forces making the “winding down a war” claim disingenuous at best, Schultz was apparently unmoved.

While Karl did not have the opportunity to make the point, the ludicrousness of this claim is extended further because the Islamic State is indeed an armed insurgency, easily meeting established definitions. And by any reasonable metric the Taliban engages in terrorism. This is because, of course, both groups are jihadist organizations, motivated by precisely the same goals, and operating within the strategic doctrine for how Jihad should be waged, in accordance with Shariah, which calls for both the use of terror (“…strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah… Sura 8:60) and the imposition of God’s law and governance over territory (“And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah… Sura8:39).

This is the problem with having a tactics-oriented strategy, rather than a strategy which orients on the enemy threat doctrine. Given time and opportunity, jihadists will always go from “terrorists” to “insurgents.” If not defeated, jihadists eventually become states, where upon (as the administration’s ongoing negotiations with Iran make clear) they are granted yet more privileges and benefits. The Islamic State is not the first band of jihadists to seize territory to further its vision of returning the Middle East to the ways of the earliest companions of the prophet (we call some of their predecessors the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.)

How to Lose Friends and Empower Radicals: The Peace Prize President’s More Dangerous World

obama-binoculars-AP-640x480

 

Breitbart, by Sebastian Gorka, Jan. 29, 2015:

Since 2008, the world has become a significantly more dangerous place. In every region, new threats have emerged or old ones have reasserted them. The scorecard is clear: the bad guys are winning and America’s interests are being undermined daily.

As a nation, America has yet to recover from the experience of September 11th, 2001. Public opinion on our national response to the attacks against the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93 is today divided. On one side we have the “Bush lied, People Died!” crowd who portray President George W. Bush’s response in terms of a conspiracy, despite the fact that we now know Saddam Hussein indeed possessed thousands of WMD warheads (and had used them in the past).

On the other, we have conservatives who are themselves split between the unsophisticated isolationists/non-interventionists who believe that an American withdrawal from the world will make us safe, and the quietly resurgent neoconservatives who see in the rise of ISIS/The Islamic State a justification for more foreign engagements.

For a moment, let us put Operations Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan), and Operations Iraqi Freedom (OIF), to one side. Instead, let us take an unemotional snap-shot of the global geostrategic situation to see whether the administration whose head was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize during his first year in office has indeed make the world a safer and more peaceful place.

Europe: During most of the last century, American security was tied directly to the continent of Europe. Whether it was the generational genocide of World War One, the racial genocide of WWII, or the class-based totalitarianism of the Cold War, Europe was the source of strategic, and at times existential, threats to America.

During the first Obama Administration, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton declared a “Pivot to Asia” which would deemphasize Europe’s importance and see Washington focus more on our Pacific partners than on old Atlantic Allies.

Since that announcement, an emboldened Vladimir Putin has seen fit to break an almost 70-year-old international taboo by using force to redraw national borders with his annexation of Crimea. This includes, incredibly, the shooting down of a civilian jet-liner by forces armed by Moscow.

At the same time, we have seen the European Union become evermore centralizing and undemocratic as untenable economic and fiscal policies are propped up by a Brussels bureaucracy in the name of “broader and deeper union.” This has naturally led to two types of responses: the unprecedented success of a paleo-conservative backlash, best typified by the insurgent victories of UKIP in Great Britain, as well the reverse: Utopian socialist populists such as the victorious Syriza party of Greece.

Then there are Europe’s ties to the Global Jihadist Movement. The recent slaughter in Paris, the beheading of a British serviceman on the streets of the UK, and Spanish and Belgian terror-related arrests all attest to the failure of the current international campaign against Islamist terrorism.

The flawed immigration policies of many EU nations have also facilitated the establishment of literally hundreds of ethnic and religious enclaves across the continent where integration is seen as a bad thing and where radical talentspotters for groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS/IS identify, indoctrinate and recruit murderers such as the Charlie Hebdo killers, as well as thousands of fighters for The Islamic State.

This has led to a grass-roots response from Europeans afraid of the future survival of their countries embodied in the ever-broadening PEGIDA movement that Breitbart London has covered in great detail. The failure of multiculturalist immigration policies has not only encouraged the enclave phenomenon, but is also clearly linked to the disturbing rise of anti-Semitism on the continent which has led to unprecedented numbers of European jews deciding to leave the nations of their birth for good.

If we include Turkey in our European snapshot, the situation is even worse, as we have seen the one viable example of a secular Muslim state slip even deeper into the corruption-ridden maelstrom of Islamic fundamentalism under the Erdogan government which is either incapable or unwilling to prevent Turkey becoming a pre-deployment site for jihadist fighters traveling into Syria and Iraq. All this from a formal NATO ally of the US.

Asia: The much-vaunted Pivot to Asia has clearly not worked. China has, over the last several years, openly challenged the post-Cold War peace in the region with a commitment to its own military build-up coupled with a concerted campaign of intimidation against its smaller and weaker neighbors.

While challenging and intimidating our regional partners, China has continued to grow economically at such a rate that the nation which was once universally ridiculed as the maker of plastic toys for McDonalds Happy Meals has now surpassed the US economy in terms of gross output.  At the same time, China is waging a covert war against America in the cyber domain, stealing not only state secrets for use in developing its new weapons systems, but also billions of dollars worth of intellectual property and commercial secrets from American businesses. See the remarkable report from Mandiant on scale of the threat.

North Korea has also used the internet to assault American interests as the Sony hacking attack attests, while Washington has proven totally ineffective in undermining the world’s last truly fully-fledged Stalinist regime, or its regionally destabilizing nuclear weapons capabilities.

Africa: A giant continent, with threats as bad as they were in 2008, or in several cases much worse. The Global Jihadist Movement continues to consolidate its control in Nigeria through the horrific attacks of Boko Haram, the group made famous for the kidnapping of the girls from Chibok, an attack which is just one part of a vast campaign targeting Christians and anyone who does not want to live under a theocratically run system based upon sharia and 7th century interpretation of the Koran.

In addition to the insurgent-like threat of Boko Haram, we have also witnessed horrific hit and run terrorist tactics used by other African jihadists, as in the Westgate Mall attack in Nairobi by Al Shabaab. At the same time, China proceeds to build its vast network of economic interests in the continent in ways that far outstrip American geostrategic investment in Africa.

Australasia: Of course, the Pivot to Asia should have pleased our Antipodean allies. But the concrete consequences of the declarations and speeches by Secretary Clinton and the White House have amounted to little more than the deployment of a handful of US Marines from Camp Pendleton to Australia. Instead of the security situation improving, Australia faced its own Jihadist attack just before Christmas last year as a self-styled imam took hostages and brought the violent jihad so familiar to New York, London, Madrid, and Paris, to the streets of Sydney.

The Americas: Canada likewise became a direct victim of the Global Jihadist Movement after a spate of attacks against its armed forces and even its parliament which was only stopped when a brave sergeant-at-arms applied deadly force in the face of a rampaging jihadi.

Those who like illicit quality cigars may be celebrating the White House’s “normalization” of relations with Communist Cuba, but if statements by the Castro regime are to be credited as expressing Havana’s true intentions, then the deal was good for the dictatorship and bad for America. And despite the US government’s historic decision, conditions inside Cuba have remained the same, or in many case deteriorated, with last year seeing record-breaking numbers of political arrests on the island nation. And Cuba’s anti-democratic influence is a problem for the region, not just its wretched population, with Raul Castro’s secret police providing aid and expertise in the oppression of dissidentsto the government of Venezuela.

The Middle East and North Africa: Leaving the worst for last we have, of course, the Middle East, and North Africa. The highs hopes for the Arab Spring turned very rapidly into a “Christian Winter” and a victory for the fundamentalist and anti-Democratic forces of the Muslim Brotherhood. One after another, one-man authoritarian regimes fell to Islamist MB governments, or collapsed into deadly civil wars which are still being fought in places like Syria and Libya. Throughout the region, proto-democrats and vulnerable minorities, especially ancient Christian communities, have been targeted for death or persecution, or have been forced to flee.

The one ray of hope, the people’s revolt in Egypt against the Brotherhood government of Mohammad Morsi, which led to his being ousted by a secular military, was rejected by the US administration as a coup, despite the fact that General, now President, Sisi, has been fighting his own war against Jihadi fundamentalists since he was the Chief of the Egyptian Armed Forces.

And now Yemen, which was lauded just a few months ago by President Obama as the poster-child of his successful counterterrorism strategy, has collapsed under insurgent attacks and the resignation of the government in Sanaa.

Then there is Iran, which, much like Cuba, has squeezed concession after concession out of the administration without either stopping its acquisition of nuclear weapons capability, or curtailing its support of Shiite terrorist fighters in either Iraq or Syria.

I said I would leave Afghanistan and Iraq of our the equation, but nevertheless, it is important to recognize that this is a new jihadist threat that is even more dangerous than Al Qaeda. ISIS, the Islamic State, is today a full-fledged insurgency, one that in four dimensions is much more of a threat that Al Qaeda ever was.

The Islamic State is more than a terrorist group, it now functions as a quasi-state and controls territory equivalent to the size of the UK. It is the richest non-state threat group in human history. It has an incredibly sophisticated understanding of information warfare and how to use social media as a propaganda platform, and lastly – and relatedly – it has recruited ten of thousands of young Muslim men from around the world, including Europe and the US, to fight for the new Caliphate of Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. Bin Laden dreamt of being this powerful. The Islamic State has turned his dream into a horrific reality.

There is not one area of the world of import to America in which we have either not lost friends, or failed to help our allies to defend themselves against the common enemies that threaten us all. Whatever your politics, or whomever you favor for the next Commander-in-Chief of the United States, one thing is certain: without resolute American leadership the world can become, and now is, a much more dangerous place.

Sebastian Gorka PhD. is the Major General Matthew C. Horner Distinguished Chair of Military Theory at the Marine Corps University and Associate Fellow at the Joint Special Operations University, USSOCOM. Follow him at @SebGorka.

When a terrorist organization becomes an ‘armed insurgency’

American Thinker, by Rick Moran, Jan. 29, 2015

An organization that regularly uses suicide attacks against innocent civilians has been designated an “armed insurgency” by the White House.

The Afghanistan Taliban has sent dozens of suicide bombers and attackers to hit soft targets in Afghanistan, but the administration says it’s OK to negotiate with them because they’re not terrorists.

This pretzel logic was dispensed by deputy press secretary Eric Schultz, who was responding to a question about the proposed exchange of a Japanese civilian prisoner and a Jordanian pilot for an Iraqi woman convicted of terrorism in Jordan.  Isn’t that the same as us exchanging five Taliban commanders for deserter Bowe Bergdahl?

Not at all, said Schultz.

Wall Street Journal:

“Our policy is that we don’t pay ransom, that we don’t give concessions to terrorist organizations,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said Wednesday. “This is a longstanding policy that predates this administration and it’s also one that we communicated to our friends and allies across the world,” he added.

But the U.S. engaged in a similar prisoner swap with Afghanistan’s Taliban last year, releasing several Guantanamo Bay prisoners in exchange for the freedom of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Mr. Bergdahl had been held by the Taliban as a prisoner since 2009 until his release last year as part of a prisoner swap.

The White House said the situation was different because Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is a terrorist group operating in Syria and Iraq while the Taliban is not, in the administration’s thinking.

“The Taliban is an armed insurgency, ISIL is a terrorist group. We don’t make concessions to terrorist groups,” Mr. Schultz said.

Asked directly if the White House considered the Taliban a terrorist group, Mr. Schultz repeated the line that they are an armed insurgency and said that the swap for Mr. Bergdahl was part of the “winding down of the war in Afghanistan.”

The Taliban was the ruling government of Afghanistan before being ousted by U.S. forces in late 2001 over the government’s refusal to hand over members of al Qaeda who were believed to be complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.

Since then, the Taliban has emerged as an insurgent force with bases of power in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan that continues to attack U.S. forces, Afghan government forces and civilians in both countries. In December, Taliban militants staged an attack on a school in Peshawar, Pakistan, where 145 people were killed, mostly children.

The United States does not list the Taliban on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list run by the State Department, but it has listed the group on a separate Specially Designated Global Terrorist list since 2002. And the National Counterterrorism Center lists the “Taliban Presence in Afghanistan” on a map of global terrorism presences.

 

The administration is scrambling to differentiate the Taliban from IS because the army is apparently ready to charge Bergdahl with desertion, and giving away five terrorist commanders for a deserter is “bad optics” for the White House.  Besides, the administration would still like to cut a deal with the “good” Taliban to bring them into the Afghan government in a power-sharing arrangement.  If they were to refer to the Taliban as “terrorists,” it would look like an even worse idea than it already is.

There’s no doubt that in diplomacy, exactitude in language is an absolute necessity.  But this constant parsing of words from the White House about the terrorism issue is bizarre and unprecedented and not done to further our understanding of the threat, but rather to obscure it.  It is motivated not by diplomacy, but by domestic politics.

The next bunch of Taliban terrorists who shoot up a school can relax.  Your cause has been legitimized by the White House when they refer to you as an “armed insurgency.”

Gorka: President Obama’s 5 Strategic Mistakes in the War Against ISIS (with video)

obama-hmm-ap (1)Breitbart, by DR. SEBASTIAN GORKA, Sep. 29, 2014

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

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

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

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

Also see:

General Tells Senators al-Qaeda Has ‘Grown Fourfold in Last Five Years’

Published on Jan 28, 2015 by One Post

Full testimony here

PJ Media, By Bridget Johnson On January 27, 2015

The former vice chief of staff of the Army warned the Senate Armed Services Committee today that al-Qaeda has “grown fourfold in the last five years.”

“AQ and its affiliates exceeds Iran in beginning to dominate multiple countries,” retired four-star Gen. Jack Keane testified.

Using a term that the Obama administration now eschews, Keane called radical Islam “the major security challenge of our generation.”

“Radical Islam, as I’m defining it for today’s discussion, consists of three distinct movements who share a radical fundamentalist ideology, use jihad or terror to achieve objectives that compete with each other for influence and power,” he said.

“In 1980, Iran declared the United States as a strategic enemy and its goal is to drive the United States out of the region, achieve regional hegemony, and destroy the state of Israel. It uses proxies, primarily as the world’s number one state sponsoring terrorism. Thirty plus years Iran has used these proxies to attack the United States. To date, the result is U.S. troops left Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq, while Iran has direct influence and some control over Beirut, Lebanon, Gaza, Damascus, Syria, Baghdad, Iraq, and now Sana’a, Yemen,” the general continued.

“Is there any doubt that Iran is on the march and is systematically moving toward their regional hegemonic objective? Iran has been on a 20-year journey to acquire nuclear weapons, simply because they know it guarantees preservation of the regime and makes them, along with their partners, the dominant power in the region, thereby capable of expanding their control and influence. Add to this their ballistic missile delivery system and Iran is not only a threat to the region, but to Europe, as well. And as they increase missile range, eventually a threat to the United States. And as we know, a nuclear arms race, because of their nuclear ambition, is on the horizon for the Middle East.”

Keane detailed the growth of al-Qaeda in its quest to “eventually achieve world domination.”

“Third, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, ISIS, is an outgrowth from Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was defeated in Iraq by 2009. After U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq in 2011, ISIS reemerged as a terrorist organization in Iraq, moved into Syria in 2012, and began seizing towns and villages from the Syria-Iraq border all the way to the western Syria from Aleppo to Damascus,” he reminded the committee.

That leads to an “unmistakable” conclusion that “our policies have failed,” Keane added.

“And the unequivocal explanation is U.S. policy has focused on disengaging from the Middle East, while our stated policy is pivoting to the east,” he said. “U.S. policymakers choose to ignore the very harsh realities of the rise of radical Islam. In my view, we became paralyzed by the fear of adverse consequences in the Middle East after fighting two wars. Moreover, as we sit here this morning, in the face of radical Islam, U.S. policymakers refuse to accurately name the movement as radical Islam. We further choose not to define it, nor explain its ideology, and most critical, we have no comprehensive strategy to stop it or defeat it.”

Muslim Brotherhood-Aligned Leaders Hosted at State Department

Washington Free Beacon, by Adam Kredo, Jan. 28, 2015

The State Department hosted a delegation of Muslim Brotherhood-aligned leaders this week for a meeting about their ongoing efforts to oppose the current government of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, who rose to power following the overthrow of Mohamed Morsi, an ally of the Brotherhood, in 2013.

One member of the delegation, a Brotherhood-aligned judge in Egypt, posed for a picture while at Foggy Bottom in which he held up the Islamic group’s notorious four-finger Rabia symbol, according to his Facebook page.

That delegation member, Waleed Sharaby, is a secretary-general of the Egyptian Revolutionary Council and a spokesman for Judges for Egypt, a group reported to have close ties to the Brotherhood.

The delegation also includes Gamal Heshmat, a leading member of the Brotherhood, and Abdel Mawgoud al-Dardery, a Brotherhood member who served as a parliamentarian from Luxor.

Sharaby, the Brotherhood-aligned judge, flashed the Islamist group’s popular symbol in his picture at the State Department and wrote in a caption: “Now in the U.S. State Department. Your steadfastness impresses everyone,” according to an independent translation of the Arabic.

Screen-Shot-2015-01-27-at-2.43.16-PM

Another member of the delegation, Maha Azzam, confirmed during an event hosted Tuesday by the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID)—another group accused of having close ties to the Brotherhood—that the delegation had “fruitful” talks with the State Department.

Maha Azzam confirms that ‘anti-coup’ delegation, which includes 2 top [Muslim Brothers], had ‘fruitful’ conversations at State Dept,” Egypt expert Eric Trager tweeted.

Assam also said that the department expressed openness to engagement, according to one person who attended the event.

Trager, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), said that the State Department is interested in maintaining a dialogue with the Brotherhood due to its continued role in the Egyptian political scene.

“The State Department continues to speak with Muslim Brothers on the assumption that Egyptian politics are unpredictable, and the Brotherhood still has some support in Egypt,” he said. “But when pro-Brotherhood delegations then post photos of themselves making pro-Brotherhood gestures in front of the State Department logo, it creates an embarrassment for the State Department.”

When asked to comment on the meeting Tuesday evening, a State Department official said, “We meet with representatives from across the political spectrum in Egypt.”

The official declined to elaborate on who may have been hosted or on any details about the timing and substance of any talks.

Samuel Tadros, an Egypt expert and research fellow at the Hudson Institute who is familiar with the delegation, said that the visit is meant to rally support for the Muslim Brotherhood’s ongoing efforts against to oppose Sisi.

“I think the Muslim Brotherhood visit serves two goals,” Tadros said. “First, organizing the pro Muslim Brotherhood movement in the U.S. among the Egyptian and other Arab and Muslim communities.”

“Secondly, reaching out to administration and the policy community in D.C.,” Tadros said. “The delegation’s composition includes several non-official Muslim Brotherhood members to portray an image of a united Islamist and non-Islamist revolutionary camp against the regime.”

The delegation held several public events this week in Maryland and Virginia, according to invitations that were sent out.

Patrick Poole, a terrorism expert and national security reporter, said the powwow at the State Department could be a sign that the Obama administration still considers the Brotherhood politically viable, despite its ouster from power and a subsequent crackdown on its members by Egyptian authorities.

“What this shows is that the widespread rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood across the Middle East, particularly the largest protests in recorded human history in Egypt on June 30, 2013, that led to Morsi’s ouster, is not recognized by the State Department and the Obama administration,” Poole said.

“This is a direct insult to our Egyptian allies, who are in an existential struggle against the Muslim Brotherhood, all in the pursuit of the mythical ‘moderate Islamists’ who the D.C. foreign policy elite still believe will bring democracy to the Middle East,” Poole said.

Spy General Unloads on Obama’s ISIS War Plan

1422368403396.cachedDaily Beast, by Kimberly Dozier, Jan. 27, 2015

Former DIA Chief Michael Flynn likens the fight against Islamic militants to the Cold War and calls for an international chain of command akin to that of the Allies in World War II.
The former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency slammed the Obama administration on Monday as “well intentioned” but paralyzed and playing defense inits the fight againstIslamic militancy.Recently retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn called for the U.S. to lead the charge in a sweeping, decades-long campaign against the Islamic State group, al Qaeda, and its ilk—a fight like the one against the former Soviet Union—against a new enemy he said is  “committed to the destruction of freedom and the American way of life.”

“There is no substitute, none, for American power,” the general said, to occasional cheers and ultimately a standing ovation from a crowd of special operators and intelligence officers at a Washington industry conference.

He also slammed the administration for refusing to use the term “Islamic militants” in its description of ISIS and al Qaeda.

“You cannot defeat an enemy you do not admit exists,” Flynn said.

He said the administration is unwilling to admit the scope of the problem, naively clinging to the hope that limited counterterrorist intervention will head off the ideological juggernaut of religious militancy.

“There are many sincere people in our government who frankly are paralyzed by this complexity,” said Flynn, so they “accept a defensive posture, reasoning that passivity is less likely to provoke our enemies.”

Flynn refused to name President Obama as the focus of his ire in comments afterward to The Daily Beast, saying that he was simply “sending a message to the American people.” But the comments show the widening rift between some in the national-security community who want to see more special-operations and intelligence assets sent into the fight against ISIS and other groups in Syria and beyond.

Flynn’s comments echo calls by other former Obama administration officials like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and former CIA Director and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta who all say they urged more intervention earlier in the Syrian conflict.

Flynn left his DIA post in the summer of 2014, with close associates muttering about his frustration with the Obama White House’s inaction against al Qaeda, the self-proclaimed Islamic State, widely known as ISIS or ISIL, and more. Since his departure, he has been speaking to business executives and contemplating several offers from corporate America and academia, but has stayed mum about why he left his DIA post earlier than planned.

Within the shadowy world of special operations-driven intelligence, Flynn developed a reputation for bluntly speaking his mind, working for Gen. Stanley McChrystal at the elite Joint Special Operations Command and later serving as McChrystal’s intelligence chief in Afghanistan before McChrystal had his own run-in with the Obama administration for impolitic remarks in Rolling Stonemagazine.

Flynn caused controversy during his Afghan stint when he went outside military channels to a think tank, publishing a monograph called Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan. That broadside was maligned for the delivery method but widely praised for its message—that traditional military-intelligence practitioners were too focused on targeting the enemy rather than understanding the cultural and economic environment driving the enemy to fight.

In this latest critique, Flynn accused the administration of failing to understand what drives ISIS or al Qaeda.

“They want us to think that our challenge is dealing with an undefined set of violent extremists or merely lone-wolf actors with no ideology or network. But that’s just not the straight truth,” said Flynn. “Our adversaries around the world are self-described Islamic militants—they say,” he told the crowd at the annual National Defense Industry Association’s special-operations meeting. There were many nods of approval.

The current head of Special Operations Command, Gen. Joseph Votel, was more circumspect in comments to the same audience about whether or not the United States “should be” expanding the fight against Islamic militancy.

“The bigger issue is whether we are allowed to do that,” Votel said, measuring his words carefully. The famously reticent U.S. Army Ranger—who just came from leading the shadowy and elite Joint Special Operations Command—said the issue “falls into the realm of uncomfortable topics” he has to bring up with the administration.

Votel described the foreign-fighter flow into the Middle East in support of ISIS as “staggering,” adding that “over 19,000 foreign fighters from more than 90 different countries have traveled to Syria and Iraq.”

Flynn described the enemies arrayed against the U.S. as varied, but “fueled by a vision for worldwide domination, achieved through violence and bloodshed. They want to silence all opposition. They hate our ideals and they hate our way of life.”

In the fight against militant extremism, Flynn said the problem is so sweeping, the world should create a “single unified and international chain of command, probably civilian-led,” like the coalition championed by Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower during World War II. He made further references to former President Ronald Reagan’s all-out war against the Soviet Union, not only outfighting them in proxy wars, but outspending them and outthinking them in terms of fighting their ideology.

Flynn said that since 1960 there had been more than 30 insurgencies, conflicts, and wars, “and in two-thirds of these cases, the bad guys won.”

“A strong defense is the best deterrent,” against such fights, he said, adding that, “the dangers to the U.S. do not arise from the arrogance of American power, but from unpreparedness or an excessive unwillingness to fight when fighting is necessary.”

“Retreat, retrenchment, and disarmament are historically a recipe for disaster,” he added, making reference to budget cuts and troop drawdowns faced by the current military as the Obama administration attempts to reduce troop levels in Afghanistan, as it did in Iraq before sending small numbers of trainers and advisers to assist the government there in the current crisis brought on by the territorial gains of ISIS.

The White House did not respond immediately to requests for comment on Flynn’s remarks.

Bergdahl to be charged with desertion, ex-military intel officer says

Published on Jan 26, 2015 by Wake Up America

Fox News, Jan. 27, 2015

The Army has decided to charge Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was released by Taliban-aligned militants last year in exchange for five Guantanamo prisoners, with desertion, according to a former military intelligence officer.

Retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, who now works at the London Center for Policy Research, told Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” Monday night that he’s learned of the military’s decision from two sources.

“The Army has come to its conclusion, and Bowe Bergdahl … will be charged with desertion,” he said.

Pentagon and Army officials, however, pushed back and denied that any decision had been made. At a press briefing Tuesday afternoon, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said Bergdahl “has not been charged,” and no charges have been referred. He said he would not “speculate” about what might happen in the future.

Army spokesman Paul Boyce also told Fox News there is “no change” and that it is an “ongoing review at this time.” Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl’s lawyer, did not comment when reached by Fox News.

But Shaffer said Bergdahl’s attorney has been given a “charge sheet” outlining the section of the military justice code Bergdahl allegedly violated.

“As a corporate entity, the Army has decided that they want to pursue Bergdahl for this violation,” Shaffer said.

Shaffer said there’s a “huge battle” going on inside the Obama administration, as some try to “suppress” this development. “This is shaping up to be a titanic struggle behind the scenes,” he said.

Shaffer said the Army “wants to do the right thing,” but the White House “wants this to go away.”

He said: “The White House, because of the political narrative, President Obama cozying up to the parents and because of he, President Obama, releasing the five Taliban … The narrative is what the White House does not want to have come out.”

Bergdahl was held for five years before his release was secured in 2014.

But while the president joined with Bergdahl’s parents in the Rose Garden at the time in celebrating his return home, the prisoner swap swiftly became a matter of severe controversy. Fellow soldiers accused Bergdahl of deserting his post on a base in Afghanistan in 2009. And the trade itself, of his freedom for five Guantanamo prisoners, drew criticism in Congress from lawmakers who said it sent a troubling signal.

On Monday, former diplomat Richard Grenell claimed the administration has “sent the message” that the U.S. will negotiate on such matters. He cited an alleged offer, made around the same time as Bergdahl’s release, by the Qatari government to trade two Americans held in Qatar for an Al Qaeda agent held in a U.S. federal prison. The Obama administration denies there was any deal. Those prisoners were ultimately released over the past two months.

****

Bergdahl Charges Again Raise Questions Over GITMO Transfers

CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Jan. 27, 2015

Multiple sources are saying that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is expected to be charged with desertion, over his leaving his post prior to being abducted by the Haqqani network, which is tied to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Bergdahl was swapped by Obama Administration in exchange for five high-level Taliban leaders being held at Guantanamo Bay. As the Center has previously pointed out, the insistence by the Administration that the Bergdahl swap take place is a byproduct of its increased urgency to move Gitmo detainees to third countries and finally close the camp for good. The administration was ultimately dishonest with the American people, sending National Security Advisor Susan Rice out to claim Bergdahl served “with honor and distinction,” while administration supporters, and President Obama himself, attempted to push the meme that the swap was merely a prisoner transfer as the expected outcome of war’s end:

“You don’t do prisoner exchanges with your friends, you do ‘em with your enemies,” Obama told NBC’s Brian Williams. “It’s also important for us to recognize that the transition process of ending a war is going to involve, on occasion, releasing folks who we may not trust but we can’t convict.”

Ironically, also recently released (early, for time served) was a Al Qaeda sleeper agent, who was in fact convicted. meanwhile, freed fighters continue to return to the battlefield despite misleading claims to the contrary. The reality is that far from the war coming to an end as the Administration claims, the United States has indeed never been further from victory over the Global Jihad than it is right now, thanks to a lack of overarching strategy. And with the Bergdahl release, The United States placed itself in a hypocritical position of urging other nations to refrain from the same kind of hostage negotiations, in order to free innocent civilians , that the U.S. used to release a known defector.

POLLACK: HE Stands With THEM

obama_40

Truth Revolt, by William Pollack, Jan. 25, 2015

Is there a soul who still believes Barack Hussein Obama stands with and for America? It has been six years since women fainted, a pundit’s leg tingled and a hysterical electorate screeched the nonsensical rhetoric “yes we can” and “hope and change.” Reality has set in for most Americans.

What single policy of his has strengthened American interests at home and abroad? Name one ally still confident of America’s friendship? Whether it’s Obama’s leftist ideology and/or a more sinister belief in weakening our nation, his decisions have created a vacuum void of strong American global leadership. Enemy alliances are exponentially growing as global commentators interpret the Obama administration as one that dithers and is inattentive. Spin an old fashioned globe you might find in a library or antique shop and wherever it stops, there’s trouble.

“Islamic Terrorism” is a euphemism this administration will not use even ordering the military to delete such references in manuals. We may not identify our enemy but they clearly identify us when chanting “Death to America.”

Strangely, the Obama administration prefers phrases like “overseas contingencies” and “workplace violence” to protect what must be the brass unblemished image of Islam in the president’s mind. His goofy cheerleaders at the State Department explain beheadings, extermination of entire Christian villages, enslaving little girls into the sadistic sex trade, killing young boys for watching a soccer game, stoning women for “allowing” themselves to be raped and hanging gays from cranes in public squares as not representative of the “peaceful” religion of Islam. We are told these “extremists” represent 10% or 20% of Islam’s 1.5 billion believers. You do the math and will most likely realize how dangerous this festering enemy truly is. France, Australia, Britain and most other non-Muslim nations are paying the price of an open-ended immigration policy that has created unmitigated violence and “no go” zones.

How often do we hear the illusive cry moderate Muslims must condemn their ongoing atrocities against innocents? With rare exception, they never do. Our own President won’t even join a chorus of condemnation without caveats that somehow excuse the inexcusable. Mr. Obama has gone so far as to apologize to the Arab world for America’s “exceptionalism” by suggesting at times we have been “arrogant.” Talk about ironies.

Mr. Obama shrugs when Jewish innocents are murdered on the streets of Paris, Jerusalem and Miami while satirical cartoonists are shot down at point blank range; all in the name of Allah. In response, Obama’s main propagandist Josh Earnest eerily suggests it was not wise for a free press to publish a cartoon demeaning Muhammad.  We have come a long way since a courageous president of the United States warned “you are either with us or against us.” But why should we expect this president to show solidarity with those of us who embrace freedom won by the toil of better men than him? Watching TV was his choice over joining 40 world leaders marching in unity together in France. In fairness, he did send a folk singer to serenade the French a week and a half later.

Is there anything more alarming with an almost unimaginable deadly consequence than Obama’s possible gift of nuclear weapons capability to the Iranian regime? As Iran’s economy was collapsing under imposed sanctions and the decline of oil revenues, Mr. Obama unleashed billions in frozen assets to the Iranians. He has written pleading letters to the ayatollahs begging for a deal even as satellite images indicate this dictatorial terrorist regime has ballistic missiles designed to carry a nuclear warhead to our shores. Despite his rhetoric, only the most naïve would believe Obama would use force to stop the largest exporter of terrorism responsible for thousands of American deaths from acquiring the weapons to blackmail the world into submission. As Iran is allowed the time and money to test fire this hellish weapon, Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry worries climate change is the greater danger. Honestly, do you have to be insane to be this president’s Secretary of State?

Again and again, Obama saves his greatest ire for Israel; America’s strongest and virtually only remaining ally in the Middle East. Israel is a tiny democracy surrounded by Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and the Palestinians; all sworn to her demise. Iran’s leadership openly calls for the Jewish State’s destruction while denying the Holocaust ever happened. Yet hardly an utterance of support for Israel and condemnation of Iran’s conduct emanates from this President. His animosity and insulting demeanor toward Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is legendary and out of control. Just as Churchill tried to warn the world, so too does Netanyahu and Obama resents it.

All this makes one wonder whose side HE is on. His policies leave little doubt.

William Pollack is a broadcaster and movie theater owner based in Memphis, TN. 

Also see:

Exclusive: Freed Al Qaeda Agent Was Part of Proposed Swap for Jailed Americans

1422235859979.cached
The Daily Beast, by Shane Harris and James Kirchick, Jan. 25, 2015
An American couple’s freedom may have come at a steep price: the release of a convicted terrorist from Supermax prison.
Before he was released from a U.S. maximum-security prison last week, a confessed al Qaeda sleeper agent was offered up in a potential prisoner swap that would have freed two Americans held abroad.

The Daily Beast has learned that the proposal was floated in July 2014 to the then-U.S. ambassador in Qatar by an individual acting on behalf of that country’s attorney general. According to two individuals with direct knowledge of the case, the proposition was made shortly after the Obama administration traded fiveTaliban fighters for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Those fighters were also sent to Qatar, where they’re to remain under government watch until later this year. U.S. officials have said they’re at risk of plotting further attacks against the United States.

The proposed swap involving the al Qaeda agent, Ali Saleh Al-Marri, raises troubling questions about whether the Bergdahl trade opened a kind of Pandora’s box, signaling to foreign governments that they can pressure the United States to make concessions on terrorism by trading American prisoners abroad for dangerous extremists held in the United States.

“I believe we must examine the administration’s decision in the case of Al-Marri and determine if his release is connected to negotiations of any kind,” Rep. Duncan Hunter, a frequent critic of the Obama administration’s hostage negotiations, wrote Thursday in a letter to Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), the House Armed Services Committee chairman, obtained by The Daily Beast.

Governments’ hostage negotiations policies are once again taking center stage after ISIS released a photograph Saturday showing the apparent beheading of Haruna Yukawa, one of two Japanese men the group is holding. Unexpectedly, ISIS has now dropped an earlier demand of $200 million ransom and says it will free the remaining hostage, journalist Kenji Goto, in exchange for the release of Sajida Mubarak al-Rishawi, a failed suicide bomber who’s imprisoned in Jordan for her role in an attack on three hotels in Amman in 2005, which killed 60 people.
ISIS has made other demands for freeing prisoners, including a Pakistani woman held in the United Sates, Aafia Siddiqui, known in counterterrorism circles as “Lady Al Qaeda,” who was convicted in 2010 of attempting to kill Americans in Afghanistan. Siddiqui has been used as a bargaining chip in other negotiations, as well. In 2012, Pakistani officials offered to try and win the release of Bergdahl if the United States would free Siddiqui. The Obama administration quickly rejected the idea because releasing her would be seen as offering concessions to terrorist groups and put a potentially dangerous woman back on the streets, according to current and former administration officials.

In his letter, Hunter accused the administration of failing to pursue other avenues for freeing Americans abroad and relying on prisoner releases or exchanges, “which are often counter to U.S. security interests, for leverage in negotiations.” The congressman also alluded to other potential swaps, saying it’s his understanding that “other foreign nationals” who are still in U.S. custody “have also been named as potential figures of interest in other cases, with Qatar at the forefront.”

Tara Todras-Whitehill/The New York Times, via Redux

Tara Todras-Whitehill/The New York Times, via Redux

Qatar has emerged as a go-between in various hostage negotiations. It agreed to take custody of the five Taliban fighters for a period of one year after Bergdahl’s release. And sources close to efforts to free other Americans held abroad said that Qatar facilitated a ransom payment to help free journalist Peter Theo Curtis, who was held for two years by al Qaeda’s branch in Syria.

Hunter helped spur the administration to review its hostage negotiation policy, which is widely seen by experts and family members of Americans held abroad as dysfunctional.

Read more 

***

ISIS Demands Hostage Swap, WH CoS Assures ‘We Don’t Negotiate With Hateful Characters’

New York Times Discovers Yemen’s ‘Death to America’ Houthi Rebels are Moderates and Possible U.S. Partners

PJ Media, By Patrick Poole On January 26, 2015

The New York Times launched some weapons-grade stupidity on Sunday with an article by Rod Nordland and Eric Schmitt citing “experts” claiming that the Iranian-backed Houthi militias in Yemen that have swept though critical parts of the country, including the capital Sanaa, are not just moderates, but possible U.S. counter-terrorism partners.

Because of the ongoing Houthi offensive, Yemen’s information minister admitted last week that the government had lost effective control of the country.

Amanpour tweet

Thankfully, the Times is here to assure us that when the Houthis shout “Death to America” they really don’t mean it:

At first glance the official slogan and emblem of the Houthis, who are now the dominant force in Yemen, does not offer much hope to American policy makers.

It includes the words “Death to America, death to Israel, damnation to the Jews.” Houthis shout it when they march, wear it on arm patches, paint it on buildings and stick it onto their car windows. When pictured, those words are rendered in red, framed by “God is great” and “Victory to Islam” in green, on a white background.

Sometimes the red words are shown dripping blood.

But for all their harsh sloganeering, the Houthis may be a lot more moderate than it suggests, according to many diplomats and analysts who have followed them closely. They say it would be premature to dismiss them as Yemen’s Hezbollah, despite their alliance with Iran.

For reference purposes, here’s the slogan in question:

Houthi logo

Houthis tweet

Ah, but we have nothing to fear, because they fight Al-Qaeda says the Pentagon:

On Wednesday, Michael G. Vickers, the Pentagon’s top intelligence policy official, noted that the Houthis’ dominance had been growing over the past several months as they expanded their control since last September, but he said that has not interfered with American missions. “The Houthis are anti-Al Qaeda, and we’ve been able to continue some of our counterterrorism operations against Al Qaeda in the past couple months,” Mr. Vickers said.

And they’re nothing like yet another Iranian proxy, Hezbollah, say the “experts”:

“The Houthis are not Hezbollah,” said Charles Schmitz, an expert on the group and a professor at Towson University, referring to the Iranian-supported group that dominates Lebanon and is actively fighting on behalf of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria. “They are domestic, homegrown, and have very deep roots in Yemen, going back thousands of years.”

In fact, they could be U.S. counter-terrorism partners if they only dropped their “Death to America” sloganeering (!!) the “experts” continue:

April Alley, a senior analyst for the International Crisis Group in Sana, said: “Theoretically there is quite a bit of common ground in Yemen between the Houthis and the U.S., particularly when it comes to security issues and Al Qaeda. But so far it’s not been enough to overcome the obstacles. The Houthis have their own limits in which they can engage the Americans given the political narrative they have propagated.”

It should be noted that last week a U.S. Embassy vehicle carrying U.S. personnel was shot up at a Houthi checkpoint.

And a Houthi checkpoint featuring the “Death to America” signs has been operating right outside the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa since September:

Yemen photo

 

Houthi checkpoint tweets

 

One curious omission in the Times article, however, is that Obama hailed Yemen as one of his administration’s counter-terrorism successes back in September:

t4

 

So with Iran or Iranian proxies in charge of another Arab capital (Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, Sanaa) we have nothing to fear, the New York Times is here to tell us.

And the Houthis take their place as acclaimed moderates in the U.S. foreign policy narrative bubble, along with the “largely secular” Muslim Brotherhood, the“vetted moderate” Syrian rebels, the “moderate elements” of Hezbollah (as cited by CIA Director John Brennan), and even “moderate” Al-Qaeda.

Are we toast? Saudi king is dead; ISIS expands; we’re abandoning Yemen and Iran has a missile launcher

ImageSat-Internationals-satellite-image-show-missile-release-facility-in-Iran-300x180By Allen West, Jan. 23, 2015:

On Tuesday evening President Obama stated, “the shadow of crisis has passed and the state of the union is strong” — and of course the blind followers cheered.

Obama also hinted that we had “turned the page” on our fight against terrorism. Remember his unilateral declaration at the National War College that the war on terror had ended — and of course he has commanded that combat operations end in two theaters of operation; Iraq and Afghanistan.

But nothing could shine the light on President Obama’s naiveté (or approval?) more than the fact that just 48 hours after he dismissed the “shadow of crisis,” we are evacuating yet another U.S. Embassy — this time in Yemen.

It’s the same Yemen that just last fall, Obama referred to as the model of his success — just like Vice President Joe Biden once chimed that Iraq would be one of Obama’s greatest successes. When Obama said the shadow of crisis has passed, we had three U.S. Naval warships off the coast of Yemen ready to evacuate the embassy.

Also see:

President and GOP Ignore Elephant in the Room

O noUTT, by John Guandolo, Jan. 22, 2015:

In his speech Tuesday night, President Obama said, “My first duty as Commander in Chief is to defend America.”  So we have him on record as understanding his primary role as our President.

After watching the State of the Union address Tuesday evening, one has to wonder if the President is completely disconnected from reality, grossly and totally incompetent, or simply doing the bidding of our enemies.

As has been detailed on numerous occasions, evidence has been proffered by the U.S. Department of Justice as to the nature of the jihadist threat to America, which identifies the leading Islamic organizations as a part of the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas Movement here.  Yet, the President continues to grant senior MB/Hamas leaders to the highest levels of our government and claim their ideology has nothing to do with true Islam.

As was detailed in Tuesday night’s UTT blog article , the ideology Al Qaeda teaches is also taught in nearly all of the Islamic schools in the world beginning at the first grade level, which may lead some people to believe it is “true Islam.”

Since all of the jihadi groups across the globe uniformly explain the reasons for what they do in the exact same way using the same authoritative texts in Islam, that might lead one to believe they are following true Islam.

Since there is no published Islamic doctrine contrary to what Al Qaeda teaches, rational and reasonable human beings would come to the conclusion (rightfully so) that Islam is what Islam says it is in it’s authoritative doctrinal texts of Islamic Law (Sharia).

Yet, it is still unclear to our President.

This leaves us with only a few options:   The President is either aware or unaware of these facts.  If he is unaware, he is either disconnected from the reality of these facts, or he is incapable of understanding and absorbing the facts.  In either case, he is unfit for office.

If he is aware of these facts and continues to act as he is acting, he is committing treason and should be dealt with to the full extent of our Constitution.

In his speech Tuesday, the President referred to what happened in Afghanistan as a “democratic transition.”  For mental health professionals, this is a red flag.  In the event the President is unaware, Afghanistan is an “Islamic Republic” whose constitution (written by the United States) mandates Sharia (Islamic Law) as the law of the land.  Which part of a “democracy” is this?  As Walid Phares often says, the only thing this logically shares with a “democracy” is that in Islamic countries they have a vote – once.  One vote, one time.  From that point forward, its an Islamic Republic ruled by Sharia (Islamic Law).

The President also noted, “In Iraq and Syria, our military leadership is stopping ISIL’s advance.”  This is the same ISIL formed out of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda forces this President provided material support to when he called them the “rebel forces” fighting in Libya and Syria.  That, by the way, is a violation of U.S. federal code for which we put people in jail.

The President identified the threat we face as the “bankrupt ideology of violent extremism.”  This is interesting because our enemy has never identified themselves as “violent extremists.”  They identify themselves as “Muslims waging jihad in the cause of Allah in order to impose Islamic Law and establish the Islamic State (caliphate).”

The term “violent extremism” was created by DHS because they intentionally did not want to identify Islam as the problem.

The GOP response to the President’s State of the Union address was equally shocking in its absence of addressing the real and imminent threat from the global Islamic Movement, which has a massive network here in the United States.

Senator Joni Ernst, spent less than a minute on the threat of the global jihad which she described as “terrorism and the threats posed by al-Qaida, ISIL and those radicalized by them.”

The Emperor’s clothes look great.

After vowing to veto any new sanctions against Iran in the last portion of the State of the Union address, the President spoke of “American values” as the reason “why we continue to reject offensive stereotypes of Muslims, the vast majority of whom share our commitment to peace.”

This is true only if the vast majority of Muslim reject what Islam teaches, because their definition of “peace” is not the same as ours.

Is it reasonable to assume the “vast majority” of Muslims reject the core teachings of Islam?  Is it the kind of assumption we should make when American security is at stake?