- FORMER CONGRESSMAN: DEMS VIEW ILLEGAL ALIENS AS ‘UNDOCUMENTED DEMOCRATS,’ GOP SEES ‘CHEAP LABOR’ (breitbart.com)
Obama Amnesty Stays Shut Down (frontpagemag.com)
“God and the soldier doth all men adore in time of war and not before; when the war is over and all things righted, God is forgotten and the soldier slighted.” __ signed by the 16th Regiment of Foot on January 30, 1770
Freedom is the most precious thing to all men and women, and since the Civil War, millions of Americans have placed their lives in harm’s way in the defense of God, family and freedom, with over one million making the ultimate sacrifice during the course of several wars from WWII, Korea and Vietnam to the present wars in the Middle East. The empty seats at family gatherings bear witness to this sacrifice by these honored dead, and we the living must be resolved that these soldiers “last full measure of devotion” and their lives were not sacrificed in vain.
Today Americans, who love this country see far too many others, malcontents, more than willing to sow the seeds of strife and discord, as they trample on the American Flag and dishonor the memories of those heroes we honor each Memorial Day. These fallen soldiers would least understand the twisted logic of these anti-American fascists, since our fallen often laid down their lives on the field of battle to stop the enemy from burning their flags, fighting to the death rather than suffer disgrace at the hands of their enemy.
On the foreign front and without any virtue, Obama has dishonored all U.S. Armed Forces members, those living and those killed in action, and their many sacrifices, through Middle East policies that have allowed the Islamic State to grow into a real security threat to America. His hasty withdrawal from Iraq, aimed at keeping a campaign promise, has been a direct factor in the fall of much of Iraq, including Ramadi, and this in turn ensures more long wars of attrition yet to come.
Scores of U.S. soldiers died defending Ramadi and hundreds more were wounded between 2006 and our final withdrawal, and about a week ago the world sat by idly watching as Ramadi fell to Islamic State fascists, who immediately murdered over 500 people and set the exodus of 25,000 Iraqis in motion; during their two month advance on Ramadi, these Islamofascists have forced 147,000 Iraqis to flee to refugee camps.
The images of Ramadi falling to the Islamic State and their black flags being raised has sent a chill through many Americans who fought in Iraq. They are more than disgusted that their sacrifices have seemingly been made in vain, for nothing.
General Douglas McArthur once noted that “Duty, Honor, Country” reverently dictates what each of us ought to be and can be, in regards to finding courage, faith and hope in the face of any crisis. Too many on the Left and too many in the top echelons of the U.S. military, including General Martin Dempsey, no longer seem to have a good grasp on the meaning of these words.
Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey is politicizing the U.S. Armed Forces, and he has become Obama’s echo chamber. He didn’t send extra security to Benghazi, because he “never received a request”; he never saw evidence of Iran’s military fighting in Iraq, even though Iranian Quds Forces have been in Iraq for most of the decade and 20,000 Shiite Popular Mobilization Forces have been there since last year. Dempsey’s habit of parroting Obama’s policies has resulted in a consistent record of failure.
During October 2014 Dempsey said, “We have a crisis in Iraq” (The Long War Journal), but by November he was telling troops in Baghdad that ISIS is “a bunch of midgets,” and several years would be needed to defeat them __ several years to stop Obama’s “JV team”.
This past April, Gen. Dempsey suggested that Ramadi is “not symbolic in any way” and losing it would not be a major setback, even though it is only 75 miles from Baghdad. Dempsey stated, “I would much rather that Ramadi not fall, but it won’t be the end of the campaign should it fall.”
Debbie Lee, the mother of the first Navy SEAL killed in Iraq and in Ramadi (awarded the Silver Star), was furious over Dempsey’s remarks, and she penned an open letter that read in part: “I am shaking and tears are flowing down my cheeks as I … listen to the insensitive pain-inflicting comments made by you in regards to the fall of Ramadi. My son and many others gave their future in Ramadi. Ramadi mattered to them. Many military analysts say that as goes Ramadi so goes Iraq.” (Iraq is already lost).
Lee went further: “You, sir, owe an apology to the families whose loved ones’ blood was shed in Ramadi … whose bodies were blown to pieces by IEDs and bullet holes leaving parts and pieces behind … Ramadi mattered to them. … You and this administration have minimized that Ramadi could fall. Now you are minimizing that it is falling, but you Sir WILL NOT minimize the sacrifice my son Marc Lee made or any of our brave warriors.” (The Daily Beast _ 5/20/15)
Considering that America has already seen too many of Her Sons and Daughters return home in body bags and without arms and legs, lost in a war that was brought to them unasked for and undeserved __ enough blood to last a lifetime and then some __ Can anyone now honestly say that the mission in Iraq was worth it?
America can honor Her soldiers by praying for peace and working towards peace through strength, because we have seen the deepest wounds and scars of war, as Arlington Cemetery grows. We understand that wars often come at a time chosen by our enemies, but we do not want to fight twelve year wars ever again. We simply want our Armed Forces fully prepared to properly defend Our Beloved America on two fronts and, if pushed to war, to fight to win devastatingly quick.
With the war tocsins sounding across the globe, Obama and the Progressives are destroying the leaven which binds together the entire fabric of our national defense system, and a million ghosts are rising from their white crosses in Arlington Cemetery thundering the words “Duty, Honor, Country.”
Breitbart, May 21, 2015:
President Obama has become the star of his own malevolent Marx Brothers movie. As chaos causes by our president’s own depraved indifference breaks out across the globe, like a psychotic Groucho Marx, the big joke is that he’s off somewhere addressing the military about Global Warming.
How cutting edge!
How so very Nero.
In January of 2009, the Iraq War was a won war. Bad intelligence and mistakes aside, the surge had won the war. An embattled George W. Bush could leave the Oval Office secure in that fact. All that was necessary for his successor, President Obama, to keep the war won, was what was necessary to keep World War II won: a small stabilizing force of American troops.
Stabilizing American forces are the win-win of all win-wins. The peace is kept, our positive influence in the region remains, and the war stays won.
The problem of course is that Democrats love to lose won wars. They are quite good at it, too.
Practice after all makes perfect.
Pop culture and our education system covers this fact up, but America won the war in Vietnam. Nixon and Kissinger won that war. We didn’t defeat the bad guys but we did beat them to a draw that stopped their incursion into South Vietnam. The war was over. Our allies were safe. Best of all, victory didn’t even require American troops — just a steady supply of American weapons.
Then Democrats won control of Congress:
In November of 1974, three months after Nixon resigned in disgrace, Democrats won a landslide in the mid-term elections. The new Democrat majority in Congress de-funded our promised military aid to South Vietnam, and the Viet Cong made their move. Without American aid, the South Vietnamese were doomed.
Then-President Gerald Ford literally begged Congress to restore funding. By this time things had deteriorated to a point where the South would have also required American airstrikes to hold on.
Democrats adamantly refused funding, making the airstrikes futile.
Within a year, South Vietnam surrendered to the communist North.
Oh, and that “fascist American bull sh*t” Domino Theory your professors always mock? Ask Cambodia and Laos how funny that is. Both countries fell immediately after Vietnam, and millions of innocents needlessly died, all so Democrats could prove they were right all along about opposing the war … a war started by John Kennedy and almost lost by Lyndon Johnson — two Democrats.
Obama can crybaby and whine all he wants about the Iraqis poisoning a status of forces agreement. No one with half a brain or their tongue not firmly connected to his boots (see: Media, Mainstream) believes that. Obama wanted out of Iraq at any cost, wanted that talking point for his 2012 re-election, and damn sure knew the consequences.
Obama intentionally lost a won war, and that perverse act perversely allows the media and Democrats to claim they were right all along about Iraq being a “mistake.”
The problem for Obama and the media and Democrats and America is that Iraq is not Vietnam. We can’t just pick up all our marbles and go home. Democrats and the media didn’t care if their partisan depravity cost the lives of a few million brown people in Southeast Asia. They simply propagandized that horror show into America’s fault, not their own.
Communism was about containment.
Terrorism is not.
ISIS is not.
The vacuum created by Obama’s Iraqi idiocy wasn’t filled by nationalist butchers. It was filled by international butchers, savvy savages and barbarians eager to create a nation-state from which to destroy the rest of the world from; most especially America.
Sunday ISIS took the Iraqi city Ramadi, effectively liquidating Americans gains gained at an incomprehensible price paid by American troops and our Iraqi allies.
The terrorist regime Obama stupidly referred to as jayvee is on the march, and now holds territory a mere 70 miles from the Iraqi capital city of Baghdad.
None of this had to happen. All Obama had to do was keep a won war won, but his re-election talking point and desire to be right about the war being a debacle meant he had to turn it into a debacle, and then count on the mainstream media to memory-hole that rather vital fact.
Wednesday, ISIS took the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra.
While ISIS took Palmyra, like a madman, our commander-in-chief warned his troops, and by extension America and the world, about the imminent dangers of a unicorn.
WorldMag.com, By J.C. DERRICK, May 18, 2015:
WASHINGTON—Documents released today confirm the Obama administration knew weapons were flowing out of Benghazi, Libya, to Syrian rebels in 2012 even though the rebels had well-publicized ties to al-Qaeda and other extremist groups.
Previous reports, including one by WORLD in 2013, have linked U.S. involvement in Libya to arms flowing into Syria, but the new documents provide the first verification that contradicts administration officials and congressional Democrats who maintained there was no evidence to support it. The documents provide further confirmation that the CIA and the State Department—under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—received immediate intelligence that the attack was committed by al-Qaeda- and Muslim Brotherhood-linked brigades, even as Clinton and other officials claimed it was the result of rioting against a Muslim-bashing video.
“Weapons from the former Libya military stockpiles were shipped from the port of Benghazi, Libya, to the Port of Banias and the Port of Borj Islam, Syria,” says an October 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document released with heavy redactions. It notes the activity took place weeks before terrorists attacked the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, killing four Americans in September: “The weapons shipped during late-August 2012 were  sniper rifles,  RPGs, and  125 mm and 155 mm howitzers missiles.”
Judicial Watch, a Washington, D.C., watchdog group, obtained the cache of more than 100 documents after filing a lawsuit in federal court. The judge who ordered the release, Ketanji Brown Jackson, is a 2013 appointee of President Barack Obama.
“These documents are jaw-dropping,” Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said. “No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them.”
Administration officials—including the CIA’s former acting director in sworn congressional testimony last year—have argued that initial intelligence showed no evidence of a pre-planned attack at Benghazi. But new documents undercut that assertion. A DIA memo dated September 12, 2012, says the attack was planned at least 10 days in advance to “kill as many Americans as possible” in revenge for a U.S. air strike that killed a militant leader in Pakistan and to commemorate the anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks.
That document, also heavily redacted, was circulated to top administration officials, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, four days before U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice went on several national television shows claiming the attack was the result of a spontaneous protest.
Clare Lopez, a member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi—a group of former intelligence officers, military personnel, and national security experts—told me it comes as no surprise that Benghazi was a retaliatory attack since al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in a video had called on the “sons of Libya” to avenge his deputy’s death. Lopez said the Judicial Watch release is “very significant,” because it “begins to peel back a little more of the layers of the onion about what was going on in Benghazi, and why that mission [facility] was there.”
Lopez, a former CIA officer who is now a vice president at the Center for Security Policy, said the commission has confirmed it was not the CIA but the State Department that managed the gun-running operation. According to Lopez, the department put up between $125,000 to $175,000 for each surface-to-air missile it funneled out of Libya to the Syrian battlefield.
The new revelations raise the stakes in the ongoing Benghazi investigation, which threatens to extend deep into the 2016 presidential campaign season. Republican members of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, created a year ago following another Judicial Watch release, say the administration is stalling in its production of documents. Democrats have accused Republicans of moving at a “glacial pace” to unnecessarily drag out the probe.
Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 race, has agreed to testify before the panel, but the Republicans who control the committee say they won’t call her until they receive all relevant documents.
Monday’s disclosure includes startling detail showing that U.S. intelligence agencies know about militant activities down to the measurements of a room where al-Qaeda collects documents in Libya. The militants responsible for the Benghazi attacks controlled large caches of weapons “disguised by feeding troughs for livestock” and trained “almost every day focusing on religious lessons and scriptures including three lessons a day of jihadist ideology.”
A DIA report from August 2012 detailed the “dire consequences” of unfolding events in the Middle East, and predicted the rise of ISIS and a possible caliphate 17 months before Obama called the group a “JV team.”
“This creates the ideal atmosphere for AQI [al Qaeda Iraq] to return to its old pockets in Mosul and Ramadi and will provide a renewed momentum under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria and the rest of the Sunnis in the Arab world against what it considers one enemy, the dissenters,” the document reads. “ISI could also declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory.”
J.C. is a reporter in WORLD’s Washington Bureau. He spent 10 years covering sports, higher education, and politics for the Longview News-Journal and other newspapers in Texas before joining WORLD in 2012. Follow J.C. on Twitter @jcderrick1.
DEBKAfile, May 18, 2015:
Jordan’s King Abdullah has warned the Obama administration in an urgent message that US air strikes alone won’t stop the Islamic State’s advances in Iraq and Syria and, what is more, they leave his kingdom next door exposed to the Islamist peril. ISIS would at present have no difficulty in invading southern Jordan, where the army is thin on the ground, and seizing local towns and villages whose inhabitants are already sympathetic to the extremist group. The bulk of the Jordanian army is concentrated in the north on the Syrian border. Even a limited Islamist incursion in the south would also pose a threat to northern Saudi Arabia, the king pointed out.
Abdullah offered the view that the US Delta Special Forces operation in eastern Syria Saturday was designed less to be an effective assault on ISIS’s core strength and more as a pallliative to minimize the Islamist peril facing Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the Gulf emirates.
DEBKAfile’s Washington sources report that US officials refused to heed Abdullah’s warning and tried to play it down, in the same way as Secretary John Kerry tried Monday, May 18, to de-emphasize to the ISIS conquest of Ramadi, the capital of Iraq’s largest province.
At a news conference in Seoul, Kerry dismissed the Islamists’ feat as a “target of opportunity” and expressed confidence that, in the coming days, the loss “can be reversed.”
The Secretary of State’s words were unlikely to scare the Islamists, who had caused more than 500 deaths in the battle for the town and witnessed panicky Iraqi soldiers fleeing Ramadi in Humvees and tanks.
Baghdad, only 110 km southeast of Ramadi, has more reason to be frightened, in the absence of any sizeable Iraqi military strength in the area for standing in the enemy’s path to the capital.
The Baghdad government tried announcing that substantial military reinforcements had been ordered to set out and halt the Islamists’ advance. This was just whistling in the dark. In the last two days, the remnants of the Iraqi army have gone to pieces – just like in the early days of the ISIS offensive, when the troops fled Mosul and Falujah. They are running away from any possible engagement with the Islamist enemy.
The Baghdad-sourced reports that Shiite paramilitaries were preparing to deploy to Iraq’s western province of Anbar after Islamic State militants overran Ramadi were likewise no more than an attempt to boost morale. Sending armed Shiites into the Ramadi area of Anbar would make no sense, because its overwhelmingly Sunni population would line up behind fellow-Sunni Islamist State conquerors rather than help the Shiite militias to fight them.
Iran’s Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan, who arrived precipitately in Baghdad Monday, shortly after Ramadi’s fall, faces this difficulty. Our military sources expect him to focus on a desperate effort to deploy Shiite militias as an obstacle in ISIS’s path to Baghdad, now that the road is clear of defenders all the way from Ramadi.
In Amman, King Abdullah Sunday made a clean sweep of senior security officials, firing the Minister of Interior, the head of internal security (Muhabarat) and a number of high police officers. They were accused officially of using excessive violence to disperse demonstrations in the southern town of Maan.
The real reason for their dismissal, DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources disclose, is the decline of these officials’ authority in the Maan district, in the face of the rising influence of extremist groups identified with Al Qaeda and ISIS, in particular.
Obama boasts of “ending the Iraq War,” but what’s been the result? This week, ISIS took over Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province; this couldn’t have happened before Obama pulled US troops out of Iraq.
Daily Caller, by Kerry Picket, May 14, 2015:
WASHINGTON — Retired Marine Gen. James Mattis told attendees at The Heritage Foundation Wednesday he is concerned the United States is not firmly standing by her global allies.
Mattis replaced General David Petraeus as commander of U.S. Central Command in August 2010 and retired from the Marine Corps in 2013 after 41 years of military service.
Gen. Mattis recalled a meeting he had with the King Abdullah II of Jordan, when the French and British were planning to leave Afghanistan and Mattis confirmed their departure to the king.
“I said, ‘Yeah, that’s right your majesty.’ And he said, ‘Well, let me make sure you understand that our Jordanian troops will be there with you until the last American soldier comes home.’”
Mattis paused for a moment and explained, “You cannot buy allies like that. The way you get allies like that is if you want a friend when you’re in trouble, you need to be a friend when they’re in trouble, and we are not sending that message.”
He went further saying, “I was getting asked the same question in Cairo and Riad as I was being asked in Tel Aviv, and that’s darn near impossible to align them. How much have we aligned them? I had a foreign minister of an Arab country make a point to me when I started wearing this, instead of a uniform.”
“He said, ‘We, today, have more in common with Israel’s foreign policy than we have with America’s.’ That is not a good situation for stability and anyone who wants peace and prosperity and [to] turn over a better world to our children, that is not something we can be proud of,” the retired general noted.
Mattis believes the way the United States is handling global affairs is “not the way the greatest generation dealt with the world around them, and it’s one that we’re going to have to learn to adapt to, or we’re going to end up in a situation where we’re ashamed of what we’re turning over.”
“But leaving allies adrift and having to accommodate less pleasing allies, this is not something that is in America’s best interest,” he said.
When asked by The Daily Caller about his thoughts on the Obama administration’s handling of the Islamic State, he responded, “The president came out and said we didn’t have a strategy on this. I would only endorse what he said. Honesty is honesty. I think the president’s recognized the failing there, and I think if we do not do something to humiliate them and cause havoc, their recruiting and their fundraising will continue apace, so you’ve got to hit them with a shockwave.”
Mattis added, “That’s not just military, and it’s not just covert. It’s a whole lot of things. But again, it goes back to — you’ve got to ask the strategic questions. Is political Islam in our best interests? Let me define it. It’s political Islam as practiced by the mullahs in Tehran for the past 30 years. That’s on the Shia side. It’s political Islam as practiced by the Muslim Brothers, the brothers in Cairo for a year. And if it’s not in our best interest, what are we going to do to come up with that coherent strategy?”
Gen. Mattis speaks at about 13 min. into the video. Well worth your time to listen:
Abu Sayyaf was a midlevel financier that oversaw oil revenues for the Islamic State in Deir al-Zour. The raid was said to be authorized by President Obama after being briefed on the intelligence that had been collected. The US military and intelligence community had been working for weeks to build a pattern of life on Abu Sayyaf using human sources, electronic surveillance and aerial reconnaissance of the particular areas of interest.
The raid to capture or kill Abu Sayyaf was carried out by approximately 24 members of the US Army’s Delta Force in the vicinity of Amr within Deir al-Zour Province in eastern Syria. The infiltration for the raid was conducted using Blackhawk helicopters and V-22 Ospreys. The raid is the first successful raid against an Islamic State target since the military campaign against the terrorist army began after the beheading of James Foley. A previous raid in the summer of last year attempted to free James Foley and other hostages, but was not successful due to the hostages having been moved or the intelligence being incorrect.
Abu Sayyaf was killed during the raid after he attempted to engage members of Delta Force as they approached the room he had tried to hide in with his wife. As the operators entered the room Abu Sayyaf was said to have opened fire on them resulting in his death from return fire. None of the Delta Force members were injured in the raid and up to a dozen Islamic State fighters were said to have been killed in the raid.
Abu Sayyaf’s wife Umm Sayyaf is reportedly involved in the human trafficking operations of the Islamic State in the area. She was captured and the operators also rescued an 18 year old Yazidi girl. The Islamic State has been capturing and selling female captives throughout Syria and Iraq where they have been able to seize terrain. The sexual slavery of female captives has been well established from the interviews with those that have escaped the Islamic State.
There were no civilian casualties during the raid as the highly trained operators were able to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants on the objective. The raid demonstrates the United States has the capability to reach out and strike the Islamic State at will if it so chooses with minimal dangers to its forces. The successful collection on a midlevel target also shows the US is gaining influence on the ground with sources and that it is likely growing that network rapidly to begin identifying and locating higher priority targets.
While this is a significant event, it still has not done serious damage to the Islamic State. The death of Abu Sayyaf will not hamper the terrorist organization dramatically as he will likely be easily replaced. It does however send the message that the US will come after targets that it deems worthy of the risk. This means the higher priority targets in the hierarchy of the group are definitely being developed as this is being written. It is too early to say if this is a turning point in the Obama strategy which thus far has been tepid at best as the Islamic State has expanded outside the primary areas of Syria and Iraq. Without significant military operations against the group it will continue to develop its tactics, techniques and procedures. The raid is little more than a pin prick against an ever growing beast.
ISIS Official Killed in US Raid in Syria, Pentagon Says
Army’s Elite Delta Forces Kills Top ISIS Official, Abu Sayyaff, in Rare Syrian Raid
Frontpage, by Caroline Glick, may 15, 2015:
The Saudis are in play, casting about for partners.
In a clear vote of no-confidence in US President Barack Obama’s leadership, Saudi King Salman led several Arab leaders in blowing off Obama’s Camp David summit this week. The summit was meant to compensate the Sunni Arabs for Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
Salman’s decision is further proof that US-Saudi relations have jumped the tracks. For 70 years the Saudis subcontracted their national security to the US military. Deals were closed with a wink and a nod. That’s all over now.
Obama has destroyed Washington’s credibility. Salman views its gentleman’s agreements as worthless. All he wants now is military hardware. And for that, he can send a stand-in.
The Saudis never put all their eggs in America’s basket. For 70 years the Saudis played a double game, maintaining strategic alliances both with the liberal West and the most reactionary forces in the Islamic world. The Saudis pocketed petrodollars from America and Europe and transferred them to terrorists and jihadist preachers in mosques in the US, Europe and worldwide.
Iran isn’t the Saudis’ only concern. Although for outsiders the worldview of the theocracy governing Saudi Arabia seems all but identical to the worldview of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Saudis consider the Brotherhood a mortal foe. The Saudis claim that their tribal, top-down regime is the genuine expression of Islam. The Brotherhood’s populist, grassroots organization rejects their legitimacy.
And so, since the Arab revolutionary wave began in late 2010, the Saudis opposed the empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Saudis are the primary bankrollers of Egyptian President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi’s regime.
During Operation Protective Edge last summer, the Saudis sided with Sisi and Israel against Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its Turkish and Qatari state sponsors. Although Saudi Arabia had previously been a major funder of Hamas, that backing ended in 2005 when, following Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, Hamas forged strategic ties with Iran.
For the past five years, the Saudis worked against both the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. But in recent months they began reconsidering their two-war approach.
With the Iranian-backed Houthis’ takeover of Yemen and the US’s conclusion of its framework nuclear deal with Iran, the Saudis apparently determined that weakening Iran takes precedence over fighting the Brotherhood. With its Houthi proxies in Yemen deployed along the Saudi border abutting Shi’ite-majority border provinces, and fighting for control over the Bab el Mandab, Iran now poses an immediate and existential threat to Saudi Arabia.
Moreover, as the Saudis see it, the threat posed by the Brotherhood has severely diminished since Sisi began his campaign to destroy its infrastructure in Egypt. So long as Sisi continues weakening the Brotherhood in Egypt and Libya, the Saudis feel safe working with the Brotherhood and its state sponsors Turkey and Qatar in Syria and Yemen. To this end, much to Washington’s dismay, the Saudis are willing to back a consortium of rebel groups in Syria that include the al-Qaida-linked Jabhat al-Nusra.
The Muslim Brotherhood and its terrorist offshoots are not the only strange bedfellows the Saudis are willing to work with in their bid to neutralize Iran.
They have also signaled a willingness to work with Israel.
Frontpage, By Daniel Greenfield On May 6, 2015:
A few years ago it was the Muslim Brotherhood. These days it’s Iran. Next week it may be ISIS or Al Qaeda. Obama stands with the worst elements in the Middle East. That’s always been his philosophy.
If the left had a foreign policy, it would be, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” But the wheel is a sword and it’s lubricated with blood. The squeakiest wheels and the bloodiest swords get the most grease from the State Department because they hate us the most. And hating us the most means that somewhere along the way we must have hurt them the worst. They hate us, therefore we’re guilty.
The squeaky wheel runs on blood and on American guilt. The worse they are, the guiltier we must be. Instead of reinforcing the moderates, whose shortage of ravening hatred suggests that they don’t have any legitimate complaints about us worth listening to, the left seeks out the extremes of extremists.
When he wasn’t vowing to lower the oceans, abolish taxes on seniors or heal up race relations, Obama was campaigning on fixing our alliances with our allies. But that’s not what he really had in mind.
Any old Joe can ally with allies. It takes a real Barack to ally with enemies.
Our allies were the problem, so he started shedding them. The least crazy Muslims went first. Then Israel. Now he’s down to deciding which enemies will be his allies and he sits on a golf course, like that little girl in the LBJ ad, picking petals off a daisy trying to choose between Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. Meanwhile the nuclear countdown is building from one to a mushroom cloud.
Allying with moderates is out of the question. Egypt is fighting terrorists, but its moderate government forced out the Muslim Brotherhood, ruining Obama’s best appeasement effort not directed at Russia. Even the Saudis, who stone people to death like it’s a national sport, have become too sensible for him.
Obama won’t have anything to do with moderates. If they aren’t screaming, banging flabby fists on the table and threatening a nuclear war every Wednesday, they aren’t aggrieved enough to be the root cause of our problems in the region. And there’s no point in wasting our time and goodwill on them.
Animated by American guilt, the left’s foreign policy obsessively seeks to mollify the angriest and most violent enemies in the region. And that poisoned foreign policy philosophy of American appeasement leaves him with few other options.
The left insists that the conventional approach of upholding allies just reinforces a hegemony which makes us more hated. The only way to get to the root of the problem, their way, is to find those who hate us the most, apologize and work through their issues with us.
Instead of building a hegemony of allies, Obama has built up a hegemony of enemies.
But rewarding the angriest and most violent enemies in the region has made the Middle East unstable. Instead of fixing the violence and instability in the region, Obama has made it that much worse.
A policy that is inherently opposed to moderates will either end up destroying the stable countries in the region or destabilize them by involving them in regional wars. Obama’s foreign policy is hostile to moderates because it sidelines them as being incapable of resolving the problems in the region.
If you aren’t the problem, then to Obama and the left, you can’t be the solution.
The emphasis on stabilizing the region by enlisting the aid of the violent and the unstable is a dead end. It rewards exactly the sort of behavior that it claims to want to discourage while punishing the stable behavior it claims to want to encourage.
The left’s foreign policy in the region is a Pavlovian experiment for creating more terrorists and cutting down the list of countries that aren’t expansionistic or involved in terrorism.
Obama talks about stabilizing the Middle East, but you can’t fix a hole by making a bigger hole and you can’t put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it, and gasoline and holes are all he has to work with. By making the violent and angry the focus of his outreach efforts, he has made violence and anger into the unstable pivot of the region. The future of the region now belongs to the angry and the violent.
Jimmy Carter tried to stabilize Iran and the region by aiding the Ayatollah. Instead of stabilizing anything, a revolutionary Shiite Iran became a loose cannon that not only threatened the United States, but dragged the rest of the region into its wars. From the Iran-Iraq war to terrorism in Lebanon and all the way to Al Qaeda looking for some experts to teach its terrorists how to hijack a lot of planes, the peanut farmer’s crop was a harvest of wars and bombings that killed a lot of Americans and even more locals.
Obama picked up where Carter left off. And the problems are bigger, but basically the same. The difference is that Obama had the leisure and disregard for national security to move the same foreign policy philosophy into destructive testing mode. America’s traditional alliances have collapsed. The rest of the region is handling problems on its own with Obama stuck trying to lobby the Saudis or Israel on behalf of Iran. When the Saudis bomb the Shiite Houthi terrorists in Yemen, the Iranians run to Obama. When the Israelis urge sanctions on Iran, the Iranians run to Obama to fix the problem for them.
In its own perverse way, Iran is becoming a client state of America. But it’s a client state that, like the Palestinian Authority with Israel, is actively trying to destroy us. The lesson from that failed effort was that you can’t use terrorists to stabilize territory. All that terrorists can do is destabilize it even more.
But the lessons of that failed peace process were never learned and attempts to use terrorists to stabilize entire countries continued.
Obama is still attempting to negotiate with the Taliban to stabilize Afghanistan. Negotiations with Iran to stabilize the region are going so well that every Sunni Muslim country that can afford it is rushing off to get its own nuclear program started.
There’s no telling how stable the Middle East will be once it has more nuclear nations than existed in the entire world a generation ago; probably even more unstable than the atomic structure of Plutonium.
The only thing Obama can keep doing is making the Middle East worse because it’s the only possible outcome of his foreign policy. American guilt requires perpetual atonement and the only people we can get it from are tearing apart the Middle East and the world.
CSP, by Fred Fleitz, May 4, 2015:
In a statement to Israel’s Channel 10 News over the weekend, Secretary of State John Kerry aggressively defended the Obama administration’s controversial nuclear diplomacy with Iran and dismissed critics of the nuclear talks as engaging in “hysteria.”
This kind of talk is typical of the way Kerry and other Obama administration have defended their nuclear diplomacy with Iran. They refuse to discuss criticisms of the talks and instead attack their critics as uninformed and partisan.
Kerry defended the nuclear talks in unusually strong terms, claiming under the deal, inspections would remain in place “forever” and that “We will not sign a deal that does not close off Iran’s pathways to a bomb and that doesn’t give us the confidence — to all of our experts, in fact to global experts — that we will be able to know what Iran is doing and prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.”
No serious person believes international inspectors will be in Iran forever.
This kind of rhetoric shows how worried Kerry is about the nuclear talks. His briefings to Congress about the negotiations have gone very badly. There are bipartisan concerns that the Obama administration has made enormous and dangerous concessions to Tehran and got nothing in return.
The Obama administration’s Iran policy also is in deep trouble because Iranian officials claim it lied about what will be in a final nuclear agreement.
Today, the Center for Security Policy released a compelling ad on the Iran nuclear talks titled “Why are the Mullahs laughing?” This ad helps explain the dangers of the Obama administration’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran. You can watch this ad below or click HERE.
Please also check out our new website IranTruth.org for more information about the Obama administration’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran.
CSP, by Fred Fleitz, May 1, 2015:
Adding to the complexity of the current chaos in Syria and Iraq, the Jerusalem Post reported this week that Syria’s Assad regime may be on the brink of collapse.
Syria has faced four years of civil war and 200,000 deaths. Multiple rebel offenses have taken key cities such as Idlib. There is a concerted rebel effort making its way towards Damascus in the South.
Danielle Pletka, Senior Vice President for Foreign and Defense Policy Studies of the American Enterprise Institute, gave a dire outlook for Syria when she wrote this week that
“The facts are straightforward: rebel forces have been advancing on government/Hezbollah/Iranian-held towns with growing success. Led by al Qaeda ally Jabhat al Nusra (JN) in coordination with a mishmash of other Islamist groups, Assad’s opponents appear to be consolidating their hold over Idlib province, and are making gains elsewhere around the country. And, as multiple analysts have noted, at the same time that JN et al appear to be coordinating more effectively (while shutting out ISIS and its allies), Assad’s own forces seem to have lost the will to fight.”
The Syrian military has dropped by half due to high rates of casualties and desertions. As a result, it is increasingly relying on foreign fighters, many trained and armed by Iran.
The collapse of the Assad government would make Syria a greater threat to regional security than it is today since there is a strong possibility it would be taken over by Isis and Al Qaeda and become a terrorist safe haven..
The Obama administration’s strategy for Syria has been incoherent. It needs to come up with contingency plans in case the Assad government collapses so the country does not become another Iran or Libya.
CNN, By Michael Flynn, James Livingston and Michael Smith. April 27, 2015:
Be afraid — be very afraid. This is the warning the world deserves to hear. Because the leader of the free world refuses to look with clear eyes at the chief security challenges of the 21st century: the fruits of radical Islam.
The results of the Obama White House’s innovative efforts to make the world a better place can be accounted for in the ever-growing numbers of victims of radical Islam in the Middle East, North Africa and South Asia. Not to mention here in the United States, Canada and Europe. Is it not a tragic irony that the Arab Spring-era policies of a Nobel Peace Prize recipient accommodated the transition of Syria into the world’s newest jihad theater while leaving Libya a failed state and Yemen a failing state?
The Syrian jihad gave rise to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, which now uses Syria as a rear operating base to support its jihad in Iraq, which could soon spill over into Jordan. Plus, Libya is now being used as a rear operating base by ISIS and other global jihadist elements striving to redraw the map of the Middle East, even as they plan attacks in Europe and North America.
Given the frightfully slow pace America’s commander-in-chief is currently allowing our military and intelligence community to take action against both ISIS and its progenitor, al Qaeda, the picture of what’s in store is clear: The body count will continue to grow in the places where these groups can generate buy-in for their agendas. And neither the United States nor our Western allies are immune to this cancer.
Academics who must say something new or different to garner interest in their work may describe the agendas of ISIS and al Qaeda as distinctly different. But the fact is they are not — their agendas, which constitute the foremost threats to the global security environment today, are manifestations of radical Islam.
Of course, it’s hardly a surprise President Barack Obama refuses to acknowledge all this in plain terms — the president and his national security advisers have too often proven naïve, with a dangerous habit of viewing the world not as it is, but as they hope it could be.
There is no shortage of examples that highlight the absence of sound foresight on the parts of the world’s most powerful politician and his national security team.
Just take the National Strategy for Counterterrorism published by the White House in 2011. That document contained the assertion that, “Since the beginning of 2011, the transformative change sweeping North Africa and the Middle East — along with the death of Osama bin Laden — has further changed the nature of the terrorist threat, par-ticularly as the relevance of al Qaeda and its ideology has been further diminished.”
Yet, fast forward to January 2014 and America’s top intelligence official, director of National Intelligence James Clapper, advised Congress that al Qaeda was no less capable of threatening the United States and our allies than a decade earlier.
Soon after Clapper acknowledged al Qaeda was not a band on the run, as President Obama had described the terrorist enterprise, a report by terrorism expert Seth Jones of the RAND Corporation highlighted yet another inconvenient truth for the White House: As restraints on freedom of expression of radical religious views vanished in places like Libya, Tunisia and Egypt during the Arab Spring, those states became fertile recruitment grounds for terrorist groups — including al Qaeda and groups aligned with it.
According to data compiled by Jones, from 2010 through 2013, the number of Salafi jihadist groups increased by 58%. These groups are fueled by Salafiyya Jihadiyya, an ideology that not only informs the agenda of al Qaeda, but is the source code for the agenda of the al Qaeda offshoot ISIS.
Bin Laden’s death ‘didn’t lift shadow’
Most recently, absent from the produced by the Obama White House in February 2015 is any real meaningful discussion concerning threats posed by al Qaeda. Yes, Osama bin Laden was killed on President Obama’s watch. But contrary to what the White House seemed to think in 2011, bin Laden’s death has not lifted the shadow he casts over America’s, or our allies’ security.
Indeed, within days of our new National Security Strategy’s publication date, in the seventh issue of ISIS’s English-language magazine Dabiq, the group’s leaders described their jihad as a continuation of the jihad charted by bin Laden, while accusing his successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, of steering al Qaeda off the path of its former leader.
Meanwhile, Yemen — home to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the al Qaeda branch thatclaimed credit for the January 2015 attack in Paris at the office of Charlie Hebdo — has also become a failed state. AQAP is helmed by the second-highest-ranking official in al Qaeda writ large, and the Obama administration views it as the most dangerous component of al Qaeda’s global network.
So it is interesting that, in the months before the Yemeni government was overthrown by Iran-backed rebels, President Obama described the U.S.-Yemen counterterrorism partnership as a shining example of success in the fight against al Qaeda — interesting because the President did not do more to help that “partner” government remain in power. Once again, the president and his advisers appear to have either ignored or failed to recognize the trajectory of events in the Middle East.
What were they thinking? And how do they plan to combat AQAP now?
Despite what the White House wants the world to believe, a sober look at the security environment reveals the following key realities:
ISIS controls a large amount of territory in the Middle East, and the group is rapidly growing its ranks in places such as Libya and Afghanistan, while at the same time inspiring and plotting attacks in the West.
And, although ISIS is trying to “out al Qaeda” al Qaeda, resorting to attention winning stunts to boost its profile on television sets around the world, al Qaeda itself is no less of a threat to the United States and our allies today than it was in January 2014.
At the same time, the routine failures of President Obama and his advisers to understand the security environment, and to appropriately tailor America’s national security posture in a manner demanded by it, foretells more disasters lie ahead.
Will Obama make the difficult decisions?
Not only Americans, but also our allies should be very, very afraid. Indeed, President Obama’s refusal to simply call a problem like radical Islam by its name strongly suggests he is unwilling to make the difficult decisions that must be made today if we are to stand a chance of defeating radical Islamist groups.
History has shown the dangers that millions can be placed in if our leaders don’t face down a looming threat by calling it what it is and putting our full weight behind efforts to vanquish it.
President Obama has the resources at his disposal to do just that. But if he wants to help define a future for the Middle East and North Africa in which fewer threats emanate from those regions, he must spend more time listening to talented professionals in our military and intelligence community versus the idealists and yes-men surrounding him at the White House. There is too much at stake in the near term to continue down the path of experimentation with Pollyannaish theories about how to attain this future that have actually rendered us less safe.
Indeed, President Obama should also pay closer attention to what representatives from Arab states are saying behind closed doors. Most of their bosses would love to be the claimants to the prize of defeating ISIS and al Qaeda.
However, all of them recognize that, unless we all want things to get a whole lot worse before they might get any better, the United States will have to deploy considerably more of our “kinetic” resources to put those victories in sight.
This does not mean a ground forces-intensive response is required from us at this time. But if the President thinks it prudent to wait on our Arab partners to do most of the heavy lifting, he could be guaranteeing this will be the case in the not-too-distant future.
Retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Medal of Honor recipient and retired Maj. Gen. James E. Livingston, USMC, and congressional counterterrorism adviser Michael S. Smith II are co-founders of the strategic advisory firm Kronos Advisory. The views expressed are solely the authors’ own. Watch ‘Blindsided: How ISIS shook the world’, a GPS special airing Monday at 9 p.m. ET/PT on CNN.
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn on the situation in the Middle East. General Flynn on the situation in Yemen, Iran nuclear talks and battle against ISIS
CSP, by Fred Fleitz, April 24, 2015:
The United States cannot defeat ISIS as long as its leaders continue to deny its nature as promoting a violent radical ideology of Islamist supremacism worldwide. Why the White House spokesman would downplay the growing global reach of ISIS and dispute the US intelligence community on this issue is baffling.
It is also dangerous. Earnest’s statements are the latest indications that the Obama administration continues to be clueless about the threat from global jihadist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS and still has no strategy to confront this threat.
Working with a group of leading American national security experts, the Center for Security Policy unveiled a comprehensive strategy to defeat the global jihad movement in January. Titled “The Secure Freedom Strategy: A Plan for Victory Over the Global Jihad Movement,” our strategy defines the threat from the global jihad movement, discusses the record of the United States in confronting the threat, and describes how the US government must be re-organized to defeat it.
The secure freedom strategy is designed after the Reagan Administration’s National Security Directive 75 (NSDD 75), a strategy to defeat the totalitarian threat of President Reagan’s time: the Soviet Union. Similar to NSDD 75, the Secure Freedom Strategy is a plan on how the United States can best employ diplomatic, military, economic, cyber, intelligence tools to understand the threat doctrine of global jihadist groups like ISIS and defeat them.
Frontpage, by Kenneth R. Timmerman, April 23, 2015:
1]The alleged killing on Friday of a former henchman of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein by Shiite militiamen loyal to Iran could have far reaching consequences for the United States.
was one of a handful of survivors from Saddam’s inner circle. Labelled the King of Clubs in the famous deck of cards that guided U.S. capture efforts after the 2003 liberation of Iraq, ad-Douri evaded traps a sand fly.
Three times he was pronounced dead. Three times he returned to give video-taped speeches and make public appearances, leading an insurgency against the United States and, more recently, against the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.
Ad-Duri supporters tell me that he has done so again – although pro-Iranian militiamen claim to have conducted DNA sampling on the beard of the man they killed in a raid on Friday andproclaimed it  to be ad-Duri.
Why is ad-Duri’s fate so important?
Because as new documents uncovered by Der Spiegel show , it was ad-Duri’s Baathists who provided the military know-how, strategic thinking, and intimate knowledge of Iraqi society that allowed the Islamic State to stage its dramatic takeover of a large swathe of Iraqi territory last year.
They also provided a vast pool of manpower from the former Iraqi army that, in a monumental strategic blunder, former U.S. Viceroy Paul “Jerry” Bremer cashiered without pay just days after arriving in Baghdad in May 2003.
The unholy alliance between mostly secular Baathists and the Islamist thugs of al Qaeda in Iraq – now known as the Islamic State, or Daesh – has presented the greatest challenge to the U.S. and Iranian-backed government in Baghdad since the surge in 2007-2008.
Unlike that time, there are not 130,000 U.S. troops on the ground to combat them. This time, it is the Iranians who are providing boots on the ground, led by the commander of the Quds Force – Iran’s equivalent of the Special Forces – Major General Qassem Suleymani.
And that’s where ad-Duri becomes even more important.
Sources close to the Baathist leader tell me that ad-Duri has broken with Daesh, and is seeking to lead the growing Baathists forces into some form of détente with the United States, to counter Iran’s growing influence in his country and the region.
They are calling themselves the Iraqi Forces Coalition, and have issued a manifesto  proclaiming their goal of driving a wedge between Iran and the Islamic State.
The group includes moderate Islamic groups in Iran and represents major Sunni and Shiite tribes.
When representatives of the new Coalition first broached the idea of a split with Daesh to CIA contacts last year, no one took them seriously. So they staged a dramatic show of force. As Islamic State forces seized Mosul and began targeting Kurdish forces in the north, the Baathist Coalition launched rockets against the most heavily guarded site outside the Green Zone: Baghdad International Airport.
“We reached the airport with military vehicles and shut it down for one hour. And then we left,” a source close to the Coalition leadership told me.
The U.S. and the Baghdad government attributed the attack to Daesh. “But they knew it wasn’t Daesh. They knew it was carried out by professional military people,” the source said.
A large number of the Daesh fighters in Iraq are former al Qaeda fighters who have been trained and equipped by Iran.
For years, Iran has claimed it was “detaining” al Qaeda fighters who fled to Iran from Afghanistan after the September 11, 2001 attacks on America.
Iran’s support for al Qaeda is one of the deep dirty secrets of an Iranian regime that operates in many ways like the former Soviet Union: lighting fires around the region, then offering its services to put them out.
The United States Treasury Department ultimately exposed  Iran’s sponsorship of al Qaeda in a series of press releases identifying al Qaeda’s clandestine financial networks based in Iran.
In December 2011, a U.S. federal court judge ruled that Iran was behind the 9/11 attacks  and that the Iranian government had provided extensive material support for the hijackers and to al Qaeda in general.
Ad-Duri and his supporters – Sunni and Shia alike – are fighting to staunch the spread of Iranian influence, first in Iraq, then across the region.
Where are America’s strategic interests? The Obama administration appears to be conflicted.
As White House press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted on Tuesday, the U.S. has an interest in preventing Iran from arming Houthi rebels in Yemen and has dispatched the aircraft carrier USS Teddy Roosevelt to waters off the Yemeni coast to potentially intercept Iranian weapons shipments.
And yet, the United States appears to sit back and allow Iraqi Prime Minister Haidar al-Abadi hand his country over to Iranian-backed militias, such as those who claimed to have killed ad-Duri on Friday, and to their commander, Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleymani.
That is where ad-Duri comes in. Can the former Baathist and the non-sectarian Coalition he has formed provide a viable alternative to Iranian control of Iraq and the Persian Gulf region?
“We are not pretending to be your friends,” a source close to the Coalition leadership told me. “But we are not your enemies. The Iranians are our enemies. And they are your enemies.”
If only the President of the United States understood affairs so clearly.