The Search for a New Grand Strategy for the United States: The Path to a New NSC 68

us-soldiers-sandstorm-AP-640x480By Virgil, April 4, 2015:

I. The Current Confusion

Newt Gingrich’s piece in National Review, “We’re Losing the War Against Radical Islam,” deserves a wide audience; after all, it’s our country, and our civilization, that’s at risk. As the former Speaker of the House wrote, “After 35 years of conflict, dating back to the Iranian seizure of the American embassy in Tehran and the ensuing hostage crisis, the United States and its allies are losing the long, global war with radical Islamists.”

And so, Gingrich continued, what is needed is a whole new and better approach: “Congress has a duty to pursue the truth and to think through the strategies needed and the structures which will be needed to implement those strategies.”

Meanwhile, for its part, the Obama administration seems to think that things are going fine. Indeed, on March 29, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest taunted one of the leaders of the Republican opposition:

“If John Boehner thinks U.S. troops should be on the ground in Yemen, fighting, or that we should reoccupy Iraq, or that the United States should bomb Iran to keep them from having a nuclear weapon — if he feels that way, he should have the courage of his convictions to say so. The President . . . does not believe it is in the best interest of the United States to commit ground troops.”

Boehner, sitting in Gingrich’s former chair, has not, in fact, said that the US should be fighting in Yemen, or reoccupying Iraq, or bombing Iran. But the Republican response to Obama has been sufficiently diffuse—we might think of the difference between the views of, say, Sen. John McCain and Sen. Rand Paul—so that Democrats such as Earnest can pick and choose which Republican positions they wish to respond to.

Yet beyond the partisan cutting and thrusting, Gingrich has a point: America needs policies that are serious, effective, and sustainable. And historical experience, as well as common sense, tells us that such an effective policy can come only from a robust and far-reaching debate—ratified, of course, by the voters. As we shall see, the annals of American national-security policy provide ample, and encouraging, precedent, not only for systematic deliberation, but, even more importantly, for effective follow-through.

We can further note that a new policy, if there is to be one, will almost certainly come from the next commander-in-chief—the next president. It’s the president who has access to the whole of the executive branch, as well as the bully pulpit.

And so with Gingrich’s point in mind, let’s review what US presidents have been saying heretofore about the threat from radical Islam.

Read more at Breitbart

John Guandolo: Civilization Jihad in America – Are You Prepared?

jg23

 

CJR: I am re-posting this excellent talk by John Guandolo, one of his best,  for those who may not have seen it. In the beginning of the talk John explains the need for Americans to remember our Nation’s founding principles so that we have the will to fight to preserve them. I feel that this is so important that I have added a new Menu item titled “First Principles Worth Fighting For

Published on Sep 12, 2014 by Centennial Institute

Former FBI counter-terrorism expert John Guandolo unmasks the Muslim Brotherhood movement in America at Issue Monday on 9/8/14; hosted by the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University.

Center for Security Policy sends A team to Canada’s Parliamentary committee on terrorism bill C51

csis

Vlad Tepes:

Begin Transcript.

Clare Lopez: Thank you. Thank you very much. We would like to thank Steven Blainey, Minister for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Chairman Darrell Craft, and the Committee on Public Safety and National Security for the opportunity to testify here today. We consider this to be a particularly auspicious time as Canada has recently shown itself an international leader in the effort to combat the global jihad movement. By way of introduction the Center for Security Policy is an American national security think-thank in Washington D.C. that was founded in 1988 by former Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney in the year since then we have focused on the greatest security threat to America and our allies. My name is Clare Lopez, the center’s Vice President for Research and Analysis. I previously served as a CIA Operations Officer and later served in a variety of contract positions within the U.S. defense sector. I have also served as an instructor of military intelligence and special forces on terrorism related issues and I am honored to mention my affiliation with the Board of Advisors for the Toronto based McKensey Institute. My colleague is Kyle Shideler, he’s the Director of our Threat Information Office, where he specializes in monitoring Sunni jihadist movements; most especially the Muslim Brotherhood. He has briefed Congressional staff and Federal law enforcement officials on the history, ideology, and operations of the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly their role in supporting terrorism activity. Recent devastating attacks by individual jihadist on Canadian soil demonstrate the critical need for better understanding of, and appropriate tools to deal with the global jihad threat. Specifically understanding that terrorism does not begin with the violent act itself, but rather with financing, indoctrination, and propaganda, and stopping these elements are key to stopping the attacks themselves. In particular we applaud the decision to list as a terrorist entity the International Relief Fund for the Afflicted and Needy. An organization that was according to available reports engaged in financing the terrorist organization Hamas.

We are hopeful that the Canadian law enforcement and security services will be able to use information gleaned through this investigation and subsequent investigations to further hamper terrorist efforts. It was also a Hamas terror financing case that provided U.S. law enforcement with information regarding the depth of the threat posed to North America       . In that case the Holy Land Foundation trial, U.S. Federal law enforcement uncovered voluminous documents representing the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. Thanks in part to the evidence provided in these documents the Holy Land Foundation Hamas terror funding front was shut down, and prosecutors secured multiple convictions on terrorism financing charges. These documents come together to tell the story of a multi-decade long effort by the Muslim Brotherhood in North America to establish itself, create front-groups, seize control of mosques and Islamic centers, indoctrinate young people through youth organizations and Islamic schools, mislead the mass media, conduct intelligence operations against law enforcement and security services, and influence politicians. This carefully organized campaign of subversive activity forms the basis for what was called a Grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying Western Civilization from within, in the Brotherhood’s explanatory memorandum uncovered during the Holy Land Foundation case.

There has been a tendency to divorce the physical manifestations of individual acts of Islamic terrorism, such as the recent attacks here in Canada, from the extensive support infrastructure provided by this Global Jihad Movement. But the reality is that men and women do not seek to travel to fight in Syria or Iraq, or engage in attacks domestically, without first having been indoctrinated obligation to wage jihad. Such individuals have been instructed to put loyalty to a global Islamic ummah above loyalty to one’s own country. They are educated to believe that Muslims have a right to impose Sharia, a foreign source of law upon one’s fellow citizens. All of these elements of indoctrination must occur before an individual would ever express interest in al-Qaeda or Islamic State propaganda. Providing the government an enhanced ability to target or take down propaganda that promotes a doctrinal command to wage jihad against unbelievers or the call to use force to overthrow the government and impose Sharia in our judgment would be beneficial. As it would help to disrupt indoctrination before individuals reach a stage at which they are considering attacks against a specific target. Laying this ideological ground is exactly the mission and the role of the Muslim Brotherhood. Which has undertaken the mission to support movements that engage in jihad across the Muslim world, according the Muslim Brotherhood documents seized by U.S. law enforcement in 2001. Given this obligation to support it is not surprise that terrorist recruits repeatedly have been traced back to an Islamic center, school or mosque, established or controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood; as was the case in our own Boston Marathon bombing back in April, 2013. Subsequently organizations with ties to the Brotherhood have repeatedly sought to undermine and impose counter-terrorism strategies that rely on aggressive police intelligence work to disrupt plots and arrests those responsible, the kind of strategy currently under discussion here in Canada.

We have considered how these policies under discussion would help Canada to address the common threat. It is necessary to address the whole-host of activities which undermined the security of Canada, to include interfering with the ability of the government to conduct intelligence, defense, public safety or other activities or attempting to unduly change or influence the government by unlawful means or to engage in covert foreign influenced activities. Likewise address the full scope of jihadist operations including indoctrination, propaganda, and subversive activities. It seems to us that threats such as these emerging in the pre-attack phase of the jihadist campaign are exactly the modus operandi of the Muslim Brotherhood. As it seeks to undermined constitutionally established Western governments including that of Canada to the benefit of global jihad movement. We asses that legislation that would permit Canadian intelligence services to engage in actions to disrupt terror plots and threats to Canada would likely be effective at helping to thwart Islamic terror attacks in the pre-violent stage. Such a policy provided do-over site creates a necessary capability to intervene and undermine indoctrination and recruiting networks which lead individuals to become jihadists, and either travel abroad, join jihadist groups, or conduct attacks at home, even without a definite connection to any terrorist group. While we understand that there is a debate over how such capabilities could be overseen the use of an intermediary review committee rather than direct parliamentary oversight has advantages when it is often the legislators themselves who are at risk of being targeted by these influence activities.

There has already been controversy in the United States over an appointee to the U.S. Congressional House Select-Committee on Intelligence having received campaign funds from and having numerous associations with the Muslim Brotherhood linked organizations in our country. Muslim Brotherhood organizations also have been aggressive in utilizing the media to target legislators engaged in oversight hearings as well as threatening to fundraise for their political opponents if they dare to examine issues related to jihadist indoctrination in serious detail. In our opinion any oversight committee dealing with these issues risks being an immediate target for similar efforts, creating a buffer of intelligence professionals between ceases and the members of parliament maybe useful therefore to preserve and protect important information insolate MP’s from aggressive influence operations to undermine their support to Canadian counter-terrorism efforts, while also ensuring respect for civil rights generating appropriate oversight that has a detailed understanding of the law enforcement and intelligence techniques involved. Certainly it is to be expected that the parliament would be vigilant in examining the reports generated by the minister and it would take full advantage of opportunities to examine and discuss the reported data. In dealing the threat posed by jihadist fighters living amidst our own communities efforts have focused primarily on either methods to keep them from traveling abroad or revocation of passports to keep individuals from returning.

The Center for Security Policy generally has been supportive of such measures, as currently are under discussion in the U.S. Congress and that would take passports away from those who would travel, or seek to travel abroad to fight for terrorists forces. Likewise changes and extensions to the current peace bond provisions here would appear to us to help address substantial difficulty faced by counter-terrorism agencies which is that in numerous recent cases we have seen the terrorist who perpetrated attacks on the U.S., Britain, France, and Australia have been what terrorism experts in the U.S. have begun to describe as known-wolfs. That is, rather than being undetected and operating without connection to other jihadists groups, a genuine lone-wolf, what we are seeing instead is that most individuals identified as lone-wolfs in fact have had ties or at least a known proclivity to support jihadist ideology groups or terrorists networks and frequently were already under some level of surveillance. It is not a lack of awareness but rather an inability to take preventive action or disrupt the plot, that all to often has resulted in these individuals successfully carrying out an act of Islamic terrorism. In conclusion, the Center of Security Policy believes Canada is in a position to put into practice a forward-thinking approach that gives police officers and intelligence operatives the tools they need to not only surveil and detect terror threats, but to disrupt and dismantle the jihadist networks which seek to use terrorism as only one method of among others to undermine and weaken the security of Canada. Thank you very much.

End Transcript.

***

Also see:

Congress needs a strategy to defeat both violent and cultural jihad

jihad2National Review, by Newt Gingrich, March 26, 2015:

On Tuesday, the House Committee on Homeland Security, under the leadership of Chairman Michael McCaul, held the first of a series of very important hearings on the threat of radical Islamism.

As I told the committee in my testimony, it is vital that the United States Congress undertake a thorough, no-holds-barred review of the long, global war in which we are now engaged with radical Islamists. This review will require a number of committees to coordinate, since it will have to include Intelligence, Armed Services, Foreign Affairs, Judiciary, and Homeland Security at a minimum.

There are three key, sobering observations about where we are today which should force this thorough, no-holds-barred review of our situation.

These three points — which are backed up by the facts — suggest the United States is drifting into a crisis that could challenge our very survival.

First, it is the case that after 35 years of conflict dating back to the Iranian seizure of the American embassy in Tehran and the ensuing hostage crisis, the United States and its allies are losing the long, global war with radical Islamists.

We are losing to both the violent jihad and to the cultural jihad.

The violent jihad has shown itself recently in Paris, Australia, Tunisia, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Gaza, Nigeria, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Yemen, to name just some of the most prominent areas of violence.

Cultural jihad is more insidious and in many ways more dangerous. It strikes at our very ability to think and to have an honest dialogue about the steps necessary for our survival. Cultural jihad is winning when the Department of Defense describes a terrorist attack at Fort Hood as “workplace violence.” Cultural jihad is winning when the president refers to “random” killings in Paris when they were clearly the actions of Islamist terrorists and targeted against specific groups. Cultural jihad is winning when the administration censors training documents and lecturers according to “sensitivity” so that they cannot describe radical Islamists with any reference to the religious ideology which is the primary bond that unites them.

In the 14 years since the 9/11 attacks, we have gone a long way down the road of intellectually and morally disarming in order to appease the cultural jihadists, who are increasingly aggressive in asserting their right to define how the rest of us think and talk.

Second, it is the case that, in an extraordinarily dangerous pattern, our intelligence system has been methodically limited and manipulated to sustain false narratives while suppressing or rejecting facts and analysis about those who would kill us.

For example, there is clear evidence the American people have been given remarkably misleading analysis about al-Qaeda based on a very limited translation and publication of about 24 of the 1.5 million documents captured in the Bin Laden raid. A number of outside analysts have suggested that the selective release of a small number of documents was designed to make the case that al-Qaeda was weaker. These outside analysts assert that a broader reading of more documents would indicate al-Qaeda was doubling in size when our government claimed it was getting weaker — an analysis also supported by obvious empirical facts on the ground. Furthermore, there has been what could only be deliberate foot-dragging in exploiting this extraordinary cache of material.

Both Lieutenant General Mike Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Colonel Derek Harvey, a leading analyst of terrorism, have described the deliberately misleading and restricted access to the Bin Laden documents.

A number of intelligence operatives have described censorship from above designed to make sure that intelligence which undermines the official narrative simply does not see the light of day.

Congress should explore legislation which would make it illegal to instruct intelligence personnel to falsify information or analysis. Basing American security policy on politically defined distortions of reality is a very dangerous habit which could someday lead to a devastating defeat. Congress has an obligation to ensure the American people are learning the truth and have an opportunity to debate potential policies in a fact-based environment.

Third, it is the case that our political elites have refused to define our enemies. Their willful ignorance has made it impossible to develop an effective strategy to defeat those who would destroy our civilization.

For example, the president’s own press secretary engages in verbal gymnastics to avoid identifying the perpetrators of violence as radical Islamists. Josh Earnest said that such labels do not “accurately” describe our enemies and that to use such a label “legitimizes” them.

This is Orwellian double-speak. The radical Islamists do not need to be delegitimized. They need to be defeated. We cannot defeat what we cannot name.

There has been a desperate desire among our elites to focus on the act of terrorism rather than the motivation behind those acts. There has been a deep desire to avoid the cultural and religious motivations behind the jihadists’ actions. There is an amazing hostility to any effort to study or teach the history of these patterns going back to the seventh century.

Because our elites refuse to look at the religious and historic motivations and patterns which drive our opponents, we are responding the same way to attack after attack on our way of life without any regard for learning about what really motivates our attackers. Only once we learn what drives and informs our opponents will we not repeat the same wrong response tactics, Groundhog Day–like, and finally start to win this long war.

Currently each new event, each new group, each new pattern is treated as though it’s an isolated phenomenon — as if it’s not part of a larger struggle with a long history and deep roots in patterns that are 1,400 years old.

There is a passion for narrowing and localizing actions. The early focus was al-Qaeda. Then it was the Taliban. Now it is the Islamic State. It is beginning to be Boko Haram. As long as the elites can keep treating each new eruption as a freestanding phenomenon, they can avoid having to recognize that this is a global, worldwide movement that is decentralized but not disordered.

There are ties between Minneapolis and Mogadishu. There are ties between London, Paris, and the Islamic State. Al-Qaeda exists in many forms and under many names. We are confronted by worldwide recruiting on the Internet, with Islamists reaching out to people we would never have imagined were vulnerable to that kind of appeal.

We have been refusing to apply the insights and lessons of history, but our enemies have been very willing to study, learn, rethink, and evolve.

The cultural jihadists have learned our language and our principles — freedom of speech, freedom of religion, tolerance — and they apply them to defeat us without believing in them themselves. We blindly play their game on their terms, and don’t even think about how absurd it is for people who accept no church, no synagogue, no temple in their heartland to come into our society and define multicultural sensitivity totally to their advantage — meaning, in essence, that we cannot criticize their ideas.

Our elites have been morally and intellectually disarmed by their own unwillingness to look at both the immediate history of the first 35 years of the global war with radical Islamists and then to look deeper into the roots of the ideology and the military-political system our enemies draw upon as their guide to waging both physical and cultural warfare.

One of the great threats to American independence is the steady growth of foreign money pouring into our intellectual and political systems to influence our thinking and limit our options for action. Congress needs to adopt new laws to protect the United States from the kind of foreign influences which are growing in size and boldness.

Sun Tzu, in The Art of War, written 500 years before Christ, warned that “all warfare is based on deception.” We are currently in a period where our enemies are deceiving us and our elites are actively deceiving themselves — and us. The deception and dishonesty of our elites is not accidental or uninformed. It is deliberate and willful. The flow of foreign money and foreign influence is a significant part of that pattern of deception.

We must clearly define our enemies before we can begin to develop strategies to defeat them.

We have lost 35 years since this war began.

We are weaker and our enemies are stronger.

Congress has a duty to pursue the truth and to think through the strategies needed and the structures which will be needed to implement those strategies.

— Newt Gingrich was speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999.

***

USHR08 Committee on Homeland Security House naming Islamic terrorism

Published on Mar 26, 2015 by Kenneth Sikorski

This took place on Tuesday, March 24, 2015 before a congressional meeting for Homeland Security on Islamic terrorism.

***

More on that hearing here:

Spirited counterterrorism discussion/debate – watch Brooke Goldstein call out CAIR representative!

Brooke Goldstein‘New Terror Threat’ discussed by experts during NewsChannel 8 town hall roundtable

ARLINGTON, Va. (WJLA) – NewsChannel 8 on Tuesday evening hosted a live Your Voice, Your Future town hall roundtable discussion with top experts entitled “The New Terror Threat: The Countdown.”

The discussion, hosted by senior political reporter Scott Thuman, examined a wide range of topics involving growing tensions and issues in the Middle East that are impacting and potentially threatening other parts of the world.

Among the items discussed included the U.S./Iran nuclear talks, U.S./Israel relations, the Afghanistan/Iraq conflicts and terrorism in general.

Panel members included:

Rep.Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD2), Brooke Goldstein (lawfare Project), Jamal Abdi (NAIC), Clifford May (Foundation for Defense of democracies), Zainab Choudry (CAIR), Adelle Nazarian (Breitbart), Dr. Faheem Younis (Muslimerican) and Kamal Nawash (Free Muslim Coalition)

Ignore the short glitch in the beginning:

McCaul: ISIS Linked to 29 Terror Plots, Attacks Against West Since Obama’s ‘JV Team’ Comments

jihadi-car-parade-videoshotBreitbart, by EDWIN MORA, March 24, 2015:

WASHINGTON, DC — The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) has been linked to “29 terrorist plots or attacks” against the West nearly a year after President Obama called the jihadist group a “JV team,” revealed House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R-TX).

As ISIS stormed Iraq in January 2014, President Obama dismissed the brutal jihadist organization as a junior varsity (“jayvee team”) terrorist group.

“A year after the president called ISIS the ‘JV team,’ the organization can draw on over 20,000 foreign fighters and has been linked to 29 terrorist plots or attacks targeting the West,” said Chairman McCaul in his opening remarks at a House Homeland Security Committee hearing today.  “And the day the president said the global war on terror was effectively over was the day al Baghdadi created ISIS.”

“ISIS now controls territory the size of Belgium, governs millions of people, draws on billions of dollars in revenue, and commands tens of thousands of foot soldiers,” he added. “Terrorist safe havens have spread across the Middle East and North Africa.”

The chairman went on to note that ISIS claimed responsibility for the deadly terrorist attack at a museum in Tunisia, which is located next to Libya where the jihadist group hasestablished a presence.

McCaul said, “The gunmen involved had received training in Libyan terror camps.”

Nearly 20 people were killed in the attack.

Furthermore, the Texas Republican pointed out that ISIS, a Sunni group, has also claimed to be behind the coordinated attack against two Shiite mosques in Yemen, which he said, “killed more than 150 people.”

“Yemen’s instability has led to the evacuation of our remaining forces and will further empower extremists,” he added. “This situation is alarming given that al Qaeda’s premier bomb-makers in [Yemen-based] AQAP [al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula] have been targeting the homeland and Western interests for years.”

“Over the past year, Islamist terrorists have struck Western cities, including Paris, Sydney, Ottawa, Copenhagen, and Brussels. We have witnessed the reach of extremists here at home as well,” noted McCaul. “An Ohio-based ISIS sympathizer was arrested in January for plotting to attack the U.S. Capitol. Last week, an ISIS-aligned hacking group posted the names, photos, and addresses of 100 American service members, calling their ‘brothers residing in America’ to attack these individuals.”

Today’s House panel hearing was titled, “A Global Battleground: The Fight Against Islamist Extremism at Home and Abroad.” [statement pdf’s available at hearing link]

Also see:

Will al Shabaab Join Islamic State?

1321364230CSP, by Nicholas Hanlon, March 18, 2015:

The past weeks of debate regarding the relationship of Boko Haram and IS paints a picture of the how Western analysts weigh relationships between Sunni Islamic movements.  Most analysis in the media weighed tactical considerations that proved to be superficial in the end.

The overarching predictor of behavior for the allegiance between Boko Haram and IS was their strict religious interpretation of Islamic Law.  This is why the Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy so confidently predicted the acceptance of allegiance from Boko Haram by IS.

The tactical superficialities often discussed included egos among leadership in the groups, Arab racism toward black Africans, and propaganda ploys made in desperation.  All of these lines of inquiry are factors that merit assessment but ultimately they are symptoms.   Good intelligence analysis should not resemble an after action report.  It should predict behavior in order to prevent strategic surprise.

One of the symptoms or tactical superficialities that came into focus just before the alliance was the upgrade in Boko Haram’s media capability.  This led many to speculate that they had help and training from IS for their propaganda division.  The assistance could have as easily come from al Shabaab.  Al Shabaab has long had an impressive media capability but the latest video on their invasion of Mpeketoni in Eastern Kenya seems to be a leap forward none the less.  If the propaganda videos released by each group serve a purpose, it is to teach us about tactics and goals.  Emphasize the goals over the tactics and you will have a better handle on behavior.

It has been the over-emphasis on tactics that have cost us the big picture.  Again, it was strict religious interpretation which trumped racism that U.S. intelligence officials said would prevent an allegiance between Boko Haram and IS.  The Ansaru faction of Boko Haram for example came from the mind of Mokhtar Belmokhtar (of AQIM at the time).  The media picked up on Ansuru’s condemnation of Boko Haram’s horrific tactics.  If one were to be specific, Ansaru’s issue was with Boko Haram’s horrific treatment of it’s own members.  Not infidels generally.  In fact, by Belmokhtar’s design, Ansaru was meant to be a regional actor where Boko Haram was local.  Maaman Nur led Ansaru and connected with al Shabaab between 2009 and 20011.  Nur, like Abubakar Shekau, was a disciple of Muhammed Yousef.  Many of Yousef’s followers joined Al Qaeda after his death.

This is all to say that the things that divide these groups do not deter them from their long term goals.  There are now hints that Al Qaeda linked al Shabaab will be the next to pledge to IS.  We can continue to ask if tactical factors will cause significant divisions.  One of the big question that remains is whether alliances between these groups will strengthen them tactically.

Despite military success of western alliances in Nigeria, Somalia, or the Middle East, these allegiances will strengthen these Sunni Islamist groups.  In one sense, they already have because policy makers have alluded themselves that the different banners under which global jihadists fight are more significant than they seem.  Now, as they move toward one banner with four globally connected Jihadist groups holding territory (Taliban, Boko Haram, IS, al Shabaab) the threat will extrapolate.

Consider the ten thousand fighters from Western Europe living in democratic societies whose beliefs caused them to heed the call to battle once IS declared the Caliphate and gave them and accessible place to live out their belief.  Success is a great propaganda and recruiting tool.  Every new place they can paint the black flag of Jihad on the map, more will rally to their banner.

Also see:

Jihad on the Offensive — on The Glazov Gang

ISISty-450x253By Frontpagemag.com On March 13, 2015:

This week’s Glazov Gang was joined by scholars Bruce Thornton (Freedom Center Shillman Fellow), Raymond Ibrahim (Freedom Center Shillman Fellow) and Robert Spencer (Director, JihadWatch.org).

The three titans joined the Gang at the Freedom Center’s 2015 West Coast Retreat, held March 6-8 in Palos Verdes, CA.

The discussion focused on Jihad on the Offensive, a topic in which the three scholars unveiled the evil the free world is up against. TRANSCRIPT

Intelligence: Broken Arrow

194221_5_By G. Murphy Donovan:

Policy is a worldview. Intelligence is the real world, a wilderness of untidy facts that may or may not influence policy. When Intelligence fails to provide a true and defensible estimate, a clear picture of threat, policy becomes a rat’s nest of personal and political agendas where asserted conclusions and political correctness become the loudest voices in the room.  The policymaker thinks he knows the answer. The intelligence officer has the much tougher tasks of confirming or changing minds.

American national security analysis has been poisoned by such toxins. An Intelligence report these days might be any estimate that supports the politics of the moment. Truth today is an afterthought at best and an orphan at worst.

Alas, corrupt Intelligence is the midwife of strategic fiasco. Four contemporary failures provide illustrations: revolutionary theocracy, the Islam bomb, imperial Islamism, and the new Cold War.

Back to Theocracy

The Persian revolution of 1979 was arguably the most significant strategic surprise of the last half of the 20th Century. Yes, more significant than the fall of Soviet Communism. (The precipitous fall of the Soviet Bloc, to be sure, was another bellwether event unanticipated by Intelligence analysis.) The successful religious coup in Iran, heretofore an American client regime, now provides a model for all Muslim states where the default setting among tribal autocracies is now theocracy not democracy. In the wake of the Communist collapse, Francis Fukuyama argued that the democratic ideal was triumphant, an end of history as we knew it, the evolutionary consequence of progressive dialects. Fukuyama was wrong, tragically wrong. History is a two-way street that runs forward as well as backwards.

The fall of the Soviet monolith was not the end of anything. It was the beginning of profound regression, an era of religious irredentism. Worrisome as the Cold War was, the relationship with Moscow was fairly well managed. Who can argue today that East Europe or the Muslim world is more stable or peaceful than it was three decades ago?

The Persian revolution of 1979 not only reversed the vector of Muslim politics, but the triumph of Shia imperialism blew new life into the Shia/Sunni sectarian fire, a conflict that had been smoldering for more than a thousand years. The theocratic victory in Tehran also raised the ante for Israel too, now confronted by state sponsored Shia and Sunni antagonists,Hezb’allah, Fatah, and Hamas.

Shia Hezb’allah calls itself the party of God! Those in the Intelligence Community who continue to insist that religion is not part of the mix have yet to explain why God is part of the conversation only on the Islamic side of the equation.

Global Islamic terror is now metastasizing at an alarming rate. More ominous is the ascent of the Shia clergy, apocalyptic ayatollahs, bringing a lowering of the nuclear threshold in the Middle East. Sunni ISIS by comparison is just another tactical terror symptom on the Sunni side — and yet another strategic warning failure too.

Tehran is in the cat bird’s seat, on the cusp of becoming a nuclear superpower. Nuclear Iran changes every strategic dynamic: with Israel, with Arabia, and also with NATO. A Shia bomb is the shortcut to checkmate the more numerous Sunni. Iran will not be “talked out” of the most potent tool in imperial Shia kit — and the related quest for parity with Arabian apostates.

The Islam Bomb

The Islam bomb has been with us for years, in Sunni Pakistan, although you might never know that if you followed the small wars follies in South Asia. The enemy, as represented by American analysis, is atomized, a cast of bit players on the subcontinent. First, America was fighting a proxy war with the Soviets. When the Russians departed, the enemy became the murderous Taliban followed by al Qaeda. Both now make common cause with almost every stripe of mujahedeen today. In the 25 years since the Soviet withdrawal, Afghanistan has been reduced now to a rubble of narco-terror and tribalism. If we can believe bulletins from the Pentagon or the Oval Office, America is headed for the Afghan exit in the next two years — maybe. Throughout, the real threat in South Asia remains unheralded — and unmolested.

Nuclear Pakistan is one car bomb, or one AK-47 clip, away from another Taliban theocracy. This is not the kind of alarm that has been raised by the Intelligence Community. Hindu India probably understands the threat, Shia Persia surely understands the Sunni threat, and just as surely, Israel understands that a Sunni bomb is the raison d’etre for a more proximate Shia bomb. Who would argue that the Sunni Saudis need nuclear “power”? Nonetheless, Riyadh is now in the game too.  The most unstable corner of the globe is now host to a nuclear power pull.

The American national security establishment seems to be clueless on all of this. Indeed, when a unique democracy like Israel tries to illuminate a portion of the nuclear threat before the American Congress, the Israeli prime minister is stiff-armed by the Oval Office. If Washington failed with Pakistan and North Korea, why would anyone, let alone the Israelis, believe that Wendy Sherman is a match for the nuclear pipedreams of apocalyptic Shia priests.

Alas, the motive force behind a Shia bomb is not Israeli capabilities or intentions. Israel is a stable democracy where any territorial ambitions are limited to the traditional Jewish homeland. Israel is no threat to Persia or Arabia.  Pakistan, in contrast, is like much of the Sunni world today, another internecine tribal or sectarian wildfire waiting for a match.

The advent of the Islam bomb in Asia was not just a strategic surprise, but the step-child of strategic apathy. The folly of taking sides with the Sunni has now come home to roost. Iran is about to go for the atomic brass ring too, with the Saudis in trail, and there’s not much that America can/will do except mutter about secret diplomacy and toothless sanctions. Of course, there’s always the option of blaming Jews when appeasement fails.

Imperial Islam

The Ummah problem, the Muslim world, has now replaced the Soviet empire, as Churchill would have put it, as the “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” There are four dimensions to the Islamic conundrum: the Shia/Sunni rift, intramural secular/religious conflicts, kinetic antipathy towards Israel and the West writ large, and the failure of analysis, especially strategic Intelligence, to unwrap the Muslim onion in any useful way. Imperial Islam, dare we say Islamofascism, now threatens secular autocracy and democracy on all points of the compass.

194220_5_

 Islam in London

Islamic imperialism is a decentralized global movement. Nonetheless, the various theaters are united by tactics, strategy, ideology, and objectives. The tactics are jihad, small wars, and terror. The strategy is the imposition of Shariah Law. The ideology is the Koran and the Hadith. And the objective is a Shia or Sunni Islamic Caliphate — for infidels, a distinction without difference.

Muslim religious proselytizers and jihad generals in the field make no secret of any of this. The problem isn’t that some Muslims dissent from this agenda, the problem is that the West, especially national security analysts, cannot/will not believe or accept what Islamic imperialists say aloud, about themselves. The enemy is hiding in plain sight, yet the Intelligence Community doesn’t have the integrity or courage to make a clear call.

Read more at American Thinker

CPAC – Conservative Political Action Conference discovers Islamic terrorism

J.D. Gordon speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland.

J.D. Gordon speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland.

Religious Freedom Coalition, March 6th, 2015, by Andrew Harrod, PhD.

“Radical Islamic terrorism” is the “new existential threat” to free societies after Communism’s Cold War demise, declared political commentator Deroy Murdock on February 28 at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).  Murdock’s panel “America’s Security in the Age of Jihad” on CPAC’s center stage demonstrated that vitally important Islamic aggression and authoritarianism were finally receiving CPAC’s attention after past neglect and uninvited analysts.

The preceding noon panel “The Middle East:  The 30 Years War” packed a standing-room only crowd of about 80 into a conference room near the Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center ballroom where Murdock spoke.  Among others in attendance was the ubiquitous Muslim grandstanding gadfly Saba Ahmed, whose participation drew afterwards obscene comments from individual audience members.  Moderating the panel, defense consultant Van Hipp critiqued its title by describing a “war that’s been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years” and involving issues that “need to be on the main stage,” as indicated by the large audience.  Hipp’s statement that “radical Islam is really the challenge of our time” foreshadowed Murdock, but Hipp criticized policymaker reticence in naming this threat as equivalent to “refusing to call Nazi fascism Nazi fascism” during World War II.

Making his CPAC debut, Middle East analyst Walid Phares discussed the “very specific ideology” of “jihadism,” something that is “not yoga,” although jihad in Islam can have nonviolent meanings.  He was “very firm” in claiming that jihadists seeking Islamic political rule with various means including violence were a minority among Muslims.  He cited the 33 million Egyptians whose June 30, 2013, protests helped bring down the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) government of Mohammed Morsi.  In his estimation a truly liberating Arab Spring “could have been possible” if President Barack Obama’s administration had supported “all sorts of peaceful people” in Arabian civil society.  Since Obama’s June 4, 2009, speech in Cairo, however, he has taken the “wrong side” in the MB.

Phares’ Powerpoint “Catastrophes in the Middle East” indicated jihadism’s growing global dangers.  He mocked how some American policymakers were “on a different planet.”  They believed in things like the nuclear nonproliferation agreement with Iran, “nothing but a maneuver” for nuclear weapons development “to gain time.”  Chastising Obama’s flawed historical understanding, Phares noted that the “Crusaders were in a confrontation with another empire,” not “Boy Scouts.”  Looking beyond the Middle East, he worried about Nigeria’s Boko Haram, the “ISIS of Africa,” and how Afghanistan unaided by foreign troops is “not going to be left to Social Democrats.”

Similarly debuting at CPAC, former CIA agent and international security analyst Clare Lopez agreed with Hipp that warfare with and among Muslims “goes a little farther back” than the panel title suggested.  She described modern jihadist behavior being “almost directly taken from the life of Muhammad,” Islam’s prophet and the “first jihadi.”  “Jihad rises again now,” she added, “because the West has fallen back” under an Obama who entered office with an “agenda already formed” for the United States “to be more on the level of Greece.”

Under this agenda, diminished American influence would concede the North Africa region to Sunni Muslims under MB influence and the Persian Gulf area to Shiite-majority Iran.  This strategy entailed abandoning dictators like Libya’s Muammar Gadhafi and Egypt’s Hosni Muburak.  They were “never going to be a choirboy” but had aided the West against Al Qaeda (AQ) and in keeping peace with Israel.  American acquiescence in Iran’s rise, meanwhile, could involve in the future nuclear weapons that are “not just for Israel,” but could strike the United States as well on Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Lopez focused on Iran’s Islamic Republic.  Since its 1979 creation, this “jihadist state” has sought “export of the revolution” as expressed by Quran 8:60 in the Iranian constitution’s preamble.  Among other things, nuclear weapons acquisition would help Iran “seize the leadership of the global jihad” from Islam’s Sunni majority. Yet Shiite Iran has also cooperated with Sunni groups like AQ, with which Iran and its Lebanese Shiite proxy militia Hezbollah have had a relationship involving training and logistics since a “jihadi jamboree” in 1990s Sudan.

Likewise, Iran currently aids its Shiite allies fighting against the Sunni Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).  ISIS’ top target, Lopez however notes, are the Sunni “hypocrites” who rule Saudi Arabia.  The eastern provinces of this Iranian archrival are oil-rich and Shiite-populated, making them a tantalizing prize for an Iran that would be a secondary beneficiary to any ISIS attack on the Saudi kingdom.

Joining Murdock at CPAC’s central venue, former Department of Defense spokesman and career navy officer J.D. Gordon echoed Lopez.  The “radical Islamist threat is a two-headed” among both Sunnis and Shiites, he observed, but “Iran long term is the greatest threat.”  Gordon meanwhile noted a “de facto alliance” between the “international left and the Islamists” in areas such as an “anti-colonial movement” condemning Israel.  Such dangers were “not about jobs” he mocked while criticizing an Obama administration that had more to say about climate change than jihad in its Quadrennial Defense Reviews.

Army officer veteran and political analyst Pete Hegseth also dismissed such socioeconomic root cause analysis of Islamic violence.  “The age of jihad,” he analyzed, presents the “Nazism or Communism of our time” in a “particular interpretation of the Quran.”  “The only way to defeat an enemy like this is to put many, many, many of them into the ground.”  Yet Obama’s Iraq withdrawal showed that he “was more interested in ending wars than in ending them properly.”

Former army intelligence officer and military analyst Anthony Schaffer, also in his first CPAC appearance, emphasized “déjà vu all over again” feelings in discussing Islamic threats.  In his own career he had helped protect American troops in Germany during the Cold War against Libyan plots.  “Fighting Islamic jihadists,” he noted, “goes back to Jefferson” as the “shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Corps hymn recalls.  Obama’s current “refusal to define the Islamic threat” is dangerous and his “high school debate team in charge of national security” shows official “criminal neglect.”

Navy veteran and Muslim political activist Zuhdi Jasser also stressed clear definitions for freedom’s “battle…within Islam.”  “You have to name it to tame it” and describe explicitly political Islam or Islamism, political correctness notwithstanding.  Not just ISIS, but Islamic states plural and the “neo-caliphate” of the 57-member state (including “Palestine”) Organization of Islamic States form a multifaceted Islamist “continuum” in an “evil empire today.”  “We can only win this if we empower reform-minded Muslims” willing “to die for liberty,” yet Obama had supported an “Islamic mafia” of “Islamists ideologues” both domestically and abroad.  In contrast to voluminous Cold War government Communism studies, today’s government Islamist scholars can be counted “on one hand” and fear losing their jobs.

The presence of Jasser and other panelists at the center of CPAC indicated that Islamic issues will in the future receive the attention it deserves at America’s premier conservative gathering.  Conservatives, who pride themselves as national security experts, will not be AWOL concerning these various ongoing, increasingly important faith-based threats to freedom.  This welcome development could not come sooner, for a long, hard road leads to Murdock’s laudable goal for Islamism:  “Let’s throw it next to Communism on the ash-heap of history.”

***

While the “The Middle East: The 30 Years War” panel video has not been made available, (I wonder why?) here is the “America’s Security in the Age of Jihad” video:

‘DESTROYING WESTERN CIVILIZATION FROM WITHIN’

observant-baseWND, By Bruce Phillips, March 2, 2015:

In his three most recent columns, Bruce Phillips, who has nearly 40 years of experience in Middle East affairs, examined whether or not the Palestinian party Fatah is really as moderate is it is often portrayed by media an government. Part 1 provided an analysis of Fatah’s own trademark logos and posters while Part 2 looked at recent statements and actions of Fatah chief Mahmoud Abbas and current Fatah leadership. In his third column, he spotlighted “The word that motivates global Islamic jihad.”

[Note from the author: As with all of my articles, none of the terms or phrases used here are of my own invention; every term or phrase is derived from primary Islamic sources, such as the Quran, Hadith, Tafsir and Shariah. I encourage everyone to access the hyperlinked references, then evaluate each for accuracy and completeness.]

This is the latest in an ongoing series of articles dealing with complex, sometimes abstract, subjects, which are often counterintuitive to those of us in the non-Islamic West. By counterintuitive, I mean there are times when it is almost impossible for us to believe that the authorized Islamic sources mean exactly what they say. Nonetheless, if we hope to preserve any chance of victory against the escalating threat we face, we must endeavor to master this sometimes unpleasant subject; we must, as Abraham Lincoln said, “disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall help save our country, the last best hope on earth.”

The purpose of this article is to introduce the concept of “expanding the observant Muslim base” (al-Qaida al-Islamia al-Moltzema), which is a tactical term found in a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document known as the Explanatory Memorandum. In Arabic, the document is a concise, densely written manifesto – not a word is arbitrary or incidental. Saturated with iconic language, it distills 1,400 years of strategy and tactics used since the time of Muhammad to advance the “global Islamic state.” (Also see “The Quranic Concept of War“).

Since 9-11, we’ve heard the term al-Qaida (“the base,” or القاعدة in Arabic) almost every day. However, al-Qaida is not just the name of a hydra-like global terrorist organization. It is also an abstract concept, with a deep ocean of Islamic history behind it.

For example, after Muhammad established his final Qaida in Medina in A.D. 622, it became the power base of Islam for the next hundred years, initially under Muhammad’s leadership and then under four “rightly guided caliphs.”

Also, as we see reflected on TV regularly, the black flag of jihad displayed so prominently by ISIS features the “seal of Muhammad,” which goes back to the founding of Islam in A.D. 610.

The Muslim Brotherhood has maintained a highly visible leading role in the global effort to “expand the observant Muslim base” since it was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna in close collaboration with Sayyid Qutb.

After these two “founding fathers” summarized and published the goals and operational tactics of Islam, they began attracting thousands of dedicated followers from countries all over the world. To this day, the Muslim Brotherhood remains the largest and most well-organized Islamic organization on earth. Not only that, but it continues providing a solid, reliable theological and political base to fellow members in nearly every country in the world.

Meanwhile, as a relatively small but financially influential Islamic community began to coalesce in North America, a group (see Figure 1 above) of respected Muslim Brotherhood leaders summarized the same strategic goals and tactics discussed by al-Banna and Qutb in a format tailored to fit the theological and socio-political challenges faced by Muslims living in a wealthy, predominantly non-Islamic region. These members of the Shura Council and the Organizational Conference called this carefully crafted strategic and tactical communiqué the “”An Explanatory Memorandum On The General Strategic Goal For The Group In North America.”

It is important to recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood summarized the goals and tactics for “expanding the observant Muslim base” more than 10 years before Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri helped form a global coalition of 12 Islamist groups called the World Islamic Front (aka the global jihad front or al-Qaida), then declared jihad on America and Israel on Feb. 23, 1998.

In fact, Zawahiri, who is the current leader of al-Qaida, was not only a member of the Brotherhood in his native Egypt but also bases his operational templates on the views of prominent Islamic theorists like al-Banna and Qutb.

Despite the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum was introduced as prima facie evidence in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation trial, many today still do not realize that the ideology of a wide spectrum of Islamic macro-groups, such as Al-Shabaab, Hamas, ISIS and the World Islamic Front are all based on exactly the same aggressive goals and concepts that were summarized and endorsed in 1987 by the Muslim Brotherhood in North America.

In simple terms, every Islamic group mentioned above is engaged in their own regional version of “expanding the observant Muslim base.”

Finally, as I discussed earlier in “The word that motivates global Islamic jihad,” much of the catalyst for this expansion comes from “push back” (aka “Islamophobia”) encountered by the Muslim community in North America. The Explanatory Memorandum is very concise and comprehensive, and includes tactical principals – “operative verbs” –designed to overcome and neutralize this “push-back,” which is also described as a “civilizational alternative” or “civilizational jihad.”

Here is how the Explanatory Memorandum addresses the problem of “push-back” from the resistant, non-Muslims they encounter: “The process of settlement is a Civilization-Jihadist Process with all the word means. The Ikhwan (‘brothers’ in Arabic) must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it (fitnah) is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

As discussed in my column on fitnah, or “resistance,” the concept is derived directly from Quran 2.193 and 8.39.

How the Explanatory Memorandum was discovered

In August 2004, a Maryland Transportation Authority police officer conducted a traffic stop after observing someone videoing the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. As it turns out, the driver was Ismail Selim Elbarasse, who was already wanted in connection with fundraising for Hamas. The FBI subsequently executed a search warrant on Elbarasse’s residence, where agents found 80 boxes of archived documents hidden in a sub-basement.

The search led to a remarkable discovery. Among the thousands of documents found, one of the most revealing was “An Explanatory Memorandum On The General Strategic Goal For The Group In North America.”

Originally commissioned in 1987 by the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America, it was not officially released to the board of directors until 1991. It may just be a coincidence, but it is plausible that the same Muslim Brotherhood members who commissioned the memorandum also authorized the 1988 Hamas Charter. In any event, Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, pursues the exact same goals and objectives found in the document and even uses the same slogan as the Muslim Brotherhood: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

Approved by the Muslim Brotherhood’s Shura Council, or organizational conference, for internal use only, the document was never mean to become public. For this reason, it is both an Enigma Code and the Rosetta Stone of the global Islamic movement

Like the Enigma Code, it was meant to remain hidden but now provides the key to deciphering the strategy and tactics of the movement. And, like the Rosetta Stone, it enables those of us in the non-Islamic world to discern the commonly held strategic and tactical doctrines of every Muslim organization in the world.

The Explanatory Memorandum was written by a former U.S. resident and still-active senior Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas leader, Mohamed Akram (aka Mohamed Akram Adlouni, aka Muhammad Akram Al-Adlouni). To this day, Muslim apologists insist Akram is an obscure, “self-described” fringe member of the Brotherhood and that the document is the “product of either of the Muslim lunatic fringe or of the Islamophobic lunatic fringe.”

However, Akram is currently the president of an organization listed by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control, Al-Quds International, which not only remains a co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial but is a well-known fundraiser for Hamas in Asia and Europe. Akram was also listed in a 1992 “phonebook” included as evidence in the discovery phase of the Holy Land Foundation trial, where he is listed as a member of both the board of directors and the executive office (See page 3 and 15, respectively).

Regarding the “lunatic fringe” argument, the Explanatory Memorandum will never become obsolete or outdated, because it is based entirely on the Quran and Hadith. The strategy and tactics described in the document are exactly the same today as they were 30 years ago when it was written and exactly the same as they were 1,400 years ago, when Islam was founded.

Relevant current events

On Jan. 28, we learned that high-level officials at the U.S. State Department had hosted meetings with several “former” members of the Freedom & Justice Party, the well-known political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Samuel Taros of the Hudson Institute observed that the visit served two goals: “First, to organize the pro MB movement in the US” and, second, to “reach out to administration and the policy community in DC.”

He added that the delegation’s composition was designed to portray “an image of a united Islamist and non-Islamist revolutionary camp against the [Abdul Fattah al-Sisi] regime.”

Just two days later, it was revealed that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt posted a message on its official website stating that it “is incumbent upon everyone to be aware that we are in the process of a new phase … where we recall the meanings of jihad and prepare ourselves … to a long, uncompromising jihad, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom.”

The official announcement also referred to Muslim Brotherhood founder al-Banna, stating “Imam Al-Banna prepared the Jihad brigades that he sent to Palestine to kill the Zionist usurpers, and the second [Supreme] Guide Hassan Al-Hudaybi reconstructed the ‘secret apparatus’ to bleed the British occupiers.”

In retrospect, these sharply contradictory statements – saying one thing in English and something entirely different in Arabic – are common and are very similar in nature to the Jan. 11 appearance of Mahmoud Abbas at the Charlie Hebdo solidarity march while on the same day his Fatah organization posted violent pictures and statements on its official website.

Despite claims by the State Department that the meetings were “routine,” on Jan. 31, 2014, Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shokry said that the reasons for the meetings were “not understandable, as they are not a political party, and according to the Egyptian law they should be treated as a terrorist group.”

Along with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates also have declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist group.

Incidentally, the word “prepare” (Wa-Aiddu), which is mentioned several times in the above quotes, is taken directly from Quran 8.60 and is prominently displayed in the Muslim Brotherhood logo.

The verse reads: “Prepare for them whatever force and tethered horses you can, to terrify thereby the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them that you know not.”

In other words, preparing forces to terrify your enemies is the iconic theme of a supposedly moderate Muslim organization, which currently enjoys unprecedented direct access to the highest levels of the U.S. government.

To finish up this section, there is a revealing point of contact, a nexus, between the Freedom & Justice Party representatives who met at the State Department, the Muslim Brotherhood members who posted the call to jihad on their website and the ideology found in the Explanatory Memorandum.

The point of contact is al-Banna, an open advocate of offensive jihad who was honored in the Explanatory Memorandum in the following concluding passage: “This paragraph was delayed … to stress its utmost importance as it constitutes the heart and core of this memorandum. … It suffices to say that the first pioneer of this phenomenon [i.e., doing Jihad] was our prophet Muhammad … as he placed the foundation for the first civilized organization, which is the mosque. … And this was done by the pioneer of the contemporary Islamic Dawah (“promotion of Islam”), Imam martyr Hasan al-Banna … when he and his brothers felt the need to re-establish Islam and its movement anew, leading him to establish organizations with all their kinds.”

Conclusion

At this point, it would be fair to ask whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood’s efforts to “expand the observant Muslim base” in North America have been successful. The objective answer would be an unqualified yes.

Despite the constant focus on “Islamophobia” by Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations, or CAIR, there has actually been a wave of conversions to Islam, while the population of Muslims in America has nearly doubled since 9/11. In addition, the number of mosques has also nearly doubled since 9/11.

More importantly, the less visible strategic goals of creating a “central political party, [influencing] local political offices and political symbols, [building] relationships and alliances, and establishing an American Organization for Islamic Political Action ” have probably succeeded far beyond what Muhammad Akram Al-Adlouni and the other members of the Shura Council in North America ever expected.

The Political Left Marriage to the Islamic Jihad: Are the Progressives Insane or Intentional?

735159_336012886512158_310320558_nUnderstanding the Threat, by John Guandolo, Feb. 23, 2025:

This is the fourth of a 4-part series on The Political Left’s Marriage to the Islamic Jihad

********

As has been detailed in several articles on the UTT Blog as well as in the first, second, and third iterations of this 4-part series, the Political Left in America is:  promoting the Muslim Brotherhood’s (MB) Jihadi Movement in the United States; “negotiating” with Iran and the Taliban; providing material support to Al Qaeda/MB in Iraq, Libya, and elsewhere; promoting Palestinian (Hamas) causes and showing deference to them while failing to stand with Israel; flooding America with people from hostile nations (Somalia, Syria, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, etc) through the State Department’s Refugee Resettlement Program and various student programs; and failing to clearly articulate the threat while demonstrating weakness and inviting greater danger to our nation and its people.

On February 18, 2015, President Obama’s Department of State issued a statement which reads, in part:  “We are pleased to announce the appointment of Rashad Hussain as United States Special Envoy and Coordinator for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications. Special Envoy Hussain will lead a staff drawn from a number of U.S. departments and agencies to expand international engagement and partnerships to counter violent extremism and to develop strategic counterterrorism communications around the world.”

Is a Muslim with direct ties to the International Muslim Brotherhood the only qualified person in America this administration could find to hold this post?

It also seems odd this administration exclusively uses Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas organizations such as ISNA, CAIR, MPAC and others as their primary outreach partners to advise senior government officials and agencies on how to combat the “violent extremists” (read: Jihadis) across the globe and here domestically.  The President himself produced a video applauding and promoting ISNA at their annual convention.

Either the administration is divorced from the reality of what it is doing or it is being intentional.

The legal definition for “insanity” is:  “A mental illness of such a severe nature that a person cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.” (Source: Psychology Today)

The question must be asked, is the President and his National Security team divorced from the reality of the facts and evidence that are clear about the organizations with which they are working, Islamic doctrine (Sharia), and the actions being taken at the ground level by Muslim armies across the globe?

This is a real and serious question, because if the answer is a resounding “No,” and the President is thoughtful, discerning and lucid, then he is intentionally working with our enemies to support their agenda.

That is called “Treason.”

On the other hand, the Islamic Jihadi Movement is not “crazy” or “insane.”  They are following the doctrine of Sharia in pursuit of destroying all “man-made governments” to impose Sharia and establish the global Islamic State (caliphate).  What is striking when you listen to leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabab, or any of the other hundreds of jihadi organizations across the globe speak, they are measured and consistent in their message.  Even when they are preparing to behead someone, they go through the motions of reading the statement and then coldly do the deed of sawing another human being’s head off without any show of emotion.  While the act is barbaric, they are following what they believe they have been commanded to do within the reality of the Islamic system.

Not so with this administration and the Political Left in general.  The Progressives openly claim they support the rights of the “oppressed” and minority groups in society including religious minorities, homosexuals, women, and others – the very groups of people the Islamic Movement is currently slaughtering, or at least, enslaving.

So what is to be done?  Ultimately, we as Americans must decide.  We the people are the government and we hold the authority.  So long as our system is intact with a functioning government in all three branches, we must work within the system to make it work.

The reality is that our federal leadership is catastrophically failing to protect our nation and its people.  The burden now lies at the state and county levels to protect the citizens of America.  Strong Governors must exert the Constitutional power given to them with the support of state legislatures.  Citizens must be educated about the Muslim Brotherhood Jihadi network in America so they can put positive pressure on elected county officials to allow local police to do whatever they need to do to identify jihadis (wearing suits or planning attacks), and to weed these jihadis out of every state – one county at a time.

As citizens, we cannot fix the threat at the international level, but we can educate friends and colleagues about the true nature of this threat, especially those we know in law enforcement, military service, or the intelligence community.

We are at a dire point in American history.  The time for half measures has come and gone.  We must be engaged at the local and state level to defeat this enemy and realize that local police are now the tip of the spear.

********

Want to get engaged?  Here are a few things you can do:
1.  Get educated on the threat and educate others.  Get a copy of Raising a Jihadi Generation for yourself and others you know. Get a copy of the DVD “Understanding the Threat to America” and show it at your church or community group meeting.  Make use of other educational resources:
     * Political Islam
     * CSP 10 Part Video Series on the MB in America
     * The Global MB Watch
2.  Plug into a national grass roots organization focused on this threat, such as ACT! for America.
3.  The leaders who most need to know this information who can have the greatest impact are Sheriffs and Pastors.  Work with them to educate them and help them organize the citizens and congregations to rally behind them.
4.  Share the Thin Blue Line Project with Law enforcement officers you know.  This is a web based program designed specifically for Law Enforcement to educate them on the MB Jihadi Network in the U.S. and the broader jihadi threat.
5.  Educate local and county officials, especially local school boards.  Pay attention to what your children are being taught in school about American history, Islam, and related topics (Israel, 9/11, etc).
6.  Brighten the lamp of liberty by educating your children (and yourselves) about the Founding Principles of America, and our Godly heritage from such resources asWallbuilders.com and others.
7.  Remember that as citizens we have duties and responsibilities.  From our founding we are all citizen-soldiers whether we join the military or not.  Per Title 10 U.S. Code Section 311, all able body males (with specific exceptions) from age 17 to 45 are members of the “Unorganized Militia” of the United States.  Educate yourself about the duties of citizens.  Claremont.org is a great resource.
8.  Only elect people to office who respect the Oath they swear in allegiance to our Constitution.  If nobody fits that bill, get someone who does to run and support him/her.
9.  Hold all elected officials accountable to their Oaths of Office.
10.  Make a decision you are all in to defend you family, your community, and this nation and refuse to back down.  This is a fight, but a fight that is worth all the effort for the sake of future generations, including your children and grand children.  What price for liberty are we willing to pay?

Islamic Terrorism, Sharia Patrols and “De-Radicalization” A Month of Islam in Europe: January 2015

Gatestone Institute, by Soeren Kern, February 21, 2015:

“O Europeans, the Islamic State did not initiate a war against you, as your governments and media try to make you believe. It is you who started the transgression against us, and this you deserve blame and you will pay a great price…. We will conquer your Rome, break your crosses, and enslave your women, by the permission of Allah.” — From a jihadist video threatening Italy.

“We Muslims in no way need your help to drag us down into a sad, Western culture where youth suffer from a capitalist existential void which causes widespread depression, addiction, self-injury, and even an alarmingly high rate of suicide. It is clearly the Danish people who need help to find the correct meaning of life, and here we would like to help.” — Junes Kock, Danish convert to Islam and spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir, Scandinavia.

“There seems to be something going on in Scandinavian countries, and I think it’s been the reluctance to actually identify and confront hate preachers.” — Haras Rafiq, managing director, Quilliam Foundation.

“So far we have been lucky [to avoid a major terrorist attack in Germany]. Unfortunately, this may not always be the case.” — German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière.

The Swedish welfare agency Socialstyrelsen estimated that 38,000 girls and women in Sweden have been subjected to female genital mutilation, and that another 19,000 are “at risk” of having the procedure performed on them.

In Austria, the government threatened to close the Vienna-based King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz International Centre for Interreligious and Intercultural Dialogue (KAICIID), due to its refusal to condemn the flogging of Raif Badawi, a Saudi human rights activist and blogger who has been sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison for “insulting Islam.”

Saudi Arabia responded to the threat by issuing a counter-threat to move the permanent headquarters of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) out of Austria.

Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann said: “If this center says it stands for interreligious dialogue, then it must do so. But if it wants to remain only an economic center with a religious fig leaf, then Austria should no longer be a part of it. In any event, Austria will not allow itself to be threatened or blackmailed.”

On January 20, the government announced a new plan to spend nearly 290 million euros ($330 million) to combat terrorism over the next four years. The largest share of the money (126 million euros) will be dedicated to human resources to provide additional training of specialists for cyber security, crime fighting and forensics. At least 13 million euros will fund “de-radicalization” programs aimed at cracking down on Islamic extremism in the country.

In Vienna, city officials closed a private Islamic primary school in the Brigittenau district, over concerns that teachers were endangering the welfare of the students. The move came after the principal failed to call an ambulance when a six-year-old pupil was knocked down by a classmate and seriously injured her forehead. The incident was not reported until the following day, when the girl still had significant swelling.

The school’s principal allegedly prohibited the teaching staff from cooperating with local authorities in order not to upset the children’s parents, many of whom are immigrants from Chechnya. The school said the charges against it were motivated by “Islamophobia.”

Previously, Austrian authorities initiated a review of the Islamic Austrian International School in Vienna after local reporters obtained a copy of a school history textbook that contained conspiracy theories and incitement against Jews. It later emerged that some parents had forbidden their children to attend music lessons at the school on the grounds that music isharam, or prohibited in Islam. The music teacher was subsequently fired for drawing attention to the problem.

In Belgium, two suspected jihadists, Sofiane Amghar, 26, and Khalid Ben Larbi, 23, were killedon January 15 in an anti-terror operation in Verviers, a city close to the German border. Prosecutor Eric Van Der Sypt said police had targeted a cell of jihadists returning from Syria, who were planning to launch imminent attacks.

After the shootout, police seized police uniforms, explosives and four AK-47 assault rifles. Thirteen other Belgian nationals were charged in connection with the raid, five of whom were charged with “participating in the activities of a terrorist group.” The suspected ringleader of the cell, Belgian-Moroccan jihadist Abelhamid Abaaoud, remains at large.

Belgian police vehicles crowd a street in Verviers, where an anti-terror raid resulted in a shoot-out that left two jihadists dead, January 15, 2014. (Image source: RT video screenshot)

Belgian authorities revealed that 335 Belgian nationals have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq, making it the European country with the highest proportion of jihadists in the Middle East. Of the 335, 184 are on the battlefield, 50 have been killed, and 101 have returned to Belgium.

On January 4, a Muslim inmate at the prison in Vorst stabbed six prison guards with a knife. The inmate, a 35-year-old Moroccan named Rachid El-Boukhari, had been sentenced to 27 years in prison in December for setting fire to a Shiite mosque in the Anderlecht district of Brussels. The imam of the mosque died in the blaze. El-Boukhari has now been transferred to a maximum-security prison in Bruges, where he joins Mehdi Nemmouche, a 29-year-old French national of Algerian origin, who is awaiting trial for murdering four people at the Jewish Museum in Brussels in May 2014.

In Antwerp, Mayor Bart De Wever postponed a march by PEGIDA Vlaanderen, the Flemish branch of the German anti-Islamization group PEGIDA, due to the heightened terror threat in the country. The demonstration, as well as a counter-demonstration, was to have taken place on January 26. It was rescheduled for March 2, according to the group’s Facebook page.

Read more

President Obama: Jihadists Have No Legitimate Grievances

obama31CSP, by Fred Fleitz, February 20, 2015:

Did President Obama really say at the “countering violent extremism summit” yesterday and in his recent LA Times op-ed that jihadist terrorist groups are winning recruits by exploiting economic, political and historic grievances that are “sometimes accurate.”

Yes he did.

This incredible claim begs two questions.  What kind of legitimate grievances could possibly justify beheadings and burning people to death?  And what type of people are being motivated to join Jihadist groups because of such atrocities?

Mr. Obama’s statement reflects his continuing refusal to acknowledge that the global jihad movement is motivated by a unifying ideology: radical Islam and its doctrine of imposing shariah worldwide through violence.

It also is impossible to square President Obama’s claim that al-Qaeda and ISIS are attracting recruits for political and economic reasons with the fact that thousands from Western countries are buying plane tickets to fly to Turkey to join ISIS.  And let’s not forget that al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden was not poor; he was the son of a Saudi billionaire.

Moreover, the president’s claims that ISIS and al-Qaeda jihadists are perverting or exploiting Islam are at odds with radical Islam’s long historical legacy and its basis in the Koran.

The president also is ignoring growing radicalism in mainstream Islamist theology.  Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, confirmed this last week at the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit when he said that to combat ISIS and al-Qaeda, the United States must avoid aligning with Islamist organizations which may currently be non-violent but sympathize or endorse violent jihadist groups.

Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney said at the Defeat Jihad Summit that these groups are waging a “pre-violent’ campaign to advance a jihadist agenda in the West which the Muslim Brotherhood calls “civilization jihad.”  Click HERE to read a Center for Security Policy analysis of this issue, “Civilization Jihad: the Muslim Brotherhood’s Potent Weapon.”

Jasser also took issue with “countering violent extremism,” the term President Obama uses to describe America’s efforts to oppose al-Qaeda, ISIS and other radical groups.  Jasser said “Stop the nonsense of ‘CVE’.  We’re not countering violent extremism.  I can’t help you as a reform-minded Muslim with my book The Battle for the Soul of Islam if you say this is a battle for the soul of violent extremism.  That’s nonsense.”

In short, President Obama is dead wrong.  Jihadist terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS are recruiting followers by promoting the anti-Western, anti-modern ideology of radical Islam.  They are recruiting people who hate modern society, Western civilization and the United States.  These disgruntled and disturbed individuals are not going to be dissuaded by a new U.S. jobs program for youth in Muslim countries or President Obama making excuses for their decision to join terrorist groups that are the face of evil in the modern world.

French Premier Manuel Valls had it right when he said after the Paris shootings by French jihadists last month, “It is a war against terrorism, against jihadism, against radical Islam, against everything that is aimed at breaking fraternity, freedom, solidarity.”

This is what President Obama needs to say about the threat posed by the global jihad movement.  Until the president stops denying this threat, he is signaling American weakness and lack of resolve which will allow this threat to continue to spread and grow.

Make the ISIS Caliphate a Jihadist Kill Zone

isis-427x350Frontpage, February 17, 2015 by Bruce Thornton:

President Obama’s proposed Authorization for the Use of Military Force against ISIS comes at a time when Iran and ISIS are fomenting disorder and destruction throughout the Middle East. Despite the enmity between these two species of jihadism, both pose serious threats to our interests and security and those of our allies in the region. The president’s stubborn refusal to strengthen his dubious negotiations with Iran by approving Congress’s more punishing sanctions, along with his pledge not to use force against the mullahs, is guaranteed to make Iran a nuclear power that will dominate the region. And nothing in the AUMF will achieve his alleged “core objective” to destroy ISIS. Quite the contrary–– it will squander an opportunity to concentrate and eliminate tens of thousands of jihadists.

Iran’s regional power and reach are increasing every day. The collapse of Yemen to Iranian-supported rebels proves prophetic an Iranian member of parliament last November. “Three Arab capitals (Beirut, Damascus, and Baghdad) have already fallen into Iran’s hands and belong to the Iranian Islamic Revolution,” he bragged, and implied Sana would be number 4. As for ISIS, it is setting up franchises in Libya, Afghanistan, Egypt and Algeria, contrary to Obama’s claim that it is “on the defensive” and “is going to lose.” More troublesome, so far some 20,000 foreigners from 90 different countries have journeyed to northern Iraq to fight for the new caliphate, creating the danger that ISIS-controlled territory will become what Taliban-controlled Afghanistan was in the decade before 9/11––a training camp for jihadists planning to attack the West, this time filled with recruits possessing passports from Western countries.

Obama’s responses to these serious challenges have been criminally naïve and incompetent. He has downgraded terrorist attacks to crimes a “big city mayor handles,” and blames the media for hyping the terrorist threat. He denies that jihadism has anything to do with Islam or anti-Semitism, most recently when he said that the murder of Parisian Jews in a kosher deli was perpetrated by malcontents who decided to “randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli.” He preposterously asserts, contrary to years of data from Pew polls, that “99.9% of Muslims” want “order, peace, prosperity.” He indulges Orwellian misdirection like “strategic patience,” a euphemism for inertia, retreat, and appeasement. And he relies on the magical thinking of diplomatic “engagement” to transform Iran’s Islamic Republic––for 35 years a relentless enemy of our country, killer of our citizens, and fomenter of global terrorist violence––into a “strategic partner” whose nuclear capabilities will be limited to peaceful use.

Just as bad, from the beginning of his presidency he has ceded the moral high ground to the jihadists by apologizing for the alleged historical crimes of America against Islam that presumably have driven the denizens of the “religion of peace” to murder, enslave, rape, behead, crucify, and torture those deemed enemies of Allah. His recent fatuous historical analogy between the Crusades and Muslim terror, and his embarrassing ignorance of the Spanish Inquisition, are merely reiterations of groveling statements he made during the infamous 2009 “apology tour,” when in Cairo he told the Muslim Brothers he invited to sit in the front row that the “tension” between Islam and the West resulted from “colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims.”

Now we have the AUMF against ISIS, which astonishingly is valid only for 3 years, and subjects the authorization to this limitation: “The authority granted in subsection (a) does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces in enduring offensive ground combat operations.” No doubt this proviso is a political sop to the quasi-pacifist, anti-war left, not to mention gratifying neo-isolationist Congressmen on the right. And it is probably pleasing to millions of Americans who are sick of fighting in the Middle East. But these shortsighted preferences and politics are what a farsighted leader must challenge and overcome. Just think of Churchill’s relentless fight in the 1930s against disarmament, pacifism, and appeasement if you need a historical example. And in what alternative universe does telling your enemy what you won’t do help you to win?

In fact, the prohibition against ground troops misses an opportunity to destroy thousands of the most committed jihadists who are now concentrating there, something critical for slowing down the movement’s momentum. We need to remember that a passionately ideological movement like Islamic jihadism depends on a hard core of fanatics. William Sherman understood this psychological truth during the Civil War. For the Union to prevail, he wrote, “We must kill three hundred thousand . . . and the further they run the harder for us to get them.” Any mass movement based on passionate belief depends on the true believers and bitter-enders, the ones most willing to kill and die. The bulk of the rest, even if they share the beliefs and support the cause, will go along only while the movement is successful, and will give up when the true believers are destroyed and momentum stalls.

Jihadism, of course, is different because it is a tenet of a religion with 1.6 billion adherents and a 1000-year record of military success and dominance that wasn’t checked until the 17th century, a success predicated on doctrines and dogmas still fundamental to Islam. Hence we cannot definitively stop the jihadist threat the way the Southern slavocracy or 20th century fascism was. But we can deal it a serious blow that diminishes its glamour, buys us some years of relative peace, and shows the region that the U.S. is the strongest tribe who will help its friends and punish its enemies. Remember what happened after our military quickly destroyed Saddam Hussein’s army, the largest in the region? Libya’s Ghaddafi abandoned his WMD program, Syria ended its 29-year occupation of Lebanon, and Iran suspended its development of nuclear weapons, at least until we returned to our current posture of retreat and appeasement.

Defeating the ISIS jihadist franchise, then, means committing enough American troops to the caliphate’s territory to kill as many jihadists as possible. Yes, the “international community” will squeal, but so what? When has Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping ever been deterred by complaints and scolding from foreign media, progressive professors, NGO’s, and U.N. functionaries? When do China and Russia agonize over the anger of the world’s Muslims the way the West constantly does? Putin handled his jihadist problem in Chechnya by killing up to 160,000 people and shelling Grozny. China continues to wage a repressive culture war against 10 million Uighurs and their Islamic faith. But that hasn’t elicited from the Muslim world the condemnations and violence that greet satirical cartoons or preposterous rumors of mistreated Korans. Russia and China pursue their interests without regard for the world’s opinion, and so should we––particularly since our interests, unlike Russia’s or China’s, are consistent with a world governed by law and respectful of human rights.

But won’t we get bogged down in yet another endless war? Not if we don’t make our goal the transformation of Iraq into a liberal democracy, or pursue some other three-cups-of-tea fantasy. But what happens after we depart? If this time we leave behind sufficient forces and bases to patrol the area, we will be able to keep groups like ISIS from metastasizing. Doesn’t that mean an open-ended commitment? But we already have had for decades several deployments of U.S. forces abroad. Right now there are about 12,000 troops in Kuwait, nearly 50,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea, and 38,500 in Germany, with another 60,000 scattered across the globe. We have had troops in Europe and Japan for 70 years, and in South Korea for 62. For 4 decades during the Cold War, 250,000 U.S. troops were stationed just in West Germany, facing not glorified gangs, but a nuclear-armed Soviet enemy and its 1.8 million soldiers. That’s what you have to do to protect your global interests and security when you are the world’s sole guarantor of order.

Committing 100,000 of the world’s best warriors to the fight would seriously degrade ISIS’s forces and its ability to hold territory, let alone expand. It would kill off thousands of future jihadist infiltrators of the West. It would also concentrate the minds of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and put the mullahs on notice that all options are not just rhetorically, but actually on the table. But if we continue down the feckless, appeasing road Obama is driving us, we will soon have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, Iraq and Syria turned into Iranian client states, Israel facing a nuclear-armed genocidal enemy, and a jihadist statelet in northern Iraq. And what follows those developments will make the current disorder look tame.