Ted Cruz Doesn’t Have Time for Failed ‘Conventional Wisdom’ on Foreign Policy

1-Tqq27fJNbZFu5F9eABAsaA

Here’s How He Would Defend America Against Threats from the Middle East, Russia and China, According to His Chief National Security Advisor Dr. Victoria Coates

 

Medium.com, by Ben Weingarten for Encounter, Jan. 27, 2016:

 

You might not think that the national security and foreign policy advisor for one of the leading 2016 presidential candidates would have the pedigree of a University of Pennsylvania art history Ph.D. specializing in Italian renaissance studies, and a former consulting curator title at the Cleveland Museum of Art. But then you haven’t met Dr. Victoria Coates, the self-described Renaissance woman and the chief articulator and defender of Cruz’s Jeane Kirkpatrick-inspired philosophy that has vexed many across the Republican political spectrum to date.

During an in-depth interview with Dr. Coates on her new book, David’s Sling: A History of Democracy in Ten Works of Art, we had the chance to pick the brain of Cruz’s national security consigliere on topics including:

You can read — or listen to — this portion of our interview below (and click here for Part I of our conversation.) Note that the transcript has been edited slightly for clarity.

 

TRANSCRIPT

Click here for more on David’s Sling: A History of Democracy in Ten Works of Art.

And listen to our full interview with Victoria Coates here.

Ben Weingarten is a writer, podcaster, and Founder & CEO of ChangeUp Media LLC, a media consulting and publication services firm. He regularly contributes to publications such as City Journal,The Federalist, Newsmax and PJ Media on national security/defense, economics and politics. You can find his work at benweingarten.com, and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.

Did Hamas Inspire Muslim Mass Shooting Terror Plot in Milwaukee?

samy-770Frontpage, by Daniel Greenfield, Jan. 27, 2016:

Defending Islam, the Muslim religion, requires killing everyone who isn’t a Muslim. So far there have been Muslim terror plots against synagogues, churches and a Hindu temple. Now there was a Muslim terror plot against a Masonic temple.

Federal law enforcement agents said Samy Mohamed Hamzeh told secret FBI informants that “We will eliminate everyone” once inside one of Milwaukee’s grandest cultural landmarks — the Humphrey Scottish Rite Masonic Center.

According to the federal complaint, Hamzeh had originally planned to attack Israelis in the West Bank, but dropped those plans because of logistical problems and focused on leading an attack on a target at home in Milwaukee.

Masons, Jews. Who cares. Just kill some infidels.

The feds said Hamzeh is heard on undercover recordings stating how many Americans he wanted to shoot and kill in Milwaukee.

“Thirty is excellent” he allegedly said. They “will know that nobody can play with Muslims.”

Nobody can play with Muslims, because they’re sore losers.

Hamzeh apparently came to the U.S. from the West Bank about six years ago

Clearly we need more Muslim immigration. Just think of all the added terror arrests and shooting sprees.

“I am telling you, if this hit is executed, it will be known all over the world … all the Mujahedeen will be talking and they will be proud of us,” Hamzeh said, according to the affidavit. “Such operations will increase in America, when they hear about it. The people will be scared and the operations will increase. … This way we will be igniting it. I mean we are marching at the front of the war.”

Hamzeh added that he hoped to kill 30 people. He also said his group was Muslims and they were “defending Muslim religion.”

“We are here defending Islam, young people together join to defend Islam, that’s it, that is what our intention is,” he said.

But, according to the media, it has nothing to do with Islam. Not a thing. Just everything.

So why Masons? The media is pretending to be baffled, but Masonic conspiracy theories are popular in the Muslim world, largely because of the Muslim Brotherhood which has a particular obsession with them. The Hamas charter, in between calling for the extermination of the Jews and Islamic rule, has this wacky paragraph.

The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realised the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up they way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs.

Yes… rotary clubs. We’re lucky Muslims haven’t tried to shoot them up too.

I blame Muslim Masoniphobia. It’s really time we addressed the Muslim Masoniphobia crisis. Because this does look like Mohammed picked up a few ideas from the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

***

Former FBI Military Intel Officer Steve Rogers, Fox News Military Analyst (Ret.) Maj. Gen. Robert Scales and former National Security Council Director Cathy Taylor on a mass shooting plot thwarted by the FBI:

Threat Knowledge Group Chairman Sebastian Gorka on efforts to prevent homegrown terrorism:

The United West: Clinton-Obama Benghazi Gun Running Operation Exposed

benghazi-obama-hillaryBreitbart, Jan. 13, 2016:

(THE UNITED WEST) Clare Lopez of the Center for Security Policy, a member of the Benghazi Citizen’s Commission and former CIA intelligence officer, exposes Benghazi as a complete national security disaster resulting from the lack of leadership from President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In part one, Lopez explains in simple detail exactly how the United States,  led by Clinton, aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood in a way that defies common sense and basic principles of foreign policy. The United West presents this three-part series as a national security context to better understand the blockbuster Hollywood movie, 13 Hours, the Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.

In part two, Clare explains in simple detail exactly how the United States, lead by Hillary Clinton, aligned itself with the Muslim Brotherhood in a way that defies common sense and basic principles of foreign policy when she blamed a You Tube video for the massacre in Benghazi:

Part 3 of 3: CLARE LOPEZ EXPOSES BENGHAZI & CLINTON & BLUMENTHALS!
Clare Lopez chronicles how Hillary Clinton created and plotted the video narrative to deflect attention away from the State Department’s illegal gun running operation in Benghazi. This segment examines emails from Sidney Blumenthal, a personal confidant of the Clinton’s, which are designed to place the blame of the Benghazi attack NOT of the Obama/Clinton Administration but on the foolish video “Innocence of Muslims.” In an almost unbelievable disinformation moment, Sidney leads Hillary to use his son Max’s article about the video as the cause of the attack. Do not miss this segment of the Benghazi series, “What Difference Does it Make,” where Clare Lopez and Tom Trento deconstruct the Blumenthal/Clinton act of treason.

Hillary’s Benghazi Stand-Down Order Exposed

secret-soldiersFrontpage, by  Kenneth R. Timmerman, January 13, 2016:

A preview by Benghazi security officer Kris “Tanto” Paronto of 13 Hours, the block-buster Michael Bay film that premieres on Thursday, raises dramatic new questions about the refusal by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to authorize a military rescue of the besieged U.S. diplomatic facility and the nearby CIA Annex on Sept 11-12, 2012.

In a presentation at a conference organized by the Maryland Citizen Action Network last weekend, Paronto revealed that two AC-130H “Spectre” gunships were “on call” that night, both within range of Benghazi.

One of them was a six-hour flight away, co-located with a U.S. special operations team in Djibouti.

The other was at Naval Air Station Sigonella, in Sicily. “That’s a 45-minute flight,” Paronto said.

The Spectre gunship with its 25mm rapid-fire gatling guns, its 40 mm precision Bofors gun, and its 105mm canon is “good in urban warfare because you have little collateral damage,” Paronto explained.

In fact, it was just what the beleaguered security team needed. They could see the jihadis advancing on the Annex compound throughout the night and lit them up with lasers, which the airborne crew could have used for precision targeting purposes. On-line videos of the Spectre gunship in operation show that it can walk its cannons up narrow streets, killing fighters while leaving the surrounding buildings intact and people inside them unharmed.

“I asked for the Spectre and ISR [an armed Predator drone] at 9:37 pm,” Paronto said, certain that the attacks actually started at 9:32 pm local time, not 9:42 pm as previously reported. “At midnight, they told us they were still working on getting us that Spectre gunship. Not that it was not available, but that they were still working on it.”

And there were more forces immediately available for a rescue effort, in particular, the European Command (EUCOM) Commander’s In-Extremis Force, which was then on a counter-terrorism training mission in Croatia, a 3 hour flight from Benghazi.

Paronto knew people in that unit, and remembers calling them after he and his security team got back to the CIA Annex from the diplomatic compound, where they had just rescued the surviving U.S. personnel. “They were loading their gear into their aircraft and ready to go,” he recalled.

Later, his friends in the unit told him they had been shut down sometime after midnight.

All evidence now points to a specific stand-down order issued by Secretary Clinton, since the Libyan facilities came under her direct authority. Without a specific request for assistance from the State Department, the Pentagon was powerless to act.

Last month, the State Department released a critical email, sent at 7:09 pm Washington time (1:09 am Benghazi time) from Jeremy Bash, a top aide to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, informing Mrs. Clinton’s office of various military assets that were “spinning up as we speak” to deploy to Benghazi.

Among those assets were C-110 in Croatia, two U.S. Marine Corps Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) platoons based in Rota, Spain, the Spectre gunships, armed Predator drones, and possibly elements of Marine Expeditionary Units in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

In preparation for deploying C-110 directly to Benghazi from Croatia, General Carter Ham, commander-in-chief of Africa Command (AFRICOM), issued orders transferring authority for C-110 to him from European Command (EUCOM).

General Ham was doing what any smart U.S. military officer would have done, by laying the ground work for a formal order he expected to come down an hour or two later.

“Assuming Principals agree to deploy these elements, we will ask State to secure the approval from host nation,” Bash wrote. “Please advise how you wish to convey that approval to us.”

When Bash sent that email, Paronto and his team-mates had just fought off an assault on the Annex by twenty or more well-armed jihadis. They would continue to fight throughout the night, as larger and increasingly brazen groups of jihadis gathered in dark areas beyond the Annex the security officers referred to as “Zombiland.”

They certainly could have used the support from the Spectre gunship, or the arrival of forty or so well-armed Special Operations combat specialists from C-110.

To date, the State Department has not released any reply from Mrs. Clinton’s office to Bash’s 7:09 PM request. However, we know from the testimony of the top U.S. diplomat in Tripoli at the time, Greg Hicks, that the State Department never requested country clearance from Libya for any U.S. forces that night.

And when the orders finally went out from Panetta’s office an hour later, they included a retransfer of C-110 from AFRICOM back to EUCOM, along with orders for the unit to move to Sigonella the next day and hold in place, instead of flying to Benghazi.

In other words, because Mrs. Clinton refused to authorize those forces to deploy into Libya to assist State Department personnel and State Department facilities, Panetta had no other choice but to put them on hold.

“The State Department was concerned that an overt U.S. military presence in Libya could topple the government,” a senior AFRICOM commander involved in that night’s events told me. “They were in denial. They wanted a narrative that al Qaeda was on the run. Instead, four Americans died.”

With the release of the Bash email and 13 Hours, Mrs. Clinton’s cover has been blown.

I also asked Paronto last weekend if he had heard reports of an Iranian Quds Force presence in Benghazi, as I had been hearing from numerous U.S. military intelligence sources, including senior AFRICOM commanders.

“Everyone knew the Iranians were there,” he replied. “Especially once the Red Cross [Red Crescent] team from Iran was ‘kidnapped’ in Benghazi [on July 31] by Ansar al-Sharia, we knew about them and were tracking them.”

As I reported in Dark Forces: the Truth About What Happened in Benghazi, U.S. military and civilian intelligence agencies produced between 50 to 60 reports on the Iranian presence in Benghazi and Derna in 2012, and Iran’s deep involvement with Ansar al-Sharia, the group that claimed responsibility for the Benghazi attacks. Multiple FOIA requests seeking copies of these reports from the National Director of Intelligence and from AFRICOM have gone without response.

It’s time to remove the wraps of secrecy from those reports as well, so the American public can finally learn the truth about who plotted, organized and paid for the Benghazi attacks.

Kenneth Timmerman is the New York Times best-selling author of “Dark Forces: the Truth About What Happened in Benghazi,” and other books.

Also see:

Philly cop shooting CAIR and Jihad Denial

Reuters/Getty

Reuters/Getty

CAIR Tells Americans That Muslim Shooter Isn’t Muslim

Breitbart, by Jordan Schachtel, Jan. 9, 2016:

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), a jihadi-tied Muslim advocacy group, is trying to persuade Americans that Islam was not implicated Thursday when a devout Muslim man attempted to execute a Philadelphia police officer for violating the Koran’s rules.

Edward Archer, 30, attempted to execute a police officer on Thursday on behalf of the Islamic State jihad group. After being arrested, he said in testimony relayed by the Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross, that that the Philadelphia police department is enforcing laws that are not compliant with Islam.

“He believes the police defend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Koran,” Ross said.

Yet the Hamas-related CAIR has declared that Mr. Archer, an Islamic convert who investigators believe had traveled to Saudi Arabia and Egypt in recent years, was not a practicing Muslim. Archer was wearing Islamic attire when he attempted to execute a uniformed officer in cold blood.

But he is not a Muslim, declared Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney, along with CAIR’s representatives.

federal judge concluded in 2009 that “the government has produced ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR… with Hamas.” Since then, FBI leaders have sharply reduced any connection to the group, which has also been and has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates.

CAIR-Philadelphia’s executive director, Jacob Bender, the group’s first Jewish chapter leader (and a noted radical anti-Israel activist), has led the effort to excuse Islam from the criminal act.

“At this hour, it does not appear that he was an observant or mosque-going Muslim,” Bender told Reuters on Friday. “I’ve called numerous imams and mosques to try to see if the name rings a bell with anyone. So far it hasn’t,” he said.

Bender, like many Islamic extremists, blames the Jewish state of Israel for many of the problems in the Islamic world. In a letter to the New York Times, Bender has blamed Israel for “the growth of terrorism and Islamist extremism” worldwide. Israel’s “oppression of the Palestinians” incites innocent Muslims to become jihadi suicide bombers, according to Bender.

Bender, a filmmaker, directed Out of Cordoba, an anti-Israel, Islamic supremacist documentary that was financed thanks to Saudi and Muslim Brotherhood money. The Alwaleed bin Talal Foundation, headed by a Saudi billionaire, was the top donor to his film. His film was heavily distributed by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a group that was founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Like CAIR, ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial – the largest terror-financing case in American history.

When Bender was appointed CAIR-Philly’s executive director, Jewish groups warned that he would be used to advance their agenda. “CAIR is far off the radar screen of the Jewish community,” said Ethan Felson of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, in an interview with the Jewish Daily Forward concerning Bender’s appointment. “The Jewish community looked at their record and said, ‘We won’t work with this group.’”

“Unfortunately, there are Jews who are anti-Jewish and anti-Israel,” added Abe Foxman of the Anti Defamation League.

The Maryland Outreach manager of CAIR also weighed in on the shooting, rejecting Archer’s claim to Islam.

“Islam is a religion that encourages Muslims to coexist with their interfaith counterparts,” said Zainab Chaudry of CAIR-Maryland. “These kind of acts. They do not reflect the teachings of Islam.”

Moreover, CAIR was founded in the very city where the Islamic State attacker attempted on Thursday to assassinate the police officer.

In 1993, the FBI wiretapped an Islamic extremist meeting in Philadelphia that was hosted by the Palestine Committee (PALCOM), a Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas backing outfit whose membership included current CAIR executive director Nihad Awad. During the Philadelphia meeting, PALCOM members were instructed to refer to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in coded language, so as not to tip off authorities to their terror-financing activities. Awad, a Hamas supporter, would later be chosen to head CAIR, and remains its top official today.

***

Judge Jeanine to Philly Mayor: ‘Stop Mouthing Off When You Don’t Know the Facts’

Jihad Comes to Philadelphia

Below: Dr. Sebastian Gorka (5:30 in the video) “There is no such thing as lone wolf terrorism The connective tissue between all of these attacks whether it is Fort Hood or the Boston bombings or this is of course the ideology of jihad”

Rep. King: Police should monitor entire Muslim community

Also see:

Iran / Saudi Feud Begins to Boil

iran 1Iran Truth, Jan. 4, 2015:

Saudi Arabia cut off diplomatic ties to Iran, saying Iran must act like “a normal country” instead of “a revolution.”  The remarks came after an Iranian mob, allegedly made up of protesters, attacked the Saudi embassy.  The attack was in reprisal forSaudi Arabia’s execution of a Shi’ite clericSheikh Nimr al-Nimr, as part of a wave of executions allegedly aimed at crippling terror organizations within the Kingdom.  The Sheikh had accused the Saudi government of mistreating Shi’ites, and called for the secession of the eastern part of the country.  Others among the 47 executed included alleged al Qaeda leaders.  Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al Sheikh, Saudi Arabia’s top religious leader, said that the executions were “a mercy to the prisoners” because it would keep them from further damaging their souls via evil acts.

Although Iran says that a top police official went to the mob attacking the Saudi embassy to disperse it, the suspicion that the mob was a proxy by Iran’s government is highly credible.  Iran still celebrates as a national holiday the Iranian Revolution’s mob overrunning of the American Embassy in 1979, when the hostages seized and held for more than a year were used by the new Islamic Republic of Iran in an attempt to extort the United States.  In that environment, even without official organization the citizens of Iran know that mob attacks on the diplomatic enemies of their government will be welcomed and praised as authentic examples of the spirit of the revolution.  Saudi Arabia’s comments about Iran needing to act like a normal nation instead of a revolution are meant in that context.

The feud between the two nations has both ancient roots and contemporary flash points.  Saudi Arabia sees itself as the leader of the Islamic world as a whole, because it contains the holy city of Mecca and most of the important scenes of the life of Muhammad, the founder of the Islamic religion.  However, it sides with the Sunni view of the proper leadership of Islam, a civil war between factions of the Islamic world that began hundreds of years ago shortly after Mohammed’s death.  Sunnis followed a claim that the leadership of the Islamic world should fall to those with the greatest degree of education and investment in the religious ideology.  Shi’a Islam believed that only blood descendants of Muhammad ought to lead Islam.  This led to a series of murders and bloodshed among the generation immediately after Muhammad, capped by the Battle of Karbala in the 61st year of the Islamic calendar, or A.D. 680.  The Shi’ite faction lost and their leader, Hassan ibn Ali, was killed.  The Shi’ite holy festivals of Ashura and Arba’een commemorate this defeat, and are still today marked by huge pilgrimages with self-flagellation and self-cutting by the pilgrims.

In terms of the current flash points, Iran and Saudi Arabia are backing opposite sides in a regional conflict dominated by the wars in Syria and Yemen.  Iran has beendeveloping a series of Shi’a militias ideologically loyal to its particular vision of that faith as a means of exerting its influence to dominate a crescent of the Middle east from Yemen and Afghanistan to the Levant.  The Saudi government officially bans support to terrorist groups, but has been allowing its citizens to route money through Kuwait to radical Sunni groups including al Nura Front and the Islamic State (ISIS).  Saudi Arabia is also leading a coalition of regional nations against Iran’s proxies in Yemen, the Houthis, a band of Shi’ite tribes bent on replacing the admittedly corrupt and inefficient government there.

Saudi Arabia has diplomatic allies who are backing its play.  Bahrain, which happens also to be the headquarters of the United States Fifth Fleet, has joined Saudi Arabia in suspending diplomatic relations with Iran.  The UAE has downgraded its relationship.  Sudan has also cut off Iran.

Although Iran is framing its immediate conflict with Saudi Arabia as over what it describes as politically-motivated executions, Iran has executed three times as many persons as Saudi Arabia in recent years.  Many of these, possibly thousands of them, are of political dissidents opposed to the existing regime.  By contrast, Saudi Arabia executed fewer than fifty in the end-of-year purge.

Outside of the realms of diplomacy and war, the conflict also has ramifications for the global price of oil.  However, rising oil prices may be offset by the entry of Iran’s oil reserves into the global markets pending the full implementation of the Iran nuclear deal.

***

Also see:

Security Analyst Warns: Islamic State Has Global Ambitions For 2016

SAFIN HAMED/AFP/Getty Images

SAFIN HAMED/AFP/Getty Images

Breitbart, by Simon Kent, Dec. 31, 2015:

Islamic State terrorists plan to take their struggle across the world in 2016 and push their fighters into a final showdown with liberal western democracies.

To that end hundreds of sleeper cells in “dozens of countries” will mobilise in an unprecedented bid to spark a huge military retaliation in the Middle East, according to one of the world’s leading authorities on the death cult.

The claim comes as fears grow of a New Year’s Eve terror plot in London and other major European cities including Paris and Brussels cancel or curtail their traditional celebrations to say farewell to the year.

ttttThe next 12 months will see a huge increase in both the number and scale of major terror attacks, Dr Theodore Karasik, a Gulf-based analyst of regional geo-political affairs who has extensively studied Islamic State’s behaviour, has revealed. He warned:

“ISIS’s media operation is taunting its enemy to come to fight their Final Battle.

“But first, it wants to show its global reach with zeal…from cells, to lone wolves, to bedroom jihadists – to target landmarks and crowds in dozens of countries across the world.”

Dr Karasik added that by his estimate there are close to 40 ISIS affiliates globally with millions of adherents and believers around the world. The New Year may ring in with disturbing terror attacks. He added:

“ISIS is an airborne disease and still remains robust as the movement enters into a new combative and aggressive phase.

“Many of us see the change of year as ‘turning over a new leaf’ and ISIS may do the same.

“The level of ISIS’s destructiveness, to force confrontations across the world, indicates that 2016 is likely to be more chaotic than 2015.

“The threat is real, and the requirement for international, regional, and local cooperation is truly necessary and will be tested again and again in perhaps unexpected places.”

As Breitbart News reported, Dr Karasik’s warning comes as two men suspected of being Islamic State militants were arrested in Turkey, allegedly for plotting a suicide bomb attack during New Year’s Eve celebrations in the capital of Ankara.

The UK Daily Mail relayed Turkish media reports that the bombers were targeting Kizilay Square, also known as Red Crescent Square, which will be packed with revelers on New Year’s Eve.

Earlier this week ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi released an audio message threatening Israel while taunting the “Crusader” West for failing to launch a ground campaign against his terrorist organization.

“Crusaders and Jews don’t dare to come on the ground because they were defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Baghdadi stated in the 23-minute recording.

Baghdadi vowed the establishment of an Islamic State caliphate in Israel. “Jews, soon you shall hear from us in Palestine which will become your grave,” he said.

***

Also see:

Rubio, Cruz and US Global Leadership

16470387237_589bd6b8ef_o_1Frontpage, by Caroline Glick, Dec. 18, 2015:

Originally published by the Jerusalem Post.

At some point between 2006 and 2008, the American people decided to turn their backs on the world. Between the seeming futility of the war in Iraq and the financial collapse of 2008, Americans decided they’d had enough.

In Barack Obama, they found a leader who could channel their frustration. Obama’s foreign policy, based on denying the existence of radical Islam and projecting the responsibility for Islamic aggression on the US and its allies, suited their mood just fine. If America is responsible, then America can walk away. Once it is gone, so the thinking has gone, the Muslims will forget their anger and leave America alone.

Sadly, Obama’s foreign policy assumptions are utter nonsense. America’s abandonment of global leadership has not made things better. Over the past seven years, the legions of radical Islam have expanded and grown more powerful than ever before. And now in the aftermath of the jihadist massacres in Paris and San Bernadino, the threats have grown so abundant that even Obama cannot pretend them away.

As a consequence, for the first time in a decade, Americans are beginning to think seriously about foreign policy. But are they too late? Can the next president repair the damage Obama has caused? The Democrats give no cause for optimism. Led by former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential hopefuls stubbornly insist that there is nothing wrong with Obama’s foreign policy. If they are elected to succeed him, they pledge to follow in his footsteps.

On the Republican side, things are more encouraging, but also more complicated.

Republican presidential hopefuls are united in their rejection of Obama’s policy of ignoring the Islamic supremacist nature of the enemy. All reject the failed assumptions of Obama’s foreign policy.

All have pledged to abandon them on their first day in office. Yet for all their unity in rejecting Obama’s positions, Republicans are deeply divided over what alternative foreign policy they would adopt.

This divide has been seething under the surface throughout the Obama presidency. It burst into the open at the Republican presidential debate Wednesday night.

The importance of the dispute cannot be overstated.

Given the Democrats’ allegiance to Obama’s disastrous policies, the only hope for a restoration of American leadership is that a Republican wins the next election. But if Republicans nominate a candidate who fails to reconcile with the realities of the world as it is, then the chance for a reassertion of American leadership will diminish significantly.

To understand just how high the stakes are, you need to look no further than two events that occurred just before the Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate.

On Tuesday, the International Atomic Energy Agency voted to close its investigation of Iran’s nuclear program. As far as the UN’s nuclear watchdog is concerned, Iran is good to go.

The move is a scandal. Its consequences will be disastrous.

The IAEA acknowledges that Iran continued to advance its illicit military nuclear program at least until 2009. Tehran refuses to divulge its nuclear activities to IAEA investigators as it is required to do under binding UN Security Council resolutions.

Iran refuses to allow IAEA inspectors access to its illicit nuclear sites. As a consequence, the IAEA lacks a clear understanding of what Iran’s nuclear status is today and therefore has no capacity to prevent it from maintaining or expanding its nuclear capabilities. This means that the inspection regime Iran supposedly accepted under Obama’s nuclear deal is worthless.

The IAEA also accepts that since Iran concluded its nuclear accord with the world powers, it has conducted two tests of ballistic missiles capable of carrying nuclear weapons, despite the fact that it is barred from doing so under binding Security Council resolutions.

But really, who cares? Certainly the Obama administration doesn’t. The sighs of relief emanating from the White House and the State Department after the IAEA decision were audible from Jerusalem to Tehran.

The IAEA’s decision has two direct consequences.

First, as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Wednesday, it paves the way for the cancellation of the UN’s economic sanctions against Iran within the month.

Second, with the IAEA’s decision, the last obstacle impeding Iran’s completion of its nuclear weapons program has been removed. Inspections are a thing of the past. Iran is in the clear.

As Iran struts across the nuclear finish line, the Sunni jihadists are closing their ranks.

Hours after the IAEA vote, Turkey and Qatar announced that Turkey is setting up a permanent military base in the Persian Gulf emirate for the first time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire a century ago. Their announcement indicates that the informal partnership between Turkey and Qatar on the one side, and Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic State on the other hand, which first came to the fore last year during Operation Protective Edge, is now becoming a more formal alliance.

Just as the Obama administration has no problem with Iran going nuclear, so it has no problem with this new jihadist alliance.

During Operation Protective Edge, the administration supported this jihadist alliance against the Israeli-Egyptian partnership. Throughout Hamas’s war against Israel, Obama demanded that Israel and Egypt accept Hamas’s cease-fire terms, as they were presented by Turkey and Qatar.

Since Operation Protective Edge, the Americans have continued to insist that Israel and Egypt bow to Hamas’s demands and open Gaza’s international borders. The Americans have kept up their pressure on Israel and Egypt despite Hamas’s open alliance with ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula.

So, too, the Americans have kept Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi at arm’s length, and continue to insist that the Muslim Brotherhood is a legitimate political force despite Sisi’s war against ISIS. Washington continues to embrace Qatar as a “moderate” force despite the emirate’s open support for the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and ISIS.

As for Turkey, it appears there is nothing Ankara can do that will dispel the US notion that it is a credible partner in the war on terror. Since 2011, Turkey has served as Hamas’s chief state sponsor, and as ISIS’s chief sponsor. It is waging war against the Kurds – the US’s strongest ally in its campaign against ISIS.

In other words, with the US’s blessing, the forces of both Shi’ite and Sunni jihad are on the march.

And the next president will have no grace period for repairing the damage.

Although the Republican debate Wednesday night was focused mainly on the war in Syria, its significance is far greater than one specific battlefield.

And while there were nine candidates on the stage, there were only two participants in this critical discussion.

Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz faced off after weeks of rising contention between their campaigns.

In so doing, they brought the dispute that has been seething through their party since the Bush presidency into the open.

Rubio argued that in Syria, the US needs to both defeat ISIS and overthrow President Bashar Assad.

Cruz countered that the US should ignore Assad and concentrate on utterly destroying ISIS. America’s national interest, he said, is not advanced by overthrowing Assad, because in all likelihood, Assad will be replaced by ISIS.

Cruz added that America’s experience in overthrowing Middle Eastern leaders has shown that it is a mistake to overthrow dictators. Things only got worse after America overthrew Saddam Hussein and supported the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak.

For his part, Rubio explained that since Assad is Iran’s puppet, leaving him in power empowers Iran. The longer he remains in power, the more control Iran will wield over Syria and Lebanon.

The two candidates’ dispute is far greater than the question of who rules Syria. Their disagreement on Syria isn’t a tactical argument. It goes to the core question of what is the proper role of American foreign policy.

Rubio’s commitment to overthrowing Assad is one component of a wider strategic commitment to fostering democratic governance in Syria. By embracing the cause of democratization through regime change, Rubio has become the standard bearer of George W. Bush’s foreign policy.

Bush’s foreign policy had two seemingly contradictory anchors – a belief that liberal values are universal, and cultural meekness.

Bush’s belief that open elections would serve as a panacea for the pathologies of the Islamic world was not supported by empirical data. Survey after survey showed that if left to their own devices, the people of Muslim world would choose to be led by Islamic supremacists. But Bush rejected the data and embraced the fantasy that free elections lead a society to embrace liberal norms of peace and human rights.

As to cultural meekness, since the end of the Cold War and with the rise of political correctness, the notion that America could call for other people to adopt American values fell into disrepute. For American foreign policy practitioners, the idea that American values and norms are superior to Islamic supremacist values smacked of cultural chauvinism.

Consequently, rather than urge the Islamic world to abandon Islamic supremacism in favor of liberal democracy, in their public diplomacy efforts, Americans sufficed with vapid pronouncements of love and respect for Islam.

Islamic supremacists, for their part stepped into the ideological void without hesitation. In Iraq, the Iranian regime spent hundreds of millions of dollars training Iranian-controlled militias, building Iranian-controlled political parties and publishing pro-Iranian newspapers as the US did nothing to support pro-American Iraqis.

Although many Republicans opposed Bush’s policies, few dared make their disagreement with the head of their party public. As a result, for many, Wednesday’s debate was the first time the foundations of Bush’s foreign policy were coherently and forcefully rejected before a national audience.

If Rubio is the heir to Bush, Cruz is the spokesman for Bush’s until now silent opposition. In their longheld view, democratization is not a proper aim of American foreign policy. Defeating America’s enemies is the proper aim of American foreign policy.

Rubio’s people claim that carpet bombing ISIS is not a strategy. They are right. There are parts missing from in Cruz’s position on Syria.

But then again, although still not comprehensive, Cruz’s foreign policy trajectory has much to recommend it. First and foremost, it is based on the world as it is, rather than a vision of how the world should be. It makes a clear distinction between America’s allies and America’s enemies and calls for the US to side with the former and fight the latter.

It is far from clear which side will win this fight for the heart of the Republican Party. And it is impossible to know who the next US president will be.

But whatever happens, the fact that after their seven-year vacation, the Americans are returning the real world is a cause for cautious celebration.

FBI Chart and Documents Portray CAIR as Hamas-Related Organization

Screen-Shot-2015-12-15-at-11.56.56-AM-640x480

Breitbart, by Jordan Schechtel, Dec. 15, 2015:

An FBI chart has surfaced depicting connections between the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Obtained by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT) via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the chart shows CAIR falling under the umbrella of the jihadi outfit.

This FBI chart details the Hamas-related groups, which included CAIR, that were created to ultimately support the Palestinian terrorist organization. It also established Nabil Sadoun’s (former CAIR national board of directors member and vice chairman) connections to Hamas.

The IPT also obtained groundbreaking new Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) documents that trail CAIR back to its roots as a subversive Hamas-related group.

In 2007, CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, a Hamas financing case that would result in the FBI ceasing its working relationship with CAIR. The HLF trial was the largest terror-financing case in American history. In 2008, during a retrial of the HLF case, an FBI Special Agent labeled CAIR as “a front group for Hamas” during her trial testimony. In 2010, a federal judge reiterated that his court had “ample evidence” that CAIR was involved in “a conspiracy to support Hamas.” CAIR, which relies upon millions of dollars in Saudi cash, was recently listed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as a terrorist organization.

The group, which fashions itself as a civil rights voice for American Muslims, was founded by members of the Palestine Committee (PALCOM), an organization “established to support Hamas,” according to the chart. Nihad Awad, currently CAIR’s executive director, was previously an official at PALCOM.

The FBI declaration submitted in connection with removal proceedings for Nabil Sadoun (a former top CAIR official) said PALCOM members used coded language to discuss the “true nature” of their clandestine operations in support of Hamas. During a Philadelphia conference, which was being wiretapped by the FBI, they “referred to Hamas as ‘Samah’–Hamas spelled backwards–or simply as ‘the Movement,’” the FBI declaration said.

IPT FOIA

IPT FOIA

“It is clear that the true nature of the PALCOM meeting was to discuss the means to support Hamas’ goal to undermine the peace process (between Israel and the Palestinians) and to thwart law enforcement in the United States,” the FBI declaration read.

According to the FBI declaration, attendees of the Philly meeting “discussed how ‘Samah’ would one day be labeled as a terrorist organization by the US government,” the document said, adding they “discussed the need to create a new, uncompromised front group in the United States under the veil of some cover palatable to the American public.”

CAIR was “subsequently founded” after the Philly Conference, where attendees discussed the “need to create a new front organization” for Hamas, the FBI declaration said, with PALCOM tasking Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad to chair the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). A third founder, Nabil Sadoun, would join shortly thereafter as Vice-Chairman of CAIR. According to the FBI, Sadoun was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and “was affiliated with Hamas.” Sadoun was also involved with other organizations that solicited funding for Hamas. At one point, he brought Hamas chairman Khaled Mashaal to keynote a conference in Oklahoma City, the FBI declaration reveals.

2oLAKLsIZ9i54D6DxnL-PrJX0ZUJXFcZ_aXFAOlI0T0vhBJAEoV0rBgl6IvUXnO_cZC2X2FcxG0-Kp00ehLDhPTH_5aaK_8Zw_RLUPNzPmuDcAMH42hOIUkuqQABj4XUW1ap_5LG ipt foia

Before becoming CAIR’s Vice-Chair, Sadoun was motivated by violent jihad, IPT found. Asked about the Middle East conflict with “the Jews” (Israel) in a 1993 interview, Sadoun described the conflict as “the first priority for Muslim[s] until the Holy Land is liberated and the backbone of the Jews is broken.” He also discussed “raising the spirit of jihad and the struggle amidst the Palestinian people… to form a tight Islamic front to face the Zionist Existence and put an end to it.” Sadoun would later be deported from the country, ordered removed from the U.S. by an Immigration Court after authorities alleged he lied about his affiliation with organizations linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas.

***

Also see:

Escaped Muslim Civilians: Islamic State’s Utopia Is a Failure

Reuters/Stringer

Reuters/Stringer

Breitbart, by Mary Chastain, Dec. 3, 2015:

A new report from The New York Times joins the long list of articles that shows the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) is failing at its attempt to establish a Caliphate paradise for Muslims in Syria and Iraq.

The Times related the story of one former civilian attemping to live under ISIS rule: a technician who stayed behind in Syria after his town was conquered. ISIS offered him his same job of pumping oil at three times the salary. The man accepted the offer, but soon realized the money was not worth it. It grew dangerous when ISIS started executing suspected spies. Then President Bashar al-Assad’s forces bombed the region, destroying their homes and work. He noted that watching the money coming in from oil “financing the jihadists” instead of schools and hospitals ultimately led him to make the dangerous voyage out of the Caliphate.

“We thought they wanted to get rid of the regime, but they turned out to be thieves,” said the technician.

The man eventually fled to Turkey.

ISIS has released numerous propaganda videos and photos to lure people to the territories they have conquered, in particular women and civilian men. Families, its propaganda boasts, will cement ISIS rule, as children grow up indoctrinated by the Sunni jihadists. The Islamic State has largely failed in keeping those civilians once they make the trek, however, as airstrikes and ISIS fighters acting “like an organized-crime ring rather than their defenders” scare them away. Human smugglers have managed to build an industry on sneaking Muslim civilians out of ISIS territory.

“So many people are migrating,” explained a teacher, who escaped to Turkey. “ISIS wants to build a new society, but they’ll end up all alone.”

Those who can provide essential services are no longer around. Residents in one town said the jihadists placed a construction worker, for example, in charge of medical services. In another town, the women do not have a doctor, as ISIS does not allow men to examine females.

Last year, The Washington Post also interviewed people in Turkey who fled ISIS in Syria:

In the Iraqi city of Mosul, the water has become undrinkable because supplies of chlorine have dried up, said a journalist living there, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his safety. Hepatitis is spreading, and flour is becoming scarce, he said. “Life in the city is nearly dead, and it is as though we are living in a giant prison,” he said.

In the Syrian city of Raqqa, the group’s self-styled capital, water and electricity are available for no more than three or four hours a day, garbage piles up uncollected, and the city’s poor scavenge for scraps on streets crowded with sellers hawking anything they can find, residents say.

One video showed women and children begging for bread:

These reports contradict the ISIS propaganda. In January, the terrorist group used British hostage John Cantlie in a video that portrays life in Mosul, Iraq, “as business as usual.” ISIS captured Iraq’s second-largest city in June 2014.

“It’s not a city living in fear as Western media would have you believe,” he said. “It’s just a normal city going about its daily business.”

The video is no longer accessible online, but it showed Cantlie touring through filled markets and operating hospitals. People appeared content.

They also used Cantlie in a propaganda video for Aleppo, Syria, to show life in the city as productive and normal. Shots from the video included people farming, praying at mosques, and children at school.

A few months later, ISIS issued a tourism brochure to show off the glorious life in Mosul. The Daily Mail reported:

Images of the Mosul marketplace show pizzas and succulent burgers being cooked amid bustling stalls packed with all manner of sweet treats and toys for children.

Men are seen browsing the stalls nonchalantly, seemingly oblivious to the fact the city is an ISIS stronghold and on the frontline of the Iraqi regime’s freshly launched fightback against the terrorists.

Trays of sweet baklava give a sense of abundance in the crisis-hit city, which is considered key to ISIS presence in Iraq thanks to the millions of pounds generated each day from the militant-held oil fields dotted around Nineveh province.

ISIS terrorists also display photos on social media:

IS prop

IS prop 2

IS prop 3

IS prop 4

Despite the propaganda, more and more escaped residents from these cities paint a realistic picture of life under ISIS.

“Public support is important, and they don’t have it,” the technician told The New York Times. “People heard good words from them but didn’t see anything good come out of it.”

Also see:

CAIR Director: U.S. ‘Partially to Blame’ for San Bernardino Jihad

Screen-Shot-2015-12-04-at-1.05.20-PM-640x480 (1)Breitbart, by Jordan,Schachtel, Dec. 4, 2015:

The United States is “partially” responsible for a jihadi massacre on Wednesday in San Bernardino, California, carried out by Islamic State loyalists who killed 14 and wounding dozens more, Hussam Ayloush, the Los Angeles Director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said Friday.

“Let’s not forget that some of our own foreign policy, as Americans, as the West, have fueled that extremism,” Ayloush said on CNN’s New Day.

“When we support coup leaders in Egypt or other places, when we supports dictatorship, oppressive regimes around the world that push people over on the edge, then they become extremists, then they become terrorists. We are partly responsible,” he added.

Ayloush focuses on Egypt because of the connection between CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood, whose members founded his group. The Muslim Brotherhood regime was removed from power in Cairo after they supported jihadists, terrorized women and religious minorities, and destabilized the entire country.

Continuing his comments, the director of the Islamic supremacist group was quick to remove any possible connection to Islam.

“Terrorism is a global problem, not a Muslim problem. And the solution has to be global. Everyone has a role in it,” he concluded.

CAIR, which has been declared a terrorist organization in the United Arab Emirates, is a Saudi-funded operation and has several connections to radical Islamic groups.

The group was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation.

Ayloush has in the past revealed his fiercely anti-American and anti-Israel worldview.

He has described U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as “attacks against those people” as part of an effort to stir up “fear of the Muslims.”

In May 2004, he declared the U.S. war on terror to be a “war on Muslims,” adding his belief that the 9/11 attacks were committed because of “the U.S.’s unconditional support of Israel.” The U.S. is Israel’s “partner in crime” against the Palestinians, he explained.

Ayloush also believes Islam to be a superior, “comprehensive message for the mankind, not only for Muslims,” hoping for the religion to “prevail over all ideologies.”

The CAIR-LA director has demonized FBI informants as sell-outs “against the Muslim community.”

***

CAIR-Los Angeles Chief Hussam Ayloush Blames America for “Extremism” and Terrorism

By Christopher W. Holton

Once again we have been confronted with an outrageous statement from an official of CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood front group that has been implicated in terrorist activity.

Hussam Ayloush, the head of CAIR’s Los Angeles chapter, blamed US foreign policy for terrorism and “extremism” in the wake of the horrific San Bernardino Jihad attack that killed 14 innocent civilians and wounded 21 more.

If US foreign policy is responsible for “extremism” and terrorism, we have a few questions for Mr. Ayloush. We won’t hold our breath waiting for him to provide answers…

• Mr. Ayloush, did Boko Haram Islamic jihadists in Nigeria kidnap 300 Christian school girls because of US foreign policy?

• Mr. Ayloush, did Lashkar-e-Taiba’s Islamic jihadists assault Mumbai, India in 2008, killing 175 innocent civilians because of US foreign policy?

• Mr. Ayloush, did Chechan Islamic jihadists slaughter hundreds of school children in Beslan, Russia because of US foreign policy?

• Mr. Ayloush, did Al Shabaab Islamic jihadists slaughter 67 innocent civilians in the Westgate Shopping Mall in Nairobi, Kenya because of US foreign policy?

• Mr. Ayloush, did Jemaah Islamiyah Islamic jihadists kill 202 tourists in bombings in Bali, Indonesia in 2002 because of US foreign policy?

• Did Islamic jihadists kill 191 innocent civilians in 2004 in the Madrid, Spain train bombings?

I could go on and on, but you get the idea…the problem clearly isn’t American foreign policy. The problem is the global Jihadist movement, of which your organization’s parent, HAMAS, is a key component.

No, the Islamic State Will Not Be Defeated — and if It Is, We Still Lose

GettyImages-497044984-640x480Breitbart, by Ben Shapiro, Nov. 24, 2015:

Barack Obama has now created an unwinnable war.

While all of the 2016 candidates declare their strategies for victory against ISIS, President Obama’s leading from behind has now entered the Middle East and the West into a free-for-all that cannot end any way but poorly.

The best way to understand the situation in Syria is to look at the situation and motivation of the various players. All of them have varying agendas; all of them have different preferred outcomes. Few of them are on anything approaching the same page. And Barack Obama’s failure of leadership means that there is no global power around which to center.

ISIS. ISIS has gained tremendous strength since Barack Obama’s entry to power and pullout from Iraq. They currently control northern Syria, bordering Turkey, as well as large portions of northern Iraq. Their goal: to consolidate their territorial stranglehold, and to demonstrate to their followers that they, and not other competing terrorist groups like Al Qaeda, represent the new Islamic wave. They have little interest in toppling Syrian dictator Bashar Assad for the moment. They do serve as a regional counterweight to the increasingly powerful Iranians – increasingly powerful because of President Obama’s big nuclear deal, as well as his complete abdication of responsibility in Iraq.

Iran. Iran wants to maximize its regional power. The rise of ISIS has allowed it to masquerade as a benevolent force in Iraq and Syria, even as it supports Assad’s now-routine use of chemical weapons against his adversaries, including the remnants of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Iran has already expanded its horizons beyond Iraq and Syria and Lebanon; now it wants to make moves into heretofore non-friendly regions like Afghanistan. Their goal in Syria: keep Bashar Assad in power. Their goal in Iraq: pushing ISIS out of any resource-rich territories, but not finishing ISIS off, because that would then get rid of the global villain against which they fight.

Assad. The growth of ISIS has allowed Assad to play the wronged victim. While the FSA could provide a possible replacement for him, ISIS can’t credibly do so on the international stage. Assad knows that, and thus has little interest in completely ousting them. His main interest is in continuing to devastate the remaining FSA while pretending to fight ISIS.

Egypt/Saudi Arabia/Jordan. As you can see, ISIS, Iran, and Assad all have one shared interest: the continued existence of ISIS. The same is not true with regard to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, all of whom fear the rise of radical Sunni terrorist groups in their home countries. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place, however, because openly destroying ISIS on behalf of Alaouite Assad, they embolden the Shia, their enemies. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan would all join an anti-ISIS coalition in the same way they did against Saddam Hussein in 1991, but just like Hussein in 1991, they won’t do it if there are no Sunni alternatives available. Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan are the top three sources of foreign fighters for ISIS.

Turkey. The Turks have several goals: to stop the Syrian exodus across their borders, to prevent the rise of the Iranians, and to stop the rise of the Kurds. None of these goals involves the destruction of ISIS. Turkey is Sunni; so is ISIS. ISIS provides a regional counterweight against Iran, so long as it remains viable. It also keeps the Kurds occupied in northern Iraq, preventing any threat of Kurdish consolidation across the Iraq-Turkey border. They will accept Syrian refugees so long as those other two goals remain primary – and they’ll certainly do it if they can ship a hefty portion of those refugees into Europe and off their hands.

Russia. Russia wants to consolidate its power in the Middle East. It has done so by wooing all the players to fight against one another. Russia’s involvement in the Middle East now looks a good deal like American involvement circa the Iran-Iraq War: they’re playing both sides. Russia is building nuclear reactors in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Iran. They’re Bashar Assad’s air force against both the FSA and ISIS. Russia’s Vladimir Putin doesn’t have a problem with destroying ISIS so long as doing so achieves his other goal: putting everyone else in his debt. He has a secondary goal he thought he could chiefly pursue in Eastern Europe, and attempted with Ukraine: he wants to split apart the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which he rightly sees as a counterbalance to check Russian aggression. Thanks to today’s Turkish attack on a Russian plane, and thanks to the West’s hands-off policy with regard to the conflict, Putin could theoretically use his war against ISIS as cover to bombard Turkish military targets, daring the West to get involved against him. Were he to do so, he’d set the precedent that NATO is no longer functional. Two birds, one war.

Israel. Israel’s position is the same it has always been: Israel is surrounded by radical Islamic enemies on every side. Whether Iranian-backed Hezbollah or Sunni Hamas and ISIS, Israel is the focus of hate for all of these groups. Ironically, the rise of Iran has unified Israel with its neighbors in Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. All three of those countries, however, can’t stand firmly against ISIS.

All of which means that the only country capable of filling the vacuum would be the United States. Just as in 1991, a major Sunni power is on the move against American interests – but unlike in 1991, no viable option existed for leaving the current regime in power. And the US’ insistence upon the help of ground allies is far too vague. Who should those allies be, occupying ISIS-free ISISland?

The Kurds have no interest in a Syrian incursion. Turkish troops movements into ISIS-land will prompt Iranian intervention. Iranian intervention into ISIS-land would prompt higher levels of support for Sunni resistance. ISIS-land without ISIS is like Iraq without Saddam Hussein: in the absence of solidifying force, chaos breaks out. From that chaos, the most organized force takes power. Russia hopes that should it destroy ISIS, Assad will simply retain power; that may be the simplest solution, although it certainly will not end the war within the country. There are no good answers.

Barack Obama’s dithering for years led to this. Had he lent his support in any strong way to one side, a solution might be possible. Now, it’s not.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.

Must Read Report – Islamic State: ‘The Threat to the United States’

isis-marching-AP-640x480 (2)Breitbart, by Jordan, Schachtel, Nov. 23, 2015:

A Mclean, Virginia-based defense think-tank has published a prescient white-paper on the Islamic State terror group, which has been made available exclusively to Breitbart News prior to its release.

The Threat Knowledge Group (TKG), headed by Katherine C. Gorka, its President, and Dr. Sebastian Gorka, the Chair of Military Theory at Marine Corps University and a Breitbart Contributor, released a comprehensive study Monday titled “ISIS: The Threat to the United States.”

After last week’s attacks in Paris that killed over one-hundred people and wounded hundreds more, particular national attention has turned to national security issues, as the American people continue to fear that the United States is becoming more vulnerable to jihadist attacks.

“The scope and lethality of the Paris attack changes everything. The U.S. will have to take the domestic threat of ISIS much more seriously now,” Threat Knowledge Group President Katherine Gorka told Breitbart News.

“We wanted to do this study because we felt that the Administration was downplaying the domestic threat of ISIS, focusing instead on ‘right-wing extremism.’ The problem with that is that it means law enforcement is not prepared. They’re looking out the window while the threat is coming in the door,” she added.

Threat Knowledge Group supports the Defense Department and FBI with strategic analysis and training, and this latest report unveils the Islamic State’s recruitment network inside of the United States.

They found that over 250 people from the United States have attempted to join ISIS, according to a report from the House Homeland Security Committee. Also, some 82 individuals in the United States have been interdicted by federal agents as part of ISIS plots, according to a database compiled by Threat Knowledge Group.

And the FBI already has almost 1,000 active ISIS investigations in the United States, the report adds.

In its study, TKG also compares and contrasts the Islamic State with Al Qaeda.

The report notes that “ISIS is a fully-fledged insurgency” and has been able to achieve far more than Al Qaeda has in its past. In such a short amount of time, ISIS has been able to recruit a force of tens-of-thousands of jihadis while also controlling territory, a feat that Al Qaeda has never accomplished by itself.

ISIS has trumped Al Qaeda’s recruiting capacity as well, according to the report. TKG found that from March 2014 to November 2015, ISIS arrests occurred over three times more often than for Al Qaeda members, with 4.1 ISIS cases per month compared to Al Qaeda’s monthly 1.5 average.

In an ultra-important measure to establish legitimacy in the Islamic world, ISIS “successfully declared the Caliphate after 90 years of absence, and it is growing,” the report adds.

The study also delves into several other issues related to understanding ISIS as a jihadi organization, covering topics such as “What ISIS believes in” and “Who is ISIS recruiting?”

TKG warns that the United States must steel itself for the “difficult times ahead” and be ready to counter the threats posed by ISIS inside of the United States. They recommend that U.S. officials follow five steps in countering the current threat environment.

In summary, TKG recommends that American officials should:

  1. “Stop downplaying the seriousness of the threat.”
  2. “Recognize that ISIS is targeting youth, and do more to protect youth from radicalization.”
  3. “Target the ideologues.”
  4. “Better utilize open-source intelligence.”

TKG Report the ISIS Threat

‘ISIS Delenda Est’—What the Romans Knew About Winning a War

Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Breitbart, by James P. Pinkerton, Nov. 21, 2015:

I. The Roman Way

In writing about the Paris massacre in The Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan was blunt:

These primitive, ferocious young men will not stop until we stop them.  The question is how.  That’s the only discussion.

Okay, let’s take up Noonan’s challenge: How do we stop ISIS? Once and for all?

Let’s stipulate that President Obama, who has been waging a phony war against ISIS for over a year, is not the man for the job.  And let’s stipulate, also, that Islam is not “peace,” as George W. Bush so famously suggested back in 2001.

Islam is something different. Not all Muslims are terrorists, not by a long shot, but in its current form, Islam provides safe harbor for way-y-y too many Salafi jihadists, aka, terrorists.  Here at Breitbart, Pamela Geller provides a handy itemization; her list of Islamic terrorist groups runs a full 27 lines.

As the late Samuel Huntington wrote in his landmark 1998 book, The Clash of Civilizationsa work approvingly cited by Sen. Marco Rubio earlier this month—Islam has “bloody borders.”

History tells us that no attitude is permanent.  Yet for now, extremist elements within Muslim societies make it impossible for many Muslim states to get along with their neighbors, either near, in Eurasia, or far, in America.

So what should we do in the face of a relentless, and remorseless, enemy?  The Roman Empire had a good answer.  Yes, 2,000 years before Ronald Reagan summed up his Cold War strategy as, “We win, they lose,” the Romans had the same idea.

Rome’s dogged determination to prevail is perhaps best exemplified by its long struggle against the rival empire of Carthage, in what’s now Tunisia.

The Rome-Carthage conflict—the so-called Punic Wars, of which there were three—raged all over the Mediterranean littoral and lasted, on land and sea, for over a century, from 264 BC to 146 BC.  Interestingly, the single best general on either side was the Carthaginian, Hannibal.  His smashing pincer-movement victory over the Romans atCannae in 216 BC is still studied at West Point and other military academies.

And yet the Romans were more organized and resourceful, as well as determined, and, over time, those qualities gave them the edge. For literally decades, the Roman senator Cato the Elder closed every speech to his colleagues with the ringing words, Carthago delenda est—“Carthage must be destroyed.”  And yet Cato, who died in 149 BC, didn’t actually live to see the final victory, which came three years later, when the Roman legionnaires besieged and and conquered the city of Carthage itself.

Appian of Alexandria described the final victory in his Historia Romana, written in the second century AD.  Here’s Appian describing Rome’s final military operations against Carthage; as we can see, under the leadership of General Scipio Africanus, the Roman legionarii were not nice:

Now Scipio hastened to the attack [on] the strongest part of the city, where the greater part of the inhabitants had taken refuge… All places were filled with groans, shrieks, shouts, and every kind of agony. Some were stabbed, others were hurled alive from the roofs to the pavement, some of them alighting on the heads of spears or other pointed weapons, or swords. . . . Then came new scenes of horror.  As the fire spread and carried everything down, the soldiers did not wait to destroy the buildings little by little, but all in a heap. So the crashing grew louder, and many corpses fell with the stones into the midst.  Others were seen still living, especially old men, women, and young children who had hidden in the inmost nooks of the houses, some of them wounded, some more or less burned, and uttering piteous cries.  Still others, thrust out and falling from such a height with the stones, timbers, and fire, were torn asunder in all shapes of horror, crushed and mangled.

You get the idea. Tough stuff, to be sure, but after Scipio’s triumph, Carthage was never again a problem for Rome.  In fact, the Romans not only razed the city but, for good measure, plowed the ground with salt to make sure that nothing would ever grow there.

The Roman historian Tacitus quoted a barbarian enemy to make an approving point about the Roman strategic approach: “And where they make a desert, they call it peace.”  Yes, when the Romans wanted to make a point—they made a point.  We might note that the Roman Empire endured for another 622 years after the fall of Carthage, all the way to 476 AD.

Of course, Americans would never do anything like obliterating Carthage, even if the few German survivors of the 1945 firebombing of Dresden, or the even fewer Japanese survivors of Hiroshima, later that same year, might beg to differ.  Still, we might pause to note that both Germany and Japan—two countries once both full of fight—haven’t so much as raised their fist at us even once in the last 70 years.

II. The Challenge in Our Time

Today, there’s an echo of the old Roman resolve in the voice of many Republicans.  As Sen. Ted Cruz, who frequently quotes Reagan’s we-win-they-lose maxim, declared the other day, “In a Cruz administration, we will say to militants, if you wage war against America, you are signing your death warrant.”

Needless to say, Cruz doesn’t speak for the intellectually fashionable, who preach a kind of defeatist sophistry.  Among the smart set, it is often said that we shouldn’t attack ISIS because that’s just what they want.   CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, for example, writing of possible US retaliation in the wake of the Paris raid, assures us that ISIS “wants all of this.”  And Sally Kohn, also of CNN, adds her voice: “Bombing terrorists feeds their ideology.”

And we have this dire headline from the lefties at Salon:

We’re already caving to ISIS: Bloodthirsty jingoism is precisely what the terrorists want: The chief goal of these terrorists is to launch a “cosmic war.” Bigotry and calls for invasion provide exactly that.

Well, maybe the leftists are correct: Maybe it would be a mistake for us if we defeated ISIS—but maybe not.  Indeed, it sure seems that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS, is doing his best to survive.  To be sure, he says he’s ready for martyrdom, but he’s not seeking it out.  If he really wanted to be dead, he already would be.

Yes, there’s something to be said for winning, not losing—for living, not dying.  As Osama bin Laden himself observed, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” And of course, it’s no accident that Al Qaeda went into eclipse after bin Laden was killed by US forces in 2011, to be replaced, alas, by ISIS.

To put the matter starkly, being killed suggests that maybe God is not on your side.  It’s perhaps glorious to die for a winning cause, but not so glorious to die for a losing cause.

So let’s hereby resolve that we will be on the winning side.  And let’s get right down to it, and name—yes, name—the central challenge of our time: Defeating the Salafi terrorists once and for all.

Michael Vickers, a counter-terrorism subcabinet official in the Obama and Bush administrations—and an operative with a record going back to the CIA campaign against the Soviets in Afghanistan—is flatly declarative about what must be done; we must defeat ISIS, or ISIL, by depriving it of its territory.  By any name, they—including the remnants of Al Qaeda—need to be defeated and their home-base destroyed:

ISIL, as its name implies, is a de facto state. It holds territory, controls population, and funds its operations from resources that it exploits on territory it controls. If there’s one thing the American military knows how to do it is defeating an opposing force trying to hold ground.

So yes, we must defeat ISIS.  ISIS delenda est.  But yet there are more variables to consider: Unless we plan to do to the Jihadi Zone exactly what the Romans did to the Carthaginians—that is, kill them all—we need a plan for not only pacifying the area, but also for keeping it pacified.

Read more

Obama: ‘Un-American’ Not to Take in More Muslim Refugees

Calais-Migrants-Line-Up-AP-PhotoMarkus-Schreiber-640x480Breitbart, by Ben Shapiro, Nov. 16, 2015:

President Obama wants more Syrian Muslim refugees in the West. Speaking in Turkey on Monday, Obama explained that the West needed to open its heart to Muslim refugees, who after all were fleeing from terrorism in the Middle East to the safe and warm arms of the West. Meanwhile, Obama continued to maintain that Islamic radicalism presents no threat to the world.

To President Obama, the issue of Syrian Muslim refugee immigration into the United States is a simple risk-reward analysis. The risk: terrorist attack. The reward: not being “Islamophobic.”

First, the risk. We know that President Obama believes that Americans can take a terrorist attack. Back in 2010, according to Bob Woodward, Obama stated, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever…we absorbed it and we are stronger.” And Obama acknowledged today that American intelligence officials have considered ISIS capable of attacks beyond its borders for months. So Obama knows that accepting Syrian Muslim refugees carries a risk above zero. He’s willing to accept that risk.

And the risk is substantial. We now know that at least one of the terrorists in Paris entered Europe as a refugee and carried an ID for Syrian refugees. According to CNN:

[The] bomber falsely declared himself to be a Syrian named Ahmad al Muhammad, born on September 10, 1990, and was allowed to enter Greece on October 3. From there he moved to Macedonia, then Serbia and Croatia, where he registered in the Opatovac refugee camp, the lawmaker said. Eventually, he made his way to Paris, where he was one of three men who blew themselves up at the Stade de France.

He’s not the only one. As Senator Sen. Ted Cruz explained, “If there were a group of radical Christians pledging to murder anyone who had a different religious view than they, we would have a different national security situation.” That’s true. According to The Express (UK), “An operative working for Islamic State has revealed the terror group has successfully smuggled thousands of covert jihadists into Europe.” Two Turkish refugee-smugglers agreed.

It didn’t take Syrian refugees to launch the risk of Islamic terrorism in France. In 2014, a poll showed that 16 percent of French people had positive attitudes toward ISIS, including 27 percent of French people between ages 18 and 24. According to Ann-Elizabeth Moutet of Newsweek, “This is the ideology of young French Muslims from immigrant backgrounds…these are the same people who torch synagogues.”

Beyond the risk of terrorism, heightened Islamic immigration to Europe has led to increased crime and massive cultural fragmentation as well. Yesterday, The New York Times admitted that Europe has its own no-go zones in Muslim areas; Belgium’s home affairs minister said that the government has no “control of the situation in Molenbeek,” a working-class area of Brussels. That’s been true in France for years, where “semi-autonomous” sectors have become more and more common. Increased Muslim immigration has spelled a significant rise in anti-Semitic crime as well as more crime generally. In Germany, crime rates have skyrocketed as the number of those seeking asylum has risen. In Sweden, Jews have fled certain cities like Malmo altogether over the rising threat of radical Islam; the rate of rape in Sweden has jumped tremendously as well.

So yes, increased Islamic immigration to the West is a major risk.

Which brings us to the reward. What’s the reward for allowing a certain number of Westerners to die, allowing Western welfare systems to be overloaded by poor immigrants, allowing Western culture to be fragmented by Islamic fundamentalism? Avoiding charges of Islamophobia. Today, President Obama explained that proposals by Republicans to house Christian refugees but not Muslim refugees were un-American:

When I hear folks say that maybe we should just admit the Christians but not the Muslims, when I hear political leaders suggesting that there would be a religious test for which person who is feeling from a war-torn country is admitted, when some of those folks themselves come from families who benefitted from protection when they were fleeing political persecution, that’s shameful. That’s not American. That’s not who we are.

So, to be clear, it’s un-American to accept only Christian refugees from a region of the world where they are routinely persecuted for their religious persuasion, despite the heightened risk of terrorism from Muslim refugees. But it’s perfectly American for the State Department to consider ruling that Christians living under ISIS rule are not victims of an impending genocide, and to insist that the West house, feed, and clothe Muslim refugees. It’s un-American to protect American lives; it’s perfectly American to take in un-vetted refugees of the same general religious persuasion as the terrorists of 9/11 and 7/7 and Paris, without regard to the safety of the citizenry.

While the West churns its guts over Muslim refugees, Muslim countries aren’t doing so. There are fifty Muslim-majority countries all over the globe. Just five Muslim countries have taken in significant numbers of refugees: Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt. Only Egypt does not share a border with Syria. A huge percentage of refugees entering Europe are doing so not directly from Syria, but through Turkey, which has taken in approximately two million refugees but is housing hundreds of thousands in internment camps. This isn’t rare. For decades, Muslim countries have refused to integrate fellow Muslim refugees, which is why Palestinian Arabs still live in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan seventy years after the foundation of the State of Israel. The umma won’t deign to take in fellow Muslims the same way, say, that the Jewish state has taken in and integrated every Jewish refugee population from Russia to Ethiopia.

Nonetheless, President Obama says that morality requires the West to risk its own citizenry to save Muslim refugees without proper background checks and without any distinction between the capacity of Christians and Muslims to integrate into Christian-based societies.

No shock there. After all, President Obama obviously dislikes the West more than he dislikes radical Islam, seeing as he won’t even recognize radical Islam’s existence.

Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News, Editor-in-Chief of DailyWire.com, and The New York Times bestselling author, most recently, of the book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). Follow Ben Shapiro on Twitter @benshapiro.