Time to Part Ways with Erdogan

erdoganby Ari Lieberman:

There is no question that Turkey, because of its size and geo-strategic location maintains a pivotal role in NATO. Its armed forces are NATO’s second largest and its troops had acquitted themselves well during the Korean War. Turkey had also played a constructive role in bridging relations between Israel and the Muslim world acting as an effective interlocutor. But with the ascent of the Islamist Justice and Development party in 2002 and the rise of Recep Tayyip Erdogan as party boss, things have taken a stark turn for the worse.

Under the stewardship of an increasingly unbalanced Erdogan, Turkey has renounced secularism in favor of Islamist dogma and creeping sharia. Turkey’s new president elect has, through intimidation and strong-arm tactics, usurped control of Turkey’s judiciary and press. Indeed, Turkey holds the dubious distinction of being the world’s largest incarcerator of journalists followed only by Iran and China.

An increasingly paranoid Erdogan has also declared war on social media and in March threatened to ban Facebook and YouTube, accusing the sites of “every kind of immorality and espionage for their own ends.” Erdogan had already banned YouTube for two years though the restriction was lifted in 2010.

Erdogan’s disloyalty to the United States and NATO began early in his term of office as prime minister but his betrayals have only increased in recent years.

In March 2003, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Turkey refused to allow the deployment of US troops on Turkish soil which would have enabled the US to open a second front against Saddam Hussein. Turkey also refused to allow the US to utilize Turkish airspace and airbases to launch strikes against Iraqi forces.

In 2010, Turkey was one of only two nations in the UN Security Council (the other being Brazil) that voted against imposing sanctions against Iran in connection with its nuclear proliferation activities. Turkey (along with China) is currently taking a lead role in helping the Islamic Republic circumvent sanctions, often fronting for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and instituting various other schemes to bypass legal obstacles.  Turkey’s stance on Iran has even drawn praise from mullah’s official propaganda outlet, Press TV.

It is clear that Turkey, acting as Iran’s conduit to Europe has become the Islamic Republic’s premier enabler. Turkey’s outreach to Iran represents a disturbing pattern by Erdogan to curry favor with nations and entities whose interests substantially diverge from Washington’s. Turkey has established itself as the world’s foremost supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are listed as terrorist organizations by the United States.  Turkey has also opted to purchase air defense platforms from a Chinese firm already on a designated sanctions list for violating embargoes against Iran and North Korea. Moreover, the Chinese systems are incompatible with NATO platforms but to Erdogan, NATO’s defense needs play second fiddle to his disconcerting policy of thumbing his nose at the West.

Central to any defense pact and cooperation between allies is trust. But Erdogan has proven that he is anything but trustworthy. In fact, he has established himself as the premier betrayer of trust when, in violation of all norms and protocol within the intelligence community, he betrayed a network of spies working to compile data on Iran’s proliferation activities.

Read more at Front Page

ISRAEL-Cornerstone of the West

The United West, Published on May 16, 2014

In this micro-classroom video, The United West presents Mark Langfan’s amazing geopolitical analysis of Israel’s strategic security value to all Western countries! If you OBJECTIVELY view this demographic, geographic and cultural presentation you MUST conclude that Israel is not (as many try to make you think) the cause of INSTABILITY in the world, but indeed Israel is the cause of STABILITY in the world. The facts speak for themselves. Now, only if our American leaders would understand this information and develop policy based upon FACTS and not FANTASY.

Erdogan Bans Twitter, Vows to Show “Power of Turkish Republic”

protest of Erdogan's ban on twitter

Turkey’s membership in NATO should be on the table. The NATO website says, “NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defense and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.”

BY RYAN MAURO:

The so-called “moderate” Islamist government of Turkey, led by Prime Minister Erdogan, exhibited its undemocratic tendencies again, this time by blocking Twitter. The move came after Erdogan vowed to “wipe out” the social media network that is used by 10 million Turks.

The restriction on free speech and flow of information fulfilled a pledge Erdogan made a day earlier. Twitter refused Erdogan’s demands to censor certain links, so the Turkish government got permission from a court to stop the population from using the website.

“We now have a court order. We’ll eradicate Twitter. I don’t care what the international community says. Everyone will witness the power of the Turkish Republic,” he declared.

He also recently threatened to ban Facebook and YouTube.

In its official blog, the U.S. State Department called the censorship “21st Century book-burning.” Chiding Erdogan, the blog argued, “[Censorship] doesn’t make anyone stronger. This brand of suppression affects all of us: In an era in which the Internet serves as the world’s community forum, censorship anywhere is a threat to freedom of speech everywhere.”

Yet in an indication of the soft-balled response we can expect from the U.S., the blog continued in a conciliatory tone, saying, “Sometimes even our friends make this mistake,” and confessed that, “The United States’ history on freedom of expression has …slipped at times.”

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, tweeted: “The freedom to speak out and to connect is a fundamental right. The people of Turkey deserve that right restored.”  Britain, Germany, Canada and a number of other nations all voiced their objections to the censorship.

Since the court order went into effect, when Turks try to access Twitter, a message pops up from the Turkish official that oversees telecommunication.

The ban coincides with the release of a hyper-nationalistic video encouraging Turks to rise to defeat some kind of enemy assault.

***********

When Turkey joined the alliance in 1952, it was a different country. Now, it is run by an Islamist government that is supportive of Hamas, Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood. It clamps down on the democratic values that NATO says it exists to promote.

Turkey came to this point incrementally, in accordance with the Islamist doctrine of gradualism. At first, the 2002 election victory of Erdogan’s party was hailed as a potential move towards democracy. As Turkey became increasingly hostile to the West’s interests, the West dismissed these hostilities as manageable differences between like-minded allies.

The change Turkey underwent from 2002 to 2014 isn’t only a lesson about Erdogan and his supporters. This is the gradualist doctrine in action.

Read more at Clarion Project

A NATO Member on the Edge

2013-06-03-basbakan_erdoganby :

Reeling from a series of embarrassing public disclosures involving embezzlement, bribery, undue influence and strong-arm tactics, Turkey’s neo-Ottoman, Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, threatened to ban the popular social media sites of Facebook and YouTube, accusing them of encouraging “every kind of immorality and espionage for their own ends.” Erdoğan has recently resorted to a series of desperate measures, including sacking hundreds of police officers, prosecutors and judges, in a frantic effort to keep a growing corruption scandal centered on him and his cronies from spiraling out of control.

Erdoğan’s AKP government, once touted by President Obama as a shining example of Islam’s compatibility with democracy, has turned out to be as, if not more xenophobic than the autocracies currently governing the Arab and Islamic worlds. As for Erdoğan, he has proven himself to be nothing more than a petty, paranoid thug, full of hubris and delusions of grandeur.

Under Erdoğan, Turkey has become the world’s leading incarcerator of journalists followed by those democracy stalwarts of Iran and China. He has successfully usurped control from the once independent Turkish judiciary and has imposed creeping sharia on secular Turks.  But it is Erdoğan’s rhetoric concerning Jews and Israel where his penchant for the bizarre truly comes to fore.

It began in December 2009 when Erdoğan made a spectacle of himself at the World Economic Forum in Davos after moderator David Ignatius noted that Erdoğan had gone over his allotted time to speak. Erdoğan then turned to Israel’s president Shimon Peres and bellowed, “When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill.” Then he stormed off the stage like a spoiled child. His theatrics played well in the Arab world but left most westerners scratching their heads.

In September 2011 Erdoğan outrageously claimed that Israel had killed “hundreds of thousands” of Palestinians in Gaza and in classic anti-Semitic fashion boorishly stated that Israel used the Holocaust as a tool to gain world sympathy.

In February 2013 Erdoğan compared Zionism to fascism and further declared Zionism to be a “crime against humanity.”

Read more at Front Page

See also:

Qatar funding Islamist rebels in Mali

mali-rebelsMoney Jihad:

A French military intelligence source has divulged that Al Qaeda-linked rebels in Mali have received financing from Qatar.  This disturbing but predictable news comes as France attempts to pacify the Malian countryside while receiving logistical and political backing from the U.S.

There have been earlier allegations of financing Malian jihadists by Saudi Arabia as well.  This would be consistent with the flow of money from Saudi Arabia and Qatar to dissidents and rebels in countries undergoing “Arab Spring” uprisings.  The difference this time is that Western officials are on the opposite side.  Saudi and Qatari state sponsorship of enemy fighters united against France suggests a burgeoning proxy war between Nato and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

From France 24:

Is Qatar fuelling the crisis in north Mali?

Oil-rich gulf state Qatar has a vested interest in the outcome of the north Mali crisis, according to various reports that have been picked up by French MPs, amid suspicion that Doha may be siding with the rebels to extend its regional influence.

Since Islamist groups exploited a military coup in the Malian capital of Bamako in early 2012 to take control of the entire north of the country, accusations of Qatari involvement in a crisis that has seen France deploy troops have been growing.

Last week two French politicians explicitly accused Qatar of giving material support to separatists and Islamists in north Mali, adding fuel to speculation that the Emirate is playing a behind-the-scenes role in spreading Islamic fundamentalism in Africa.

French far-right leader Marine Le Pen and Communist Party Senator Michelle Demessine both said that that Qatar had questions to answer.

“If Qatar is objecting to France’s engagement in Mali it’s because intervention risks destroying Doha’s most fundamentalist allies,” Le Pen said in a statement on her party website, in response to a call by Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani for dialogue with the Islamists. ‘Cash from Doha’

The first accusations of Qatari involvement with Tuareg separatists and Islamist groups came in a June 2012 article in respected French weekly the Canard Enchainé.

In a piece title “Our friend Qatar is financing Mali’s Islamists”, the newspaper alleged that the oil-rich Gulf state was financing the separatists.

It quoted an unnamed source in French military intelligence saying: “The MNLA [secular Tuareg separatists], al Qaeda-linked Ansar Dine and MUJAO [movement for unity and Jihad in West Africa] have all received cash from Doha.”

A month later Sadou Diallo, the mayor of the north Malian city of Gao [which had fallen to the Islamists] told RTL radio: “The French government knows perfectly well who is supporting these terrorists. Qatar, for example, continues to send so-called aid and food every day to the airports of Gao and Timbuktu.”

The presence of Qatari NGOs in north Mali is no secret. Last summer, in the wake of the separatist takeover, the Qatari Red Crescent was the only humanitarian organisation granted access to the vast territory.

One member of the Qatari humanitarian team told AFP at the end of June that they had simply “come to Gao to evaluate the humanitarian needs of the region in terms of water and electricity access.”

Read more

See also:

Mali: analyst, Qatar is funding Islamists (ansamed.ans.it)

Obama’s Dangerous Fantasy of Al-Qaeda Defeated

warisover_6067-85x85By Robert Spencer

When he met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Washington last Friday, Barack Obama said this [1] about the war in Afghanistan: “We achieved our central goal … or have come very close to achieving our central goal, which is to de-capacitate al-Qaeda, to dismantle them, to make sure that they can’t attack us again.”

He said this four days after a Muslim imam who was a soldier in the Afghan National Army opened fire [2] on a group of his British “allies,” murdering one of them and wounding six. The Taliban, al-Qaeda’s partner in Afghanistan, claimed responsibility for the attack, which was yet another in an ever-lengthening string of “insider” attacks by Afghan forces against those who are putting themselves at risk to train and assist them. The BBC reports [3] that “in 2012, more than 60 Nato service personnel, and a quarter of the British troops who died in Helmand, were killed in such attacks.”

The Taliban is not al-Qaeda, although the distinction on the ground in Afghanistan may be exceedingly fine, too fine to be discerned by the average NATO soldier when the Afghan he is trying to teach how to be a military man turns the gun he has just given him on his benefactor. In any case, the appalling fact that “a quarter of the British troops who died in Helmand” perished in such attacks indicates that the enemy in Afghanistan is far from being either “de-capacitated” or dismantled, and still has the ability to attack us.

Nonetheless, Obama officials keep doing the victory dance over an al-Qaeda that they repeatedly imply is on the verge of extinction. Jeh Johnson, general counsel at the Defense Department, recently said that “military pursuit of al-Qaida” should end soon [4]. His reasoning was apparently that al-Qaeda is now so severely damaged that we will soon reach a “tipping point” after which military action against them will no longer be necessary, and local police can handle it.

This astounding manifestation of an overconfidence of Baghdad Bob proportions, or else of a capitulation attempting to disguise itself as a victory, is bitterly ironic coming at a time when al-Qaeda is anything but on the ropes: in fact, it is “carving out its own state [5]” in Mali, with so much success that last Friday the French launched airstrikes in hopes of stopping its advance and its consolidation of power in the vast areas it already controls.

Viewed alongside the Obama administration’s unstinting support for the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Egypt and support for jihadist rebels elsewhere, along with its active work to further the agenda [6] of Islamic supremacist Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the U.S., this raises questions about whether Obama is preparing to abandon the last elements of any U.S. resistance to jihad in any form.

Read more at PJ Media

Benghazi: Behind the scenes (Part II)

By Doug Hagmann

Author’s note: This is part two of a multi-part interview with a government insider intimately familiar with the events that took place in Benghazi. It is important to note that the information contained in this series was developed from interviews that spanned over 100 hours. In this part, the insider provides information about the events of the attack and the continuation of the cover-up at the highest levels of our government. (For Part I, please click here).

We’ve heard different accounts and different timelines concerning the attack at Benghazi. What exactly happened?

First, people must understand that the compound that was attacked was situated in a somewhat rural area and was not a consulate, but a rented villa, or a residential structure. The residence was the primary building, and what has been referred to as the annex was located about 1800 feet away as the crow flies, but just over a mile to travel by road. And again, visible security was not present as the compound was the headquarters for a covert operation. No one wanted to draw attention to what was taking place at this location.

The first indications of problems there began at least twelve-(12) hours before the first shot was even fired. One of the men at the compound observed a policeman or Libyan security officer taking photographs outside of the villa. Keep in mind that Ambassador Stevens, the point man in this Obama-sanctioned weapons running operation, was hastily scheduled to meet with the Turkish consul general at this location. The meeting was deliberately planned for dinner time, toward evening, when the events that happened next could be performed under the cover of darkness.

It’s also important to consider the location of this meeting. Tripoli is the seat of power in Libya, and a genuine diplomatic meeting could more safely have been conducted there, at the embassy. Also, what most people don’t know is that Libya is split, much like East and West Germany before the wall. The eastern part is more closely aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood, the same group that controls Egypt. The Turkish consul general had to meet there, not just with Stevens but with other factions involved in this covert operation.

Now I’ll digress for a moment. It is reasonable to ask whether the Turkish consul general was setting Stevens up for a hit, like a classic mob-style hit. First, there is no dispute that there was surveillance done at 6:30 a.m. and intermittently throughout the day. Next, consider that three hours before the first shot was fired, about 6:30 p.m. local time, some strange things were observed taking place near the compound. Military type vehicles began closing of the streets with trucks that had 50 caliber guns mounted on them. Checkpoints on the streets and at intersections were being quietly closed off around the compound. Nearby residents began going inside their homes. Anyone walking in the area got off the streets, like a scene from a movie in the Godfather series. It was obvious that the stage was being set for a strike against the compound. This alone reveals preplanning and coordination.

It’s also noteworthy to point out that the Turkish counsel general most likely passed through one or more of these checkpoints, or at least would have noticed that things were not right in the area. You must remember that just as Stevens was previously CIA working under diplomatic cover, the Turkish counsel general was his counterpart. It’s typical spy versus spy stuff.

Also consider this. One of the men stationed at the compound, a British national, left the compound at about 9:20 p.m., reportedly to get more phone cards. That’s right, phone cards, like you would buy at Walmart. Why? Because the men at the compound ran out of minutes. Just who do you think they were talking to that day to burn through the minutes, and why do you think they needed them at that exact time?

They were using the phones as a last and perhaps only line of communications to provide assessments of the strange things going on earlier. They knew that something was being planned and they were conveying that information – their observations to those who could assist them, in Tripoli and DC.

Based on these activities, it is clear that the men at the compound suspected that they were in trouble long before the first shot was ever fired. They were calling anyone who would listen, or who should have listened. We knew trouble was brewing and no one responded in any meaningful way.

Could the man who left to buy more phone cards have known what was about to take place?

Well, it’s possible, but there is no indication of that.

Was the Turkish counsel general in on this, to set Stevens up?

Well, what have we heard from our government? Has anyone even bothered to interview him? What did he say? Don’t forget, this administration decided to handle this attack as a crime and not a terrorist attack. How long did it take for the FBI to be able to access the ‘crime scene’ after the attack? More importantly, what was left at the ‘crime scene’ to examine by the FBI due to this delay? Do you think the delay was accidental?

Do you know what was discussed, or the reason for the meeting between Stevens and the Turkish consul general?

Yes, I know some key points. First, keep in mind what this arms running operation was all about. It was to topple Assad and replace him with a Muslim Brotherhood leader. It was to destabilize Syria to advance the agenda of Saudi Arabia. They were using U.S. and NATO forces to do exactly that.

However, Assad is no Gaddafi, and there is no comparison between Assad’s army and the Libyan army. It would take much more than rebels inside Syria to topple Assad. There is no way on earth that the Syrian rebels, or Free Syrian Army, has the capability to accomplish this objective alone. It required U.S. assistance, arms and training.

Now, Turkey is a NATO ally. They were assisting the Obama-Clinton-Saudi plan to funnel weapons ultimately to Syria, but the primary staging areas for these weapons were in Turkey near the Syrian border. Visual surveillance by Russia, using satellites and other means amassed photographic documentation of the U.S. assisting the ‘anti-Assad rebels’ inside Turkey. They developed evidence of the U.S. training these rebels and assisting them into Syria to fight against Assad.

Think about this. What if surveillance images observed anti-Assad rebels being trained to handle and mount chemical weapons – gas shells – onto rockets? The process would be apparent and would obviously be detected by a number of visual indicators. Obviously, Syria wanted this to stop. By extension, so did Russia.

One aspect of the weapons plan was to set up a false flag operation to make it appear that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Imagine the outcry from the civilized world to the news that Assad ‘gassed’ his own people. That would be an invitation to NATO and the West to openly intervene. Don’t forget about the timing of all of this. Two months before the elections, and time was running out. The job of taking out Assad was not yet complete. Such an event would quickly advance this agenda. By this time, however, being caught and placed in a rather unenviable position between Russia and the U.S., the Turkish consul general was in a ‘CYA, clean-up’ mode, assuring that none of the chemical weapons that might have still been in Libya were headed for Turkey.

It is also important to understand that the covert weapons running operation was just about finished. An estimated 40 million pounds of weapons were already shipped from Libya, and things were winding down.

There was another issue as well, a very important and telling one. Seven members of the Iranian Red Crescent had been kidnapped or snatched from the streets of Benghazi on or about July 31, 2012. Again you must understand that virtually anyone walking on the streets of Benghazi not indigenous to the area are spies. Covert operatives, operating under various covers. From all nations.

Along with the message that the weapons running operation was compromised, the Iranians had good reason to suspect that the ‘Red Crescent workers’ were snatched by the CIA or with their assistance. Iran wanted them back. They were spies, and countries want their spies back! So part of the meeting was to address this, as there was pressure by Russia against a wavering Turkey to switch sides. Anyway, you’ll see how this ties in to the way the actual attack was executed.

Read more at CFP

Douglas Hagmann is founder & director  of the Northeast Intelligence Network, and a multi-state licensed private investigative agency. Doug began using his investigative skills and training to fight terrorism and increase public awareness through his website

The Rise of An Islamic State Under Obama

By Theodore Shoebat:

Last night, hours before the election, Bill O’Reilly made a statement which, in many ways, foreshadowed the results of the election:

 

The demographics are changing. It’s not a traditional America anymore. And there are 50 percent of the voting public who want stuff. They want things. And who is going to give them things? President Obama. He knows it. And he ran on it.

With much of the population being pacified and babied, their apathy for the Middle East will be the cause of the swelling and spread of Islamic fundamentalism, because they’d rather have a welfare state then a more secure world.

Obama’s re-election has caused a major boost in confidence for countries like Britain and France in their wanting to topple Assad. But, it has also given confidence to Turkey, in their desire to oust out Assad; but the goal of the Turks is to conquer Syria, in order to revive the Ottoman empire.

A little while back, I reported on the Turkish plan to revive the Ottoman empire, and that Syria  will be a primary target for the expansion of their universal empire.  Syrian Ambassador to Tehran Hamed al-Hassan, had this to say:

Turkey is trying to reconstruct the Ottoman Empire in the region … “When Turkey’s Justice and Development Party won the Turkish parliamentary elections, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan presented his party’s victory to the people of Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Central Asia, and the Balkans which were once parts of the Ottoman Empire

Now with Obama re-elected, the Turks, England and France, will be pushing the U.S. more than ever to push for the ousting of Assad, with the help of NATO forces. That this is Obama’s second term makes this situation even more dangerous, because the president now has nothing to loose, since he does not have to worry about campaigning for a subsequent victory. His actions can be reckless, without the danger of not getting re-elected.

Expect to see Obama’s actions on the Middle East to be reckless, and the cause of chaos. We must expect to see the rise of Turkey following the future fall of Assad thanks to the U.S., Western allies, and NATO. With Assad gone, Turkey will then gradually take power over Syria.

Syria will be the first nation to go under Turkish rule because of its closeness, and the expediency of invading such a country, on account that Turkey is trusted by the West, and that Syria will voluntarily allow itself to be under the power of Turkey to fill its absence of a strong enough government. Though, I believe that before this occurs, Syria will be under the Muslim Brotherhood.

This will give rise to a Turkish superpower, which will ultimately expand throughout the Near East, which will pose a threat to the West and Israel.

The fall of Syria, and the rise of Turkey will be the result of Obama’s re-election.

Within hours of Obama’s second victory, Western allies had already designed a development for Syria, expecting a much more aggressive approach to Syria by the president. England and Turkey are already discussing the use of NATO against Bashar al-Assad, expecting more support from Obama.

British prime minister David Cameron stated that

There is an opportunity for Britain, for America, for Saudi Arabia, Jordan and like-minded allies to come together and try to help shape the opposition, outside Syria and inside Syria … And try to help them achieve their goal, which is our goal of a Syria without Assad.

Turkey is working with rebel groups, stating that NATO has discussed on using Patriot missiles to protect a supposed safe zone inside Syria.

Shashank Joshi, an analyst at London’s Royal United Services Institute, a military and security think tank, made a statement indicating the confidence felt by Western forces in their plan to oust Assad, on account of Obama re-election:

With the re-election of Obama, what you have is a strong confidence on the British side that the U.S. administration will be engaged more on Syria from the get-go

According to British Foreign Secretary William Hague, American, British, French, and Turkish diplomats are already scheduled to meet with Syrian rebel groups in Doha, Qatar.

David Cameron also said that he will press Obama to try and end the Syrian revolution.

As I have reported numerous times, the Syrian revolution is not peaceful, nor is it for the cause of peace and democracy, but for the establishment of a Islamic state in Syria, and primarily, for the configuring of a Caliphate. This recent video says it all:

Read more at Shoebat.com

Making the U.S. Military Submit to Shariah

Gen. Martin Dempsey

By Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Suddenly, a murderous threat has intensified in Afghanistan: American servicemen are being killed there at an accelerating rate by Afghans who ostensibly are their allies.

These attacks have been dubbed “green-on-blue” incidents, an antisceptic and deliberately inoffensive way of describing the treachery of Muslim natives (designated by the Islamic color green) against our folks (the blue forces).  So serious a threat are such murders “inside the wire” deemed to be that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Martin Dempsey, went to Afghanistan last week to assess what is being done to prevent them in the future.

That challenge is made considerably harder by the fact that President Obama’s strategy for extricating the United States from the war in Afghanistan is to have U.S. personnel train, advise and otherwise help Afghan army and police units assume responsibility for its conduct as we rapidly pull out.  Consequently, Afghans willing to take out Americans have plenty of opportunities to do so – and the latter are essentially unceasingly vulnerable to attack.

Unfortunately, an even bigger factor in our troops’ vulnerability to such violence is the refusal of their chain-of-command to recognize and understand, let alone effectively counter, the motivation behind it.  For example, the commander of U.S. and other foreign forces in Afghanistan, Marine General John Allen, attributed the recent uptick in green-on-blue attacks to irritability on the part of Afghan personnel performing missions at high operational tempos while sweltering in summer heat and hungry due to the Ramadan fast.  The appropriate response?  In an August 24th op.ed. in the Washington Post, the general declared that, “The closer the relationship, the more secure, ultimately, our troops will be.”

Syndicated columnist Diana West has caustically observed, “Like his brothers-in-brass, Allen is all about ideology – the Counter-Insurgency (COIN) ideology. This Leftist dogma transmuted to the battlefield is founded on the Big Lie of ‘universalism,’ which takes in the absurd but also liberty-threatening belief that all cultures, all religions, all civilizations have interchangeable values and aspirations. The theory is easily disproven, but it remains a commandment of postmodern gospel.”

Pursuant to the Team Obama-approved COIN doctrine, the posture our troops in harm’s way in Afghanistan must adopt is one of doing everything possible not to give offense to the Afghans.  In fact, last February, the military distributed to U.S. forces in theater a handy pocket guide entitled, “Inside the Wire Threats – Afghanistan Green on Blue.” It is all about establishing of a “bond of trust” between Afghan army and NATO personnel.

Interestingly, another document produced for the military’s use in May 2011 shows why, as a practical matter, that can’t happen. This unclassified “red team” analysis suggested that the problem is, as its title suggests, “A Crisis of Trust and Cultural Incompatibility.”  It found, based on extensive interviews with U.S. and NATO troops, that practices inspired by, condoned or even mandatory under the brutally repressive Islamist doctrine of shariah – such as the “poor treatment and virtual slavery of women in Afghan society,” the practice of child abuse including the “raping and sodomizing of little boys” and the torture of dogs – contributed to a “cultural gap” that alienated U.S. and Western personnel from their trainees and other native counterparts.

As noted by shariah expert and blogger Andrew Bostom, one of the recommendations (albeit, the fortieth out of fifty-eight) offered by the red team for addressing this underlying problem was, clearly at variance with the COIN party line:  “Better educate US soldiers in the central tenets of Islam as interpreted and practiced in Afghanistan. Ensure that this instruction is not a sanitized, politically correct training package, but rather includes an objective and comprehensive assessment of the totalitarian nature of the extreme theology practiced among Afghans.”

The Obama administration responded to this red team analysis and its findings by ordering it to be rewritten and by classifying it.  Then, the COIN-compatible pocket guide was promulgated, directing in the words of the inimitable Diana West  that:

“1) U.S. troops are to walk on eggs and refrain from saying or doing anything that might set off their armed, ‘hair-trigger moderate’ Afghan counterparts: ‘Avoid public rebukes,’ troops are told. ‘Counsel in private jointly with [the Afghan army] chain of command’….

“2) Worse, U.S. troops are ordered to assume the age-old role of the dhimmis, those wretched, self-censoring non-Muslims repressed and stunted by Islamic law: ‘Respect Islam, Koran or a mosque; Afghan women, elders and children. Avoid arrogance; i.e., belief that ISAF culture is superior to Afghan culture.'”

Whatever we call such behavior – “politically correct,” “multicultural,” “diversity-minded” or simply “sensitive” – our enemies perceive it through the lens of their culture and, more importantly, the doctrine that governs it, namely shariah.  Specifically, they understand it for what it is: submission.  And, according to that doctrine, the appropriate response to an infidel enemy’s submission is more violence to make him, as the Quran puts it, “feel subdued.”

Accordingly, if we persist in this submissiveness, far from winning Afghan hearts and minds, we are likely to put not just our troops there at ever greater risk.  We will invite our foes to engage in more jihadist violence elsewhere, including here.

Army “Red Team” Report Understood, But Buried Islamic Motivations For Afghan Murders of US Troops

Bachi bazi repulsiveness amongst our Afghan allies

By Andrew Bostom:

On May 12, 2011 a US Army “Red Team” issued an unclassified report which purported to explain the burgeoning rash of murderous attacks (which have since escalated even further, still) by Afghan National Army (ANA) members on US and other NATO troops.

Although the report is dominated by apologetic, cultural relativist drivel which attempts, in vain, to explain away these acts of murder committed against the US and NATO troops by their by ANA “allies,” it also includes a crudely buried, sub rosa truthful narrative.

This latter discussion is all that matters, and bears full, clear exposure—particularly in light of the morally cretinous excuse for the most recent spate of such killings of US troops. Specifically,  General Allen in an obscene pronouncement for which he should be forced to resign, maintained that Ramadan fasting, combined with operational tempo during the summer heat, were the drivers of these most recent killings of his own troops by Muslim ANA soldiers.

What the depraved General Allen willfully ignores was laid out, albeit clumsily camouflaged, using plain language, fifteen months ago in the “Red Team” report.

Based upon extensive interviews, US and NATO troops, as the report notes, were both disgusted with, and highly (and justifiably) suspicious of, the Islamically-sanctioned practices and behaviors of their Afghan military allies, and Afghan civilians.

[p. 3] U.S. Soldiers’ views of ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces], particularly of the ANA, were…extremely negative. They reported pervasive illicit drug use, massive thievery, personal instability, dishonesty, no integrity, incompetence, unsafe weapons handling, corrupt officers, no real NCO [non-commissioned officer] corps, covert alliances/informal treaties with insurgents, high AWOL rates, bad morale, laziness, repulsive hygiene, and the torture of dogs. Perceptions of civilians were also negative stemming from their insurgent sympathies and cruelty towards women and children.

[Specific elaborations on Afghan Muslim treatment of dogs, women, and children; pp. 44-45] Many US soldiers were appalled by the rampant torture of dogs and puppies they witnessed while being based with ANSF units. Many ANSF members are prone to inflicting abuse onto stray dogs they bring to the base for “entertainment” purposes. Other ANSF members, while not condoning the torture, fail to see any importance in such behaviors given the standing of dogs in Islam. Dogs are seen as vermin and many ANSF members find it inexplicable that anyone could be concerned about such “trivial matters,” and deeply resent any interference…This animal abuse is a substantial psychological stressor for many US soldiers and has been the cause of many serious social altercations with ANSF members…US soldiers reported that they had observed many cases of child abuse and neglect that infuriated them and alienated them from the civilian populace. They made it very clear that they wanted nothing to do with people who treat children so cruelly. Although not reported by the US soldiers who participated in this study. There have been numerous accounts of Canadian troops in Kandahar complaining about the rampant sexual abuse of children they have witnessed ANSF personnel commit, including the cultural practice of bacha bazi, as well as the raping and sodomizing of little boys…Similarly, US soldiers…mentioned the poor treatment and virtual slavery of Women in Afghan society, and how they found such practices repugnant. They found it unpalatable to befriend other men who had such primitive beliefs; the cultural gulf was too wide. They were repulsed by the abuse and neglect they observed in how children are treated in Afghan society. US soldiers largely reported that they did not care for Afghan civilians due to these factors as well as their suspected sympathies for the insurgents.

But the most salient point—blatantly ignored throughout the feckless conduct of our mission in Afghanistan, till now, and exemplified, glaringly, by General Allen’s heinous remarks—was inserted (as item 40), non-sequitur, amongst 58 other comparatively trivial recommendations.

[p. 50] Better educate US soldiers in the central tenets of Islam as interpreted and practiced in Afghanistan. Ensure that this instruction is not a sanitized, politically correct training package, but rather includes an objective and comprehensive assessment of the totalitarian nature of the extreme theology practiced among Afghans.

As the Pentagon’s only serious and honest (and of course now former) expert on Islamic Law, Major Stephen Coughlin observed in 2007:

If the Enemy in the War on Terror (WOT) states that he fights jihad in furtherance of Islamic causes that includes the imposition of Shari’a law and the re-establishment of the Caliphate; And Islamic law on jihad exists and is available in English; Then Professionals with WOT responsibilities have an affirmative, personal, professional duty to know the enemy that includes ALL the knowable facts associated with the law of jihad.

And Coughlin, a well-trained lawyer, further argued that such understanding by our military leaders is obligatory if they are to uphold their essential commission:

This is the Professional Standard.

The Red Team report’s acknowledgement, now matter how grudging,  of the essential role of Islamic totalitarianism in the ANA’s murderous actions against US and NATO troops, suggests our military leadership’s current dereliction of duty is even more egregious at present than when Major Coughlin shared his observations in 2007.

Andrew G.  Bostom is the author of The  Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and The  Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism ”  (Prometheus, November, 2008)

Blood Of Afghan Betrayal On Obama’s Hands

IBD Editorials:

War On Terror: It’s now clear why so many U.S. troops have fallen prey to Afghan insider attacks: The administration disarmed them while arming their Afghan trainees, making them sitting ducks.

With U.S. and NATO troop deaths from so-called green-on-blue attacks climbing past 100, military brass last week reversed a standing order requiring troops to remove their magazines from their weapons while quartered inside bases with their “trusted Afghan partners.”

Rogue Afghan soldiers or police have easily gotten the jump on their trainers, shooting them in cold blood with the rifles and ammunition issued by the U.S. Ten of our troops have died this way in just the past two weeks.

The number of insider attacks this year already exceeds the total for last year. Since the start of 2012, there have been 32 attacks resulting in 40 deaths, many more than last year’s 21 total attacks.

Earlier this month, an Afghan security commander ambushed U.S. troops. The officer, who was helping U.S. special forces train the local police force, lured elite U.S. soldiers to a Ramadan meal at his outpost to talk security. He then opened fire on them at close range, killing three and wounding one.

The Taliban took credit for the attack. The terror group released a video indicating it has heavily infiltrated the Afghan national army and police force.

“I opened fire on three Americans who were sitting together,” a rogue Afghan soldier, identified as Ghazi Mahmood, says while smiling for the camera. “The reason I killed them is because they have occupied our country. They are enemies of our religion.”

He said that there are many other uniformed Afghans “looking for the opportunity to kill infidels.”

Now, after years of denying the attacks were anything but an “isolated” problem, U.S.-led command has finally let American soldiers carry loaded weapons at all times to protect them not just from terrorists but from the Afghan security forces they’re training.

The policy reversal exposes the suicidal nature of the prior order. Even as our disarmed soldiers were being systematically ambushed and gunned down by their Afghan counterparts, high command continued to co-locate entire Afghan military units inside U.S. bases.

As a gesture of trust toward these Muslim partners, commanders ordered U.S. soldiers to remove their magazines from their weapons while training and working alongside them.

The Afghans, however, were allowed to remain armed.

Further exposing them to “friendly fire,” American troops generally removed their heavy Kevlar body armor once they got inside the base.

Disarming the Afghans would have been the obvious solution. But of course that would expose this whole “training partnership” as the farce it really is.

Training and standing up a national security force in Afghanistan is the linchpin of President Obama’s withdrawal strategy. He has set a 2014 deadline for troop pullout.

But the Pentagon is already reducing troop presence by 30,000 by the end of the summer. Many of the remaining soldiers will switch from fighting to training and advising Afghan forces. This means even more of them will be exposed to insider attacks.

more

‘My Son Trained Somebody to Murder Him’

by Richard Sisk (h/t Dave Bailey)

The grief-stricken father of a slain Marine lashed out at the U.S. training policies with the Afghan National Security Forces. His son’s death became one of many recent insider attacks leading to high-level meetings between U.S. and Afghan leader to re-evaluate their training methods.

“At the end of the day, what happened is my son trained somebody to murder him,” Greg Buckley Sr. said at the funeral Saturday for Lance Cpl. Gregory T. Buckley, 21, of Oceanside, N.Y., according to a CBS report.

The Afghan recruits “come in, they say, ‘We want to be police officers,’ and we hand them a blue uniform and hand them an AK-47? That’s insane,” the father told CBS as he stood surrounded by family and friends wearing buttons with a picture of his fallen son in uniform.

“If my son died on the battlefield, I would’ve been — maybe been — able to accept that, but instead they killed him inside the gym,” said Buckley Sr., according to CBS.

Buckley; Staff Sgt. Scott E. Dickinson, 29, of San Diego, Calif.; and Cpl. Richard A. Rivera Jr., 20 of Ventura, Calif., were shot to death on Aug. 10 while they worked out at a base gym in the southwestern Helmand province. The assailant allegedly was an unvetted 15-year-old “tea boy” who was the personal aide to the local Afghan district police chief, the Washington Post reported.

The grief and anger of Buckley’s father reflected the opinions of most Americans. Numerous recent polls have shown that a majority believe the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting.

While services were held for the young Marine in Long Island, N.Y., Defense Secretary Leon Panetta called Afghan President Hamid Karzai to curb the growing incidents of “insider attacks” by Afghans wearing uniforms that have killed at least 109 coalition troops since 2007 — 39 since January, including 25 Americans.

Another Afghan dressed in a police uniform shot and killed a NATO soldier Sunday in southern Afghanistan. It wasn’t immediately known what country the NATO soldier was from. And an Afghan police recruit killed two U.S. Special Forces trainers Aug. 17.

Panetta thanked Karzai for “condemning the attacks and the two “expressed shared concern over this issue,” said George Little, the chief Pentagon spokesman.

To counter the insider threat, Panetta and Karzai discussed measures that have already been put in place or are in the planning stage. The two called for “augmented counter-intelligence measures, even more rigorous vetting of Afghan recruits, and stepped up engagement with village elders, who often play a key role by vouching for Afghan security personnel,” Little said.

Marine Gen. John Allen, the overall Afghan commander and head of the International Security Assistance Force, has also ordered all U.S. troops in Afghanistan to carry loaded weapons with them at all times.

Buckley and the two other slain Marines were members of Kilo Co., 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, which had not taken any casualties before the Aug. 10 incident in the gym. On that same day in Helmand province, three other Special Operations Marines were killed by an Afghan wearing a police uniform in a separate incident.

Capt. Matthew P. Manoukian, 29, of Los Altos Hills, Calif.; Gunnery Sgt. Ryan Jeschke, 31, of Herndon, Va.; and Staff Sgt. Sky R. Mote, 27, of El Dorado, Calif., were shot to death by an Afghan police officer with whom they had just shared a meal.

In yet another incident, U.S. military officials strongly suspect that the Afghan police recruit who killed two Special Forces trainers with a weapon just handed to him was a Taliban plant and part of a growing threat from enemy infiltrators.

The U.S. and NATO have begun a major review of the vetting process for Afghan recruits for the police and the army to include checking on the identities and loyalties of village elders and Afghan officials who are required to vouch for the trainees, the officials said.

Until recently, Pentagon and NATO officials had routinely dismissed Taliban claims to have infiltrated the ranks of the Afghan National Security Forces as idle boasts, but the recent spike in “green on blue,” or “insider,” attacks has forced commanders to rethink policy.

“We think it’s about 10 percent,” a Pentagon official said of the percentage of deadly insider attacks carried out by Taliban agents or sympathizers since January 2011.

A total of 50 attacks by Afghans in uniform had occurred in 2011 and 2012 through last Friday and killed 74 coalition troops, the vast majority of them Americans.

Read the rest at Military.com

Afghanistan – Time to Go

by  ED  KOCH

I learned from reading page 9 of the New York Times of July 8th that “The  United States declared Afghanistan a major non-NATO ally on Saturday with  Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton personally delivering the news of  Afghanistan’s entry into a club that includes Israel, Japan, Pakistan and other  close Asian and Middle Eastern  allies.”

The Times also noted the U.S. “pledged $16 billion for civilian needs in  Afghanistan, but for the first time insisted that the Afghanistan government  resist corruption in order to receive all the  money.”

Over the 12 years of our being in Afghanistan, we have read reports  alleging corruption of the Afghan government officials, including President  Hamid Karzai and his family.  We read that his brother, now dead, was a  major drug trafficker.  We have been spending tens of billions annually in  Afghanistan, not only on the military, but on rebuilding that country.  The  monies invested have not produced the intended upgrading of Afghanistan’s  infrastructure, but rather, the upgrading of the personal fortunes of members of  the Afghan government and warlords who actually control parts of the  country.  Now we know their ability to continue to eat at the trough filled  daily with American tax dollars and support from other nations will go on  undiminished.  What kind of ally have we purchased with our tax  dollars?  We are now spending $2 billion a week in  Afghanistan.

We are enriching a host of corrupt Afghans, including President Karzai who,  according to the Times, “has in the past at one point call[ed] Americans ‘demons.'”  Worse than that, he threatened on one occasion to join the  Taliban against the U.S.  Now reports the Times, “Mrs. Clinton reiterated  on Saturday that Washington did envision keeping American troops in Afghanistan,  where they would provide the kind of air power and surveillance capabilities  needed to give Afghan forces an edge over the  Taliban.”

Over the last 12 years, 2,038 American service members have been killed in  Afghanistan and 15,322 have been wounded.  What is most shocking is that  there is now a rise in the killing of American soldiers and soldiers of our  allies in Afghanistan, e.g. Britain, Germany, et. al.  Last week, three  British soldiers were killed by a member of the Afghanistan security  forces.  Since 2007, we have lost 57 soldiers at the hands of Afghan  National Security Forces, who our soldiers were training.  This undoubtedly  will go on if we stay there.  The killing of NATO soldiers by Afghan  security forces is now called “green on blue.”

Another tragedy took place this past weekend when six American soldiers were  killed by the Taliban using IEDs.  Let me sum it up by saying, it is  madness not to get out of Afghanistan totally and as soon as possible, rather  than stay with a large force until the end of 2014 and a smaller force  thereafter.

We went into Afghanistan originally because the Taliban, then the government  of Afghanistan, had given shelter to al-Qaeda and bin Laden, in which country  was hatched the monstrous plan to blow up the World Trade Center towers in New  York City on 9/11/2001.  Al-Qaeda now functions in at least 62 countries  while, according to C.I.A. Director Leon Panetta, it has no more than 50  operatives in Afghanistan.

Read more: Family Security Matters

Woman accused of adultery publicly executed near Kabul, crowd cheers

 

WTKR.COM: A man Afghan officials say is a member of the Taliban shot dead a woman accused of adultery in front of a crowd near Kabul, a video obtained by Reuters showed, a sign that the austere Islamist group dictates law even near the Afghan capital.

In a three-minute video, a turban-clad man approaches a woman kneeling in the dirt and shoots her five times at close range with an automatic rifle, to cheers of jubilation from the 150 or so men watching in a village in Parwan province.

“Allah warns us not to get close to adultery because it’s the wrong way,” another man says as the shooter gets closer to the woman. “It is the order of Allah that she be executed”.

Provincial Governor Basir Salangi said the video, obtained on Saturday, was shot a week ago in the village of Qimchok in Shinwari district, about an hour’s drive from Kabul.

Such rare public punishment was a painful reminder to Afghan authorities of the Taliban’s 1996-2001 period in power, and it raised concern about the treatment of Afghan women 11 years into the NATO-led war against Taliban insurgents.

The video was revealed the same day Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was in Kabul to discuss the designation of Afghanistan as the newest U.S. “major non-NATO ally,” a political statement of support for the country’s long-term stability and a solidifying of close defense cooperation after American combat troops withdraw in 2014.

“When I saw this video, I closed my eyes … The woman was not guilty; the Taliban are guilty,” Salangi told Reuters.

When the unnamed woman, most of her body tightly wrapped in a shawl, fell sideways after being shot several times in the head, the spectators chanted: “Long live the Afghan mujahideen! (Islamist fighters)”, a name the Taliban use for themselves.

The Taliban could not be reached for comment.

Despite the presence of over 130,000 foreign troops and 300,000 Afghan soldiers and police, the Taliban have managed to resurge beyond their traditional bastions of the south and east, extending their reach into once more peaceful areas like Parwan.

Afghan women have won back basic rights in education, voting and work since the Taliban, who deemed them un-Islamic for women, were toppled by U.S.-backed Afghan forces in late 2001.

But fears are rising among Afghan women, some lawmakers and rights activists that such freedoms could be traded away as the Afghan government and the United States pursue talks with the Taliban to secure a peaceful end to the war.

Violence against women has increased sharply in the past year, according to Afghanistan’s independent human rights commission. Activists say there is waning interest in women’s rights on the part of President Hamid Karzai’s government.

“After 10 years (of foreign intervention), and only a few kilometers from Kabul… how could this happen in front of all these people?” female lawmaker Fawzia Koofi said of the public execution in Parwan.

Read more

 Related article

Turkey To Call for NATO Intervention Against Syria?

By Andrew C. McCarthy

NATO ought not exist at all, and if it must exist, surely Turkey’s Islamist government — friend of Iran, financial backer of the Hamas terrorist organization, facilitator of operations against Israel — has no business being in it. Now, Turkey appears poised to exploit its NATO membership to force the Western intervention in Syria that the Muslim Brotherhood and allied Islamists have been calling for.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a Sunni Islamic supremacist with longstanding ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most influential Sunni supremacist organization. The Brotherhood is leading the mujahideen (called the “opposition” or the “rebels” by the mainstream media) that seeks to oust the Assad regime in Syria — dominated by the Alawites, a minority Shiite sect. Unsurprisingly, then, Turkey’s government has taken a very active role in abetting the Brotherhood’s operations against the Syrian regime, which have also been joined by al-Qaeda and other Sunni militants.

On Friday, a Turkish air force jet entered Syrian air space, and Assad regime forces shot it down. Turkey claims the jet “mistakenly” cruised over Syria, and that, by the time it was taken down, it was in international air space over the Mediterranean. One need carry no brief for Assad to conclude that, given the interventionist drum-beat for no-fly zones and direct military and logistical aid to the “opposition,” Syria rationally took the presence of a Turkish military aircraft in its air space as a provocation. Turkey insists it was not “spying” — that this was just an accident to which Syria overreacted. That would be a good argument if the regime were not under siege and if the Syrian and Turkish governments had not been exchanging hostile words (mostly, threats from Erdogan) for months. That, of course, is not the case.

The Obama administration, from its first days, has cozied up to the Muslim Brotherhood — both Brotherhood branches in the Middle East, and Brotherhood satellite organizations in the U.S., such as CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America. Obama has also been quietly supporting the Syrian mujahideen: coordinating with repressive Islamist governments in Turkey and Saudi Arabia to arm and train them, and reportedly dispatching the CIA to facilitate this effort. But it has thus far resisted calls for more overt participation — calls by pro-Brotherhood progressives in both parties for something along the lines of what Obama did in Libya, meaning: without congressional approval and toward the end of empowering virulently anti-Western Islamists.

There is no U.S. national security interest in Syrian intervention: both the savage regime of Assad (whom the Obama administration saw as a “reformer” until about five minutes ago) and the Syrian mujahideen’s Sunni supremacists are enemies of the West and of our ally, Israel. It is in our interests that both be weakened, which is best achieved by butting out while they slug it out between themselves. Since there is no good outcome for us, it makes no sense to jump in on the side of one set of America’s enemies, making them stronger.

Still, there is little doubt that Obama — who regards Erdogan as his best friend and strategic partner in the region — is inclined to jump in on the Brotherhood’s side. He would have done so already if the November election were not looming. In light, however, of the democracy-promotion debacles in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, which have forged the creation of sharia regimes that persecute religious minorities and reject Western democracy, Americans are not buying democracy-promotion as a rationale for being dragged into yet more internecine Islamic conflict.

Nor are Americans convinced by the interventionists’ best argument: Syria is the cat’s paw of Iran, our implacable enemy, and therefore Assad’s overthrow, which would be a bitter pill for the mullahs, is a compelling U.S. interest. Yes, Iran is a huge problem, but we should then deal with Iran directly — not in a proxy war that elevates the Muslim Brotherhood, whose ascendancy in neighboring Egypt is already destabilizing the Sinai and profoundly threatening Israel. Consequently, if Syrian intervention is to be sold to the public — I won’t say “sold to Congress,” because Obama and the interventionists are unconcerned about such trivial constitutional details — the administration will have to come up with another excuse.

Could that excuse be the NATO charter’s Article 4? That is the provision that calls on NATO member countries to “consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened.” Turkey’s Islamist foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has announced that Turkey is calling for an emergency consultation of NATO members under Article 4 to consider a response to what it deems Syrian aggression. Look for this to be the fig-leaf the Obama administration and the Republican Party’s transnational-progressive wing (under the leadership of John McCain — and, unfortunately, exercising obvious influence over Mitt Romney) uses to step up calls for overt U.S. intervention against Assad. And look for them to bypass Congress, just as they did in the case of Libya.

Read more at PJM