What’s Hillary’s plan to help Special Ops caught in Obama’s Afghan meat grinder? (crickets)

us army special forcesConservative Review, by Daniel Horowitz, July 29, 2016:

A few weeks ago, I sounded the alarm about Obama’s dyslexic policy in Afghanistan in which U.S. Special Operators are being placed into the worst combat zones without the ability to engage in combat and without any understanding of the broader mission. Now it appears that we are again taking casualties in eastern Afghanistan, but don’t count on the mass media to ask questions.

Here is a disturbing update from the NATO Commander in the theater from a press conference yesterday:

[Commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Gen. John] Nicholson revealed that American special operations forces have been heavily involved in ground fighting in Nangarhar in recent days, and five commandos have been wounded — three of whom had to be evacuated out of the country for treatment. All are expected to recover.

The revelation that American forces are again engaged in close-quarters combat in America’s longest war comes at a time when President Barack Obama has been slowly walking back his earlier efforts to pull out all American troops by the end of his term in January. [Foreign Policy Magazine]

Remember, as these warriors are placed in the most precarious situations with no strategic mission and in some of the most rugged parts of the world, they have to call a lawyer before even calling in close air support. This dangerous convergence of mitigating factors is getting our soldiers injured and killed for no reason.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon is doing its best to cover up the casualties, and most of the media is not interested in covering this during their nightly broadcasts like they did when Republicans were in power. As the Military Times reported last month, with the surge in troops in Iraq that we are not supposed to know about, the Pentagon has worked even harder to block information concerning casualties on the battlefield. They contend that they are concerned about giving our troop locations away to our enemies, but it is quite evident that they don’t want the American people to know that our troops are indeed on a battlefield (as opposed to being “advisors”).

With no oversight from Congress or the media, Obama is continuing to destroy our military. At the same time, the social engineering of the military is in full swing.

It is extremely disappointing that neither presidential candidate mentioned this 800-pound gorilla in the room. We have never been engaged in any war for 15 years, much less one that has netted no positive result. We have nothing to show for our efforts but over 1,800 military deaths, 20,000 wounded, and the Taliban control more territory than ever before – all to establish a sharia-compliant government with a constitution (set up by U.S. officials) which fosters the type of Islamic supremacism we are at war with. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State when Afghanistan was lost in 2011 and when we sustained the most casualties. She owns this foreign policy, yet she acted like the firefighter just coming on the scene and obfuscated any mention of this disaster.

Last night, Hillary criticized Trump for observing that the state of our military is a disaster. She boldly proclaimed that “our military is a national treasure” and that we have the most powerful military in the world. She is right. Putting our soldiers in a meat grinder with appalling rules of engagement and no favorable outcome is not a way to treat our national treasure and is not a way to project strength. Nor is the social engineering and making our generals draw up logistical plans for transgenderism rather than a national objective and an end to the 15-year war in Afghanistan.

The American people recognize that the status quo in the war on Islamic terror is not working and nowhere is this more evident than in Afghanistan.

DNC Speech: Hillary Clinton Deletes Foreign Policy Disasters as Secretary of State

Getty Images

Getty Images

Breitbart, by Aaron Klein, July 29, 2016:

PHILADELPHIA – Notoriously missing from Hillary Clinton’s acceptance speech here at the Democratic National Convention was a list of any significant accomplishments from her time as Secretary of State.

The words “secretary of state” only appeared twice in her speech.

One of those times she stated, “I have to tell you, as your Secretary of State, I went to 112 countries, and when people hear those words – they hear America.”

Here, she seems to be brandishing her foreign travel as a signature achievement while she was one of the nation’s highest serving diplomats.

The second and final direct mention of her former State position came when she exclaimed, “As you know, I’m not one of those people. I’ve been your First Lady. Served 8 years as a Senator from the great State of New York. Then I represented all of you as Secretary of State.”

When she did briefly mention her record, Clinton mostly spoke in generalities and she seemed to be combining her time as  a Senator and Secretary of State.

She stated:

Look at my record.  I’ve worked across the aisle to pass laws and treaties and to launch new programs that help millions of people.  And if you give me the chance, that’s what I’ll do as President.

I’m proud that we put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot – now we have to enforce it, and keep supporting Israel’s security.

I’m proud that we shaped a global climate agreement – now we have to hold every country accountable to their commitments, including ourselves.

I’m proud to stand by our allies in NATO against any threat they face, including from Russia.

While she didn’t outline her role in the talks with Iran that led to the nuclear agreement with Tehran, Clinton did tangentially mention the Iran deal. “I’m proud that we put a lid on Iran’s nuclear program without firing a single shot – now we have to enforce it, and keep supporting Israel’s security.”

Absent from her DNC speech was Clinton’s central role in the U.S.-NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, a military campaign that directly resulted in the destabilization of that country and its subsequent descent into chaos. Islamic extremists have since taken over large swaths of Libya, and have used the country as a staging ground to attempt to infiltrate Europe.

Islamic terrorists infamously carried out deadly attacks on the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Clinton did not bring up her State Department’s role in denying security requests to the woefully unsecure U.S. facility.

Clinton further failed to mention her strong support for the so-called Arab Spring, including the toppling of the regime of Hosni Mubarak, a staunch U.S. ally, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s resultant rise to power there until a military coup in 2013.

Clinton referenced the threat of the Islamic State without explaining that the global jihadist group has taken up sanctuary in countries that were destabilized during her tenure as Secretary of State.

She stated:

I’ve laid out my strategy for defeating ISIS. We will strike their sanctuaries from the air, and support local forces taking them out on the ground. We will surge our intelligence so that we detect and prevent attacks before they happen. We will disrupt their efforts online to reach and radicalize young people in our country. It won’t be easy or quick, but make no mistake – we will prevail.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

Disconnected Dems can’t respond to GOP’s national security message

hillaryclinton_getty052716

The Hill, By Rick Manning, July 28, 2016:

GOP nominee Donald Trump got a huge convention bounce nationally with his personal, homeland and national security message out of Cleveland, and the Democrats are systemically unable to respond because any meaningful, tough response would require a repudiation of their own policies and an admission that the world has an Islamic jihad problem.

You can see the weakness of the Democratic position in President Obama’s limp reaction to the Cleveland convention that things aren’t as bad as they seem. A theme that runs counter to his ambulance chasing around the country, attempting to drive his gun control agenda.

It can be seen in the Obama administration’s pathetic response to the news that two Islamic radicals attacked a Roman Catholic mass in Normandy, France, beheading an 85-year-old priest in front of his congregation that, “France and the United States share a commitment to protecting religious liberty for those of all faiths, and today’s violence will not shake that commitment.”

No one wants to restrict religious liberty, but that is really code for Obama and the Democrats’ fear of naming the problem of Islamic extremism and jihad, and the people of the United States know it.

When people, in the name of Islam, kill a French priest in what was described as an almost religious ritualistic execution; murder nine Germans in Munich; maniacally drive through a crowd in Nice, France, ending 84 lives; and open fire on co-workers in San Bernardino, California and gays at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, soft words don’t impress anyone. Least of all, those who seek to murder the infidels all around them.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is trapped in this Obama box, and she dares not utter the basic truth that the world has a Sharia law problem, and the policies she supports that open America’s doors to hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Middle East will make our nation dramatically less safe.

The public rejection of Obama and Clinton’s weakness likely won’t show up in the public opinion polls because Americans have been told by the media that it is racist and bigoted to pinpoint the obvious problem. But it will show up when it counts, at polling places all across America in November.

Americans don’t want their government to coddle those who wish to kill their families and don’t particularly care if their reason is because they are Charles Manson insane or they are following what they have been taught is a fundamental precept of Islam. Americans want a federal government that is more concerned with keeping potential terrorists out of the country than figuring out how to resettle refugees from terrorist states in their neighborhoods.

And the Clinton knee-jerk response of supporting Australian-style gun confiscation laws aimed at denying law-abiding Americans who live in those neighborhoods the right to defend their homes is a sure loser everywhere except in the gated, protected communities where she hangs out.

The Democratic National Convention, with its anti-cop, pro-illegal immigration and amnesty emphasis, is the exact wrong convention at the exact wrong time, and every drop of blood spilled by jihadists, illegal immigrants or Obama’s early released criminals puts an exclamation point on the political disaster Clinton is leading.

Incredibly, the Democrats are so disconnected from real America that they cannot bring themselves to see that their ’60s Woodstock philosophy is a fairy tale, and that there are those in the world whose religion is to kill the rest of us no matter how many flowers you stick in their gun barrels. The real world is a tougher, meaner place where strength is needed to survive.

As a result, the more they talk, the better off Trump looks.

The stunning part is that the Democrats are so blinded that they can’t see what is obvious to everyone else who is paying attention. The end results of Obama and Clinton’s policies toward refugees has already been tested in France, Germany and the rest of Europe where acts of jihad seemingly occur daily and rapes are skyrocketing as Sharia followers envelop communities.

Unless Clinton can figure out a way to change the subject and get voters’ minds on something else, she is not only going to lose, but do so in historic fashion. But to solve a problem, you have to understand it, and for Democrats who fear even calling Islamic jihad what it is, there is no way out of the politically correct thought prison they have constructed.

Manning is the president of Americans for Limited Government.

Trump and NATO

nt

Front Page Magazine, by Bruce Thornton, July 27, 2016:

The Never Trump crowd has found another example of The Donald’s disqualifying ignorance: comments he made about NATO. He has said that our contributions to NATO are “unfair,” that they are “costing us a fortune,” that we are “getting ripped off,” and that they are “getting a free ride.” By the way, Obama in his Atlantic interview also called the Europeans “free riders,” but I don’t recall a lot of sneering at the president for his “alarming” and “dangerous” remarks, as one critic put it.

Trump also implied that he would put the European NATO members’ feet to the fire about meeting the 2006 requirement that they spend 2% of GDP on their militaries, and suggested he would negotiate a new contribution schedule. Few NATO members have met that requirement, which is a violation of Article 3 that requires member states to “maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.” According to NATO’s own report, only five countries are estimated to meet the 2% requirement in 2016. France, Germany, Italy, and Spain­­––the first, third, fourth, and fifth largest economies in the EU––are not among them. The richest, Germany, is expected to remain at 1.19%. In contrast, the US will spend 3.9%. As Lord Robertson, NATO Secretary General from 1999-2004, put it, European nations are “military pygmies.”

Critics of Trump are technically correct to say that he exaggerates when he claims that the US pays the “lion’s share” of NATO funding. In fact, the US pays under a fifth (22%). But the complaints about European NATO members, which predate Trump by decades, take into account more salient deficiencies. “Common funding,” of which the US covers a fifth, is “used to finance NATO’s principal budgets: the civil budget (NATO HQ running costs), the military budget (costs of the integrated Command Structure) and the NATO Security Investment Programme (military capabilities),” according to NATO. In other words, mostly institutional bureaucratic infrastructure.

“Indirect spending” covers what each nation voluntarily contributes to an operation. NATO acknowledges the greater share the US spends on indirect spending: “there is an over-reliance by the Alliance as a whole on the United States for the provision of essential capabilities, including for instance, in regard to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; air-to-air refuelling; ballistic missile defence; and airborne electronic warfare.” We could also mention transport aircraft, cruise missiles, and other matériel that the European countries simply don’t have much of. For example, in the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya, there were 246 cruise missiles launched. The US fired 228 of them. At $1.5 million apiece, that adds up to $342 million taxpayer dollars spent to destabilize a country and get four of our citizens killed.

This discrepancy in indirect spending and military capability was already obvious in the 1990’s when NATO intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo to stop a vicious war. During the 1999 crisis in Kosovo, the Europeans had to make “heroic efforts” just to deploy 2% of their two million troops, according to the British foreign secretary. Historian William Shawcross writes of the bombing campaign, “The United States flew the overwhelming majority of the missions, and dropped almost all the precision-guided U.S.-made munitions, and most of the targets were generated by U.S. intelligence.”

So Trump’s complaints, as blustering and exaggerated as they may be, are legitimate. Operations conducted by NATO are overwhelmingly American funded and directed, and NATO is a diplomatic fig-leaf for American power.

No more convincing are the reasons critics give for supporting NATO. The alliance has not prevented “major state conflict since World War II,” as a writer at NRO claims. Given that some 40 million people have died in conflicts since WWII, I’m not sure what “peace” we’re talking about. During the Cold War, the peace between the US and the Soviet Union was kept by nuclear “mutually assured destruction” and millions of American troops, not NATO. Nor was Europe in any condition to fight among themselves. The Europeans were, and still are in many ways, burned out after 30 years of warring, and had neither the will, the morale, nor the belief in anything worth dying for to engage in another war. With their security underwritten by the US, they could spend their money on lavish social welfare programs and la dolce vita. Thinking NATO kept the peace is as preposterous as claiming the EU did.

Then there’s Article 5, the pledge that NATO members will fight for any member state that’s been attacked. Much is made of the only time Article 5 has been invoked, after the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Yet all that solidarity and allied good will didn’t stop France and Germany from trying to undermine the US when it tried to get the UN to sanction the war in 2003 on Saddam Hussein, who had violated 16 UN resolutions and the formal terms ending the 1991 Iraq War. Despite the consensus of American and European intelligence agencies that Hussein had WMD stockpiles, France and Germany took the lead in lobbying the Security Council to oppose the authorization to use force against Iraq.  Germany’s ambassador to the UN Council pressured members like Mexico and Chile to vote against the US. Worse yet, France and Germany, along with Belgium, formally objected to a proposal for NATO to send defensive equipment to Turkey, which wanted assurances that it would be supported by its fellow NATO members if attacked for supporting the war against Hussein.

This behavior of NATO allies did not reflect principle, but national interests and politics. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder was running for re-election, and found reflexive German anti-Americanism and pacifism a convenient distraction from his terrible economic record. France had grubbier reasons in addition to its ownressentiment towards the US––renewing the arm sales to Iraq and oil development contracts it had enjoyed for years before the war, and could resume once the sanctions on Hussein were lifted, something France was actively pursuing. As Shawcross summarized, “The long friendship with Saddam, commercial considerations, the response to le défi Américain, and concern over the reactions of France’s Muslims––all these played a part in [President Jacques] Chirac’s calculations in the summer of 2002.”

The importance put on Article 5 forgets that, as George Washington said, “It is a maxim founded on the universal experience of mankind, that no nation can be trusted farther than it is bound by its interests.” NATO members have made and in the future will make decisions based on each nation’s estimation of its interests. So there’s no guarantee that invoking Article 5 would lead to meaningful NATO member support. And given the weakness of their militaries, just how much actual rather than rhetorical support could the Europeans provide in the event of an attack? How many battle carrier groups does NATO possess? The Europeans can’t even afford cruise missiles.

Finally, the arguments for NATO are predicated on an either-or fallacy. If we don’t have the NATO alliance and the benefits it supposedly brings for collective security, then we’ll have nothing. But of course, if NATO disappeared tomorrow, the US would quickly sign bilateral and multilateral defense agreements with individual countries or groups of countries, including some current NATO members. The argument that without NATO our security would be endangered is as fallacious as the argument of the Remain faction in England that leaving the EU would put the UK in danger. A country as rich and powerful as the US will find no dearth of countries eager to bandwagon with it.

Trump’s critics continue to search for dubious reasons to justify sitting out the election or even voting for Hillary. There may be many reasons not to vote for Trump, but criticizing NATO isn’t one of them.

***

Also see:

***

What Hillary Clinton Got Wrong About the World

48981920.cached

As DNC 2016 begins, many of Secretary Clinton’s signature causes are now a problem for candidate Hillary.

Daily Beast, by Nancy A. Youssef, July 24, 2016:

America was supposed to make big changes while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Clinton would spearhead a reset in U.S.-Russia relations. She’d usher in an era of new, internet-enabled democratic activism. And rather than focus on protracted wars in the Middle East, the U.S. would pivot toward Asia.

None of that quite came to be. If there is a connective thread in Clinton’s tenure, it was an overestimation in the U.S. ability to shape events around the world and an underestimation of the unintended consequences of change.

In places like Egypt, rather than democracy, there is a return to an even more aggressive police state, where thousands of opponents are in jail, free speech no longer exists and Islamist jihadists are expanding their grip. Rather than improved relations with Russia, the U.S. is trying to dodge a proxy war with the former Soviet bloc in Syria. Through competing airstrikes, the U.S. is supporting opponents to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad while Russia has helped prop up the regime. And in Asia, rather than a pivot, the U.S. has only kept one eye on a rapidly changing region. China has increasingly claimed its stake to the South China Sea, and in North Korea Kim Jong-un’s ballistic missile launches have rattled his U.S. allied partner in the south.

In other words: The job that was supposed to best prepare Clinton to be the next president could also be the albatross of her campaign, thanks to the chaotic world that emerged since she left the post in 2013.

Presidential campaigns aren’t known for their foreign policy nuance. But this one is looking to be particularly dense, even though one candidate led U.S diplomacy during one of the most complex periods of U.S. foreign policy. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump doesn’t seem to understand the kind of quarter-turns that led to failed strategy; the Clinton campaign can’t afford to rehash them.

Take Trump’s acceptance speech on Thursday. He hit Clinton for allowing Egypt to be “turned over to the radical Muslim Brotherhood, forcing the military to retake control.”

It’s a legitimate target. The U.S. government’s handling of the Arab Spring—particularly in Egypt—during Clinton’s tenure was, in hindsight, a total mess. But the Brotherhood did not take over; it was democratically elected. And the military chose to step in and oust the president.

A year earlier, as iconic images of thousands of Egyptians filled Cairo’s Tahrir Square during a so-called “Twitter Revolution,” U.S. officials initially resisted supporting the uprising against Egypt’s strongman president, Hosni Mubarak. It was not until Mubarak’s fall seemed all but certain that the U.S. backed the military forces that took over. But for those protesting, it came too late. They felt that America’s support was wavering. And for Mubarak’s supporters, some of whom now are back in power in Egypt, it was a betrayal. That is, the U.S. gained few benefits from a seemingly bold move by Clinton’s State Department to walk away from a three-decade-long ally.

When the presidency of a democratically elected Islamist, Mohammed Morsi, appeared in peril, the Egyptian military ousted him. In the process, both sides were angry at the United States. Morsi supporters suspected the U.S. was behind the coup; the military resented the lack of U.S. support. And Egypt-U.S. relations have been frayed ever since, even as the U.S. has continued to provide military equipment and aid.

“The administration believed it was supporting democracy when it engaged elected Islamists after the Arab Spring but when those Islamists behaved like tyrants and governed Egypt into the ground, many Egyptian resented what they saw as U.S. support for Islamists,” Eric Trager,  an expert on Egyptian politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told The Daily Beast.

In her 2014 book, Hard Choices, which was devoted to her time as Secretary of State, Clinton signaled that she was hesitant about Arab Spring, saying she was not convinced the military likely would do much better than Mubarak.

“There is little reason to believe that restored military rule will be any more sustainable than it was under Mubarak. To do so it will have to be more inclusive, more responsible for the needs of the people, and eventually, more democratic,” Clinton wrote.

She also described current Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, who announced Morsi’s ouster, as someone who “appears to be following the classic mold of Middle Eastern strongmen.”

In Libya, while Trump has focused on the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on a consulate in Benghazi, smarter critics point to a more important issue: Clinton’s calls for intervention in Libya a year earlier.

Obama administration insiders say Clinton’s failing in Libya was twofold and predated the attack in Benghazi. What began as a humanitarian mission to save the residents of Benghazi from a government assault during the 2011 uprising somehow evolved into regime change. Who made the decision? And why? Critics have yet to get a clear answer.

To make matters worse, once the regime change decision was made, there was a lack of planning for how Libya would look once its four-decade-long leader, Muammar Gaddafi, fell from power. As former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates explained to The Daily Beast, the post-Gaddafi plan did not exist. “We were playing it by ear,” Gates said.

Libya has devolved into a fractured state battling a burgeoning jihadist threat, where ISIS has set up a hub in the city of Sirte, Gadhafi’s former hometown.

Testifying on Capitol Hill in January 2013, Clinton conceded that events in Libya had unfolded in unexpected ways. But she said that the criticisms directed at her were too often about politics, not improving U.S. strategy.

“We are in a new reality. We are trying to make sense of changes that nobody had predicted but which we’re going to have to live with,” she said. “Let’s be honest with ourselves. Let’s avoid turning everything into a political football.”

Beyond the Middle East, Clinton proposed a reset with Russia, hoping for better relations to reset relations, which had hit a nadir after Russia attacked Georgia in 2008. She even presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov with an actual red button supposedly labeled “reset” in Russian. Lavrov would later say the Russian word that appeared actually translated as “overcharge.”

The reset didn’t go much better after that. Early on, Russia agreed to allow the U.S. military to fly over its airspace en route to Afghanistan and both sides agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenal. But since then, Russia has claimed Crimea, contributed to the ongoing unrest in Ukraine and rattled parts of NATO which is fearful that Russian President Vladimir Putin seeks a geographical expansion through member states, like Poland. Most notably, on Sept. 30, 2015, Russia began launching strikes on behalf of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who the Obama administration once said had to go. With the help of Russian strikes, Assad resurrected his once moribund grip on power. In some cases, Russia has attacked U.S.-allied forces, including a strike last month in southern Syria.

In an October 2015 interview with PBS, Clinton refused to concede that she may have misread the Russians, telling the NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff: “No, I don’t think so at all.”

In Asia, the Obama administration sought to signal that the United States would no longer be focused on the Middle East but rather would turn its attention to Asia. Clinton’s first trip as Secretary of State was to Asia and reportedly a quarter of her foreign travels after that were dedicated to the region.

But like the Russian reset, while there were initial successes, the pivot eventually faltered. During his confirmation hearing in 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry was ambivalentabout the pivot toward Asia, saying: “I’m not convinced that increased military ramp-up [in the Asia-Pacific] is critical yet.”

Perhaps most notably, candidate Clinton has distanced herself from the work Secretary Clinton did on behalf of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement with the 12 Pacific Rim countries, including the U.S., that has since drawn the ire of critics who say it kills American jobs and doesn’t address currency manipulation. The agreement was a keystone in the pivot toward Asia; some see her new position as an example of flip-flopping on the agreement in a bid to win favor with organized labor.

“What I know about it, as of today, I am not in favor of what I have learned about it,” Clinton said during the same PBS interview.

With little specifics from the Trump campaign on how it would tackle the emergence of ISIS, an emboldened Russia and the rise of inspired terrorism, it will be hard for the Clinton campaign to deflect questions about her role in current world affairs. Clinton’s campaign did not respond to an email from The Daily Beast seeking additional comments about her tenure at the State Department.

So far, Trump has suggested a policy of appeasement toward Russia, a potentially reduced U.S. role for NATO and increased U.S. isolationism. But he has never explained how those changes would happen—or addressed the possible consequences of such changes.

“The most important difference between our plan and that of our opponents is that our plan will put America First. Americanism, not globalism, will be our credo. As long as we are led by politicians who will not put America First, then we can be assured that other nations will not treat America with respect. This will all change in 2017,” Trump said at the Republican National Convention, in perhaps his most specific offering for the way ahead.

CIA-Vetted ‘Moderate’ Syrian Rebels Who Received U.S. TOW Missiles Behead Palestinian Child

moderate-zinki-beheads-child.sized-770x415xt

PJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, JULY 20, 2016:

Should U.S. taxpayers take comfort in the fact that the CIA-supported “vetted moderate” rebels are only moderately beheading children?

That’s the question after shocking video emerged yesterday of fighters of Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zinki beheading a wounded Palestinian child near Aleppo.

What is most interesting is that Zinki had been promoted by the D.C. foreign policy “smart set” as an alternative to ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria.

The Daily Beast reports:

Members of an American-backed rebel group in Syria beheaded a young child in a grisly execution video.

The footage surfaced early Tuesday of members of Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki and a captured child in Handarat, near Aleppo. The young boy, who appears to be prepubescent, is then executed on the back of a pickup truck.

The gruesome videotaped murder of a child drew outrage on social media and the promise of an inquiry from the group’s leadership, which has previously received U.S.-made weapons and American funding. The group no longer gets such backing. But it’s also renewed questions about which rebels the American government has supported in Syria’s ongoing civil war […]

There are two clips from the unsavory events. One shows five militants surrounding the boy. In the second, one of them stands over him on the truck and cuts the boy’s head off with a dull knife, raising it over his head.

The wounded child can be seen with an IV in his right arm. The video, shown here with the beheading blurred out, is disturbing. [WARNING: GRAPHIC VIDEO]

Video of Zinki fighters using CIA-provided TOW ATGM missiles continued to be posted:

But as news of the beheading video began to spread yesterday, the “experts” who had openly supported Zinki as moderates were quick to backtrack, saying the CIA had stopped supporting the group, including:

But when State Department spokesman Mark Toner doesn’t seem as committal to permanently banning support to the group when asked about it yesterday:

In fact, Lister had been representing Zinki as US-vetted as recently as last month:

When someone noted that CIA support for Zinki had been withdrawn, Lister reported the situation was “blurry” and that US support, namely TOW missiles, had resumed:

This raises a serious question about the nature of the CIA’s vetting of these Syrian rebel groups. Here it is represented as a magical status that can be granted, removed, and then restored. But for most outside the D.C. foreign policy “smart set” vetting would seem to be a consideration of whether they were, in fact, actually moderate and worthy of U.S. support.

But it appears that U.S. “vetting” can involve determining that a group is “vetted” one moment, unvetted the next, and again deemed “vetted” all within the span of a few months. This process seems antithetical to “vetting.”

Read more

Islam at war with a delusional, suicidal West

Obama_CairoWND, by Matt Barber, July 16, 2016:

“Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”

– Barack Hussein Obama

Isn’t it about time we crusade for self-defense?

I’ll say it again. Political correctness is a barrier to truth and a pathway to tyranny.

It’s also deadly.

As I beheld across my social media feeds last night, the horrific, blood-bathed images of 84-plus slaughtered innocents on the streets of Nice, France (at the hands of yet another Muslim named Mohamed), I was reminded of a quote by the great Winston Churchill: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last.”

I was also reminded of a statement by Hillary Clinton: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

At best, this woman is an appeaser. Apart from Barack Obama, she has proven chief chumming chump to the crocs of the caliphate. This level of willful self-delusion requires suspension of disbelief stimulated by strong medicine indeed. That medicine is multiculturalism – the global “progressive” left’s pet project, save cultural Marxism, in a disastrously failed globalist public policy.

While Hillary is an appeaser, an apologist for Islam (or “dhimmi”), President Obama, I fear, is something far worse.

Tears welled in my eyes as I viewed the now viral image of a child sprawled lifeless on the streets of Nice, covered by a body blanket and flanked by her doll. As I stared at this image, a ghastly metaphor for modern multiculturalism, an ember of rage burst aflame within me. I reflected upon how Obama once described the Muslim call to prayer as, “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”

And I felt disgust for the man.

That call to prayer asserts, among other things:

Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme!
Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme!
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that there is no god but Allah
I witness that Muhammad is his prophet

Standing before the United Nations General Assembly in 2012, Obama uttered these chilling words: “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

Indeed. The dead of Nice have no future at all.

Will we?

We know where Barack Obama’s sympathies, if not his loyalties, lie. But what of his would-be successor, Hillary Clinton?

The answer requires little speculation. Ms. Clinton has indicated her intention to resettle at least one million Muslim refugees in the U.S during her first term alone.

She plans to house the hounds in the hen house.

And hounds many will be.

Consider, for instance, that according to a 2015 Center for Security Policy poll, 51 percent of American Muslims desire that Islamic Shariah law be made the law of the land. Moreover, nearly 30 percent say that violence is appropriate against Americans who “insult” Islam or its “prophet” Muhammad.

Both Islam and the Quran, among many other such atrocities, explicitly require worldwide caliphate (global domination and the violent imposition of Islamic Shariah law). It treats women as chattel, stones them to death if they are raped (or not properly attired) and, in even the most “civilized” Islamic nations such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, executes practitioners of homosexuality as a matter of law.

These facts are not open for serious debate and are available for all to read, hear, see and, tragically, experience. Islam, therefore, is inherently at odds with freedom, democracy and the United States Constitution. While devout followers of Muhammad readily admit this reality, the suicidal left yet remains hellbent, head in the sand, on “tolerating” itself, and the rest of us, to death.

Writing last year in Investor’s Business Daily, investigative journalist Paul Sperry noted that “60 percent of Muslim-Americans under 30 … told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.”

A treasonous heart leads to treasonous acts.

And that’s just the tip of the scimitar. Consider these terrifying numbers:

  • 83 percent of Palestinian Muslims, 62 percent of Jordanians and 61 percent of Egyptians approve of jihadist attacks on Americans. World Public Opinion Poll (2009).
  • 1.5 Million British Muslims support the Islamic State, about half their total population. ICM (Mirror) Poll 2015.
  • Two-thirds of Palestinians support the stabbing of Israeli civilians. Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (2015).
  • 45 percent of British Muslims agree that clerics preaching violence against the West represent “mainstream Islam.” BBC Radio (2015).
  • 38 percent of Muslim-Americans say Islamic State (ISIS) beliefs are Islamic or correct. The Polling Company CSP Poll (2015).
  • One-third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam. Center for Social Cohesion (Wikileaks cable).
  • 78 percent of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons. NOP Research.
  • 80 percent of young Dutch Muslims see nothing wrong with holy war against non-believers. Most verbalized support for pro-Islamic State fighters. Motivaction Survey (2014).
  • 68 percent of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam. NOP Research.
  • 81 percent of Muslim respondents support the Islamic State (ISIS). Al-Jazeera poll (2015).

Muhammad taught, and the Quran stresses, that a central tenet of Islam is to convert, enslave or kill the infidel. An infidel is anyone who is not Muslim or, depending on who’s doing the killing, belongs to a different sect of Islam. Those who fall into that elusive, perpetually mute category tagged “moderate Muslim” are also infidels or “idolaters.” They’re bad Muslims and, so, according to the Quran, not Muslims at all. “When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” commands Surah 9:5. “Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Faithful Muslims, true followers of Muhammad, “slay the idolaters wherever [they] find them.”

Brigitte Gabriel is a world-renown national security expert. Her concentration is on the – ahem – explosive rise in Islamic terrorism. She notes that there are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. Of them, intelligence agencies estimate that 15-25 percent are orthodox Muslims, meaning they actually follow the teachings of the Quran.

“That leaves 75 percent of [Muslims being] peaceful people,” observes Gabriel. “But when you look at 15-25 percent of the world’s Muslim population, you’re looking at 180 million to 300 million people dedicated to the destruction of Western civilization. That is as big as the United States,” she concludes.

Hillary Clinton’s delusional, PC-poisoned and bat-guano-crazy words here bear repeating: “Let’s be clear: Islam is not our adversary. Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Some are and some don’t.

Yet hundreds of millions do.

The best thing Donald Trump has going for him is that he’s not Hillary Clinton.

***

The military fired me for calling our enemies radical jihadis

Gen. Michael Flynn told Defense bosses the intel system was too politicized to defeat terror. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call

Gen. Michael Flynn told Defense bosses the intel system was too politicized to defeat terror. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call

New York Post, by Michael Flynn, July 9, 2016:

Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who is reportedly being vetted by Donald Trump as a potential running mate, was fired as head of the ­Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) in the winter of 2014 after three decades in the military. Here he tells the real story of his departure from his post and why America is not getting any closer to winning the war on terror.

Two years ago, I was called into a meeting with the undersecretary of defense for intelligence and the director of national intelligence, and after some “niceties,” I was told by the USDI that I was being let go from DIA. It was definitely an uncomfortable moment (I suspect more for them than me).

I asked the DNI (Gen. James Clapper) if my leadership of the agency was in question and he said it was not; had it been, he said, they would have relieved me on the spot.

81ko5s8gshlI knew then it had more to do with the stand I took on radical Islamism and the expansion of al Qaeda and its associated movements. I felt the intel system was way too politicized, especially in the Defense Department. After being fired, I left the meeting thinking, “Here we are in the middle of a war, I had a significant amount of combat experience (nearly five years) against this determined enemy on the battlefield and served at senior levels, and here it was, the bureaucracy was letting me go.” Amazing.

At the time, I was working very hard to change the culture of DIA from one overly focused on Washington, DC, to a culture that focused on our forward-based war fighters and commanders. It was not an easy shift, but it was necessary and exactly the reason I was put into the job in the first place.

In the end, I was pissed but knew that I had maintained my integrity and was determined in the few months I had left to continue the changes I was instituting and to keep beating the drum about the vicious enemy we were facing (still are).

I would not change a lick how I operate. Our country has too much at stake.

We’re in a global war, facing an enemy alliance that runs from Pyongyang, North Korea, to Havana, Cuba, and Caracas, Venezuela. Along the way, the alliance picks up radical Muslim countries and organizations such as Iran, al Qaeda, the Taliban and Islamic State.

That’s a formidable coalition, and nobody should be shocked to discover that we are losing the war.

If our leaders were interested in winning, they would have to design a strategy to destroy this global enemy. But they don’t see the global war. Instead, they timidly nibble around the edges of the battlefields from Africa to the Middle East, and act as if each fight, whether in Syria, Iraq, Nigeria, Libya or Afghanistan, can be peacefully resolved by diplomatic effort.

This approach is doomed. We have real enemies, dedicated to dominating and eventually destroying us, and they are not going to be talked out of their hatred. Iran, for example, declared war on the United States in 1979 — that’s 37 years ago — and has been killing Americans ever since. Every year, the State Department declares Iran to be the world’s primary supporter of terror. Do you think we’ll nicely and politely convince them to be good citizens and even (as President Obama desires) a responsible ally supporting peace? Do you think ISIS or the Taliban wants to embrace us?

No, we’re not going to talk our way out of this war, nor can we escape its horrors. Ask the people in San Bernardino or South Florida, or the relatives of the thousands killed on 9/11. We’re either going to win or lose. There is no other “solution.”

I believe we can and must win. This war must be waged both militarily and politically; we have to destroy the enemy armies and combat enemy doctrines. Both are doable. On military battlefields, we have defeated radical Islamic forces every time we have seriously gone after them, from Iraq to Afghanistan. Their current strength is not a reflection of their ability to overwhelm our armed forces, but rather the consequence of our mistaken and untimely withdrawal after demolishing them.

We have failed to challenge their jihadist doctrines, even though their true believers only number a small fraction of the Muslim world, and even though everybody, above all most living Muslims, knows that the Islamic world is an epic failure, desperately needing economic, cultural and educational reform of the sort that has led to the superiority of the West.

So first of all, we need to demolish the terror armies, above all in the Middle East and Libya. We have the wherewithal, but lack the will. That has to change. It’s hard to imagine it happening with our current leaders, but the next president will have to do it.

As we defeat them on the ground, we must clearly and forcefully attack their crazy doctrines. Defeat on battlefields does great damage to their claim to be acting as agents of divine will. After defeating al Qaeda in Iraq, we should have challenged the Islamic world and asked: “How did we win? Did Allah change sides?”

We need to denounce them as false prophets, as we insist on the superiority of our own political vision. This applies in equal measure to the radical secular elements of the enemy coalition. Is North Korea some sort of success story? Does anyone this side of a university seminar think the Cuban people prefer the Castros’ tyranny to real freedom? Is Vladimir Putin a model leader for the 21st-century world?

Just as the Muslim world has failed, so the secular tyrants have wrecked their own countries. They hate us in part because they know their own peoples would prefer to live as we do. They hope to destroy us before they have to face the consequences of their many failures.

Remember that Machiavelli insisted that tyranny is the most unstable form of government.

It infuriates me when our president bans criticism of our enemies, and I am certain that we cannot win this war unless we are free to call our enemies by their proper names: radical jihadis, failed tyrants, and so forth.

With good leadership, we should win. But we desperately need good leaders to reverse our enemies’ successes.

Flynn is the author of the new book “The Field of Fight” (St. Martin’s Press), out Tuesday.

Also see:

Missiles for Terrorists, But No Guns for Americans

screen-shot-2013-03-17-at-11.18.33-amObama is the biggest smuggler of guns to terrorists.

Obama, by Daniel Greenfield, June 27, 2016:

You won’t find many of the Democrats who pulled their phony publicity stunt over gun control backing the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act. It was after all their very own administration that chose to sendF-16 fighter jets, not to mention other serious firepower, to the Muslim Brotherhood regime that ruled in Egypt before being overthrown by military intervention and popular protests.

Not only was the Muslim Brotherhood regime linked to Hamas, which was designated as a foreign terrorist group by the State Department, but it had helped ISIS open up a front in the Sinai. Hamas is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Qaeda is currently run by a Brotherhood splinter group. Osama bin Laden had been a member of the Brotherhood. Zarqawi, the founder of the group that eventually became ISIS, was freed as a gesture to the Muslim Brotherhood. If the Muslim Brotherhood were any more involved in Islamic terrorism, it would have copyrighted the term.

But Secretary of State John Kerry had defended the weapons giveaway to the Brotherhood by claiming that, “Not everything lends itself to a simple classification, black or white.” Apparently aiding Islamic terrorists defies simple classification. Not everything is black and white. Sometimes it’s bright red.

While Democrats have harped on gun sales to potential terrorists, their own government was responsible for selling far more lethal weapons to far more dangerous Islamic terrorist groups.

Our weapons have gone to such diverse forces for democracy in Syria as the Islamist militias operating under the moniker of the Free Syrian Army whose leader defended Al Qaeda and the majority of whose commanders wanted to work with Al Qaeda, Jaysh al-Qasas, a former ally of ISIS and Ghuraba al-Sham, which had called for slaughtering Americans “like cattle” and whose former leader had ISIS ties.

The Free Syrian Army had included the Farouq Brigades, which forced non-Muslims to pay Jizya taxes and which became notorious when one of its commanders was filmed eating a heart. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Tawheed Brigade, which was part of the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front and the Islamic Front, had called for imposing Sharia in an Islamic State alongside Al Qaeda.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mujahadeen Army, which included such democratic secular brigades as the Glory of Islam Brigade, the Islamic Light Movement, the Rightly Guided Brigades, the Lions of Islam and the Swords of Islam, and the Islamist Nour al Din al Zinki got TOW missiles.

Despite the feverish enthusiasm of Democrats for running background checks on Americans buying guns, they had no interest in conducting background checks on the Islamic terrorist groups they were sending missiles to.

The biggest smuggler of weapons to terrorists isn’t hiding in a cave somewhere in Pakistan. He isn’t living in exile in a villa in Latin America. Instead he lives in comfortable luxury in the White House.

Obama had secretly authorized Timber Sycamore, the code name that stood for an alliance with the Saudis to smuggle assault rifles and missiles to Syrian Jihadists. He endorsed a Qatari weapons smuggling operation to Libyan Jihadists which the White House later admitted was aiding “Islamic militant groups” who were “more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam”. NATO forces around Libya were told to turn a blind eye to the weapons smuggling.

Guns and missiles flowed through Benghazi on orders from Obama. But the impetus had come from Hillary Clinton. The same Hillary Clinton who is so vocal about gun control in America fought to arm Jihadists in Libya. And Hillary also insisted that even more had to be done to arm Syrian Jihadists as well.

Obama, Hillary and other Democrats seem to think that Americans can’t be trusted with guns, but Islamists can. They’re as passionate about arming Islamic terrorists as they are about disarming Americans.

The Democrats blamed the Orlando Islamic terrorist attack by Omar Mateen on homophobia. Meanwhile the administration continues to aid Shiite militias that murder gay men.

Asaib Ahl al-Haq, also known as The League of the Righteous, is backed by Iran, and like its “moderate” backer in Tehran has become notorious for its massacres of gay men. Asaib Ahl al-Haq has beheaded gay men. The death total has been estimated to be higher than in the Pulse nightclub massacre.

Today Asaib Ahl al-Haq is a key player in the campaign against ISIS. Shiite militias are in charge in Iraq and American support for the Shiite effort, like its support for the Sunni effort in Syria, means support for Jihadist groups.

Obama freed the leaders of Asaib Ahl al-Haq, even though aside from its massacres of gay men, Asaib Ahl al-Haq has claimed credit for thousands of attacks on Americans. It had abducted and murdered American soldiers. And it continues to threaten Americans in Iraq today. Yet the United States has acted as its air force and its terrorists and killers allegedly carry our weapons.

Obama’s Iran nuke deal has funded a major arms shopping spree by the Islamic terror state. And yet the Democrats so dedicated to gun control were enthusiastically in favor of a plan which allows Iran to toy with nuclear technology whose destructive capability is so far above that of any gun that the latter might as well not even exist. They also have no problems with Iran’s weapons shopping spree.

Their philosophy continues to be that guns and missiles for terrorists are not a problem. Only Americans buying guns must be stopped even at the cost of our civil rights. And that is the problem in a nutshell.

Orlando was an Islamic terrorist attack. Democrats have put on a great show of caring about the abstract existence of firearms, but none about the threat of Islamic terrorists. Guns do not shoot themselves. Their lack of concern and interest in the motives of Islamic terrorists is the problem.

Obama has dispensed guns to Islamic terrorists without bothering with any background checks. Media accounts repeatedly spew nonsense about how Islamic Jihadists dedicated to establishing systems of Sharia law are really secular and democratic moderates. The same newspapers and news networks that are horrified at the idea of an American being able to purchase an AR-15 see no problems with Islamic terrorists getting their hands on everything from TOW missiles to F-16 jets.

Even Islamic terrorists who were allied with groups officially listed as terrorists still received weapons and support. That is unacceptable. And we may never know the full consequences of that treason.

If the Democrats really want gun control, then let them start by controlling the flood of guns and missiles going to terrorists. Not to mention drug cartels. If they really want gun control, then they can start by ending the sale of weapons to regimes tied to terrorism, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia. If they really want gun control, then they can prevent the recurrence of similar weapons smuggling schemes to Islamist groups by signing on to theMuslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act.

Defenseless in the Face of Our Enemies

Lynch with OWhat keeps America from protecting itself against radical Islam?

National Review, By Andrew C. McCarthy — June 25, 2016

The Failure to Define the Enemy and Victory Enhances the Threat

ISIS-Trucks1

Providence Magazine, by Kyle Shideler | June 24, 2016

The jihadist terror attack in Orlando that killed 49 people relaunched two major policy debates regarding the U.S. response to the challenge of Islamic State. The first was represented by President Obama’s claims of the successful prosecution of the war against an increasingly weakened Islamic State, a position seemingly contradicted by Director of National Intelligence John Brennan.

The second was the ongoing debate over the Obama Administration’s marked refusal to describe terror attacks using the Islamic terminology. This debate reached a fever pitch as the Department of Justice went so far as to censor a transcript of the Orlando shooter’s 911 call only to be forced to reverse themselves after widespread condemnation.

Interesting insight into both these policy questions can be gained through an examination of a recent statement by Islamic State Spokesman Abu Mohamed al-Adnani.

Adanai issued a public declaration in late May of this year entitled, “That They Live By Proof”, issuing a call for attacks against the West, a call evidently answered by Orlando shooter Omar Mateen.

Adnani used the declaration to examine claims that the western-backed coalition is defeating the Islamic State. After a discussion of early Western declarations of victory in battle against Islamic State’s predecessor Al Qaeda in Iraq only for the group to revive itself as the Islamic State, Adnani notes:

True defeat is the loss of willpower and desire to fight. America will be victorious and the mujahidin will be defeated in only one situation. We would be defeated and you victorious only if you were able to re-move the Quran from the Muslims’ hearts [emphasis added].

Adnani’s comments are not mere gusto, and they are not simply attempts to justify perceived failures, as was widely assumed at the time.

Adnani is revealing where the Islamic State’s “center of gravity” is. The Department of Defense’s Joint Publication 1-02 Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms defines center of gravity as “The source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act.”

U.S. Army Counterinsurgency doctrine notes that understanding the enemy’s center of gravity is a crucial step to achieving victory.

For Adnani, this center of gravity is a faith that necessitates fighting until Islamic law is implemented and nonbelievers and hypocrites (that is, Muslims who do not adhere to Islamic law) are defeated, and he includes multiple quranic citations for evidence of his position.

If the enemy expresses its center of gravity in faith terms, and military success relies on understanding the enemy’s center of gravity and appropriately targeting it, then the question of whether the U.S. is defeating Islamic State, and the question of whether the U.S. should utilize the doctrinal terms used by the enemy are not in fact two policy questions at all, but rather a singular question.

In the 2006/2007 edition of the U.S. Army War College strategy journal Parameters, Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Myers authored a book review of The Quranic Concept of War by Pakistani Brigadier General S.K Malik. Written in 1979, The Quranic Concept of War is a military strategy tract endorsed by Pakistan’s former President Zia al-Haq. Myer notes that Malik locates the center of gravity:

[I]n war as the “human heart, [man’s] soul, spirit, and Faith.” Note that Faith is capitalized, meaning more than simple moral courage or fortitude. Faith in this sense is in the domain of religious and spiritual faith; this is the center of gravity in war.

Malik’s views, from 1979, can be seen as essentially analogous to those expressed by Adnani. Malik sees the Quranic model of warfare in the preparation, execution and consolidation of terror in order to dislocate enemy faith, to achieve victory:

“The quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the enemies, known or hidden, while guarding ourselves from being terror-stricken by the enemy…in war, our main objective is the opponent’s heart or soul, or our main weapon of offence against this objective is the strength of our own souls, and to launch such an attack, we have to keep terror away from our own hearts [emphasis in the original].

This view appears consistent among jihadist organizations and is reflected in Abu Bakr Naji’s Management of Savagery, an Al Qaeda strategy manual from 2004 held in high esteem by Islamic State. Regarding waging jihad, Naji writes:

If we are not violent in our jihad and if softness seizes us, that will be a major factor in the loss of the element of strength… the Umma which is able to protect the positions it has won and it is the Umma which boldly faces horrors and has the firmness of mountains.

Naji proposed the careful and deliberate use of “savagery” in order to best undermine the enemy, which in turn strengthens the jihadist side.

Malik’s concept of war as being principally spiritual cum ideological warfare is reflected also in the writings of the Muslim Brotherhood jurist, Yusuf Al Qaradawi who notes, inIslamic Education and Hassan Al Banna:

They know well that the basic strength is the force of faith and belief, followed by the strength of unity and collectiveness and after both these, comes military strength [emphasis added].

Qaradawi himself noted that Islamic State Caliph AbuBakr Al Baghdadi was a former Muslim Brother, and so it comes as no surprise the two organizations share similar views in this regard.

Another Muslim Brotherhood thinker, Louay Safi, confirmed the centrality of faith as the principle focus of Islamic warfighting in his work, Peace and the Limits of War in 2001:

But when their organization and equipment are weak, and their morale falls short of the optimal situation, they are obligated to tackle no more than odds of two to one [emphasis added].

Interestingly, Safi served as a Department of Defense advisor where he argued against an understanding of the enemy in Islamic warfare terms.

Given the importance jihad theorists place on questions of faith and terror, one might hope U.S. national security officials would study these views carefully. But while Malik’s work on Quranic warfare has been discussed by a select group of counterterrorism thinkers since 2005, it has been largely ignored by decision-makers.

As a result, U.S. Special Envoy for the Islamic State campaign Brett McGurk took the opportunity to treat the Adnani declaration as a sign U.S. strategy was winning.

But if one was to examine the question from the Malik perspective however, there is no reasonable way to conclude that the U.S. and its western allies are winning.

Following the Islamic State-inspired San Bernardino shootings, a New York Times/CBS News Poll found that Americans were more fearful of terrorism than any time since 9/11. A Washington Post/ABC News Poll following the Paris attacks found similar results.

While terror is rising, faith is down. A 2012 Gallup poll noted that just 44% have “a lot of faith” in the church or “organized religion”, an all-time low. Faith is dropping in other American institutions as well. In November 2015 a survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute found an eleven percent increase in those who said America’s “best days are behind us”. A 2015 Gallup poll noted remarkable drops in American faith for every sizeable societal institution except the U.S. military.

While we are militarily capable of ousting Islamic State from territory, until we are prepared to understand the enemy’s center of gravity, the realm of faith, we will continue to have policy makers debate how to talk about the enemy and how to define victory, while the jihadist threat metastasizes.

Kyle Shideler is the Director of The Threat Information Office at the Center for Security Policy.

After Mideast, will the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus destabilize East Asia?

on JUNE 15, 2016 in

Southeast Asia’s youths are getting radicalized as Saudi Arabia is pouring money for the spread Wahhabism, a fundamental Sunni school of Islam, in the region. If the U.S. is serious about counter-terrorism, it should break the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus by dismantling the religious-industrial complex of Saudi-funded mosques and madrassas that serve as jihad factories producing suicide bombers from Africa to Europe and now Asia.      

Professor Brahma Chellaney from India’s Center for Policy Research has sound advice for the next American president regarding US militarized approach to fighting terrorism.

In a December 2015 article entitled “Saudi Arabia’s Phony War on Terror”, Chellaney pointed to the Wahhabi ideology, “a messianic, jihad-extolling form of Sunni fundamentalism” as the root cause of global terrorism.

He warned that unless expansion of Wahhabism is arrested, the global war on terror is ineffective. ‘No matter how many bombs the US and its allies drop, the Saudi-financed madrassas will continue to indoctrinate tomorrow’s jihadists.[1]

After two years of bombing campaign, Pentagon officials reveal US is now running out of bombs to drop on Islamic State (IS).[2] And the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus continues to indoctrinate new jihadists — now in East Asia.

Southeast Asia next jihadi battleground

 In May, Malaysia shocked the world when Prime Minister Najib Razak’s government threw its support behind hudud, the 7th century shaira law that includes amputations and stonings, threatening the hitherto democratic and multi-ethnic country.[3] Razak received a $681 million gift from Saudi Arabia in April.[4]

Calling it the “Saudization of Southeast Asia”, retired Malaysian diplomat Dennis Ignatius back in March 2015 had warned the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus “is the greatest single threat to peace and stability in the world today.”[5]

Ignatius noted how over the years, Riyadh built up a significant cadre of Wahhabi-trained academics, preachers and teachers across the region. They act as “lobby groups agitating for greater Islamization, demanding the imposition of Shaira law, pushing for stricter controls of other faiths, and working behind the scenes to influence official policy and shape pubic opinion.”

As a result, this “culture of intolerance, hate and violence” that permeates so much of the Middle East is now manifesting in Southeast Asia, with young Muslims from Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Philippines gravitating to Syrian jihad.  In the face of Saudi-sponsored proliferation of extremism, Ignatius predicts Southeast Asia would be the next jihadi battleground.

Indeed Jakarta has already suffered IS and Al Qaeda attacks, and various Wahhabi sect jihadi groups now plague Southeast Asia.[6]

Will US continue to shelter the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus?

 Ironically, the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus is enabled and shielded by the US security umbrella with Washington purporting to be a leader of global counter-terrorism efforts.

However, from the Asian perspective, Wahhabism is the root cause of terrorism in the West and now in Asia. With Washington’s support for the Saudi-Wahhabi nexus being partly accountable for this scourge, it has severely downgraded the legitimacy of US as a leader in counter-terrorism.[7]

Read more

Obama: Anti-Anti-Terrorist

Obama

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, June 18, 2016:

Barack Obama has spent his presidency cultivating Islamists, particularly from the international Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates in the United States. As we saw this week, he chafes at the term “radical Islam” — as do his Islamist advisers. At their insistence, he had instructional materials for training government agents purged of references to Islamic terms that illuminate the nexus between Muslim doctrine and jihadist terror.

Obama’s vaunted national-security strategy, “Countering Violent Extremism,” is Orwellian. The term CVE supplants identification of our jihadist enemies with the wooly notion that “violence” can be caused by any form of “extremism” — it has nothing to do with Islam. By transferring security responsibilities from government intelligence agents to Muslim “community leaders” (often, Islamist groups), CVE actually encourages violent extremism.

These steps have been reckless. They have made our nation more vulnerable to the kind of jihadist atrocities we saw last weekend in Orlando. So obvious is this that many Obama critics have gone from thinking the unthinkable to saying it aloud: The president of the United States seems to be intentionally betraying our national security; even if not squarely on the side of the terrorists, Obama is such an apologist for their Islamist grievances that he might as well be.

I don’t buy this. Oh, I believe Obama is betraying our national security, but I do not think he is doing so intentionally. Instead, he has the good intentions, such as they are, of a left-wing globalist. The president sees security as a matter of international stability, not of a single nation’s safety — not even of that single nation that has entrusted him with its security.

To grasp Obama’s conception of security, we must revisit a progressive fantasy oft-lamented in these columns, “moderate Islamists.” This is where the Muslim Brotherhood comes in.

Here in the West, “moderate Islamist” is a contradiction in terms. An Islamist is a Muslim who wants to impose sharia (Islam’s repressive law) on a society. In the United States, that would mean replacing our Constitution with a totalitarian, discriminatory system. That is an extremely radical goal, even if the Islamist forswears violence and promises to proceed in Fabian fashion. Therefore, from the perspective of our free society, Islamists are the very antithesis of moderates.

For a post-American transnational progressive like Obama, however, the context that matters is not our society. It is the world. He is the first president to see himself more as a citizen of the world who plays a critical role in American affairs than as an American who plays a critical role in international affairs.

Viewed globally, the Brotherhood seems — in fact, it is — more moderate than ISIS, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other infamous terrorist groups. I say “other” terrorist groups because the Brotherhood surely is one, which is why it should be formally designated as such under U.S. law.

As I outlined in The Grand Jihad, the Brotherhood promotes terrorism. Its doctrine prominently includes jihad, and it has a long history of violence that runs to this very day. Indeed, Hamas — a terrorist organization that the Brotherhood masquerades as a “political” “resistance” movement — is the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.

Nevertheless, four things separate this very sophisticated organization from other jihadists:

(1) The Brotherhood pretends to reject violent jihad, especially when dealing with Western audiences.

(2) The Brotherhood opportunistically limits its overt support for jihad to situations that the international Left feels comfortable excusing (e.g., violence against “occupation” by Israel, or by American troops fighting Bush’s “unnecessary war of aggression” in Iraq).

(3) The Brotherhood purports to condemn terrorist acts that it believes, judging from a cost-benefit analysis, are likelier to harm than to advance the sharia agenda (particularly the Brotherhood’s lucrative fundraising apparatus in the West). A good example is the 9/11 atrocities (but note that even there, the Brotherhood, like the rest of the Left, always adds that American foreign policy is jointly culpable).

(4) The Brotherhood aggressively pursues a menu of nonviolent advocacy and sharia proselytism, known in Islamist ideology as dawah. As Brotherhood honcho and major Hamas backer Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi puts it, “We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America, not through the sword but through dawah.”

For present purposes, the most salient of these Brotherhood strategies is the fourth. The menu includes international diplomacy, participation in various countries’ political processes, exploitation of civil-rights laws in various countries’ court systems, strong presence on college campuses (administration, faculty, and student societies), vigorous fundraising under the guise of charity, and aggressive influence peddling in the media and popular culture.

Significantly, it is this menu of nonviolent pressure points, not violent jihad, that is the Brotherhood’s public face in the West. That is what enables the organization to pose as a comparatively moderate political and ideological movement, not a jihadist organization. That is what allows Brotherhood operatives to pass themselves off as “civil-rights activists” and social-justice warriors, not sharia radicals.

This meticulously cultivated moderate pose is the Potemkin foundation on which Obama and other transnational progressives, including a fair number of leading Beltway Republicans, cooperate with the Brotherhood throughout the world.

Obama is anxious to work with the Brotherhood on the Left’s theory that dialogue and cooperation always promote international stability — rather than convey that America’s principles are negotiable. Obama embraces the Brotherhood for the same reason that he negotiates with our enemies in Iran: the illusion that any talk is good talk; that any deal is a boon, regardless of how one-sided. The American wants peace through strength; the post-American globalist prefers peace “processes” and their inevitable peace “prizes.”

As a practical matter, Obama cannot negotiate with ISIS or al-Qaeda. He would if he could, but they won’t. They are interested only in conquest, not compromise. By comparison, the Brotherhood does seem moderate — but only by comparison with these barbaric, full-throttle terror networks. Unlike ISIS, the Brotherhood is amenable to suspending the jihad while taking the concessions it can get through diplomacy and political processes — then going right back to jihad promotion when these alternatives have been exhausted.

The Brotherhood is well regarded by many Sunni Islamist regimes with which our government hopes to cooperate in containing the regional aggression of Shiite Iran (aggression materially supported by Obama’s obsessions with deals and dialogue). There has even been a recent thaw between the Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia: Relations turned icy when the Saudis backed the ouster of Egypt’s Brotherhood-led government; but with Obama canoodling with Tehran, Riyadh has grown desperate for any allies it can find.

On the world stage, the stage they care about, transnational progressives portray the Brotherhood as “moderate Islamists,” partnership with whom is vital if we are to achieve the panacea of global stability.

The con job actually gets worse than that. The Brotherhood has figured out that “democracy” in Muslim-majority countries is the quickest route to imposing sharia. So it has taken on the mantle of “democracy” champions. By backing the Brotherhood, Beltway progressives purport to promote a “democratic transformation” of the Muslim Middle East. The fact that it would be a transformation to an anti-democratic, discriminatory, liberty-crushing system is, for progressives, as irrelevant as the fact that Obama’s empowering of the monstrous Tehran regime destroys the democratic aspirations of pro-Western Iranians. The progressive conception of stability — cooperation with rogues — is no friend of freedom.

The Brotherhood has devoted three generations to building an infrastructure in the United States — an impressive network of affiliated Islamist organizations. To partner with the Brotherhood internationally therefore requires embracing the Brotherhood domestically. But how can Obama and other transnational progressives pull that off? After all, as we’ve seen, the Brothers may seem like “moderate Islamists” when they’re in the same neighborhood as ISIS; but here on our own soil, an Islamist is plainly a radical.

Obama pulls it off by distorting law and history to sanitize the Brotherhood’s American Islamists.

Here, we must consider the progressive version of the Cold War. The Left clings to the conviction that the “mere” advocacy of radical ideology is constitutionally protected, even if what’s being advocated is the overthrow of our constitutional system itself. Symmetrically, the Left also holds that (a) anti-Communism was more dangerous than Communism, and (b) the “living” Constitution can be “evolved” whenever necessary to protect aggressive “dissent” by the Left’s constituencies.

Put it all together and you have Obama’s two core conceits:

First, the Constitution immunizes the Brotherhood’s ideology from government scrutiny. Our agencies must deem anti-American sharia-supremacist advocacy as “constitutionally protected activity,” no matter how virulently anti-American it is; no matter that it supports Hamas (material support for which is actually a felony under American law); and no matter how many Islamists make the seamless transition from Brotherhood indoctrination to membership in other, more notorious terrorist organizations.

Second, anti-terrorism is more of a danger to “our values” (i.e., Obama’s values) than is the regrettable but unavoidable fact that squelching anti-terrorism will result in the occasional terrorist attack — which Obama regards as more of a nuisance fit for law-enforcement procedures than a national-security challenge.

There you have it: Obama is not really pro-jihadist; he is anti-anti-terrorist. As long as they don’t appear to be blowing up buildings, sharia supremacists are not only shielded from scrutiny; our president welcomes the Brotherhood into our national-security apparatus in order to reverse what progressives see as the dangerous excesses of real counterterrorism.

That is how you end up with such lunacy as “Countering Violent Extremism.” That is how the jihad shakes off its post-9/11 shackles on the road to Orlando. So don’t say “radical Islam,” much less obsess over the carnage at the Pulse nightclub. After all, look how stable Obama’s globe has become.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

CIA Director no longer spreading Obama’s narrative

bho-jb

The Gorka Briefing, by Dr. Sebastian Gorka, June 16, 2016:

The President and his coterie at the top level live in a bubble. They manufactured a narrative that says there is no such thing as jihadism, that terrorism is a product of poverty and lack of education. They’ve locked themselves into that narrative.

But it’s stunning — John Brennan, the CIA Director, used to carry the water for the President. He used to perpetuate this narrative, but something has changed. At yesterday’s Capitol Hill hearing, he said not only that ISIS is still globally capable, but later on in his testimony he said that in his 30-plus career he has never seen the world as unstable. So what does that mean about the last seven and a half years about President Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy?

I have never seen a time when our country faced such a wide variety of threats to our national security. Run your fingers along almost any portion of the map from the Asia Pacific to North Africa and you will quickly find a flashpoint with global implications. China is modernizing its military and extending its reach in the South China Sea. North Korea is expanding its nuclear weapons program. Russia is threatening its neighbors and aggressively reasserting itself on the global stage. And then there is the cyber domain, where states and sub-national actors are threatening financial systems, transportation networks, and organizations of every stripe, inside government and out. —CIA Director John Brennan

On Hannity on Fox, Sean asked me how can vet Muslims who come from a Sharia-based culture and think it’s normal to treat women as second class citizens or kill gay people. I told him we’ve got Muslims in our Armed Forces. We have patriots —  Muslim Americans on the front lines in the FBI and the Intelligence Community. But unfortunately we also have Muslims like Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber. He is a man who came here, became a naturalized US citizen, and worked himself into the middle class level of American society. And what does he do? He drives an SUV full of IED materials into Times Square. The question is: What is their value system? Do they agree with the founding principles of the American Republic and the US Constitution over Sharia Law?

The only way to know is not by what they say but by their behavior, what they do. If they reject those American values, if they grew up in a society that said ‘women are worth less than 50% of a man’, do they believe that today? Because if they do, that’s a problem.

Since the Orlando attack, 441 Syrian refugees have come to the United States. It’s Russian roulette for the American people if we consistently allow the government to shut down those systems that keep us alive and safe. The NYPD knows how to do this. This is what I said in my book, Defeating Jihad — it’s Human Intelligence (HUMINT), it’s undercover work and surveillance. You’ve got to find out what that person really believes and you’re not going to do that unless you have people inside that society.

Sean Hannity asked me what is the best way to defeat ISIS with the least amount of US casualties? I gave him three answers:

  1. Get politics out of the threat assessment. No more censorship. None of this ‘gobbledygook’ narrative that it’s not about jihad and it’s not about religion. Jettison that.
  2. You’ve got to empower the Muslims that are at risk in the region. They are the front line in the war — the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Sunnis in Iraq that reject ISIS. They must be the face of this war. But that’s never going to happen unless America provides the spine, the backbone, the trainers, the ISR, and the intelligence. We have to rebuild all the trust with those nations that Obama has destroyed in the last seven and a half years.
  3. The long term victory comes the same way as it came in the Cold War. We have to delegitimize the jihadi narrative and their ideology. We have to have a giant propaganda campaign with our Muslim allies to destroy the “brand” of jihad because jihad is just way too sexy from Brussels to San Bernardino to Orlando to Paris. We’ve got to destroy it because we are in a war of survival.

***

Many more interviews at The Gorka Briefing

America has suffered a terror attack every year under Obama

Photo: AP

Photo: AP

New York Post, by Paul Sperry, June 16, 016:

America has now averaged one serious Islamic terrorist attack a year on President Obama’s watch, yet he still insists the threat from radical Islam is overblown and that he’s successfully protecting the nation.

If only hubris could be weaponized!

In the wake of Omar Mateen’s Orlando massacre, Obama whined about growing criticism of his terror-fighting strategy. But boy, does he deserve it. His record on terrorism is terrible, and Hillary Clinton should have a tough time defending it.

Here we are in the eighth year of his presidency, and the nation has now suffered eight significant attacks by Islamist terrorists on US soil or diplomatic property — an average of one attack a year since Obama’s been in office, with each new attack seemingly worse than the last.

And there’s six long months left to go.

Obama said Orlando “marks the most deadly shooting in American history.” Actually, it was the second-worst act of Islamic terrorism in American history, replacing in six short months the San Bernardino massacre as the deadliest terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11.

Here are the previous seven:

December 2015: Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a married Pakistani couple, stormed a San Bernardino County government building with combat gear and rifles and opened fire on about 80 employees enjoying an office Christmas party. They killed 14 after pledging loyalty to ISIS. A third Muslim was charged with helping buy weapons.

July 2015:
Mohammad Abdulazeez opened fire on a military recruiting center and US Navy Reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn., where he shot to death four Marines and a sailor. Obama refused to call it terrorism.

May 2015: ISIS-directed Muslims Nadir Soofi and Elton Simpson opened fire on the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas, shooting a security guard before police took them down.

April 2013:
Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Muslim brothers from Chechnya, exploded a pair of pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding more than 260. At least 17 people lost limbs from the shrapnel.

September 2012: Terrorists with al Qaeda in the Maghreb attacked the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the US ambassador, a US Foreign Service officer and two CIA contractors. Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton misled the American people, blaming the attack on an anti-Muslim video.

November 2009: Army Maj. Nidal Hasan opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13. Obama ruled it “workplace violence,” even though Hasan was in contact with an al Qaeda leader before the strikes and praised Allah as he mowed down troops.

June 2009:
Al Qaeda-trained Abdulhakim Muhammad opened fire on an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Ark., killing Pvt. William Long and wounding Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula.

So there you have it — an average of one serious terror strike against the United States every year on Obama’s watch. And we’re not even counting the underwear bomber, Times Square bomber, Fed Ex bombs and other near-misses.

History will not be kind to this president’s record.

When he came into office, Obama vowed to defeat terrorism using “all elements of our power”: “My single most important responsibility as president is to keep the American people safe. It’s the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning. It’s the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night.”

But it soon became clear he wasn’t serious.

In June 2009, Obama traveled to Cairo to apologize to Muslims the world over for America’s war on terror. Then he canceled the war and released as many terrorists as he could from Gitmo, while ordering the FBI and Homeland Security to delete “jihad” and other Islamic references from their counterterrorism manuals and fire all trainers who linked terrorism to Islam, blinding investigators to the threat from homegrown jihadists like Mateen.

Obama also stopped a major investigation of terror-supporting Muslim Brotherhood front groups and radical mosques, while opening the floodgates to Muslim immigrants, importing more than 400,000 of them, many from terrorist hot spots Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

Attack after attack, the president has ridiculously maintained that global warming is a bigger threat than global terrorism. Americans are fed up. Even before San Bernardino and Orlando, polls showed Obama was widely viewed as soft on Islamist terrorists. He has an absolutely awful record keeping us safe from terrorism.

And this is the security mantle Hillary is so proud to inherit? Good luck with that.

Paul Sperry is author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington” and “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”