VIDEO: New Hampshire National Security Action Summit

2159545341

Center for Security Policy, July 30, 2015:

NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION SUMMIT IN NEW HAMPSHIRE FEATURED KEY LEADERS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES   –   NSAS-NH-Agenda-25July                         

Manchester, NH: On Saturday, July 25th, the Center for Security Policy, in partnership withFirst Principles and High Frontier, hosted The New Hampshire National Security Action Summit. A number of America’s most influential national security leaders addressed the current state of U.S. foreign and defense policies in an increasingly dangerous world. Its purpose was to ensure that the common defense receives the priority attention it requires from elected officials and their constituents, at both the federal and state levels.

Specifically, the event covered four key topics of interest to both our nation and the state of New Hampshire:

  • The threat from Iran, shariah and the Global Jihad Movement
  • The hollowing-out of the U.S. military
  • The border insecurity and immigration crises
  • America’s electrical power grid and threats to critical infrastructure

 

    • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy
    • The Honorable “Steve” King, Congressman from the 4th District of Iowa

America’s Electric Power Grid and Threats to Critical Infrastructure

      • Peter Vincent Pry, Executive Director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security
    • Ambassador Henry (Hank) F. Cooper, Chairman of High Frontier
    • George Baker, Professor Emeritus, James Madison University
    • Thomas S. Popik, Chairman, the Foundation for Resilient Societies, New Hampshire
    • Hon. Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas*
    • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

Border and Immigration Insecurity

    • Phyllis Schlafly, Founder of Eagle Forum
    • Rosemary Jenks, Director of Government Relations, Numbers USA
    • James Simpson, Economist, Author
    • Karen Testerman, President, First Principles
  • Rick Santorum, former Senator for Pennsylvania, 2016 Presidential Candidate
  • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

America’s Military in Decline

    • Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Retired)
    • Peter Huessy, President of GeoStrategic Analysis
    • Dan Goure, Vice President, Lexington Institute
    • Lieutenant Colonel Patrick Testerman, U.S. Air Force (Retired)
    • Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana, 2016 Presidential Candidate

Shariah, the Global Jihad Movement, and the Islamic Republic of Iran

    • John Guandolo, Founder of Understanding The Threat
    • Ted Cruz, Senator for Texas, 2016 Presidential Candidate
    • Ambassador John R. Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
    • Julianne Cooper, Founder, Liberty Harbor Academy, New Hampshire
    • George Pataki, former Governor of New York, 2016 Presidential Candidate
    • Frank Gaffney, President, Center for Security Policy

he New Hampshire National Security Action Summit is designed to ensure that our national security receives the attention it requires from elected officials and their constituents alike – both at the federal level and the state level.

Previous National Security Action Summits have been hosted in South Carolina and Iowa, drawing hundreds of attendees, significant media coverage and a considerable online audience for the live-streamed events. Footage from those summits can be found at the following links:

NSAS South Carolina: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/south-carolina-national-security-action-summit/

NSAS Iowa: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2015/05/18/the-iowa-national-security-action-summit/

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, said:

Americans are increasingly aware that the world is becoming an ever-more-dangerous place.  They expect their leaders to protect them and our vital interests around the world.  The National Security Action Summit is a place where the best minds convene to lay out the best ideas for doing that. At the state-level, these summits are an invaluable method of connecting a concerned citizenry to the forefront of policymaking, at both the state and federal levels.  This program could not be more timely, more content-rich or more important.

LISTEN: A leading national security advisor and Islamic law expert explains how and why America is losing to jihadists

Major Stephen Coughlin

Major Stephen Coughlin

The Blaze, by Benjamin Weingarten, April 13, 2015:

Major Stephen Coughlin (Ret.), a decorated intelligence officer known as the Pentagon’s leading expert on Islamic law has authored a forthcoming book, “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of the Jihad,” that serves as a damning indictment of America’s national security establishment in the face of the global jihad, and provides a chilling message to the American people.

We had the opportunity to discuss Coughlin’s new book in a wide-ranging interview that you can find below.

 

During our discussion, Coughlin goes into great depth on the thesis of his book, providing keen insights into the nature and doctrinal basis of the threat posed by Islamic supremacists, America’s conscious purging of the very lexicon necessary to describe the nature of the threat on its own terms, and as a result of postmodernism, political correctness and the pervasiveness of what Coughlin describes as culturally Marxist narratives — along with the gentle prodding of Muslim Brotherhood influences on our media and other core institutions — the ignorance, incoherence and willful blindness of America’s “stupid” national security establishment.

The end result that Coughlin sees is a completely compromised security situation in which America is able to win in military engagements, while completely losing — to the degree to which it is even fighting — on the ideological warfare battleground where the Muslim Brotherhood and its Western proxies devote a significant amount of their efforts.

This civilizational jihad effort, and Western ignorance of principles like jihad, abrogation and dawah, which Coughlin describes during our interview, evidences itself in everything from what Coughlin sees as the disastrous policy of Countering Violent Extremism (CVE), to the Fort Hood shooting, to Iranian nuclear negotiations, which we examine through the lens of the 7th century Treaty of Hudaybiyyah.

Below are several of the more critical portions of our interview, but for those concerned about the state of national security as it relates to the global jihad, we urge you to listen to the conversation in full.

The Three Words the National Security Establishment Won’t Use Essential to Understanding the Enemy

 

How the Muslim Brotherhood is Working Its Way Towards Civilizational Jihad in America

 

How CVE Supports the Postmodernist Narrative, and Deems Veterans Returning from War a Threat

 

The Derelection of Duty of America’s National Security Establishment

 

How Ignorance of Islam Deceives Our National Security Leaders to Our Detriment

 

What a 7th Century Treaty Tells Us About the Iran Nuclear “Deal”

 

How Left Wing Narratives Have Created a “Stupid” National Security Establishment and Aided the Jihad

Defeat Jihad Summit panel debates the use of ‘qualifiers’ when referring to Islam

moderate_radical-islam

CJR: The perennial debate over use of qualifiers such as radical, extremist or even fundamentalist to describe Islam is brought up by the intrepid Diana West at the Center for Security Policy’s Defeat Jihad Summit. Diana West believes that we are in fact abiding by Islamic blasphemy laws when we say “radical” Islam rather then just Islam.

Stephen Coughlin comes at this from a military intelligence perspective which seeks to define just what the Islamic threat doctrine is so that we can “orient on the enemy”.  He explains that he chooses to refer to The Reliance of the Traveller shariah manual because it represents the sanctioned views of A Azhar, the OIC and the American Muslim Brotherhood. Therefore it represents the prevailing view of Sunni Islam and can be said to be Islam…not radical Islam. Coughlin then says something very interesting that needs to be highlighted. He refers to the tactic of using qualifiers in order to “bring people along”. In other words, some counter jihadists, especially those who are working in the political arena, choose to use qualifiers in order to soften the message for politically correct ears, including moderate Muslims.

Following Coughlin, David Yerushalmi speaks to the legal issues of trying to reform shariah law with an explanation of Fiqh and what it would take to overturn articles of Islamic jurisprudence developed over thousands of years as Islamic reformers such as Zuhdi Jasser and Egyptian President Al Sissi are advocating.

Debra Burlingame then speaks to the quandry of Moderate Muslims who have no safe place to express their views. Andrew McCarthy and Fred Fleitz believe it is important to reach out to Moderate Muslims and enlist their help.

I think a general consensus was reached that it is not necessary to address what the true Islam is if you can identify as the enemy those Muslims who subscribe to the Islamic Threat Doctrine of Shariah. John Guandolo gets down to law enforcement brass tacks and asserts that we need to start prosecuting those in high positions who are aiding and abetting terrorists. While John Guandolo did not agree that moderate Muslim outreach is producing results, he asserted that counter jihadists do not have to agree on everything in order to work together. I heartily agree.

Watch the debate which goes from 5:03 to about 5:38 in the video.  I’ve set the video to begin with Diana West  but if for some reason that changes just move the progress bar with your cursor:

 

***

Here are some clips of the Summit now available at securefreedom:

Michael Mukasey at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Gen. Jerry Boykin at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Gov. Bobby JIndal at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Rep. Scott Perry at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Rep. Mike Pompeo at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Rep. Steve King at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Andrew McCarthy at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Pete Hoekstra at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Newt Gingrich at Defeat Jihad Summit

 

Nonie Darwish

 

 

‘Defeat Jihad Summit’ Challenges Islamic Supremacism – And The Obama ‘Strategy’and A.U.M.F. That Disregard It

33480681301Center for Security Policy, Feb. 11, 2015:

(Washington, D.C.): Today, an extraordinary gathering of freedom-fighters in what might best be described as the War for the Free World convened in Washington, D.C. Their purpose was to anticipate and rebut the thesis of President Obama’s “Countering Violent Extremism Summit” next week – namely, that the United States faces hostile forces whose identity, motivations and capabilities are defined by an opaque euphemism: violent extremism.

The “Defeat Jihad Summit” was sponsored by the Center for Security Policy and brought together present and former, domestic and foreign political leaders, senior military officers, national security professionals and other experts on Islamic supremacism and its guiding doctrine, shariah. Among the noteworthy participants in this roundtable discussion were:

  • Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal
  • former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey
  • former House Speaker Newt Gingrich
  • S. Senator Ted Cruz
  • Representative Steven King
  • Representative Mike Pompeo
  • Representative Scott Perry
  • Admiral James “Ace” Lyons (U.S. Navy, Ret.)
  • Lieutenant General William “Jerry” Boykin (U.S. Army, Ret.)
  • Leading 9/11 family member Deborah Burlingame
  • Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders
  • Danish free speech advocate Lars Hedegaard
  • Britain’s Lord Malcolm Pearson
  • Israeli Amb. Yoram Ettinger
  • former Muslim Nonie Darwish
  • Muslim reformer Dr. Zuhdi Jasser
  • Australian pastor Mark Durie

Highlights of the Summit included:

  • A discussion of the nature of our jihadist enemies and the mainstream – not extremist –character of their inspiration: the politico-military-legal shariah doctrine derived from the sacred texts, institutions and authorities of Islam. There was widespread agreement that we mustunderstand and be able to name our foes, not pretend that they and their motivations are unknowable.
  • The global jihad takes various forms including: the violent kind; civilization (or cultural, stealthy and subversive) jihad; institutional jihad (employing entities like the multinational Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the United Nations under the OIC’s influence); individual jihad (its perpetrators are mistakenly being described as “lone wolves”); and material support (which, under shariah, is prized as highly as the service of those who take up the sword).
  • America urgently needs a strategy for countering all such jihadist endeavors – one that brings to bear all instruments of national power to achieve a decisive correlation of forces and our victory. We face a truly existential threat from the global jihad movement, as do other nations of the Free World now under assault for sharing our values and love of liberty.
  • The  unveiled last Friday by President Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, and the draft Authorization for the Use of Military Force being proposed by the administration are wholly inadequate. The former compounds the inadequacies of the President’s “lead-from-behind” approach with an even more passive one: “strategic patience”; the latter appears calculated to fail and to embolden, rather than defeat, the Islamic State or any other foe.

The Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., moderated the nearly six-hour summit. Afterwards, he commented:

The participants in the Defeat Jihad Summit have rendered a real public service. Their insights, analyses and recommendations concerning the threat from shariah-adherent Muslims and the need to empower and join forces with others in the Muslim community who eschew that brutally repressive ideology create the basis for a far more sound, effective and durable national security strategy.

We at the Center for Security Policy look forward to working with them and all those benefitting from the livestreaming and other products that will disseminate the fruits of this summit, far and wide.

To view videos of the summit’s presentations, go to www.SecureFreedom.org. For more information about the Summit, contact Samantha Nevore at sam@anelisgroup.com or 703.504.8856.

The event was live streamed from 9:00am to 3:00pm. The event in its entirety is embedded below. Video highlights to follow shortly:

Sharia Adherent Muslims Are Not “Extremists”

cropped-cf404835c7c93f19d7efce5545012ae5_2e08UTT, by John Guandolo, Feb. 9, 2015:

The U.S. government continues to label the Islamic terrorists we face as “violent extremists” who commit acts of “workplace violence.”  Here at UTT we prefer to live in reality because it is the only place our enemies can be defeated.

The phrase “violent extremism” is a non-sensical term which means nothing, and was brought to the U.S. via the FBI and DHS who were convinced by our British counterparts it identifies those who are willing to support their beliefs with violence.  In this light, U.S. military forces and any American willing to defend a just cause can be classified as a “violent extremist.”

Unfortunately, those participating in the global Islamic jihad do not call themselves “extremists.” They call themselves “Jihadis” seeking to impose jihad on the world until the entire world is under Sharia (Islamic Law).  American war fighting doctrine states we begin our analysis of any enemy by how that enemy describes itself.

This enemy specifically states they seek to impose Sharia and it is the blueprint for everything it does.  Jihad is total warfare.  It is Civilization Jihad per the Muslim Brotherhood’s own strategic plan for North America, and the MB’s global strategy.  Jihad is warfare that comes at a society in a hundred different ways:  political, economic, psychological, spiritual, cultural, societal, and includes violence in the community and on the battlefield.

Sharia is the filter through which this enemy communicates and understands the world.  This is why it is crucial that we also use Sharia when we hear our adversaries speak so we can properly understand what the enemy intends.  “Terrorism” is killing a Muslim without right.  “Human Rights” is the imposition of Sharia (per the Cairo Declaration, a formal document served to the UN by the entire Muslim world via the OIC in 1993).  Extremism is when a Muslim exceeds his ability or authority.

Nowhere in the Muslim world do Islamic jihadi organizations call themselves “extremists” – they call themselves “Jihadis.”

At the Muslim Peace Conference in Oslo, Norway in 2013, we see the Muslim Community openly agreeing that the punishments of the Sharia are broadly supported.  Fahad Qureshi, the founder of IslamNet, asked the crowd a series of questions.  The answers from the entire Muslim audience put this issue right in our face.  They specifically state they are in full support of the Sharia, its punishment, and its importance to the Muslim community.

 

It is arrogant and condescending to believe Muslims do not believe the very thing they say they subscribe to – the very things Islam teaches.

They are not “extremists” – they are jihadis.

***

Also see:

Why the West is Losing to Islamic Supremacists

Muslim one world blinded coveredThe Blaze, by Benjamin Weingarten, Feb. 6, 2015:

During a recent lecture on the nature of and threat posed by Iran, with whom President Barack Obama’s Chamberlainian negotiations continue apace, an existential question arose: Why does the West remain asleep regarding Islamic Supremacism and the doctrine on which it is based?

I posit that there are three main reasons, which also go a long way towards explaining why we are currently losing to the global jihad: (i) Progressive multiculturalism, moral relativism and materialism; (ii) Profound willful ignorance; and (iii) An inability to cope with the staggering implications of the threat we face.

Since the days of George W. Bush, we have heard the oft-repeated trope that Islam is a religion of peace, and moreover one of the world’s great religions, with the same ethics, values and principles as Judaism and Christianity.

Originally, the Western elite argued that those who killed in the name of Islam were merely misinterpreting and perverting the religion. These, one should note, were the relatively more clear-eyed ones. Others attributed genocidal jihadism to poverty, lack of education or global warming.

Now we have completely severed the jihadist head from the Islamic body (theo)politic, arguing that the barbarians who comprise Islamic State, or as the Obama administration obediently likes to say, Daesh, in spite of the first “I” standing for “Islamic,” are nihilists.

For a people steeped in progressivism for decades, this can be the only reasonable conclusion.

Islamic supremacism does not comport with the belief system of our elites, who assert that all peoples are the same, all religions consist of the same values and beliefs, and that material concerns trump all others, including spiritual or idealist ones.

For those who honestly believe such things — as opposed to the ones who spout platitudes out of political expediency and to gloss over threats they dishonestly claim to have already defeated – throwing up one’s arms and claiming that jihadism stems from an ideology of nothingness is the most coherent of an entirely incoherent set of answers. Even better is to declare that violent extremism is the enemy, so as to smear conservatives while they’re at it.

This pervasive misunderstanding of Islam reflects a profound ignorance, in that it neglects the fact that the Koran and hadith comprise a unique belief system fundamentally different from, and in fact antithetical to the historically Judeo-Christian West.

For those interested, there is a mass of literature from authors such as Dr. Andrew BostomAndrew McCarthy, Robert Spencer, Ibn Warraq and Bat Ye’or who lay this out in concrete and copiously sourced terms.

Better yet, look to the texts and words of leading Islamic scholars such as Hassan Al Banna and Sayyid Qutb, prominent modern-day figures like Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, Ayatollah Khameini,Hassan Nasrallah, and the content being taught at mosques right here in America.

If you would like to ignore the compendium of Islamic doctrine that calls for and compels Muslims to bring about a totalitarian world under which all submit to Allah’s rule, all one has to do is look at states whose governments are based in Shariah law to see Islam in practice.

(Image Source: PEW Research – The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society, Q79a, Q92a-c, dated April 30, 2013 and Spring 2014 Global Attitudes Survey, Q100.)

(Image Source: PEW Research – The World’s Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society, Q79a, Q92a-c, dated April 30, 2013 and Spring 2014 Global Attitudes Survey, Q100.)

Theory and practice aside, I am willing to wager that the vast majority of those commenting on Islam in the media and political establishment have never opened up a Koran, let alone heard the word hadith. Of the small percentage who have, invariably you will hear the argument that while parts of the Koran are violent, others are peaceful. Such a view evinces further ignorance however, as it fails to address two essential Islamic concepts: (a) Abrogation and (b) taqiyya.

Abrogation refers to the fact that as the Koran reflects Allah’s divine revealed word, where there are textual contradictions, those passages revealed later must supplant those that preceded it. These later passages are frequently more violent than the earlier peaceful ones.

Taqiyya refers to strategic lying and deception – covering up one’s true intentions so as to defeat one’s enemies. This manifests itself in acts of sabotage, subversion and the propagation of strategic disinformation, not unlike what the Communists did during and after the Cold War.

Others will argue that just as the Koran has violent verses, so too do the Old and New Testaments. But Jews and Christians do not go out and slaughter in the name of their G-d in a modern-day global Crusade like the jihadists are waging. Moreover, the values and principles that flow from these two religious systems have led to the miracle that is Western civilization. The Muslim world on the other hand, especially where Islamic doctrine is followed in its purest form, resembles the seventh century one that preceded it.

Lest you think those who have studied Islam in schools are better off, in America’s universities taqiyya has become an art form. Many of the Middle Eastern departments at our country’s most prestigious academic institutions have been found to put on a “moderate” public face while serving as Trojan horses for anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and anti-Westernism — all consistent with Islamic doctrine.

This should come as no surprise, as these departments – and even K-12 schools — are often funded by Islamic nations who are the primary backers of Islamic supremacism themselves.

For those able to see past multiculturalism, moral relativism, materialism and actually study Islam in theory and practice, recognizing that the religion at the very least as understood by millions of Muslims is not only incompatible with, but hostile to our very existence, this is a staggering realization. It offends our pluralistic, tolerant sensitivities to think that such a massive, religiously-justified threat could exist. For while similarly savage enemies marched throughout the 20th century, none were tinged with theology, and Communism for its part was explicitly anti-religious.

Moreover, there are uncomfortable practical questions that such a threat raises. Who exactly are we fighting if there are millions of jihadists, aiders, abettors and enablers all over the world? How are we to fight them? What measures can we take to secure the homeland that are both sufficient and consonant with a free society?

Today, the West is clearly not even at the point of asking these questions, which reflects a lack of education on behalf of some, and denial on the part of others. That it is considered a bold act to utter phrases like “Radical Islam,” or “Islamic extremism” or “Islamism,” in the face of now over 25,000 jihadist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001 indicates as much. Imagine what kind of stones it would take to repeat after Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdoğan, that in effect there is no such thing as “moderate Islam” or “Islamism,” and such “descriptions are very ugly…offensive and an insult to our religion…Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

Rather than deal with reality, we figuratively bury our heads in the sand. Meanwhile, savage jihadists lop off and literally bury infidel heads in the sand.

If we are going to turn the tide in a war that we are currently not fighting, it is imperative that a sizable number of Americans wake up. It behooves all men and women of good conscience to educate their fellow citizens, and spark this awakening.

The future of Western civilization depends upon it.

Follow Ben Weingarten (@bhweingarten) and TheBlazeBooks on Twitter and Facebook.

Muslim Brothers Can’t Bring Themselves to Criticize Islamic State

CSP, by Kyle Shideler, Feb. 5, 2015:

Its a convenient notion that the barbaric decision to burn Jordanian pilot LT. Moaz al-Kasasbeh alive is a step too far even for the Sharia enforcers of the Islamic State, and that as a result we can expect a wave of rejection across the Arab world which might arise to shake off the Islamic State like a dog shaking off fleas.

Islamic LawUnfortunately, contrary to the belief of President Obama, the ideology of Islamic State isn’t bankrupt, but is based on the Islamic law. The execution itself was based on two concepts. The first, that because al-Kasabeh had conducted bombing missions against the Islamic State, by burning him and burying him in rubble they were essentially meting out a punishment equivalent to being bombed. This concept that retaliation should be equivalent to the offense is called qisas. It is the same reason a Saudi court ruled a man’s back should be broken after the man paralyzed someone. It’s based off the quranic citation Sura 16:126, “And if you punish [an enemy, O believers], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient – it is better for those who are patient.”

Secondly, Islamic State cited medieval Islamic scholar ibn Taymiyyah, whose works on takfir (declaring as an apostate one who violates Islamic law, rather than only those who affirm their own apostasy) are heavily cited by many modern jihadists. Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb utilized Ibn Taymiyyah in establishing the Brotherhood’s practice of applying the concept of Jahiliyyah (pre-Islamic ignorance) to modern Arab regimes thus justifying them as targets of a legitimate jihad.

It’s thus no surprise that while many were up in arms about ISIS’ decision, Muslim Brotherhood cleric Abdul Majeed Al-Zindani, tweeted a defense of ISIS, and their citation of Ibn Taymiyyah, saying that those who reject Ibn Taymiyyah, reject the Quran (H/T to@iaskmaie on Twitter for finding and translating the tweet which few if any have picked up on.) Al-Zindani is an influential leader of the Yemeni Muslim Brotherhood’s Al-Islah Party. Al Zindani is also a specially designated global terrorist by the U.S. Treasury  Department due to his role in the Union of the Good, which supports Hamas, and his influence on Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden.

Nor is Al-Zindani alone. The watchdog group MEMRI recently published a Jordanian media video where Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood leader, Sheikh Hamza Mansour  patently refused to identify the Islamic State as a terrorist group, despite pressure from the interviewer:

Interviewer: Is ISIS a terrorist organization?

Hamza Mansour: There are terrorists of every sort – Sunnis, Shiites, Muslims, Christians, Jews…

Interviewer: The Islamic State organization, sir – do you consider it to be terrorist?

Hamza Mansour: There is no definition of terrorism today. Anybody who says a couple of words is automatically considered a terrorist. We condemn terrorism in all its shapes and sizes.

Interviewer: And ISIS?

Hamza Mansour: Let me tell you….

Interviewer: I’m asking a clear question. I insist on getting an answer. This is a yes/no question.

Hamza Mansour: I condemn terrorism in all forms. Are you giving me the third degree?

While it’s certainly true that there is outrage around the globe, the underpinnings of Islamic State, through Al Qaeda, to the Muslim Brotherhood, to Shariah law itself, remain in place, and they will continue to be influential to those attracted to the cause of establishing the Caliphate and instituting Islamic law. Underestimating that appeal or focusing solely on the brutal reality of the Islamic State instead of the intellectual and ideological framework built by groups like the Muslim Brotherhood (which has itself issued a call to jihad against Egypt), is a recipe for continued failure in defeating not just ISIS but the Global Jihad Movement more generally.