‘Clock Boy’ Loses in Court, Father’s Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed

Ahmed Mohamed, center, and father Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, left, look on as their lawyer Susan E. Hutchison speaks holding the school pencil box holding the clock Ahmed built. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

Ahmed Mohamed, center, and father Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed, left, look on as their lawyer Susan E. Hutchison speaks holding the school pencil box holding the clock Ahmed built. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

PJ Media, by Debra Heine, January 11, 2017:

A district court judge in Texas has dismissed a defamation lawsuit filed by Ahmed Mohamed on his own behalf and on behalf of his 15-year-old son, Ahmed Mohamed. They had sued Fox News, Glenn Beck, and the mayor of Irving — among others — for defamation in September of 2016.

A year earlier, Ahmed, then a 14-year-old freshman at an Irving, Texas, high school, was arrested, briefly detained by police, and suspended for three days after bringing to school a “cool clock” that looked like a briefcase bomb. Ahmed claimed to have “invented” the easily assembled clock, and that he had brought it to school to show it to his shop teacher.

The incident led many to question the Mohamed family’s motives. Newly appointed District Court Judge Maricela Moore dismissed the lawsuit following a nearly three-hour hearing on Monday, according to the American Freedom Law Center:

The motion to dismiss was filed by lawyers from the American Freedom Law Center (“AFLC”) and local counsel Pete Rowe on behalf of the Center for Security Policy (“CSP”) and Jim Hanson, two of the defendants in the defamation case, which also named as defendants the local Fox affiliate, Glenn Beck, and Beck’s production company.

Mohamed had sued Hanson and CSP for statements Hanson had made on Beck’s program about the connection between the Clock Boy hoax bomb affair, the attendant media frenzy created in large part by his father Mohamed, civilization jihad, and the Counsel on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), the Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas front group in the United States that promotes civilization jihad.

During the hearing, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel David Yerushalmi explained to Judge Moore that the purpose of the lawfare-driven lawsuit was to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam. As such, Yerushalmi argued, “this case is a classic Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation or ‘SLAPP’ case and should be dismissed.”

During the lengthy hearing, Judge Moore pressed Mohamed’s lawyer, Fort Worth attorney Susan Hutchison, to provide any facts that would suggest that Hanson and the other defendants had said anything false or defamatory about Mohamed or his son during the television broadcasts. After spending a painfully embarrassing 15 minutes flipping through reams of paper, Mohamed’s lawyer was unable to provide any such evidence.

At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Moore said that she would rule by the end of the day. On Tuesday, the court published Judge Moore’s ruling dismissing the lawsuit against Hanson and CSP with prejudice.

Upon leaving the courtroom, Yerushalmi made the following statement:

“This lawsuit filed by Clock Boy’s father is yet another example of Islamist lawfare, which is a component of the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad.”

Yerushalmi further explained that the purpose of such lawsuits, formally labelled Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”), is to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam.

Yerushalmi added:

The Islamists employ the progressive mainstream media to label any public criticism of a sharia-centric, jihad-driven Islam as “Islamophobic,” and they add fear and financial ruin to the equation by utilizing the legal system to file SLAPP actions.

Now that the lawsuit has been dismissed, the AFLC is petitioning the court for lawyer fees and sanctions against Clock Boy’s dad.

***

Clock Boy’s Defamation Lawsuit Attacked as Lawfare: AFLC Lawyers Ask Court to Award Sanctions

clock-boy

AFLC, December 6, 2016:

Today, lawyers for the Center for Security Policy (“CSP”) and Jim Hanson filed a motion in a Dallas, Texas court seeking to dismiss the defamation lawsuit filed by Mohamed Mohamed on his own behalf and on behalf of his 15-year old son, Ahmed Mohamed.

Ahmed is better known as “Clock Boy” for bringing a hoax clock bomb to his Irving, Texas middle school in September 2015 and causing a bomb scare that led to his arrest and suspension from school.  Later, Ahmed claimed the look-a-like briefcase bomb was just a “homemade clock.”  In reality it was neither a bomb nor a homemade clock, but a disassembled digital clock put in a small carrying case giving it the look of an improvised digital bomb or trigger for a bomb.

The Clock Boy’s lawsuit seeks unspecified damages from various media companies and personalities, such as Glenn Beck, the Glenn Beck Show, and the local Fox News station, for commenting on the hoax bomb affair during their programs.

Jim Hanson, a CSP senior vice president, a former member of the U.S. Army Special Forces, and an expert on counter-terrorism, was sued along with CSP and the other media defendants for suggesting that the entire affair was a PR stunt by Clock Boy’s father in order to generate a media firestorm about anti-Islamic bias and Muslim-victimization.

During Hanson’s appearance on the Glenn Beck Show, Hanson noted that the Clock Boy’s father had orchestrated an intense media campaign with the local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR”), which the U.S. government has formally linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and to the designated terrorist organization Hamas in several formal court filings in federal terrorism cases.

Hanson went on to explain that the entire affair had the look and feel of a typical “influence operation”—the standard operating procedure of what the Muslim Brotherhood calls its “civilization jihad” against the West.

The motion to dismiss, filed by the American Freedom Law Center (“AFLC”), along with AFLC’s local Texas counsel Pete Rowe, not only seeks dismissal of the lawsuit, but also requests the court to award attorneys’ fees and to sanction Clock Boy’s father for filing a meritless lawsuit whose only purpose is to silence those who might speak out publicly against such influence operations.

David Yerushalmi, AFLC co-founder and senior counsel, issued the following statement:

“This lawsuit filed by Clock Boy’s father is yet another example of Islamist lawfare, which is a component of the Muslim Brotherhood’s civilization jihad.”

Yerushalmi further explained that the purpose of such lawsuits, formally labelled Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”), is to intimidate into silence those who might comment publicly on the connection between jihad, terrorism, sharia, and Islam.

“The Islamists employ the progressive mainstream media to label any public criticism of a sharia-centric, jihad-driven Islam as ‘Islamophobic,’ and they add fear and financial ruin to the equation by utilizing the legal system to file SLAPP actions,”

Yerushalmi added.

Texas, like California and a number of other states, has an anti-SLAPP statute that requires a court to dismiss such lawsuits and to sanction those plaintiffs who file them.

Robert Muise, AFLC’s other co-founder and senior counsel, made clear:

“AFLC was formed in large measure to take on Islamists like CAIR who use and abuse the legal system with their cynical form of lawfare to undermine our constitutional liberties—notably free speech.  We have confronted these lawsuits across the country in federal and state courts and have defeated CAIR and its minions at every turn.  When appropriate, we have won sanctions.  This lawsuit will be no different.”

The Real Issue Between Khizr Khan and Donald Trump: Importing Jihad

GettyImages-512836672-e1470333480720-640x481

Breitbart, by Jim Hanson, Aug. 4, 2016:

Does anyone remember what the issue Khizr Khan attacked Donald Trump about at the Democratic Convention? Amidst all the outrage and attacks the substance seems to have slipped off the radar.

It was about Trump’s plan to stop Jihadists from riding the refugee flow into this country.  I think that topic is worthy of our attention, so let’s take a few minutes and look at it.

ISIS has said on numerous occasions that they are sending Jihadists into the refugee population to infiltrate Europe and the United States. Hillary Clinton wants to increase the number of Syrians we allow into the country as refugees by 550%. The FBI Director has said unequivocally that we cannot vet refugees from Syria because there are no records to check them against any more. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that mean Hillary supports importing any Jihadists who can get into that process?

Of course it does, and Donald Trump was being attacked for the perfectly common sense idea that — if we can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys, maybe we should stop bringing them here until we can. I am absolutely gobsmacked this is even controversial. Trump’s current proposal is a pause on immigration from areas compromised by terrorism. If anyone can come up with a good reason why we need to allow people from those areas to come here please share it with us.

Since I think I just heard someone answer “we can’t just shut down immigration for entire countries,” allow me to retort. Oh yes we can, actually we can shut down immigration from any country, of any group at any time if the President decides it is necessary. This power is in the Immigration and Naturalization Act and the last six Presidents have all used it at some point. Entering the United States is a privilege we grant, not a right to be exercised and the potential entrant has to convince us to say yes you may come.

If pausing immigration from regions swarming with people sworn to kill us doesn’t meet the definition of a national security concern, then we have decided to simply commit national suicide. Europe made that mistake a while ago and the last month has shown just exactly how terminal that was. Hatchets, machetes, explosives, trucks, and guns were all tools the enemy used to help Europe shuffle off this mortal coil. They now have so many unassimilated migrants the likelihood of actual civil war looms in France and maybe elsewhere as well.

We are nowhere near as far gone as Europe, but if we don’t want to end up next on the hit list, we have to start paying attention. It is vital that we stop Jihadists from coming here hell bent on conducting slaughter. But it is equally, or even more, important to ensure that anyone we allow to immigrate shares the basic American values that make this country the bastion of freedom it is. There is a significant portion of the Islamic world which does not, and we are under no obligation to invite them here.

The unwelcome folks are Sharia adherent Muslims of the kind who mutilate little girls, stone rape victims and hang gays from cranes. They follow a barbaric totalitarian code that has some of the trappings of religion, but actually governs every aspect of human life. This is not just mandatory for the believers, but they require submission by even non-believers. Well sorry folks, but that just doesn’t fly here and you may not pass Go or collect $200. This is another completely legal exclusion for entry and one the Center for Security Policy put forth in a paper called “Stop Importing Jihadists.”

We cannot let the craziness of the political season cause us to lose sight of our own security. We cannot let political correctness stop us from keeping our enemies at bay. These plans are entirely constitutional and vitally necessary. They deserve all of our support.

Listen to Jim Hanson’s discussion of this article on Breitbart News Daily on SiriusXM:

Nice Attack: Cut Down the Black Flag, Target Sharia

hqdefault-1 (1)

Former Special Forces Master Sergeant Jim Hanson explains what must be done to stop this constant terror.

CounterJihad, July 15, 2016:

Former Special Forces Master Sergeant Jim Hanson, currently the Executive Vice President for the Center for Security Policy, has an answer to the problem of constant terror attacks.  First, though, he dismisses the strategy of attempting to prevent attacks by adding additional levels of security.  “Even in a police state, you couldn’t secure every gathering,” Hanson said, noting that this was just a simple delivery truck like any other.

“You have to look at the people who are conducting these terror attacks,” he told “FOX & Friends.”  A focus on methodology won’t work, as the truck attack plainly shows:  “It’s not guns, it’s not bombs, it’s not trucks,” but rather “the ideology of sharia and jihad that motivates them to kill.”

Hanson is the author of Cut Down the Black Flag:  A Strategy To Defeat the Islamic State.  Unsurprisingly, he believes that destroying the caliphate is an important part of the solution.  However, he argues that the caliphate is only a symptom — albeit a major one — of the real problem. “You start in the Islamic State.  You start with their caliphate, and you cut down their black flag there.  But… that’s not going to solve the problem, that treats a symptom.  The ideology of sharia, which calls for a holy war of jihad, is something we need to deal with.”

Citing a poll that sharia law enjoys large-scale support among Muslims worldwide, Hanson crossed into disputed territory.  CounterJihad has reported on this controversy before.

The central issue to empirical science is the ability of others repeating the experiment to replicate your findings.  If you replicate the same findings using the same methods, that’s telling.  If you replicate the same findings with both the same and different methods, that’s even more suggestive that you’re on to something.  Every poll of Muslim populations, regardless of its methodology, shows strong support for sharia.

Last summer, the Center for Security Policy commissioned a poll that found 51% support for shariaamong American Muslims.  There were critics who pointed out that this poll was an online poll, and one that only surveyed those who opted in.  However, the Pew polling service found that half of American Muslims are recent immigrants, chiefly from countries in which their global survey of support for sharia tops 80%.  Three of the leading countries for Islamic immigration to the United States are Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.  The figures for those countries are 91%, 84%, and 99% respectively.

When you find the same thing no matter how you study the question, you’re probably finding something that’s really there.

Hanson’s solution of targeting sharia also enjoys strong support from the American people.  A recent poll conducted by a firm out of Atlanta found that more than seven in ten American voters think Muslim immigrants should be screened for the ideological belief in enforcing sharia law.  More than 80% of those who agreed say all immigrants ID’d as Sharia adherents should be barred from entering the United States.

The popularity of the solution does not mean that it will be enacted, at least not for the next few months.  A recent survey of US President Barack Obama’s calendar shows that he never met with former National Director of Intelligence LTG(R) Michael Flynn.  He and his administration’s top officials did meet with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which has been proven in Federal court to be linked to the Foreign Terrorist Organization Hamas.  In fact, CAIR has had hundreds of White House meetings.

Both of President Obama’s likely replacements have described the France attacks as acts of war, and both seem clearer-eyed than President Obama about the nature of the threat.  However, asked which one was more likely to take the threat seriously, Hanson gave the nod to Donald Trump.  Hillary Clinton would be too hamstrung by political correctness, he argued.  Only Trump was likely to move strongly against Islamic terror.

***

Stop Importing Jihadists: Sharia Supremacists Have No Right to Enter the U.S.

Getty

Getty

Breitbart, by Jim Hanson, June 29, 2016:

Donald Trump lit off a firestorm with his call for a ban on all Muslims entering the United States. The deadly threat of Islamist terror and the migrant violence in Europe make a ban on Muslim immigration seem like a reasonable solution.

But we have Muslim allies, the King of Jordan for example, who would be affected by such an action. So if banning all Muslims is not the perfect solution, how can we deal with the ones who are a serious problem without alienating our allies?

The Center for Security Policy just released a white paper detailing how to do that entitled “Stop Importing Jihadists: Making Sharia-Supremacism a Bar to Immigration and Naturalization.” It explains how existing laws can be used to stop allowing Muslims from coming to this country who do not share our American values. This does not mean all Muslims, but it is a significant number who believe the totalitarian Islamist code called Sharia should be placed above the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. citizens have rights. But clearly, there are no rights for non-citizens to visit or migrate to the United States. It is a privilege. We need to make sure that anyone coming here doesn’t believe their mission is to bring with them an antiquated and barbaric system to impose on us. We have the authority under current law to stop members of totalitarian ideologies from infiltrating and working to subvert our free system.

The problem is not Muslims per se; it is Islamic Supremacists who push the totalitarian ideology called Sharia. Unfortunately, this is a significant number of Muslims worldwide; a Pew International poll shows more than half of them believe Sharia should be the law of their land. Most also believe this law should apply to non-Muslims, as well. That could hardly be more un-American and we have every right to tell those folks “That’s not how we do things here.”

There are differing versions of Sharia, but they agree that the practice of all aspects of life is governed by the unassailable word of Allah and not one single bit of it may be questioned. That includes an ironclad prohibition on any man-made law superseding Sharia and a requirement for believers to actively work to impose it everywhere. This makes it impossible for a Sharia-adherent Muslim to swear an oath to obey the U.S. Constitution or any other country’s governing document. There can be no agreement to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, Caesar must submit to Allah.

That single fact makes it prudent to restrict immigration by anyone who holds those beliefs. We have done this previously to stop totalitarian communists and fascists from infiltrating with a mind to undermine our society from within. That subversion is actually the very goal articulated by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood for its operations here in the United States: “The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house.”

It makes perfect sense to say to a group that wants to destroy us “from within” that “you are not welcome to come in.”

The dividing line we need to use for making policy is Sharia; the practice of Sharia is simply not compatible with life in the U.S. It is also the dividing line between Medieval Islam, with its abhorrent practices such as death for homosexuals; stoning for victims of rape; forced marriages and genital mutilation for girls; and Modern Islam, which could properly be called post-Sharia. The problem is Modern Islam does not truly exist yet. There are Muslims who do not practice or believe in the barbaric acts Sharia requires, but they are technically apostates, defectors of Islam, and the penalty for leaving is death.

The current state of play has members of the medieval form acting as the loudest voices of the “Muslim” community. Those who wish to practice a modern version do so at their own peril: they face shunning at best and death at worst. The medieval practitioners are aided in this effort by vast support; even the U.S. government has embraced them both abroad, by supporting groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, and here at home, in the form of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others.

Our U.S. government has a responsibility to safeguard this country and our way of life. That includes banning those who wish to destroy us from entering the United States. We must add Sharia to the list of totalitarian ideologies that trigger this prohibition. This will help all Americans including Modern Muslims who just want to live in peace in the land of the free.

Stop Importing Jihadists- A Policy Prescription

1949093373

Center for Security Policy, June 28, 2016:

The danger posed by the Global Jihad is immediate and deadly and our government should take all possible precautions to keep Americans safe. The Center for Security Policy (CSP) released the Secure Freedom Strategy to Defeat the Global Jihad Movement to provide an approach that uses all aspects of U.S. power to stop this growing danger to our way of life. There are many facets to the threat, but one of the most compelling is the entry to this country of Sharia Supremacists who work to place their totalitarian ideology above any man-made law including the U.S. Constitution.

The existing immigration laws provide ample authority to ban sharia-adherent individuals under exclusions for totalitarian ideology and the President should provide guidance to the responsible agencies to do so. CSP has produced a white paper detailing the rationale and legal basis for this policy in the following white paper:

Stop Importing Jihadists: Making Sharia-Supremacism a Bar to Immigration and Naturalization

Stop Importing Jihadists- Executive Summary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                     27 June 2016      

NEW POLL FINDS AMERICANS WANT TO STOP IMPORTING JIHADISTS, CENTER OFFERS PLAN FOR ACCOMPLISHING THAT SECURITY GOAL

Washington, D.C.: A new poll suggests that large majorities of Americans agree with the common sense proposition that we should stop importing jihadists. A murderous attack in Orlando heightened concern that we already have too many here.

A public opinion survey conducted this month by Opinion Savvy found that 71% of respondents support “identifying foreign supporters of Sharia law prior to their admission to the United States.” Of those favoring such identification, 80% believe Sharia-supremacists should not be admitted into the country.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump put this issue on the political map last year by calling for a temporary pause in admissions of Muslims until a way can be found to determine whether they are potential terrorists. He cited troubling findings of a 2015 poll of U.S. Muslims conducted for the Center for Security Policy. Twenty-five percent of respondents believed “violence against Americans here in the United States could be justified as part of the global jihad” and fifty-one percent believed “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed by [Islam’s totalitarian] Sharia” code, rather than the Constitution.

In recent days, Mr. Trump has mused publicly about how to differentiate between would-be Muslim immigrants who pose a threat and those who do not. He has suggested applying his proposed restriction to all would-be immigrants from certain countries tied to terrorism.

One of Mr. Trump’s top advisors, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, however, argues that defining test should instead be adherence to Sharia. On Fox News Sunday, Speaker Gingrich said: “I would apply a test for Sharia and a test for loyalty to ISIS rather than geographic test, because we’re fighting people all over the world who are dangerous to us. So, it’s hard to say which countries really are the Islamic terrorist countries.”

In an appearance last Thursday on Fox News, Center Executive Vice President Jim Hanson made a similar point:

It would be smart right now to pause immigration from jihadist controlled or influenced areas and take a look at whether or not letting anyone who is Sharia adherent Muslim— which is a totalitarian ideology not the religion — has any business coming in this country ever. We can ban totalitarian ideologues from entry with existing laws. And it’s probably  time to do that and stop bringing in more jihadists into the United States….

…The Sharia adherence is the important thing. It’s not all Muslims. There are plenty of Muslims willing to live in peace. But the ones who follow Sharia, which is a large number, it’s a third to half worldwide, have no way to follow the Constitution because they’re required to place that above any man-made law. So they’re not going assimilate. It’s not a question of their parents or internet or ISIS or anything. That’s what they taught and that is what they follow. That leads them to jihad and leads to dead bodies. We got to stop it.

The Center for Security Policy released today a white paper describing how such a filter could be applied and statutory changes that would facilitate its implementation:

“Stop Importing Jihadists: Making Sharia-Supremacism a Bar to Immigration and Naturalization.”

It calls on presidential contenders, candidates for other offices, elected officials and citizens of this country to evaluate and implement this important paper’s recommendations.

For more information contact:                                                                                               

Alex Vanness

vanness@securefreedom.org

Of Course The Muslim Brotherhood is a Terror Organization

402a4050-b871-42ee-b645-f96de5553bd3Town Hall, by Jim Hanson, April 18, 2016:

There are bills under consideration in both houses of Congress to designate the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) as a terrorist organization. The reason for this is the fact – the Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organization. Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Bahrain, and Jordan have already designated them as a terror collective and their motto makes their goal pretty clear  “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.” You can help protect America by contacting your senators and representatives to tell them to pass this legislation.

President Obama not only refuses to acknowledge the Brotherhood as terrorists, but actively changed U.S. policy during the Arab Spring to support them; and Hillary Clinton helped make this happen while she was Secretary of State.  Obama sees them as a bulwark against what he calls the “violent extremists,” which is his euphemism for the jihadists killing in the name of Islam. The MB plays the public relations game of saying they are a civic organization that runs schools and feeds the poor while promoting the image that the milk of Islamic kindness flows through their veins. Now there is a nugget of truth in there; they do some of those things. But, they also have a plan for a global Caliphate and the submission of all of us.

They state publicly they have foresworn violence in the pursuit of this domination, but that is deception. The term for this kind of deception is Taqqiya and it is wholly sanctioned, even required for the faithful, if such lying is necessary to further the cause of Islam. The MB are the faithful, the hardcore believers, and knowing Taqqiya is integral to their way of life let’s us understand that their words are often simply words with no inherent truth attached to them. Their actions on the other hand are plenty sufficient to show their true intentions and the trail of blood they have left throughout the world leaves no doubt.

They support, fund, enable and rejoice in the terror committed by their brethren in Hamas, al Qaeda and Jamaat al Islamiyya. Their resurgence during the Arab Spring was an attempt to put their iron sandal on the necks of the countries where previously some also pretty heinous dictators had reigned. In most of these countries they were the only organized alternative to the tyrants in residence, so when uprisings began they took advantage.

In Egypt, for example, they leveraged the actual social work they did and their mosque-enabled power base to win the elections that followed the overthrow of Mubarak. No sooner had they swept the blood out of the palace, they began imposing the oppressive ideology of Sharia.

Sharia-adherent Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian system that controls every facet of human life and the Brotherhood are among its foremost advocates. They are hell bent on imposing this brutal regime which includes: stoning women who have been raped; forced child marriages; murdering homosexuals; and killing any apostate who leaves its loving embrace.

They are equally comfortable with either violent means of imposing this, although they prefer to outsource the bloody work to their partners, or non-violent methods which are their particular specialty. The first is the “Violent Jihad,” often called terrorism; and the second is what the MB has named “Civilization Jihad,” which works to use a country’s own freedoms and civic liberties to subvert it from within. They are hard at work using both methods to bring more of the world into what they call Dar al Islam (House of Islam). They deem those not yet submitted Dar al Harb (House of War); their terminology is telling, just in case you had any doubts.

The Muslim Brotherhood should be designated a terrorist organization. They have well and horrifically earned the dishonor. Making this common sense determination gives our government and security organizations the necessary tools to fight the MB and their partners in crimes against humanity. Tell Congress to vote “yes” on the Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act bills H.R. 3892 and S. 2230; and do their part to counter the threat of the global jihad.

Jim Hanson is the Executive Vice President of The Center for Security Policy. Mr. Hanson served in US Army Special Forces and conducted Counter-Terrorism, Counter-Insurgency, and other operations in more than a dozen countries.