Democracy Promotion is Our Responsibility as Guardians of the Liberal Order

Center for Security Policy, by Luis Fleischman, March 1, 2018:

The concept of democracy promotion has a negative connotation, particularly since the War in Iraq. The cost of the Iraq war and the public controversy over it generated an aversion towards democracy promotion. Such negativity was associated with idea that Americans soldiers are sacrificed for a cause that is not theirs. Losing lives over foreign democracies is not worthwhile and less so when instead of democracy what we see is civil war, anarchy and chaos.

The problem is not so much with the argument raised. In fact, it makes sense to think that sacrificing U.S. troops to build a foreign nation is too high of a price to pay. However, this argument has spilled into a general blindness regarding democracy promotion up to the point that there is aversion to even discussing the issue and against this background a neo-isolationist concept has developed in important sectors of the right and the left.

I will state that there is in the world today a deterioration of democracy that begins with elections, but quickly turns into a rule by executive decrees, subjugation of the branches of power, fraudulent elections, restriction of the press, and eventually violent repression of society.  They begin as illiberal democracies and end up in an authoritarian regime. The cases of Russia, Venezuela and Turkey are the clearest examples. Several countries in the Western hemisphere such as Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua have followed the Venezuelan example of establishing a powerful authority.  In Europe, countries such as Poland and Hungary are following suit.

The problem is that those regimes are not friendly to the liberal world order that the U.S. and its allies have tried to build. In the past, not every authoritarian regime was anti-American or anti-West. Many of them were authoritarian capitalistic or semi-capitalistic regimes that supported the U.S. during the cold war. The famous phrase attributed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt that he is “a son of a bitch, but he is our son of a bitch” no longer applies.

The new authoritarian regimes not only reject democracy but are also afraid of the liberal world order. The European Union has supported the liberal order for decades as democracy was a condition to enter the European Common Market. Spain and Portugal were able to join the group only after they transitioned to democracy. The U.S. also moved from its “Realpolitik” approach to supporting the spread of democracy in the world.

Thus, by definition a modern illiberal regime considers the West an adversary directly or indirectly.  By the same token, it does not feel committed to the same geo-strategic goals and values that the West promotes. As an example, Turkey, a member of NATO, has made alliances with Iran and Russia. It has also allowed ISIS to use its territory to sell its oil. Most recently, Turkey’s president Recep Tayip Erdogan publicly spoke to a six-year-old girl encouraging martyrdom confirming Mr. Erdogan’s radical Islamist views.

The notion of Turkey as an ally was not revisited by Western leaders. When a sector in the military attempted a coup d’état against Erdogan in the summer of 2016, the U.S. and the West condemned the coup more than they condemned the repressive measures and massive purges carried out in response to the coup. But today, we know better. Turkey’s membership in NATO means nothing. Erdogan, will continue to perpetuate himself in power through fraudulent and manipulative elections. He will also continue to claim there is democracy in Turkey because the country holds elections while using the “democratic mandate” to give legitimacy to anti-democratic measures. He will repress the Kurds and if necessarily will make alliances with NATO enemies.

Turkey is not alone. Venezuela has been a major commercial partner of the United States. Its oil sales were mostly to the U.S. The U.S. also refined Venezuela’s oil. The country is located in the heart of the Western Hemisphere. Venezuelan authoritarian leaders openly declared hostility to the United States, made alliances with Iran, terrorist groups and drug cartels.   Lately, we have applied pressure on Venezuela to democratize and even imposed sanctions on some its political and military leadership. However, this is not significant enough considering it is coming a decade too late.

The countries of Central Europe present a worrisome trend as well. Poland took a series of measures and passed laws that subordinated the courts to executive prerogatives. Poland has also curbed public gathering and restricted the freedom of the press. Most recently. it passed a law outlawing public discussion of Poles’ collaboration with the Nazis, something that affects not only freedom of speech but also freedom of research. Hungary has also cracked down on nonprofits, the press and on the judiciary, and has vindicated dubious figures of the past that collaborated with the Nazis. As a result, Poland and Hungary are currently at odds with the European Union. Their conflict with the European Union over democratic practices affects the unity of the free world. Moreover, the illiberal character of these countries and these tensions with Europe may push these countries into Russia or China’s sphere of influence. In fact, Hungary is already very close to the Kremlin. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban warmed up to Moscow and received large loans from Russia. Likewise, there were reports about connections between Russian intelligence officers and far right groups in Hungary. Poland still views Russia as a threat, but nothing guarantees that this situation would not be reversed.

In terms of these countries’ relation with China, Orban enthusiastically opened his country to China. Hungary’s foreign minister Peter Szijjarto has proudly pointed out that Hungary’s is China’s best ally in Central Europe.  Poland is the largest trade partner of China in Central Europe and the overall trade with China in this area is 57 billion dollars.

Nobody can assure that in the future Poland and Hungary will remain loyal to NATO. Both countries may see the West as an annoyance to their authoritarian style rather than an asset. The concept of free world may mean nothing to them in the end. Thus, if Russia is not attractive enough to the Poles, China will certainly be. After all China abhors democracy, and as the most recent decision by the Communist Party shows, authoritarian rulers can rule forever until their deaths. So, Poland and Hungary could well find in China a great source of support.

In February, some of these illiberal authoritarian democracies suffered a setback. Hungary’s ruling party lost a mayoral election raising questions about its chances to win elections in April. Ecuadorians voted not to allow the illiberal president Rafael Correa to run again. In a referendum Bolivian citizens voted against the indefinite reelection of the illiberal Evo Morales, who like Correa is also an ally of the Venezuelan government.

People in those countries are reacting to the authoritarian tendencies through the ballot or through demonstrations. This does not mean that the authoritarian rulers will give up. It is certainly not the case in Venezuela and not likely to be the case in Bolivia, two declared enemies of the United States.

What the United States needs is to develop an active foreign policy that promotes and defends democratic rule. This policy needs still to be designed in order to prevent the emergence of illiberal democracies. Every time such regime surfaces it is a strategic wound to the free world.   This is not a matter of just spreading our values. It is a matter of strengthening world stability and doing it in the strategic interest of the U.S. and its allies.

The time has come for U.S. policy makers to understand that at the end of the day democracy reflects the strength of the free world more than anything. Democracies might elect the wrong leader but they must have the chance to remove him/her from power in the next elections. The U.S. needs to defend this principle since its might makes it responsible to be the main guarantor of an order based on freedom. We are currently far from developing any systematic strategy to undertake such responsibility.

Nikki Haley Puts UN Anti-Israelism In Crosshairs

nikki-haley-un-sec-councio-640x480

New ambassador makes clear change has arrived.

Front Page Magazine, by Joseph Klein, February 21, 2017:

The Trump administration’s U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, has hit the ground running.  She spoke truth to power by strongly calling out the United Nations for its anti-Israel bias and double standards. Her predecessor, Samantha Power, never came close.

After attending her first regular meeting of the UN Security Council devoted to the Middle East, including the Palestinian-Israeli situation, Ambassador Haley remarked to reporters, “The first thing I want to do is talk about what we just saw in there.” Calling the meeting “a bit strange,” Ambassador Haley noted how the focus of blame for everything that has gone wrong in the Middle East seemed to be placed almost entirely on Israel.

“The discussion was not about Hezbollah’s illegal build-up of rockets in Lebanon,” Ambassador Haley said. “It was not about the money and weapons Iran provides to terrorists. It was not about how we defeat ISIS. It was not about how we hold Bashar al-Assad accountable for the slaughter of hundreds and thousands of civilians. No, instead, the meeting focused on criticizing Israel, the one true democracy in the Middle East. I am new around here, but I understand that’s how the Council has operated, month after month, for decades. I am here to underscore the ironclad support of the United States for Israel. I’m here to emphasize the United States is determined to stand up to the UN’s anti-Israel bias.”

Ambassador Haley was speaking against the backdrop of the anti-Israel Security Council Resolution 2334 passed last December, which the Obama administration refused to veto. “We will never repeat the terrible mistake of Resolution 2334 and allow one-sided Security Council resolutions to condemn Israel,” Ambassador Haley declared. “The outrageously biased resolutions from the Security Council and the General Assembly only make peace harder to attain by discouraging one of the parties from going to the negotiating table.”

How refreshing it is to hear such sincere words of support for Israel after eight years of Israel-bashing by the Obama administration. Former Ambassador Power had hypocritically mouthed some formulaic acknowledgements of bias against Israel in the Security Council and other UN forums, but while contributing strongly to that bias herself.

Resolution 2334 reeks of such bias. Yet Power strongly defended the Obama administration’s decision to abstain rather than veto it. The resolution outrageously declared that “the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle to the achievement of the two-State solution and a just, lasting and comprehensive peace.” When it came to the resolution’s call to prevent “acts of terror” and “to refrain from provocative actions, incitement and inflammatory rhetoric,” the resolution referred elliptically to “both parties.” Power could not defend why the resolution failed to call out the Palestinian Authority or Hamas by name for committing acts of terror, incitement to violence and glorification of terrorists. Her lame explanation to reporters at her farewell UN press conference was that Resolution 2334 “was not our resolution, so I think you can probably pose those questions to the people who were negotiating the text.” Of course, she could have insisted on including such specific references to Palestinian terror and incitement to violence in violation of international law in the resolution itself as a condition for a U.S. abstention. She didn’t. Instead, add a display of moral cowardice to Power’s list of “accomplishments” during her tenure as UN ambassador.

Things will be different from now on. And it is not just a change in words and tone. Expect concrete actions demonstrating the Trump administration’s moral clarity in holding the UN organization to account.

For example, Ambassador Haley objected to the proposed appointment of the Palestinian Authority’s former Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to become the next UN envoy to Libya. Palestine is not a full member of the United Nations. It is just an observer state. Israel, on the other hand, is a full member state. Yet the new UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, sought to elevate a Palestinian official to a high UN Secretariat post, while Israel has been denied the opportunity to fill such a position. Inner City Press has reported that, according to its sources, “the nomination was really by Jeffrey Feltman, the Obama administration’s appointee to head the UN Department of Political Affairs.” Feltman served previously as U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs in the Obama administration. Through Feltman, the former Obama administration would still have someone inside the UN bureaucracy to further enhance the Palestinians’ favorable position at the UN at the expense of Israel. But this appointment was not to be.

Shortly after Salam Fayyad’s proposed appointment was announced, Ambassador Haley issued a statement, which read in part: “The United States does not currently recognize a Palestinian state or support the signal this appointment would send within the United Nations, however, we encourage the two sides to come together directly on a solution. Going forward the United States will act, not just talk, in support of our allies.”

Evidently, that was enough to block the appointment. The Palestine Liberation Organization protested, of course. It’s not used to rejection at the United Nations.

Other actions appear to be underway or are soon to come. Late last year, during the waning days of the Obama administration, the UN General Assembly approved funding for compiling a blacklist of private Israeli companies doing business in the “occupied” territories. Samantha Power claimed the Obama administration objected to the blacklist project, but did nothing to stop it from proceeding. Less than a month after President Trump took office and Nikki Haley became the U.S.’s new UN ambassador, it was reported that the anti-Israel United Nations Human Rights Council decided to delay the publication of a report in connection with establishing the database of Israeli companies with business links to settlements in the West Bank until some unspecified time later this year. There is now a good chance the database will not see the light of day.

Blank checks for the UN’s multiple pro-Palestinian programs may finally become a thing of the past. Ambassador Haley singled out the UN Department of Political Affairs – still headed by the former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of State, Jeffrey Feltman – for having “an entire division devoted to Palestinian affairs.” She added, “There is no division devoted to illegal missile launches from North Korea. There is no division devoted to the world’s number one state-sponsor of terror, Iran. The prejudiced approach to Israeli-Palestinian issues does the peace process no favors. And it bears no relationship to the reality of the world around us.”

As governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley had a reputation for being a strong fiscal conservative. The United Nations is on notice that as UN ambassador of the country paying a disproportionate amount of the total UN budget, Ambassador Haley will continue to be a fiscal conservative with American taxpayers’ money. She will aim to sharply reduce the rampant waste in the UN budget, perhaps starting with the often overlapping, over-the-top pro-Palestinian agencies and programs the UN has established over the years.

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.

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:

Obama Doesn’t Understand Jihadist Doctrine

rad islamMEF, by Mark Durie
The Washington Examiner
June 30, 2016

In his June 14 address to the nation, President Obama attributed Omar Mateen’s attack on patrons of Orlando, Fla.’s, Pulse nightclub to “homegrown extremism,” saying “we currently do not have any information to indicate that a foreign terrorist group directed the attack.”

While Obama acknowledged that the Islamic State has called for attacks around the world against “innocent civilians,” he suggested these calls were incidental, emphasizing that Mateen was a “lone actor” and “an angry, disturbed, unstable young man” susceptible to being radicalized “over the Internet.”

It is a terrible thing to misunderstand one’s enemy so deeply. The doctrine of jihad invoked by terrorist groups is an institution with a long history, grounded in legal precedent going back to the time of Muhammad.

Militants who invoke the doctrine of jihad follow principles influenced by Islamic law. The point to be grasped is that the doctrinal basis of jihad generates conditions that can incite “bottom-up” terrorism, which does not need to be directed by jihadi organizations.

The doctrinal basis of jihad generates conditions that can incite bottom-up terrorism.

When the Ottoman Caliphate entered World War I in 1914, it issued an official fatwa calling upon Muslims everywhere to rise up and fight the “infidels.” In 1915, a more detailed ruling was issued, entitled “A Universal Proclamation to All the People of Islam.”

This second fatwa gave advice on the methods of jihad, distinguishing three modes of warfare: “jihad by bands,” which we would today call guerrilla warfare; “jihad by campaigns,” which refers to warfare using armies; and “individual jihad.”

The fatwa cited approvingly as an example of individual jihad the 1910 assassination of Boutros Ghaly, a Christian prime minister of Egypt (and grandfather of former U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghaly), at the hands of Ibrahim Nassif al-Wardani, a Muslim graduate in pharmacology who had been educated in Lausanne, Paris, and London.

Ottoman fatwaWhen the Islamic State issued a call for Muslims around the world to rise up and kill their neighbors, it was invoking the individual mode of jihad. This mode relies upon the teaching that when Muslim lands are attacked or occupied by infidel armies, jihad becomes farḍ al-‘ayn, an “individual obligation,” which a Muslim can act upon without needing to come under anyone else’s command.This Ottoman fatwa cited precedents from the life of Muhammad for each of the three modes of warfare. To support individual jihad, it referenced three instances when companions of Muhammad conducted assassinations of non-Muslims. Two of these involved attacks on Jews that were personally instigated by Muhammad.

This principle of individual obligation has been much emphasized by jihadi clerics. Abdullah Azzam wrote in his influential tract Join the Caravan, “There is agreement … that when the enemy enters an Islamic land or a land that was once part of the Islamic lands, it is obligatory … to go forth to face the enemy.”

It was undoubtedly in response to this dogma that Omar Mateen went forth to kill Americans. In line with this, Mateen reported to his victims that his attack was in retaliation for Americans bombing Afghanistan. By this understanding, it was America’s military action against a Muslim country — the country of origin of Mateen’s family — that justified an act of individual jihad.

Preventing future “lone wolf” attacks requires the disruption of the Islamic doctrine that underpins these acts and legitimizes them in the eyes of many Muslims. Teachers and preachers in Islamic institutions across America must openly reject the dogma of farḍ al-‘ayn in relation to U.S. military action.

They need to teach their congregants that this doctrine does not apply, that anyone who uses it to attempt to legitimize his or her personal jihad is acting against God’s laws and that no martyr’s paradise awaits them.

At the same time, U.S. homeland security agencies need to closely watch and monitor any Muslim teacher who promotes this doctrine, which, once it is taken on board and applied against a nation, will lead to acts of jihadi terrorism as surely as night follows day.

During his June 14 speech, Obama defended his refusal to use the phrase “radical Islam” in connection with terrorism, asking, “What exactly would using this label accomplish?”

The answer is simple. It will be difficult to elicit the cooperation of Muslim religious leaders in discrediting the Islamic doctrine at the heart of America’s homegrown terrorism epidemic when President Obama himself is reluctant to acknowledge that doctrine matters — they can simply point to him and decline.

Mark Durie is the pastor of an Anglican church, a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and Founder of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness.

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

Foreign policy FUBAR: US providing intel to Hezbollah

hezbollah-300x180By Allen West:

I simply don’t believe in coincidences, especially when it comes to the Obama administration. Remember when we reported here about President Barack Hussein Obama meeting with pro-Hezbollah clerics on 9-11?

And now some very disturbing news has surfaced about American-Hezbollah coordination — let me remind you that Hezbollah is an Iranian-backed Islamic terrorist group based in Lebanon. It was Hezbollah who was responsible for the 1983 Marine Beirut bombing which killed over 250 American Marines, Sailors, and others. It was Hezbollah who was responsible for the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achilles Lauro and the heinous and barbaric murder of American Jewish citizen Leon Kilnghoffer — a man confined to a wheel chair and pushed off the ship into the Mediterranean Sea.

And despite all this, Hezbollah is indirectly receiving American intelligence aid.

As reported by Arutz Sheva,”Mohammed Afif, the new head of public relations for the Lebanese-based Iranian-backed terror organization Hezbollah, gave a rare New York Times interview as Lebanese experts reveal his group is indirectly receiving American intelligence aid in its fight against Islamic State (ISIS). Following ISIS’s temporary conquest of Arsal last month on the Lebanese side of the Syrian border, the US sent new weapons to the Lebanese army, which coordinates with Hezbollah. Likewise, US intelligence has found its way to Hezbollah according to Lebanese experts. That leaked intelligence may explain some recent impressive achievements against ISIS, including the first known Hezbollah drone strike.”

So let’s have a quick review. The Obama administration released five senior Taliban members to Qatar — where the head of Hamas resides. Obama coordinated with Qatar and Turkey, both major supporters to Islamic terrorist groups. Now apparently Obama is assisting Hezbollah with intelligence — and Hezbollah is a named Islamic terrorist organization.

This ladies and gents is our biggest fear — that the Obama administration would work with nefarious actors in its quest to deal with ISIS — instead of destroying ISIS itself. So Obama may not be dealing with Iran directly, but he’s working with Iran’s proxy terrorist army, Hezbollah.

***

> America is providing intelligence aid to Hezbollah, an Islamic terrorist group that is the avowed enemy of our ally Israel.

> Hezbollah is allied fighting in support of Bashar al-Assad whom Obama said must go.

> Therefore, we are providing intelligence support to Hezbollah who is fighting against the Syrian rebels who we want to arm and train to fight against ISIS who are fighting against Assad who is supported by Hezbollah who is supported by Iran who is the largest sponsor of Islamic terrorism who is responsible for countless attacks against our men and women and is marching towards developing a nuclear bomb capability.

Yep ladies and gents, that is Obama foreign policy — FUBAR!

Read more