In Afghanistan, End the Trump-Obama Taliban Fantasy

Tenth Marine Regiment Marines on patrol in Habbib Abad, Afghanistan, 2012. (Photo: Lance Corporal Robert Reeves)
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450831/donald-trump-afghanistan-plan

However many troops we send, the Taliban will always outlast us.

National Review, by Andrew C. McCarthy, Aug. 26, 2017:

On the matter of an outcome in Afghanistan after 16 years of fitful war, President Trump is adamant. “The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve a plan for victory,” he proclaimed in Monday night’s big speech. “They deserve the tools they need, and the trust they have earned, to fight and to win.”

The president hammered home the point, again and again:

Our troops will fight to win. We will fight to win. From now on, victory will have a clear definition: attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.

Stirring stuff. Or at least it would have been if Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had not, less than 24 hours later, undercut his boss’s bold message. Victory? There is no battlefield victory to be had in Afghanistan, Tillerson maintained at Foggy Bottom. Instead, the modest goal is to convince the Taliban that, while “we might not win,” they won’t win either.

Eh . . . not so stirring.

By the time the secretary was done tinkering with the president’s “plan for victory,” one couldn’t be sure if the Taliban was an enemy, a terrorist organization, or a “peace partner.” Indeed, not content to leave pathetic enough alone, Tillerson contemplated “political legitimacy” for the mullahs, proclaiming that the Trump administration “stand[s] ready to support peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban without precondition.” You read that right: without precondition — not even the condition that they abandon their alliance with al-Qaeda (you know, the reason we went to Afghanistan in the first place). As the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes observed, this is “the same kind of diplomatic tail-chasing that was a priority of the Obama administration’s failed approach.”

The band’s got new players. The pitch is a bit higher. But the song remains the same.

Ultimately, Tillerson elaborated, “it is going to be up to the Afghan government and the representatives of the Taliban to work through a reconciliation process.” Sound familiar? Yeah . . . just like Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, during an April 2016 trip to Kabul, expressing “support for the government of Afghanistan’s efforts to end the conflict in Afghanistan through a peace and reconciliation process with the Taliban.”

The Taliban has now been recognized by the Obama and Trump administrations as the solution to the Afghanistan problem. That is, Trump has adopted The Way of the Swamp: Any problem that won’t go away eventually becomes “the solution.” The strategy — and who says hope isn’t a strategy? — is that the mullahs will finally come to their senses, end their remorseless jihad, and join the ineffective regime we have struggled to prop up for over a decade.

There are two major problems with this approach.

First, the Taliban believe they will win without negotiating because they are confident they will outlast us. They responded to Trump’s speech (and Tillerson’s revise-and-extend exercise) by promising to “sustain our jihad” as long as it takes. Obama could not get them to the table despite having over 100,000 American troops in theater. Trump currently has 8,400, a paltry number he is reluctantly willing to increase by about 4,000 (the administration is being coy about the exact number). Even if he were to double that (not likely), what would be accomplished?

The president rebuked his predecessor over the futility of waging war by advance announcements to the enemy of his withdrawal timelines. Trump has a point. There was no sense in Obama’s approach: pegging wartime troop levels to political rather than military considerations, imposing force-reduction timelines with no regard for battlefield conditions and requirements. All that said, though, from 2009 through mid 2014, Obama kept in Afghanistan a force between three and eight times the size that Trump will have after his mini-surge. Yet, unfazed and unmoved by Obama-Kerry pleas for “reconciliation,” the Taliban continued to fight. As they and their jihadist allies gained ground, Obama responded by withdrawing troops. The Taliban knew they were winning.

Now, beneath Trump’s “we will fight to win” applause lines, the Taliban see that he is resistant to anything but a marginal escalation in what is a skeleton force, on hand more in an advisory than a combat role. They read the papers. They know the president didn’t even want to do that much. They realize that Trump has stated, time and again over the years, that he does not believe any American troops should still be in Afghanistan.

To summarize, the Taliban know they are on their home turf against a commander-in-chief who doesn’t want to be there and who was contemplating total withdrawal as a serious option just a month ago. Why should they budge?

I said that there are two major problems with Trump’s strategy. Alas, the one I’ve just described is the easier one. The second, tougher problem is that the Taliban are still the Taliban.

They are the vanguard of fundamentalist Islam, the Sunni version of sharia supremacism. So virulently anti-American is their totalitarian ideology that the Taliban are making common cause with their Shiite counterparts in Iran to persevere in their jihad against American forces.

It can get tiresome recounting this history, but it is worth remembering that our forces invaded Afghanistan all those years ago because the Taliban, while ruling that country beginning in the mid-1990s, gave safe haven to al-Qaeda to plot, train for, and orchestrate several attacks against the United States. The 9/11 atrocities were not a one-off; they were the last in a series. Even so, President George W. Bush offered to give the mullahs a pass on the condition that they turn al-Qaeda’s leadership over to the United States. Only when the Taliban refused, knowing it meant they would be driven from power, did our forces invade.

The Taliban is the creation of fundamentalist Islamic elements of Pakistani intelligence, conceived as a geopolitical weapon against India. The Pashto word “taliban” means students – and, as you’ve no doubt guessed, we are not talking about students of comparative lit or macroeconomics. They are students of sharia, Islam’s ancient societal framework and legal code. They refer to themselves as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. They rose to power and have been sustained through 16 years of war because, contrary to what Western progressives would have you believe, they have significant support in what is a modernity-resistant sharia society. That is why they gave al-Qaeda sanctuary. It is why, to this day, they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with al-Qaeda in the jihad.

So what’s our plan? Why, we’re going to “reconcile” them so they can have a share of power. Fabulous.

Of course, if the Taliban were interested in the foot in the regime door that we are offering, it would only be for the purpose of retaking full power once we leave. If that seems perfectly obvious to you, you are clearly not wired for diplomatic work. The State Department — regardless of which party is in the White House — proceeds on the assumption that the Taliban will make peace with the rickety regime in Kabul. They will join in the governance of the emirate — um, I mean, the country. This time they’ll behave themselves, eventually deep-six their al-Qaeda alliance, and go easy on the subjugation of women, the killing of homosexuals, the death sentences for apostates, the effacement of non-Islamic cultural vestiges, the jihad against the West, and the rest of the classical sharia vision these students have been studying for decades.

Crazy? No crazier than State’s convincing itself that Iran is complying with Obama’s legacy deal and has no interest in acquiring nukes. As the Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Tom Joscelyn explains, “officials in the State Department and elsewhere in government are heavily invested in the idea that the Taliban is a legitimate, albeit noxious, political faction that must be reconciled with the Afghan government,” even though “this policy goal has been betrayed by reality at every turn.”

With Trump’s State Department sounding exactly like Obama’s State Department, is it any surprise that The Donald is starting to sound like Imam Barack? Did you notice what was missing from Monday night’s speech? Though Trump was addressing a war with jihadists in which we’ve been mired for 16 years, there was not a single utterance about “radical Islamic terrorism.” That, you may recall from the 2016 presidential campaign, is the enemy Trump has repeatedly said we cannot be afraid to name. On Monday, to the contrary, the president assured us that “terrorists who slaughter innocent people will find no glory in this life or the next.”

Does he reckon that’s what they believe throughout Afghanistan?

To be fair, there are no good answers about what to do in that awful country. But it is hard to imagine a worse answer than trying to reconcile the Taliban to the regime.

There is a vital American interest in preventing ungoverned territories from becoming sanctuaries where jihadists plot against us. In most places, we deal with this challenge without having thousands of U.S. troops on the ground. If you were waiting to hear the president explain why, after all our sacrifice, Afghanistan should not be one of those places, you waited in vain.

The problem in Afghanistan is not the Taliban. The problem in Afghanistan is Afghanistan. The Taliban (and al-Qaeda, and the Haqqanis, and the “ISIS-K” in Khoransan province) are an inevitable consequence of sharia society, not its cause. We cannot change that. Contrary to Washington wisdom, there are no “vacuums” in the Middle East. There is Islamic fundamentalism. Absent the intervention of military force or tyrannical regimes, Islamic fundamentalism produces sharia societies that guarantee savage infighting and repression. As long as such societies endure, there will always be another Taliban to partner with another al-Qaeda; and there will always be Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Qatar, Turkey and the rest to support and exploit them — all the while posing as opponents of “extremism.”

We should be taking every sensible step to protect our society from the threats — kinetic and cultural, ideological and legal — posed by these aggressor societies. On that score, what we do on visa policy and border security is much more important than what we do in Afghanistan. Congress, moreover, should be enacting a new authorization of military force that solidifies the president’s authority to strike jihadist sanctuaries in Afghanistan and wherever else the enemy plots against us.

But let’s face facts: We are now 16 years down the road, and our government still refuses to be clear-eyed about sharia-supremacist ideology. We’ve lost thousands of valiant lives and wasted trillions of dollars trying to better the lot of people who hate us. Our nation, moreover, has no appetite for the formidable war effort it would take to pursue actual victory against our enemies and their sponsors. We should not inch up our forces in Afghanistan. We should strip down to the minimum assets needed to carry out and support counterterrorism strikes. And we should have as little to do with this region as our vital interests allow.

***

Also see:

Trusting Iran Makes It Our Next NKorea

Then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, right, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 29, 2015, before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the impacts of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on U.S. Interests and the Military Balance in the Mideast. (Andrew Harnik/AP)

Newsmax, by Peter Pry, Aug. 24, 2017:

Democracies have a blind faith that treaties can disarm totalitarian regimes. The notion that “peace in our time” is possible through a scrap of paper is an irrational addiction in Washington, D.C., the opioid of the U.S. State Department.

The free world is free because it has laws and contracts, and an ideological imperative to believe in the efficacy of negotiation and compromise. The totalitarian world is not free because its laws and contracts are lies, merely a propagandistic means to the end of tyranny, where the ideological imperative is to enslave.

Never the twain shall meet. But the free world never learns war cannot be outlawed by the Kellogg-Briand Pact of Aug. 27, 1928 or, just as absurdly, a world without nuclear weapons achieved by negotiating with North Korea an Agreed Framework (1994) or with Iran a Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA, 2015).

Perhaps the best warning against JCPOA is the long, failed history of arms control.

True believers in JCPOA should read two books, Barton Whaley’s “Covert German Rearmament 1919-1939: Deception and Misperception” and John Jordan’s “Warships After Washington.” Both books describe cheating by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan on the Versailles Treaty of June 28, 1919, the Washington Naval Treaty of  Feb. 6, 1922, the London Naval Treaty of April 22, 1930, and the Second London Naval Treaty of March 25, 1936.

Also read “The President’s Unclassified Report to the Congress on Soviet Noncompliance with Arms Control Agreements” (Released Feb. 1, 1985) wherein is described the USSR’s cheating on the major arms control agreements of the Cold War. The State Department is still sitting on the even more shocking classified version.

Now, Clare Lopez, a former CIA clandestine services officer who is vice president for research and analysis at the Center for Security Policy (CSP), one of the best Washington, D.C. think tanks, has written the definitive study titled “Why Trump Must Not Re-Certify Iranian JCPOA Compliance.” (Center for Security Policy, Aug. 23, 2017).

Lopez has deep expertise in the ideology of radical Islam that drives the Islamic Republic of Iran and their Islamic Revolutionary Guard to be the world’s leading sponsors of international terrorism — and why development of an Islamic Bomb is an ideological religious imperative for Iran.

The mullahs who run Iran, and the fanatical Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who run Iran’s nuclear and missile programs, will never betray Allah by surrendering their Islamic bomb — the most powerful weapon for material and spiritual victory in their global jihad.

Failure by the U.S. State Department to understand the ideological motives behind Iran’s nuclear missile program is repeating State’s catastrophic misunderstanding that the ideological imperatives of totalitarianism made inevitable North Korea’s cheating on former-President Bill Clinton’s Agreed Framework.

Totalitarian Iran and North Korea, despite profound ideological differences, are strategic partners in a nuclear missile “axis of evil” because the free world is even more abhorrent to Tehran and Pyongyang than each other.

Key Findings from Clare Lopez’s “Why Trump Must Not Re-Certify Iranian JCPOA Compliance”:

—”It is imperative that President Trump not recertify the Iranian regime as compliant with the provisions of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) when the next deadline comes due in October 2017;”

— “Tehran is explicitly and demonstrably out of compliance with the JCPOA on numerous specific counts'”

— “The nature of the Iranian regime is self-avowedly jihadist per its own constitution, which   declares the objective of the regime is global conquest by an Islamic State under rule of Islamic Law (shariah) – thus, its nuclear weapons program is a means to achieve that objective;”

— “The Iranian regime is signatory to a host of international conventions and treaties but has a documented record of violations that lends little credence to its JCPOA pledges;”

— “The Iranian regime most notably violated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) for at least 14 years before getting caught and publicly revealed with a clandestine nuclear weapons program in 2002.”

— “The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) documented a long list of so-called Possible Military Dimensions (PMDs) related to the Iranian nuclear program in November 2011 that strongly suggest its assessment that Iran had an advanced nuclear weapons program and possibly nuclear warheads at that time;”

— “More recent revelations demonstrate that the Iranian regime continues to work on nuclear warheads and explosive charges to initiate the implosion sequence of a nuclear bomb at clandestine sites off-limits to IAEA inspections;”

— “Even after the July 2015 JCPOA, the Iranian regime has been confronted with credible information that it is operating more advanced centrifuges than permitted, exceeding limits on production of heavy water, and covertly procuring nuclear and missile technology outside of JCPOA-approved channels: these are all material breaches of the JCPOA;”

— “The Iranian regime’s nuclear weapon and ballistic missile ‘Joint Venture’ with North Korea dates back at least to the 1990s and continues currently with especial concern about the sharing of expertise on warhead miniaturization and Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) technology;”

— “Denial of recertification of Iranian compliance with the JCPOA must be the first step in a complete review of the nuclear and ballistic missile threats from both Iran and North Korea.”

Mr. President, don’t let Iran become another North Korea. Tear-up the JCPOA!

Peter Vincent Pry is executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security. He served in the Congressional EMP Commission, the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission, the House Armed Services Committee, and the CIA. He is author of “Blackout Wars.” For more of his reports, Go Here Now.

State Department Confirms It Welcomed Visit from Muslim Brotherhood-Linked Group

AFP

Breitbart, by Edwin Mora, Aug. 17, 2017:

The U.S. Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), a Muslim Brotherhood (MB) affiliated group, met with “working level officials” at the U.S. State Department, an administration official confirmed to Breitbart News.

On condition of anonymity, a State Department official explained, “The Department regularly hosts groups representing different constituencies in America to explain [U.S. government] policy and hear their perspective.”

“The group was interested in U.S. policy on Jerusalem given events on the Temple Mount/Haram al Sharif last month, and met a cross-section of working level officials from different offices in the Department,” continued the official.

The MB affiliate boasted about its meeting with State officials, the identities of whom remains unknown.

In an August 10 statement, USCMO said:

Representatives of the US Council of Muslim Organizations (USCMO), a coalition of leading national and local American Muslim organizations, met yesterday with State Department officials to discuss the ongoing Al-Aqsa Mosque crisis and Israel’s denial of religious freedom in Jerusalem, which is holy to the three Abrahamic faiths.

During the meeting at the State Department, the USCMO delegation highlighted the religious significance of Jerusalem and the Al Aqsa Mosque sanctuary – one of Islam’s holiest site … Officials assured the group the United States is committed to maintaining the safety and security of worshipers in Jerusalem.

There is a factional debate reportedly under way within President Donald Trump’s administration over adding the MB itself to the State Department and Treasury lists of foreign terrorist organizations.

Several Muslim-majority countries, including U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Egypt, have officially labeled the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization. In their declarations, they urged the United States to follow suit and label both the MB and affiliates like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) terror groups. CAIR has been declared a terrorist organization by the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas-funding operation. It is a member group of the USCMO.

On Sunday, Ryan Mauro, a national security analyst with the Clarion Project, reported that the State Department hosted the MB-affiliated group.

Mauro wrote that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is opposed to designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

“My article is just the latest in an ongoing series documenting problems arising in the Trump Administration’s policies towards Islamist extremism,” he told Breitbart News. “I’m seeing major issues with Secretary of State Tillerson’s treatment of Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood, perhaps attributable to his close ties to Qatar before joining the administration. Qatar is also on a spending spree for lobbyists, particularly those with close ties to the Trump campaign.”

In his report, Mauro described USCMO as an umbrella organization of Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups that was formed in 2014.

The national security analyst wrote that “a secret memo uncovered by federal investigators” lists several USCMO member groups among “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” The memo also describes the MB’s work in America as a sort of “grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

Nevertheless, the Muslim Brotherhood-linked group met with State Department officials to encourage them to pressure Israel.

“We were encouraged by the constructive dialogue at the State Department on this important issues,” declared Oussama Jammal, the USCMO secretary general.

Tillerson Prepares The State Department For Change

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson speaks about the chemical weapons attack in Syria during a meeting with Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Videgaray at the State Department in Washington, U.S., April 5, 2017. (PHOTO: REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)

Daily Caller, by David Cohen, May 4, 2017:

The Cold War may have ended more than a quarter century ago, but according to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, it still lives on in at least one way: International relations are still largely managed through institutions that were designed for that era. Tillerson is intent on reforming the State Department so that it is prepared to face today’s realities, rather than those of a bipolar world order that no longer exists.

Addressing his employees yesterday at State’s Foggy Bottom headquarters, Tillerson explained President Trump’s “America First” concept to a roomful of people who—in all likelihood—voted overwhelmingly for Hillary Clinton. During the campaign, many of those Clinton voters probably would have personally found the “America First” slogan to be gauche. But Tillerson managed to explain “America First” in a way that could resonate with his audience but yet remain true to President Trump’s principles.

Tillerson said that “America First,” in the context of the State Department’s mission, primarily meant “America first for national security and economic prosperity.” But, he stressed, “that doesn’t mean it comes at the expense of others. Our partnerships and our alliances are critical to our success in both of those areas.”

In his conversational style, Tillerson talked about the changes that have arisen in the post-Cold War era. “As we participated in those changes, we were promoting relations, we were promoting economic activity, we were promoting trade with a lot of these emerging economies, and we just kind of lost track of how we were doing,” he said. “And as a result, things got a little bit out of balance.”

Tillerson continued: “So whether it’s our asking of NATO members to really meet their obligations—even though those were notional obligations, we understand, and aspirational obligations—we think it’s important that those become concrete. And when we deal with our trading partners—that things have gotten a little out-of-bounds here, they’ve gotten a little off balance—we’ve got to bring that back into balance because it’s not serving the interests of the American people well.”

Tillerson drew a distinction between American values, such as “freedom, human dignity, the way people are treated,” and American policies: “I think the real challenge many of us have as we think about constructing our policies and carrying out our policies is: How do we represent our values? And in some circumstances, if you condition our national security efforts on someone adopting our values, we probably can’t achieve our national security goals or our national security interests. If we condition too heavily that others must adopt this value that we’ve come to over a long history of our own, it really creates obstacles to our ability to advance our national security interests, our economic interests. It doesn’t mean that we leave those values on the sidelines. It doesn’t mean that we don’t advocate for and aspire to freedom, human dignity, and the treatment of people the world over. We do. And we will always have that on our shoulder everywhere we go.”

Tillerson stressed that “in some circumstances, we should and do condition our policy engagements on people adopting certain actions as to how they treat people.” But, he said, “that doesn’t mean that’s the case in every situation.”

Not surprisingly, the mainstream media put its own spin on Tillerson’s message. ABC News ran the following headline on its website: “Tillerson: Pushing human rights abroad ‘creates obstacles’ to U.S. interests.” The Guardian, a leftist UK newspaper, twisted the message into even more of a caricature: “Rex Tillerson: ‘America first’ means divorcing our policy from our values.”

Tillerson, of course, was merely stating the obvious. America remains the most powerful nation in the world, but our power is not limitless. We therefore have to recognize the tradeoffs that sometimes exist between promoting human rights and promoting American security and prosperity. So while we should promote human rights and other universal values when we can as much as we can, we must understand that continuously doing so at the expense of national and economic security erodes American power—and hence erodes our ability to promote freedom and human dignity in the long run.

The moral case for Tillerson’s—and Trump’s—approach is rooted in American exceptionalism. America is a force for good in the world, and therefore it’s power and prestige must be preserved and enhanced. America will never have the power to guaranty freedom and human rights for everyone in the world. But the lack of a strong America would greatly reduce freedom and human rights around the globe—particularly since other world powers, such as China and Russia, are hostile to such values.

American exceptionalism is not a moral justification for any conceivable action that America might take in its own self-interest. But it does give rise to a moral obligation for American leaders to exercise judgment and wisdom in navigating the complex tradeoffs that often arise between promoting our values and promoting our interests.

While the audience yesterday was no doubt interested in Tillerson’s discussion of foreign policy, they were even more interested in listening for hints about the future of their department. The Trump Administration is proposing to cut State’s budget by almost 30 percent, and Tillerson made it clear that significant change was on the way. It was too early, however, for Tillerson to offer specifics: his team had just begun a “listening tour” to determine how best to reform the department to meet the challenges of the future.

Tillerson did his best to reassure his employees that they were valued. He was very praising of the career staff, and his praise appeared to be sincere.

I have my own impression of the State Department, having worked closely with different bureaus during the Bush Administration. On the one hand, I often found State as an institution to be an overgrown, inflexible, frustrating bureaucracy. On the other hand, I found the career civil servants that I worked with, virtually without exception, to be dedicated, intelligent, professional and patriotic. Regardless of who they voted for, I believe these folks will respond well to a renewed sense of purpose and strong, positive leadership.

We will soon find out.

David B. Cohen formerly served as U.S. Representative to the Pacific Community and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Insular Affairs. He co-chaired the Federal Interagency Group on the Guam Military Buildup, and served on the Trump-Pence Asian-Pacific American Advisory Committee.

Taliban Activist Who Met With Clinton in Pakistan Promotes Hatred of Jews

orya-n-hillary
Sometimes hatred looks a lot like envy.
CounterJihad, by Shireen Qudosi, Sept. 20, 2016:
In a little-known diplomatic mission to Pakistan, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with a vocal Taliban supporter Orya Maqbool Jan, who has been caught on video bashing Jews and calling for the death penalty against those who blaspheme Islam.
Jan was part of an exclusive party that accompanied Clinton on a tour of Badshahi Mosque in Lahore, Pakistan, during her three day Pakistan trip as secretary of state in 2009.  Though his radical statements are largely unknown in the West, his positions are well-known in his part of the world. 
Clinton’s appearance with him both endorsed his radical Islamism, which is linked to this last weekend’s attacks in New York and New Jersey, and also undercut her own message of female empowerment.  Jan is an outspoken opponent of Western-style rights for women, and has been harshly critical of Western women and those Pakistani women who seem to endorse their views.

In an uncut short documentary produced by Hoggard Films covering Clinton in Pakistan shows Orya and Clinton side-by-side as Clinton talks to the world about fighting extremism. She’s also seen here with Jan (at 38 seconds):

In newly-discovered video (available below with full translation) recorded at a mosque in Norway, the Pakistani Deobandi cleric can be heard spinning conspiracy theories about Jews and calling for the death penalty against those who blaspheme against Islam. The vocal Taliban supporter told his listeners that Jews, “control the world’s wealth and media.” Going even farther, Jan claimed the Jews are Gog and Magog. In Islamic tradition, Gog and Magog (called Yajuj and Majuj) are tribes of apocalyptic chaos and destruction.

The Clinton Connection

Jan met with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on one of her trips to Pakistan in 2009. While there, she promised the audience U.S. taxpayer funds, saying, “we want to help you with jobs, economic development, infrastructure, access to education, providing support to healthcare and improving energy supply.”

Stateside, the trip was hailed as a success by a scripted media. TIME Magazine ran a Clinton-approved piece, originally titled “Hillary’s Moment: Clinton Faces the World.” The piece painted Hillary as “allowing herself to be hammered by tough questions,” in landscapeperpetually skeptical of American interests. It was an iconic moment for Clinton who questioned Pakistani intelligence’s quagmire on the location of Osama bin Laden. At least, it was aniconic moment for Americans. The rest of the world would see it differently.

Standing outside of Badshahi Mosque in Lahore, Hillary Clinton gave a public statement on American resolve in the fight against radical Islam – while flanked by Orya Maqbool Jan, a notorious fundamentalist, a Taliban supporter, and a well-known oppressor of women’s rights. Jan believes:

According to Wikileaks release of Clinton emails, Jan’s presence alongside Clinton was organized by Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Huma Abedin, a top aide of Clinton’s who travelled to Pakistan earlier to arrange details and welcome Clinton to her home country.

Clinton’s Credibility Problem

American taxpayers shelled out hard-earned money for a State Department-sanctioned trip halfway around the world.  Hillary Clinton used it to stand next to one of the most notorious supporters of Islamism in Pakistan – to then talk about combating extremism.

America has a credibility problem because it has a leadership problem. That leadership, under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was incompetent in screening for Islamists. The State Department could not be reached for a comment requesting clarification on why a known Taliban supporter would be allowed to stand by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton while as she discusses taking a hard stance against extremists. Multiple requests for answers were ignored.

Also ignored are the minority voices in Pakistan that stand up to extremism – the very minority voices Clinton attempted to reach through the 2009 delegation to Pakistan and the launch oftechnology initiatives to boost intra-communication. Seeing Clinton speak about extremism while seeing Orya striding next to her – one of the most recognizable faces of oppression – is as clear signal to Pakistani critical thinkers that America (1) doesn’t understand the face of extremism and/or (2) America is disingenuous in their efforts to combat extremists. That is the real message Clinton got across.

And that is the message Americans at home are beginning to understand as well.

What is that mindset immigrants who do not assimilate bring with them when they cross the threshold to America?  Will it not be the same unrelenting Islamic supremacist culture?  The same is true for foreign dignitaries, media personalities, and refugees.  Clinton hasproven she does not understand the dangers of allowing this world view to pass into the West.

New York Bomb Suspect Radicalized Next Door to Orya Maqbool Jan

On Sunday, September 18th, 2016, 28-year-old U.S. citizen of Afghan origin, Ahmad Khan Rahami launched a jihadi attack in New Jersey and New York at injured 29 people. Rahami acted independently under the global insurgency instructions of former ISIS spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani. However, Rahami is part of a greater mindset that stands in staunch opposition to Western values. Investigators are speculating Rahami was radicalized in Quetta, Pakistan, a known stronghold for Pakistani Taliban – and the same small territory where Orya Maqbool Jan is from.

Among the issues of immigration and assimilation, the most recent attack on U.S. soil raises a greater question of Clinton’s capability in leading the greatest war of the 21st century.

How can Hillary Clinton lead this war while giving press conferences attacking the immigrant connection when the last three attacks on U.S. soil have been directly immigrant related: San Bernardino, Orlando, and now New York?

How can Hillary Clinton advocate American values, American interests, or champion women’s rights when she’s standing along one of the most vehement advocates of Islamic extremism – Orya Maqbool Jan?

Orya Maqbool Jan’s Inciteful Rhetoric the Real Hate Speech

Despite Clinton’s claim to champion freedom, she’s in knee-deep affiliation with extremists and Islamists. Her campaign’s attempt to slander truth has hate speech is in vile opposition to hard facts. The truth is that real hate speech is what community leaders and media personalities like Orya Maqbool Jan freely spew at home and abroad, telling us that immigration isn’t just about refugees but about the immigration of foreign and hostile ideas through visiting visas and digital spheres.

“No law or belief – not even universal human rights – is higher than the principles of our Holy Book,” Orya Maqbool Jan tells his audience in his native Urdu. “The only constitution Muslims should have is the Quran.”

Even in Norway, Jan’s Pakistani audience is conditioned to accept outlandish and unfounded conclusions because they’ve already found themselves agreeing wholeheartedly with a very familiar lament in the Muslim world, Pan-Islamism. After the failures of Arab nationalism and the Middle East’s flirtations with Marxism-Leninism, Pakistani thinkers like Mohammed Iqbal championed a return to identity based on the shared consciousness and history of Islam. This identity would be trans-national; its most common recurring theme is that, without Islam as a unifying force, Muslims are divided and selfish, unable to work together to achieve the ummah’s goals successfully.

The tones of victimization Orya takes are very similar to post WWI Germany, which produced a population ripe for attaching itself to anything that will help give it an insulated identity. That attachment and division was a necessary precursor to what happens next: hatred, exclusion and extermination.

There’s just no way to take what is being said for face value, especially if reading the translation alone. Urdu is a very poetic and emotive language that a translation alone cannot fully deliver. These emotions carry the listener from empathy for the Jews; to grievances of how Muslims were robbed by events of the 20th century; to contempt for current world leaders; to, finally, a climate where the world is stacked against Muslims, and the only inevitable path for true believers is to fight. The supremacist undertones that are ripe throughout don’t come from nationalism, but from religious dedication to the infallibility of the Quran.

Religious scholars like Orya Maqbook Jan rely on the West’s ignorance in understanding Islamic ideology. They also trust that sermons like this won’t be spread with a facilitated understanding of how problematic and hateful they are. Yet there are Pakistanis like myself and LUBPAK editor Ali Abbas Taj (who shared this video) who are pulling back the curtain. So while Pakistan continues its grievances against America and exploits visits with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as an opportunity to ‘tell the world,’ behind the curtain there is a very dark picture of a rising threat that is ready to go to war against the world.

The threat isn’t limited to Pakistan, where Jan is given enough of a platform to stand side by side with Hillary Clinton during a State Department visit. He’s also given a green light to travel to the West and fill mosques with sermons designed to activate Muslims living abroad. As crafted in his speech, he uses history and religious verses to shame Muslims who possess national and foreign identities, who have built lives overseas. And without directly saying so, he tells them to give up that identity and embrace a ‘purist’ interpretation of Islam in preparation for the coming war that will rage against the world and its Jews.

Also see:

New ISIS Military Commander Was Trained by State Department as Recently as 2014

new-isis-commander-gulmorad-halimov-trained-by-state-department-sized-770x415xtPJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, SEPTEMBER 6, 2016:

Gulmurod Khalimov, the new ISIS military commander whom the U.S. just days ago announced a $3 million bounty for, was trained by the State Department in an anti-terror program as recently as 2014 while serving in the security service of Tajikistan.

He replaces former ISIS commander Tarkhan Batirashvili, aka Umar al-Shishani, who was also trained by the United States as part of the Georgian army and who ISIS claimed was killed fighting in Iraq this past July.

The State Department confirmed Khalimov’s U.S.-provided training to CNN in May 2015:

“From 2003-2014 Colonel Khalimov participated in five counterterrorism training courses in the United States and in Tajikistan, through the Department of State’s Diplomatic Security/Anti-Terrorism Assistance program,” said spokeswoman Pooja Jhunjhunwala.The program is intended to train candidates from participating countries in the latest counterterrorism tactics, so they can fight the very kind of militants that Khalimov has now joined.

A State Department official said Khalimov was trained in crisis response, tactical management of special events, tactical leadership training and related issues.

Unironically, the State Department spokeswoman said that Khalimov had been appropriately vetted:

“All appropriate Leahy vetting was undertaken in advance of this training,” said spokeswoman Jhunjhunwala.

At that time, Khalimov appeared in a video threatening the United States:

“Listen, you American pigs: I’ve been to America three times. I saw how you train soldiers to kill Muslims,” he says.Then, he threatens, “we will find your towns, we will come to your homes, and we will kill you.”

Khalimov and Batirashvili are hardly the first terrorist leaders operating in Syria to have been trained by the United States.

In August 2014, the Washington Post reported that fighters who had been trained by Western forces, including the U.S., in Libya had found their way to terror groups at the beginning of the Syrian conflict:

Some European and Arab intelligence officials also voiced their worries and frustration about what they call the mistakes the United States has made in handling the uprisings in Arab states. “We had, in the early stages, information that radical groups had used the vacuum of the Arab Spring, and that some of the people the U.S. and their allies had trained to fight for ‘democracy’ in Libya and Syria had a jihadist agenda — already or later, [when they] joined al Nusra or the Islamic State,” a senior Arab intelligence official said in a recent interview. He said that often his U.S. counterparts would say things like, “We know you are right, but our president in Washington and his advisers don’t believe that.” Those groups, say Western security officials, are threats not only in the Middle East, but also in the United States and Europe, where they have members and sympathizers.The official’s account has been corroborated by members of the Islamic State in and outside the Middle East, including Abu Yusaf, the military commander. In several interviews conducted in the last two months, they described how the collapse of security during Arab Spring uprisings helped them recruit, regroup and use the Western strategy — to support and train groups that fight dictators — for their own benefits. “There had [also] been … some British and Americans who had trained us during the Arab Spring times in Libya,” said a man who calls himself Abu Saleh and who only agreed to be interviewed if his real identity remained secret.

Abu Saleh, who is originally from a town close to Benghazi, said he and a group of other Libyans received training and support in their country from French, British, and American military and intelligence personnel — before they joined the Al Nusra Front or the Islamic State. Western and Arab military sources interviewed for this article, confirmed Abu Saleh’s account that “training” and “equipment” were given to rebels in Libya during the fight against the Gadhafi regime.

Abu Saleh left Libya in 2012 for Turkey and then crossed into Syria. “First I fought under what people call the ‘Free Syrian Army’ but then switched to Al Nusra. And I have already decided I will join the Islamic State when my wounds are healed,” the 28-year-old said from a hospital in Turkey, where he is receiving medical treatment. He had been injured during a battle with the Syrian Army, he said, and was brought to Turkey with false documents.  “Some of the Syrian people who they trained have joined the Islamic State and others jabhat al Nusra,” he said, smiling. He added, “Sometimes I joke around and say that I am a fighter made by America.”

This problem of a terror “boomerang” also goes back to the Bush administration, as seen when Islamist rebels took over a large portion of Mali in 2013.

As the Financial Times reported:

To the dismay of the US, junior Malian officers trained as part of $620m pan-Sahelian counter-terrorism initiative launched in 2002 to help four semi-desert states resist Islamic militancy took part in a coup in March last year. Others among them defected to the Tuareg revolt that eventually led to a coalition of Islamist militias, allied with Algerian militants from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, capturing the northern two-thirds of Mali.Potentially, these US-trained officers are now using US counter-insurgency know-how against France’s intervention force.

“It is a great failure,” says Dr Berny Sèbe, an expert in Franco-African relations at the University of Birmingham. “Some of them defected. Others organised a coup.”

In two of the three other Sahelian states involved in the Pentagon’s pan-Sahelian initiative, Mauritania and Niger, armies trained by the US, have also taken power in the past eight years. In the third, Chad, they came close in a 2006 attempt.

And back in Syria, as I’m chronicled repeatedly here at PJ Media, “vetted moderate” forces armed and trained by the U.S. have defected to ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

July 7, 2014: U.S. ‘Vetted Moderate’ Free Syrian Army Brigades Surrender Weapons, Pledge Allegiance to Islamic StateNov. 2, 2014: U.S.-Armed ‘Vetted Moderate’ Syrian Rebel Groups Surrender, Defect to Al-Qaeda

Nov. 24, 2014: More Defections of ‘Vetted Moderate’ Free Syrian Army Rebels to ISIS

Dec. 2, 2014: US-Backed Syrian Rebels Ally with al-Qaeda in South, Surrender CIA-Supplied Weapons in the North

Sept. 22, 2015: Report: U.S.-Trained, ‘Vetted Moderate’ Syrian Rebel Leader Defects to Al-Qaeda, Turns Weapons Over to Terror Group

Given these repeated instances, one might begin to question the quality of the U.S. government’s vetting capabilities.

U.S. State Dept. Blocks Christians from Testifying about Islamist Persecution

Middle East Forum Blog, by Raymond Ibrahim  •  Jul 27, 2015
Cross-posted from The Gatestone Institute

Excerpt from Raymond Ibrahim’s monthly roundup of Muslim persecution of Christians around the world.

The State Department initially refused to give a visa to Sister Diana Momeka of Iraq when she planned a visit to Washington earlier this year to advocate on behalf of Iraqi Christians.

The State Department initially refused to give a visa to Sister Diana Momeka of Iraq when she planned a visit to Washington earlier this year to advocate on behalf of Iraqi Christians.

Sister Diana Momeka, an influential Iraqi Christian leader, who was scheduled to visit the U.S. to advocate for persecuted Christians in the Mideast, was denied a visa by the U.S. State Department even though she had visited the U.S. before, most recently in 2012.During the height of one of the most brutal months of Muslim persecution of Christians, the U.S. State Department exposed its double standards against persecuted Christian minorities.

She was to be one of a delegation of religious leaders from Iraq — including Sunni, Shia and Yazidi, among others — to visit Washington, D.C., to describe the situation of their people. Every religious leader from this delegation to Washington D.C. was granted a visa — except for the only Christian representative, Sister Diana.

After this refusal became public, many Americans protested, some writing to their congressmen. Discussing the nun’s visa denial, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said:

This is an administration which never seems to find a good enough excuse to help Christians, but always finds an excuse to apologize for terrorists … I hope that as it gets attention that Secretary Kerry will reverse it. If he doesn’t, Congress has to investigate, and the person who made this decision ought to be fired.

The State Department eventually granted Sister Diana a visa.

This is not the first time the U.S. State Department has not granted a visa to a Christian leader coming from a Muslim region. Last year, after the United States Institute for Peace brought together the governors of Nigeria’s mostly Muslim northern states for a conference in the U.S., the State Department blocked the visa of the region’s only Christian governor, Jonah David Jang.

According to a Nigerian human rights lawyer based in Washington D.C., Emmanuel Ogebe, the Christian governor’s “visa problems” were due to anti-Christian bias in the U.S. government:

The U.S. insists that Muslims are the primary victims of Boko Haram. It also claims that Christians discriminate against Muslims in Plateau, which is one of the few Christian majority states in the north. After the [Christian governor] told them [U.S. authorities] that they were ignoring the 12 Shariah states who institutionalized persecution … he suddenly developed visa problems…. The question remains — why is the U.S. downplaying or denying the attacks against Christians?

The testimony of another nun, Sister Hatune Dogan, also made in May, indicates why the State Department may not want to hear such testimonials: they go against the paradigm that “Islam is peace.” According to Sister Hatune:

What is going on there [Islamic State territories], what I was hearing, is the highest barbarism on earth in the history until today… The mission of Baghdadi, of ISIS, is to convert the world completely to the Islamic religion and bring them to Dar Al Salaam, as they call it. And Islam is not peace, please. Whoever says ISIS has no connection to Islam or something like this is, he’s a liar. ISIS is Islam; Islam is ISIS… We know that in Islam, there is no democracy. Islam and democracy are opposite, like black and white. And I hope America will understand. America today has the power that they can stop this disaster on the earth, with other Western countries.

For the rest of Ibrahim’s monthly roundup of Muslim persecution of Christians around the world, click here.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Judith Friedman Rosen Fellow at the Middle East Forum