Sunday, 31 May 2015

US Asylum Seekers from Cuba, Africa and South Asia Perilous Jungle Crossing in Panama

Perilous Passage WSJ 5-30-15NER, by Jerry Gordon, May 31, 2015:

Our June NER article, Trojan Horse Federal Refugee Program Brings Jihadi Threat to America: An Interview with Ann Corcoran  noted the increasing numbers of illegal migrants making global treks by air and water to Latin America and the trek north to the US border for asylum. They sought this difficult passage for a variety of reasons; but really one, “to seek a better life”.  Although there may be some among the 3,400 who have undertaken this dangerous long distance passage who may have other reasons in mind. Coincidentally, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) Weekend Edition had a front page article, focusing on the passage through the Darien jungle of Panama, “Panama’s Perilous Jungle Is a New Route for Migrants”.  There are  also costly water passages by human traffickers that avoid the Darien jungle equivalent to those we have written about in the Mediterranean.  However, ike the experience of illegal migrants fleeing Syria, Sub Sahara Africa endeavoring to reach the EU via Libya and other crossing points they may be robbed and murdered by ‘coyotes,’ human traffickers.

Among those interviewed in the WSJ article were illegal migrants from Guinea, Somalia, Pakistan and Cuba.  Note that common thread is escape from Jihadis; Sharia arranged marriages or tyranny, as in the case of Cuban refugees in this group.  What is also not lost is that all  illegal migrants have prior knowledge, that if they survive the trek north and illegally cross the US southern border, they can present themselves as asylum seekers.  Because of US asylum privileges for Cuban border crossers, they will likely not be detained but released to possible relatives. In other cases, as we have seen, they will  be transported to a  DHS Immigration Customs Enforcement   Detention Center, to await  a hearing before a Justice Department, Executive Office for Immigration Review,  immigration judge.   Before him they will invoke the important words, ‘fear of physical or political threats’ before a quick decision is gaveled down admitting them as a refugee. They will then obtain benefits under the Refugee Act of 1980, including community placement, unless they can claim relatives here in the US.  The US Refugee Admissions Program then takes over providing a smorgasbord of welfare, Medicaid, housing assistance and a pathway to ultimate citizenship. All without any reasonable means of screening asylees as documentation may be absent or virtually unavailable from their country of origin.

Watch this WSJ video:

Note these WSJ article excerpts.

A Somali:

Ahmed Hassan staggered through dense Panamanian jungle, crazy with thirst, his rubber sandals sliding in the mud, fearing he would die thousands of miles from his homeland in Somalia.

“I told my family I would go to the U.S., that was the plan,” said the 26-year-old truck driver, who said he fled late last year when al-Shabaab militants took his village. He flew to Brazil and made a cross-continental bus trip to Colombia.

In March came his biggest test: crossing the Darien Gap that connects South America with Panama and Mr. Hassan’s ultimate goal, the U.S.

“There was no water. There were snakes,” he said in a small holding center in Metetí, north of the jungle, gashes and bites covering his legs under his traditional sarong. “I thought I might die in that jungle.”

A Guinean:

There is still the journey through Central America and Mexico, but migrants say the Darien is the hardest. “I want to get to the U.S.,” said Hawa Bah, 20, who fled Guinea in West Africa. She spoke as she lay weak on a cot in a Panamanian holding center after getting lost in the Darien for more than 10 days.

“I was being forced into marriage, and I was worried about Ebola,” she said. “I’d rather have died in the jungle than go back.”

A Cuban Couple:

Yamil Gonzales, a Cuban, staggered up an incline above the beach, wheezing. “Agua,” murmured Mr. Gonzales, 45, collapsing against a tree as companions frantically dug through black garbage bags for water.

Soon, he was plowing through underbrush littered with bottles and broken sandals left by prior processions.

“It’s been hard, really hard,” said his wife, Yalile Alfonso, 47. “But in Cuba, there’s nothing. We had to come this way.” The couple was well-prepared, with passports, detailed plans to take buses to the U.S. border and knowledge of U.S. asylum laws.

A Pakistani:

But unlike the jungle route, this approach is close to Colombia, so border authorities can easily deport migrants without passports. That was Mohammed Khan’s fate. A father of four from Swat, a Pakistani area plagued by Taliban violence, he had landed with Mr. Gonzales. Months before, people of his village had pitched in $7,000 for his trip, he said.

A small pack on his back, Mr. Khan, 38, looked elated as he scrambled down the slope toward the tiny town of La Miel. People had told him Panama police would be hospitable.

But he had dumped his passport much earlier. The border authorities shook their heads as he pleaded: “Please, please, help me.” They marched him back up the mountain to Colombia.

Early this month, Mr. Khan texted that he re-entered Panama via the jungle, where he had seen “a lot dead.” He was in Guatemala, waiting to head north.

“Go USA,” he texted. “Plz pray.”

Note the open pathway to the US once access to Panama is obtained:

Critics like Otto Reich, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, have said Ecuador’s open-door stance may result in a threat to the U.S. And Panamanian officials “know they are coming to the U.S. and then once here they will no longer be Panama’s problem,” said Mr. Reich, who heads a government-relations and trade-consulting firm.

Javier Carillo, director of Panama’s National Migration Service, says it is unfair to blame Panama for the problem, since migrants arrive illegally and pass through some nine other countries on their way to the U.S. A spokesman for Colombia’s immigration authority said it combats human smuggling and offers migrants the opportunity to apply for asylum or safe-conduct papers.

Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it “is not aware of this human trafficking route.” Officials at Ecuador’s immigration authority didn’t respond to requests for comment. Ecuador’s Foreign Ministry has said the country doesn’t support criminal activity.

Cubans, who say crossing the Florida Straits has become too tough, are the biggest group flowing across and around the isthmus. Others from far-off countries are also arriving in growing numbers: Panama processed 210 Somalis crossing the Darien this year through March, up from 60 in the year-earlier period.

Where have we heard about the Darien Gap in what is now Panama?  Think of the brief Scottish colony of “Caledonia” established in the 1690 in the Gulf of Darien, that was supposed to conduct trade in both the Atlantic and Pacific. The so-called “Darien Scheme” failed for a host of reasons including poor planning, provisions and being ravaged by epidemics until the colony was overrun by Spanish military in 1700. Because it was backed by upwards of 50 percent of currency in circulation in Scotland, its failure ultimately forced the merger that created the United Kingdom in 1707.

Western Officials Alarmed as ISIS Expands Territory in Libya

Workers cleaning the ground after a suicide car bombing at a checkpoint outside Misurata, Libya, on Sunday that killed at least four people. The Islamic State claimed responsibility. Credit Reuters

Workers cleaning the ground after a suicide car bombing at a checkpoint outside Misurata, Libya, on Sunday that killed at least four people. The Islamic State claimed responsibility. Credit Reuters

TRIPOLI, Libya — The branch of the Islamic State that controls Surt has expanded its territory and pushed back the militia from the neighboring city of Misurata, militia leaders acknowledged Sunday.

In the group’s latest attack, a suicide bomber killed at least four fighters on Sunday at a checkpoint west of Misurata on the coastal road to Tripoli, according to local officials and Libyan news reports.

The continued expansion inside Libya of the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, has alarmed Western officials because of its proximity to Europe, across the Mediterranean.

Four years after the removal of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, the near collapse of the Libyan government has left no central authority to check the group’s advance or even partner with Western military efforts against it.

Two armed factions, each with its own paper government, are fighting for control, and each has focused more on internal quarrels than on defeating the Islamic State.

The group’s expanding turf in Libya also gives it an alternative base of operations even as it appears to be gaining ground in other regions — in Palmyra in Syria and in Ramadi in Iraq.

graphic on ISISThe gains come despite an American-led bombing campaign aimed at rolling back the group’s original territory across the border between those countries.

Suliman Ali Mousa, an officer with the brigade from Misurata, confirmed in a telephone interview on Sunday that over the past two days its forces had retreated in the face of Islamic State advances to the east, south and west of Surt. Islamic State fighters have captured the Gardabya air base, about 12 miles south of Surt; it had been all but destroyed by NATO airstrikes during the 2011 campaign against Colonel Qaddafi, but Libyans describe it as a strategic foothold.

Toward the east, Mr. Mousa’s brigade retreated from its base in a water treatment facility, leaving the Islamic State in control as far as the town of Nofilya, another extremist stronghold. And toward the West the Misuratan forces had also pulled back about 12 miles toward their home city.

“We left our position and relocated,” Mr. Mousa said. “It was a necessary retreat. Our fighting position did not allow us to stay where we were.” He added that another group of Misurata fighters had abandoned a power station west of Surt and so his group had taken their place.

He said he was unsure why those fighters had pulled out, but “there was a lot of talk about money and unpaid salaries.”

Islamic State’s Expansion into the Caucasus Region

May 31, 2015 / ISIS Study Group /

The other day we were discussing the Islamic State’s (IS) expansion into the Caucasus region with our good friends at American Jihad Watch, who pointed out that the al-Hayat Media Center (HMC) had established a Russian language magazine titled “ISTOK” or “the Source.” The first big shout out IS gave to the Caucasus was in Dabiq #7, but ISTOK is important because its specifically catering to the people in that region. None of this is surprising since the best fighters in the IS and Jabhat al-Nusra ranks are Chechens. Chechen fighters are so prized for their fighting prowess that the IS Military OPs Emir is a Chechen (Omar al-Shishani aka “the Ginger Jihadist”). We assess that this is the first phase of IS’ engagement strategy to establish a permanent presence in the Caucasus and fill the void being left by Imarat Kavkaz (IK), a jihadist organization that represents Russia’s primary terror threat – but has been in decline since 2013. In this piece we’ll take a look at why the intelligence community may want to take a closer look into what these guys are about, and why IS’ interest in the region is significant.

ISIS-Dabiq-Issue-no.-7

Cover of ISTOK Magazine Source: American Jihad Watch

Cover of ISTOK Magazine
Source: American Jihad Watch

Screen shot taken from Dabiq #7 Source: Dabiq #7

Screen shot taken from Dabiq #7
Source: Dabiq #7

Another screen shot of ISTOK Magazine Source: American Jihad Watch

Another screen shot of ISTOK Magazine
Source: American Jihad Watch

So what exactly is IK, anyway? IK is a jihadist organization that was established in 2007 by Doku Umarov, who the Russians had dubbed the “Osama bin Laden of the Caucasus.” The group’s goal is to expel the Russians from the North Caucasus and establish an “Islamic Emirate.” For years IK had been causing trouble in Russia executing attacks throughout Chechnya, Ingushtia, Dagestan – even Moscow itself.

Profile: Caucasus Emirates
http://ift.tt/1AHeABU

Six North Caucasus Insurgency Commanders Transfer Allegiance To Islamic State
http://ift.tt/1xozgLg

Pro-Rebel Website Posts Transcript of Interview with Doku Umarov
http://ift.tt/1AHeyKd

Doku Umarov Source: The Fine Report

Doku Umarov
Source: The Fine Report

Here’s the highlights from the more recent attacks:

– DEC 2014 Grozny fighting.

– DEC 2013 Volgograd Bombings.

– OCT 2013 Volgograd Bus Bombing.

– The Boston Bombers were inspired by IK. Other reporting suggests that they had received training at a camp run by IK’s Dagestan Viliyat. Its worth noting that this same IK faction has since pledged allegiance to IS.

– 2012 Makhachkala Attack – 13 people killed.

-Domodedovo International Airport Bombing that killed 36 people.

– 2010 Moscow Metro Bombings that resulted in 39 people dead and over 100 wounded.

– 2009 Nevsky Express Bombing. A second bomb was detonated the following day near the site of the first attack.

North Caucasus group in Russia train bomb web claim
http://ift.tt/1AHeABX

Top detective hurt in second blast at train crash site
http://ift.tt/1FNJnfA

Chechen rebel claims Moscow attacks
http://ift.tt/1AHeyKh

Moscow bombing: Carnage at Russia’s Domodedovo airport
http://ift.tt/1FNJnfB

Twin bomb attacks kill 12 in Russia’s Dagestan
http://ift.tt/1FNJkAt

Female suicide bomber attacks Russian bus, kills six
http://ift.tt/1FNJkAu

Dead Boston bomb suspect posted video of jihadist, analysis shows
http://ift.tt/1AHeyKn

Terrorism in the Caucasus and the Threat to the US Homeland
http://ift.tt/1lrKpmT

Assessing Terrorism in the Caucasus and the Threat to the Homeland

Female suicide bomber attack in Volgograd, Russia, as Sochi Winter Olympics approach
http://ift.tt/VftwTV

Gun battles erupt in Chechnya’s capital after militants launch attack
http://ift.tt/1yS7tD8

Indeed the group was a serious threat to Russian security for several years. However, the tide began to turn in favor of Putin when a major crackdown on IK was launched in 2011. Since the start of the campaign (which remains ongoing) attacks inside Russia have declined by 30%. When Umarov made it clear that he intended to crash the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Putin unleashed the Spetznaz for what would become a massive surge in counter-terror operations with Chechen terrorists either being killed or “disappeared.” One of the casualties was Umarov himself. Aliaskhab Kebekov aka “Ali Abu Muhammad” would replace him as leader of IK. Kebekov would continue the group’s allegiance to al-Qaida (AQ) that was first established with Umarov.

Caucasus Emirate Leader Calls On Insurgents To Thwart Sochi Winter Olympics
http://ift.tt/1bSbEEa

Chechen rebel leader Doku Umarov ‘dead’
http://ift.tt/1qQ1IBu

Doku Umarov Source: The Fine Report

Doku Umarov
Source: The Fine Report

However, major fracturing within the organization began in DEC 14 when elements began defecting to IS. Problems first emerged as far back as 2012, which Umarov had addressed in NOV 12 rebuking those who had “weakened the jihad in the North Caucasus” by leaving to fight in Syria. Despite his public denouncement, he would later change his tune when it became clear that Syria was “the new Afghanistan.” In 2013, a Chechen commander known as Emir Salahuddin was appointed to the position of “official representative of the Caucasus Emirate in Syria.” This individual would later replace Omar al-Shishani as leader of Jaysh al-Mujahirin when he left the group to join IS. Under Shishani’s command, Jaysh al-Mujahirin developed a reputation for their combat efficiency and viciousness adjacent the “Kufar” or “non-believer.” Shishani and the group was instrumental in al-Nusra’s attack on the Syrian military’s Sheik Suleiman Base located in Western Aleppo and also served as the lead element in the offensive that overran Menagh Airbase. Following Kebekov’s appointment as new leader of the Jaysh al-Mujahirin, he ensured that the group remained an independent entity (much like Indonesia’s Jemaah Islamiyah), although he was still voicing support for AQ. The interesting thing about this Jaysh al-Mujahirin is that Salahuddin has been using the group to “maintain the peace” between IS and al-Nusra – or attempted to anyways. Unfortunately, the influx of Chechen fighters arriving in Syria and Iraq, regardless what faction they served under, also meant that the organization lost a lot of their most competent personnel.

(Check out “Islamic State Military Operations Emir Possibly KIA” and “IS Organizational Breakdown” for additional info on Shishani)

Chechen Militants Fighting in Middle East Remain Split in Their Loyalties
http://ift.tt/1FNJkQO

Jaysh al-Mujahirin wal Ansar Leader accuses Islamic State of Creating “Fitna” Between Jihadist Groups
http://ift.tt/1FcoBme

Islamic State Military Operations Emir Possibly KIA
http://ift.tt/1FNJkQQ

IS Organizational Breakdown
http://ift.tt/1AHeASl

Salahuddin (Left) Source: The Long War Journal

Salahuddin (Left)
Source: The Long War Journal

omar al-shishani 3

Omar al-Shishani
Source: The ISIS Study Group

Kebekov himself was regarded as a weak leader who contributed to IK’s decline. Syria-based jihadists feuded with him because they thought he wasn’t “hardcore enough.” The result was 50% of the group defecting to IS by APR 15 to include at least 10 Jamaat (or local/mid-level) commanders. One of the bigger names that pledged allegiance to Baghdadi was IK Dagestan Emir Rustam Asilderov, who made the announcement in late-DEC 14. Asilderov is currently serving as IS’ point-man for the North Caucasus region with two more representatives operating in the Republic of Georgia – which is a traditional IK facilitation hub. When Kebekov was killed last month with no real replacement capable of preventing any further fracturing, it opened the door for IS – through Asilderov – to begin laying the groundwork for establishing a permanent presence in the region.

Whither Caucasus Emirate?
http://ift.tt/1AHeASn

Dagestani Jihadist Swears Allegiance to Islamic State, Invoking Backlash
http://ift.tt/1y6ZK5E

New leader of “Imarat Kavkaz” not to be loyal to IS
http://ift.tt/1AHez0L

Russian special forces kill North Caucasus rebel leader
http://ift.tt/1E3lXmI

kebekov

Kebekov
Source: The Counter Jihad Report

Putin’s regime is concerned about Chechen fighters returning from Syria and Iraq giving the guys on the home front a “shot in the arm.” Not surprisingly, Putin blames the Obama administration for the rise of IS. The sad thing is he’s 100% correct. The thing that we should be concerned about on our end is that all Putin’s crackdown has done is purge the most influential AQ-aligned elements from the ranks, which gives IS a “blank slate” to influence with the guys who’ve been networking with the structural leadership in the Middle East. Aside from the fact that IS would want to have a larger presence in the region that the best fighters in their ranks are from, a permanent presence there would enable IS to directly target Russia in retaliation for Putin’s support to the both the Assad and Iranian regimes.

Another factor that makes such an endeavor so attractive to them is the fact that a lot of the Chechen fighters have been traveling to Syria and Iraq through Russia, Georgia and Azerbaijan – many with Russian and European passports. This also presents IS with an alternative method of inserting jihadists into Europe for the purpose of conducting attacks. We assess that IS has been forced into trying to balance resources between establishing a solid presence in the region and competing requirements elsewhere – like Yemen, for instance. Meanwhile, the pro-AQ factions of IK have been reaching out to the structural AQ leadership in Pakistan in the hopes of being granted official affiliate status. From what we understand Dr. Zawahiri approves of the idea. So the race is on to see who can establish a permanent presence there first. Keep in mind that both IS and AQ’s efforts will be slowed considerably as a result of Russia’s ongoing counter-terror campaign. Still, this is something that the intelligence community would do well to keep close watch of since those Chechens fighting in the Middle East will eventually start returning home at some point…

Islamic State rapidly expanding into Southeast Asia

A SCARY SPEECH. PHOTOGRAPHER: ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

A SCARY SPEECH. PHOTOGRAPHER: ROSLAN RAHMAN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Bloomberg, by Josh Rogin, May 29, 2015:

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has ramped up its activities in Southeast Asia so effectively that there is now an entire military unit of terrorists recruited from Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, according to Singapore’s prime minister.

“Southeast Asia is a key recruitment center for ISIS,” Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong said at the Shangri-La Dialogue here in Singapore Friday. He noted that this included more than 500 Indonesians and dozens of Malaysians. “ISIS has so many Indonesian and Malaysia fighters that they form a unit by themselves — the Katibah Nusantara — Malay Archipelago Combat Unit,” he added.

Even in the small and tightly controlled city-state of Singapore, “a few” young men have gone to Syria to join the Islamic State ranks, and even more were intercepted trying to leave, Lee disclosed. He said the Singaporean authorities had recently arrested two students, one 17 and one 19, the latter of whom had planned to assassinate Singaporean government officials if he was unable to reach the Middle East.

“This is why Singapore takes terrorism, and in particular ISIS, very seriously,” Lee said. “The threat is no longer over there, it is over here.”

Lee revealed that the Islamic State has posted a propaganda and recruitment video showing Malay-speaking children training with weapons inside territory controlled by the terror group, and that two Malaysians were identified in a separate video carrying out the beheading of a Syrian man.

Lee also said that the Malaysian police have arrested several people who were planning to go to Syria to join the terrorist group, including some members of the Malaysian armed forces. Some were planning attacks inside Malaysia. Meanwhile, several jihadist groups in Southeast Asia have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, including Indonesia-based Jemaah Islamiyah, whose leader, Abu Bakar Bashir, announced his allegiance from his prison cell last year.

The Islamic State has said it intends to establish a province of its “caliphate” in Southeast Asia. Lee said the idea was a “grandiose, pie-in-the sky dream.” But he warned that it’s entirely feasible that the group could take advantage of some ungoverned spaces to establish a foothold from which to expand recruiting and plan attacks in the new host countries.  “That would pose a serious threat to the whole of Southeast Asia,” Lee said.

Starting Friday, Singapore will contribute a KC-135 tanker plane to the international coalition fighting against Islamic State forces in the Middle East. The deployment is symbolic, but Lee emphasized that the fight against Islamic extremism was just beginning, and like the Cold War, would surely take decades to win. “50 years from now, I doubt the scourge of extremist terrorism will have entirely disappeared,” he told the forum. “Remember that Soviet Communism, another historical dead end, took 70 years to collapse, and that was a non-religious ideology.”

Terrorism in Southeast Asia is not new. More than 200 people died in the Bali bombings in 2002.  Jemaah Islamiyah almost succeeded in a plot to bomb diplomatic offices in Singapore just after Sept. 11, 2001. But the development that Southeast Asian terror groups are now flying the black Islamic State flag — and that young men from the region are saluting — is a huge problem.

The current U.S.-led fight against the Islamic State is largely limited to the Middle East. But the jihadists’ approach to fighting the West has no geographic boundaries. Unless the anti-Islamic State coalition does more to cooperate with countries in Southeast Asia and elsewhere, the terror group will just expand its recruiting and attacks across the globe.

***

For detailed intelligence and analysis see The ISIS Study Group’s archives on Southeast Asia  http://ift.tt/1FNJmZ6

US support for Iranian-backed Shiite militias ‘should not alarm us,’ General Allen says

257F2B8600000578-0-image-a-2_1423463608406LWJ, BY BILL ROGGIO | May 29th, 2015:

In an interview with CBS News, General (retired) John Allen, the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition To Counter ISIL, or the Islamic State, attempted to assure Americans that they should not be concerned with the US providing military and other support for Shiite militias, many of which are backed by Iran. Allen attempts to separate the “extremist elements” from the Popular Mobilization Force (or Committee), when the distinction is practically meaningless. From the interview, which was published on the US State Department’s website (emphasis is mine):

With regard to militias, it’s really important to understand that the militias are not just a single monolithic entity. There are the militias that you and I are used to hearing that have close alignments with Iran. Those are the extremist elements, and we don’t have anything to do with that. But there are elements of the Shia militias that volunteered last year to try to defend Iraq from the onslaught of Daesh [Islamic State] who were called to arms by Grand Ayatollah Sistani, and those elements, or the Popular Mobilization Force, as they are known, have been subordinated to the Iraqi higher military campaign or command.And they will provide maneuver capacity and additional firepower to the Iraqi Security Forces as we continue to build them out, as we continue to build the professionalization of the Iraqi forces.

So the fact that militias are involved and tribes are involved in this part of the campaign, this part of the implementation of supporting Iraq ultimately to recover the country, should not alarm us. We just need to ensure that we manage the outcome of this. Prime Minister Abadi’s been clear that these organizations within the Popular Mobilization Force, the Shia volunteers, will eventually either transition into the security forces themselves or go home. That’s the solution that he intends and I think that that’s a supportable outcome. So for now – this goes back to the point that you made about urgency – urgency is an important factor here in helping us to focus on supporting the Iraqis, the tribes, and the Popular Mobilization Force to take those actions necessary to defeat Daesh locally.

The “extremist elements” referred to by Allen include the Hezbollah Brigades, which has been designated by the US government as a Foreign Terrorist Organization, Saraya Khorasani, the Badr Organization, Asaib al Haq (League of the Righteous), Kata’ib Imam Ali (Imam Ali Brigade), Sayyed al Shuhada Brigade, and Harakat Nujaba. Top leaders of the last four groups are listed by the US as specially designated global terrorists.

The problem with Allen’s comments is that these so-called “extremist elements” are indeed the largest part of the Popular Mobilization Committee. In fact, when the Iraqi press and government refer to deploying the Popular Mobilization Committee, one or more of these groups are in the lead.

And the Popular Mobilization Committee itself is directed by Abu Mahdi al Muhandis, a former commander in the Badr Organization who was listed by the US government as a specially designated global terrorist in July 2009. The US government described Muhandis, whose real name is Jamal Jaafar Mohammed, as “an advisor to Qassem Soleimani,” the commander of the Qods Force, which is the external operations wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC).

The US military has supported these “extremist elements” in past operations, and continues to do so today. We’ve documented this multiple times here at The Long War Journal.

The US support of Iranian-backed Shiite militias began at Amerli in the northern Salahaddin province in late August 2014. Kata’ib Hezbollah, Asiab al Haq, Saraya Khorasani, and the Badr Organization all took part in the fighting. Human Rights Watch detailed how the militias rampaged after the completion of the operation.

At the end of October 2014, the US launched airstrikes in Jurf al Sakhar in support of the League of the Righteous, the Hezbollah Brigades, and the Badr Brigade. The Islamic State was driven from Jurf al Sakhar.

The Tikrit operation, which took place in March 2015, was led by the Kata’ib Imam Ali, Badr Organization, the League of the Righteous, and Hezbollah Brigades. At the start of the operation, General Martin Dempsey said that Iran’s involvement in Tikrit could be a “good thing.” The US halted airstrikes once Iran’s involvement became too difficult to hide, then restarted once the militias purportedly backed off. But the militias participated, with the help of US airstrikes.

Today, in Ramadi, Hezbollah Brigades is taking the lead in the fight to liberate the city from the Islamic State.

Allen is playing an all-too-familiar game with respect to the Iranian-backed Shiite militias. At the end of March, US Central Command leader General Lloyd Austin justified US airstrikes in Tikrit, claiming that Iranian-backed Shiite militias had withdrawn from the fighting there.

“I will not — and I hope we will never — coordinate or cooperate with Shiite militias,” Austin told the Senate Armed Services Committee at the time.

“These forces obviously were not being controlled by the government of Iraq,” he continued.

But the militias did in fact participate in the final push for Tikrit. This was proven when Asaib al Haq’s flag was raised over central Tikrit.

American ISIS Propagandist Ahmad Abousamra Reported Killed in Iraq Airstrike

140904_wn_ross0_16x9_992PJ Media, by Patrick Poole On May 31, 2015:

An American, Ahmad Abousamra, who was wanted by the FBI since 2009 and listed on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist list since 2013,  was killed today according to a statement published by the Iraqi government. He was reportedly one of the top ISIS media propagandist officials and involved in the production of videos showing the beheadings of Western ISIS hostages.

Al-Arabiya reports:

The Iraqi Ministry of Interior announced the death of dozens of ISIS terrorists in an air strike in the west of Anbar province, Al Arabiya News Channel reported on Sunday.

Among those killed was “Abu Mohammed al-Soory,” also known as “Abi Samra,” who is reportedly an expert in filmmaking, and ISIS documentary film maker, “Abu Osama al-Amriky.”

And in a statement obtained by Al Arabiya News, the Iraqi Ministry of Interior announced the elimination of various ISIS commanders of various nationalities in an air strike that targeted their compound in the city of Qaim in the jurisdiction of Fallujah, “after following the leaderships (ISIS) meetings in a complex reconnaissance operation.” […]

The statement by the ministry added that, “amongst those killed were Abu Mohammed the Syria, nicknamed Abu Samra, who is an ISIS filmmaking expert, Abu Osama the American who is a documentary specialist for the militant group in addition to Abu Hareth Al Shami, Abu Aicha Al Ansari who is an explosives expert, Abu Saif Al Jazrawy, a Morrocan national, Abu Hussein Al Sulaimani who was in charge of the militant group’s charity foundation, Abdullatif Jumaa Al Mohammedy who was in charge of suicide bomber operations in Fallujah.

From the Iraqi Interior Ministry statement, it appears that another American, Abu Osama al-Amriki, may have also been killed.

Abousamra, who fled the US in 2006 and was indicted in a Boston-area terrorism case in 2009, was identified as one of the top ISIS propaganda experts who may have been involved in the production and filming of videos showing the beheading of Western ISIS hostages.

In announcing Abousamra’s addition to the Most Wanted Terrorist list, the FBI said about his 2009 indictment:

Ahmad Abousamra was indicted after taking multiple trips to Pakistan and Yemen, where he allegedly attempted to obtain military training for the purpose of killing American soldiers overseas. On November 5, 2009, a federal arrest warrant was issued for Abousamra in the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, after he was charged with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists; providing and attempting to provide material support to terrorists; conspiracy to kill in a foreign country; conspiracy; and false statements. Abousamra was indicted on a total of nine charges and should be considered armed and dangerous.

The FBI had previously published this video, “Seeking Ahmad Abousamra“:

ABC News reported back in September about Abousamra’s propaganda role for the Islamic State:

Abousamra

 

The senior law enforcement official said it appears now that Abousamra may have taken up a similar job with ISIS as his co-conspirators had for AQI. Abousamra, the FBI says, has a “college degree related to computer technology and was previously employed at a telecommunications company.”

“There continues to be a worldwide search for Abousamra and he will be pursued until he is found,” another official, FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge Kieran Ramsey, told ABC News. The government offers a $50,000 reward for information leading to his capture.

Terrorism observers have noted ISIS’s media savvy, from viral meme-like postings and hashtag campaigns on Twitter to elaborate full-production videos – efforts that can multiply the perception of ISIS’s breadth and power in Syria and Iraq.

As investigative journalist Paul Sperry reported for the New York Post, Abousamra was also tied to the notorious Islamic Society of Boston mosque also attended by the Boston bombers and other convicted terrorists:

Abousamra’s father, a prominent doctor, even sat on the board of directors of the Muslim organization that runs the mosque. He stepped down after the FBI began questioning his son. […]

Abousamra’s father, Dr. Abdulbadi Abousamra, was president of the Islamic Center of New England mosques until 2007, when he moved to Detroit. The FBI began questioning his son a year earlier. As mosque president, internal documents show, Dr. Abousamra hired Hafiz Masood, brother of a known Pakistani terrorist, to be the imam of a mosque in Sharon, Mass., which his son also attended.

Ilya Feoktistov of the Boston-based Americans for Peace and Tolerance, which has tracked Islamic extremism in the Boston area, has thoroughly documented the Abousamra family ties to ISB.

Abousamra’s death might temporarily put a crimp in the Islamic State’s propaganda efforts targeting Westerners, but with more than a hundred Americans and US persons fighting for terror groups in Syria and Iraq, Abousamra may be quickly replaced.

As five Taliban officials walk free, Bergdahl deal stink grows

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was captured by the Taliban and held as a prisoner of war from 2009 until his release in May 2014.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was captured by the Taliban and held as a prisoner of war from 2009 until his release in May 2014.

New York Post, May 30 2015:

Come Monday, the five senior Taliban officials sprung from Guantanamo in the trade for accused Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl, could all be walking free.

Free to rejoin their terrorist comrades in jihad against America — as at least three of them reportedly have already tried to do.

It’s a reminder of just how bad a deal President Obama struck to free Bergdahl, the man the White House then hailed as a hero but who now faces criminal charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy — charges that could keep him behind bars for life.

Indeed, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal revealed last week for the first time that he’d been informed almost immediately after Bergdahl’s 2009 capture that the soldier “walked off [his base] intentionally.”

Yet years later, in the runup to Obama’s trade, National Security Adviser Susan Rice claimed Berghdal had been “captured on the battlefield” after serving “with honor and distinction.” The State Department dismissed claims he’d deserted as “rumors.”

Under the terms of the deal, the five were shipped to Qatar, where they were banned from travel and subjected to monitoring. That arrangement expires today.

Privately, Obama officials say they’ve been trying to extend the original arrangement or possibly return them to Afghanistan, whose government would decide what — if anything — to do with them. Week’s end, though, brought no new deal.

The danger can’t be overemphasized: These were all senior commanders — one a deputy defense minister, another head of intelligence. At least one has been in touch with the Taliban and two others have met with the al Qaeda-affiliated Haqqani network in the past year.

Now these five terrorists, let go to bring an accused deserter home, may be free to once again target American soldiers. Some bargain, Mr. President.

saving-private-bergdahl

***

OSCE Conference in Vienna: Don’t Mention the “I” Word

ISLAM.

Winston Churchill whispers to FDR:

”Don’t say German National Socialism, for in doing so it gives the impression that being German motivates people to war, terrorism and other crimes.”

Also read: OSCE in Free Fall

Gates of Vienna:

The Word That Wasn’t There

Yesterday, upon the air,
I heard a word that wasn’t there.
It wasn’t there again today,
I wish that it would go away…

(With apologies to Hughes Mearns)

In his report yesterday on the latest OSCE conference, Henrik Ræder Clausen included this summary of a dominant meme among ideological leaders in the West:

Panel members stressed the importance of not calling the Islamic State the “Islamic State”, for doing so could give the impression that Islam motivates people to war, terrorism and other crimes.

The avoidance of the I-word seems to have become a fixation in the revolving-door world of NGOs and state functionaries, particularly in Europe. It’s as if all the participants have been mysteriously hypnotized, and now wander around glassy-eyed, muttering the phrase “nothing to do with Islam” over and over again, their repetitive chant forming a background susurrus at every international function where important people assemble to hand down momentous policy decisions.

A notable example of the mindset may be found this handout from the OSCE Viennameeting:

The four terrorist outfits shown in the chart are composed of different ethnic groups, operate in geographically separate areas, represent disparate cultures, and speak a variety of languages. The only thing these groups have in common is the word that wasn’t there.

When required to identify a common ideology, Western bien-pensants prefer to discuss “extremism” or “radicalization” — modifiers with no substantive objects. If cornered, they may refer to “Islamism” or “radical Islam”, but never plain old unmodified ISLAM.

It seems that a prerequisite for receiving funding from any government agency or charitable foundation is the absolute refusal to consider Islamic political ideology as an explanation for anything bad that happens in the world.

You can’t say that, old chap. It just isn’t done.

Hey, have you heard the one about the T-Rex at Fifth and Main?

T-Rex-is-Islam-259x300It’s all about Muhammad,  by  May 31, 2015:

IT GOES LIKE THIS: Two men at the corner of Fifth and Main are engrossed in conversation. As they jabber away, one of them looks over the shoulder of the other and sees a Tyrannosaurus Rex coming down Main Street. He says to his friend, “Hey, there’s a Tyrannosaurus Rex coming our way!” The other guy says, “Oh, come on, that’s impossible,” and he resumes talking about what he was talking about. The other man says, “I’m not kidding. Just turn around and look for yourself.” But his friend is adamant. “Don’t be silly,” he says. By then the man who sees what’s coming is frantic because the monster is getting closer and closer. In exasperation, he says, “Look, all you gotta do is turn around, and you will see for yourself what I’m talking about!” But the other man crosses his arms and says in a scornful voice, “I refuse to listen to this nonsense.” By then the T-Rex is up behind him, and with its massive jaws wide open it sinks its teeth into him and swallows him whole. The other man, meanwhile, runs off to look for a gun and rally people to defend themselves against the monster.

Islam is the Tyrannosaurus Rex. It has consumed a fifth of the human race. Yet the part of the human race that has not yet been devoured is divided between a small number of people who understand it for the carnivore that it is and the larger number who believe it is herbivorous. The ones who understand try their best to warn about it. They shout, jump up and down, pay for ads on buses, write articles and books, and blog about it until their fingers bleed. But the rest of the people cross their arms and say, “I refuse to believe what you are saying. It is not at all what you are talking about. It is a religion of peace.”

KIDS PLAYING JUMP ROPE WITH A FRIENDLY TYRANNOSAURUS REX. Many people continue to think that Islam is just like any other religion, neither better nor worse. Many firmly believe it is a religion of peace, tame like a T-Rex that loves to jump rope with the kids. Click here to view this amusing .gif file. (Source of this image and the other images in this article: Pinterest)

KIDS PLAYING JUMP ROPE WITH A FRIENDLY TYRANNOSAURUS REX. Many people continue to think that Islam is just like any other religion, neither better nor worse. Many firmly believe it is a religion of peace, tame like a T-Rex that loves to jump rope with the kids. Click here to view this amusing .gif file. (Source of this image and the other images in this article: Pinterest)

Islam will never jump ropes. It is not playful and cuddly and never will be. It has swallowed entire civilizations, worthy creations of humanity that had millennial histories behind them before they were devoured. Western civilization is not immune from being devoured.

Sensible people — and their numbers are growing — realize this and are looking for weapons to defend themselves and their civilization. The best weapon that can be used to defend your civilization and bring this monster that is coming down Main Street to an end is the truth about the man who created the monster. Here is the truth about him:

He was given the name Muhammad and he grew up with epileptic experiences that led him to believe he was in communion with the divine, a common experience with people who suffer from epilepsy.

What was different about this epileptic was that he did not like being laughed at when he told his compatriots that God talked to him. Or when he came up with verses that he insisted were from God and were transmitted to him by an angel. He did not like to be made fun of and shunned by people who thought he was strange even though he was indeed strange. The more he pushed this idea about himself as someone God talked to, the more people ridiculed him — and the angrier he got.

He threatened to bring them slaughter, and he brought them slaughter after they ran him out of town. He attacked their caravans and defeated them in battles and threw the bodies of their leaders down a well. Then he turned on other people who also ridiculed his claim that God talked to him, particularly the Jews. The Jews thought he was a fraud because he claimed to be a prophet in the line of Abraham, yet he wasn’t even a Jew. And he took their prophet stories and rewrote them so that he was the hero of the narrative, the best and the last of the prophets. The Jews made fun of him, so he murdered them, and he kept murdering until people throughout Arabia were so afraid of him they joined his religion.

What you don’t know about Islam can hurt you. One way or another, if you don’t turn around and take a good look at what’s coming your way, it could end up like this for you:

trex-pinterest5

Islam needs to be thrown onto the ash heap of history. It can made to become like this collection of bones below, an object of interest to museum goers and creaky-jointed historians who sift through the ash pile to understand how those bones got there.

trex-pinterest4

This can come about. It is a matter of an aggressive, relentless, and unapologetic exposure of the truth about Muhammad in every graphic form possible, particularly in film. Relatively few people read books, but everyone is exposed to video, so these truths need to be brought to the small screen and the big screen. The more people exposed to the horrifying truth about the creator of Islam, the firmer the resistance to what he created. More and more people will be persuaded to turn around and look at what is coming. They will see the Tyrannosaurus Rex in time to do something about it.

Ultimately Islam can be pushed back and made to crumble from within, for the astonishing fact is that most Muslims don’t know the truth about Muhammad any more than most non-Muslims. They will learn the truth too from these efforts to dramatize it in film, and the truth will liberate them from their bondage.

The truth about Muhammad is grotesque, and learning about this truth is becoming easier since new books and new materials are coming out all of the time, such as the two books posted on this blog.

It’s a matter of learning the truth and doing something with it, and ultimately it will bring a long overdue demise to what Muhammad created. The truth about him is the weapon, the details of his life the ammunition, and the Internet, TV, and the movie theater the delivery systems.

It can be done. You can do it.

Think big!

Mary, Muhammad, and Hypocritical Media Dhimmitude, From The New York Times, to Fox News

By Andrew Bostom, May 30, 2015:

Clay Waters of Newsbusters (h/t Robert Spencer at Jihad Watch) underscores the rank “free expression” hypocrisy, and sheer dhimmitude, of the New York Times, resplendent once again, in its Thursday, May 28, 2015 “Arts” section. A prominent photographic reproduction of the 1996 Ofili painting, “The Holy Virgin Mary”, which accompanied the story about its sale, included an accuratedescription of the painting’s contents. The Times report also made a rathercontemptuous assessment of then New York Mayor Giuliani’s reaction to Ofili’s deliberately insulting work, an unabashed “artistic” exercise in scatology and pornography.

The Australian collector David Walsh is selling Chris Ofili’s 1996 painting “The Holy Virgin Mary,” which caused a furor when it was shown at the Brooklyn Museum in October 1999 as part of Charles Saatchi’s touring “Sensation” exhibition of works by Young British Artists (YBAs). The eight-foot-high depiction of a black Virgin Mary, encrusted with a lump of elephant dung and collaged bottoms [i.e., naked buttocks] from pornographic magazines, outraged religious leaders and Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who described Mr. Ofili’s painting and other works in the show as “sick stuff.” Mr. Giuliani’s attempts to close the exhibition by withholding public funds were rejected by a federal judge.

Yet the Times remains steadfast in its refusal to show any drawings of Muhammad, despite their obvious centrality to—wait for it—the news, given the very recent mass murderous Muslim reactions to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in Paris, and the failed attempt at similar jihadist carnage in Garland, Texas. The latter occurred following an educational conference which displayed historical and contemporary Muhammad images, produced by Muslims and non-Muslims, alike, and also included a contextual discussion of Islamic “blasphemy law,”which is antithetical to free speech as enshrined in the first amendment to our U.S. Constitution.

It must be emphasized, however, that The New York Times’ acquiescent dhimmitude, vis-à-vis its self-imposed “ban” on displays of any images of Islam’s prophet Muhammad, is shared uniformly by all our major television media,notably Fox News (see here; here; here; here; and here). The abject dhimmitude of Fox News is particularly egregious given the network’s continuous preening verbal support for free speech, and its history of appropriately condemning the hypocrisy of displaying works like Ofili’s Virgin Mary, but not artistic images of Muhammad.

I have included both the Ofili painting, and. just below it, Muslim “apostate” artist Bosch Fawstin’s drawing of Muhammad—a pure free speech political cartoon, which garnered first prize at the Garland conference exhibition—for juxtaposition.

Any rational, honest, objective human being should discern—and acknowledge—the stark contrast between these images.

How profound is our media dhimmitude that even “alternative” Fox News,

Ofili-Mary-778x1024

My Winning Mohammad Contest Drawing

VIDEO: Pamela Geller on Fox and Friends Calls for Investigation of Phoenix Mosque

mosque-1-copyBy Pamela Geller,May 30, 2015:

I was on Fox and Friends this morning discussing the free speech rally in Phoenix in front of the Garland jihadi’s mosque, where he was a longtime member. Was it investigated? Even after the attack? If not, why not? The mosque lied repeatedly about the jihad members.

—-Simpon’s friend Courtney Lonergan remembers Elton Simpson would never waver from the teachings he picked up in the mosque and elsewhere.

“He was one of those guys who would sleep at the mosque,” Lonergan said. “The fact that he felt personally insulted by somebody drawing a picture had to come from the ideological rhetoric coming out of the mosque.”

—-when he sought a Muslim wife, Simpson turned to the men in the mosque to find a suitable woman, and his way of earning their respect was to show his devotion to Islam by quoting teachings verbatim….

—Mosque president, Usama Shami, tried to downplay the ties of the two Garland would-be mass-murderers. This included Shami’s claim to the press that neither was a regular member. In fact, Elton “Ibrahim” Simpson had been featured in a mosque fundraising video posted on ICCP’s YouTube channel in 2012 identifying him as a member.

Two other previous mosque attendees — Hassan Abu-Jihaad and Derrick Shareef — are currently in federal prison on terrorism-related charges.

—Mosque president Usama Shami claimed the mosque did not raise money for Elton’s Simpson’s legal defense. But point in fact the  Islamic Community Center of Phoenix posted $100,000 cash bond to release him from custody, Sitton said.

Clearly, the rally expresses the frustration of Americans that government and law enforcement aren’t facing the problem in the mosques squarely, and arent standing for the freedom of speech. They didnt go there to commit violence, but to show that they would not be frightened into silence.

America has a choice now – will we be frightened into silence and sharia submission, or will we stand?

The Coming ISIS Assault on Saudi Arabia Means Awful Things for Washington

Saudi security forces inspect the site of a suicide bombing that targeted the Shiite Al-Anoud mosque in the coastal city of Dammam on May 29, 2015.(AFP/Getty Images)

Saudi security forces inspect the site of a suicide bombing that targeted the Shiite Al-Anoud mosque in the coastal city of Dammam on May 29, 2015.(AFP/Getty Images)

ISIS has its next target, and it’s one that threatens U.S. interests in the region more than anything you’ve seen from the terrorist group so far.

National Journal, by KRISTIN ROBERTS, May 29, 2015:

Two weeks. Two suicide bombings. Both targeting Shiites in a Sunni land. And both claimed by ISIS.

If this were Iraq or Syria, these attacks—sadly—wouldn’t be surprising. But it’s not. It’s Saudi Arabia, home to Islam’s most precious sites and the region’s most powerful Sunni rulers—a relatively vast territory, kept remarkably stable by the ruthless application of authoritarian rule while its neighbors teeter under the destabilizing weight of popular revolution and terrorist intervention.

And that’s just the way the U.S. government likes its friend, Saudi Arabia. Because Washington needs stability there more than it needs to feel good about how the House of Saud achieves it.

But today, in Dammam, a city on the Saudi eastern coast, a man dressed as a woman blew himself up outside a Shiite mosque and killed three others. (The attack would have been far more devastating had guards not stopped the bomber from entering the mosque, forcing him back into a parking lot.) ISIS now is bragging that their man reached his target despite heightened security after the group’s first attack in the kingdom just eight days ago. That one, on another Shia mosque in a village called al Qadeeh, killed 21.

“They certainly are significant,” said Mike Singh, former senior director for Middle East affairs at the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration. “These attacks seem designed to exacerbate sectarian divisions, precisely as ISIS has sought to do elsewhere.”

Singh’s right; ISIS wants to encourage Sunni-Shia hostility throughout the Muslim world (perhaps as much as it wants to encourage violence between Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide) because it fits its caliphatic goals.

But for the United States, there’s more significance to read into this emerging ISIS assault on Saudi Arabia. And it’s the type of significance that should be at least discouraging—if not downright worrisome—to Washington’s Middle East policymakers.

What these attacks say is that Riyadh doesn’t have the comforting control over its land that Americans like to believe it does. And if the royal family doesn’t have its territory as buttoned down as Washington assumed, what other weaknesses has it been masking? What other vulnerabilities now are on view?

Americans don’t like to talk about trouble in Saudi Arabia. That’s a little bit because it annoys Riyadh, and really, to what end? The Saudis do enough of America’s dirty work in the region to demand some elbow room, corralling the Gulf Arab kingdoms, only occasionally criticizing U.S. military actions, secretly communicating with Israel about shared interests when Washington is napping.

It would be dumb to say it’s not also a little bit about oil, but really, that’s just the context, not the catalyst for cooperation anymore.

The real reason is that it casts into doubt all of the mythology America has created around its favorite autocratic kingdom. The royal family operates a government that is truly authoritarian. It abuses the rights of its citizens. It discriminates against women. It does frightfully little to protect its minority communities. Beheadings. Disappearances. But, damn, it sure is quiet over there. And man, that’s gotta mean those guys are as tough as we need them to be, that they are the mighty Sunni power that’s going to help us do one thing in particular—keep Iran in check.

Indeed, one fantastical American belief about the ceaseless power of Riyadh feeds into another fantastical American belief that Tehran wouldn’t dare renege on a deal with the United States. This argument coming from some quarters that Tehran can be expected to live up to a nuclear agreement is in some part predicated on this belief that Saudi poses enough of a real and present threat to Iran that the Ayatollah won’t do anything too destabilizing. (Help Hezbollah, sure. Bomb Jordan, probably not. Use a nuclear energy agreement to build a bomb, nah.)

In fact, these two countries are so inextricably tied that conspiracy peddlers see Iranian meddling in the ISIS suicide bombings in Dammam and al Qadeeh. That’s intriguing, but even one of Iran’s most ardent detractors in Washington calls it “batty.”

Nonetheless, this new Saudi phase of the ISIS battle plan threatens to shatter the illusion of the Saudi behemoth. And that’s terrifying. Because without a real and present Saudi threat, the last remaining check on Tehran becomes Israeli spies and American bombs.

If for no other reason, Washington needs to pay attention to what’s happening just now in Saudi Arabia.

Saturday, 30 May 2015

1167by Abigail R. Esman
Special to IPT News
May 28, 2015

For 13 years, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has worked to impose his Islamist vision on Turkey’s proud secular democracy, reshaping the country into a neo-Ottoman republic. His success can be credited in no small measure to his manipulation and intimidation of the press, and the occasional censorship of social media and the Internet overall. Now, in a gesture that betrays either Islamist imperialism, sheer ignorance of Western democracy, or both, Turkey’s president and former prime minister is expanding his reach, raising his fist – and, he hopes, his influence – at the West, using the New York Times as his target.

Infuriated by a “shameless” May 23 Times editorial that called him “increasingly hostile to truth-telling” and accused him of “brute manipulation of the political process” in the upcoming June 7 elections, Erdogan accused the paper of “overstepping the limits of freedom” and “meddling in Turkish politics.” Speaking in Istanbul on Monday, the Turkish leader called on the Times to “know its place,” and alleged that if the paper were to criticize U.S. leaders, those leaders “would immediately do what is necessary” – an ominous suggestion that spotlights his own way of dealing with journalists who say things he doesn’t like: he puts them in prison, often on charges of “terrorism.” In 2013, the Committee to Protect Journalists cited Turkey as the leading imprisoner of journalists for the second year in a row. The release of eight of those journalists in 2014 put the country in second place, but signs are strong that 2015 will see the country take the lead again.

Indeed, only days after his rant against the Times, Erdogan took revenge on formerTimes reporter Stephen Kinzer, revoking his promise to grant him “honorary citizenship” and instead calling him “an enemy of our government and of our country.” That change of heart appears to have come when someone on the president’s staff uncovered a Jan. 4 article Kinzer penned for the Boston Globe, in which he observed, “Once seen as a skilled modernizer, [Erdoğan] now sits in a 1,000-room palace denouncing the European Union, decreeing the arrest of journalists, and ranting against short skirts and birth control.”

This is hardly the first time Erdogan has wrestled with the “Gray Lady.” In 2014, the then-prime minister refuted the Times’ report that Turkey had allowed weapons to flow into Syria to aid ISIS. Turkey, he insisted, “is against terrorism of all kinds, indiscriminately.” It was an ironic statement at best, coming from a man with Muslim Brotherhood sympathies who is also the leader of a country that allegedly serves as a Hamas headquarters. It is also worth noting that while Erdogan called Kinzer an “enemy of the government,” he openly welcomed members of the Brotherhood expelled from Egypt after the fall of Mohamed Morsi.

But it wasn’t just the article Erdogan found problematic, he also criticized the Times’use of a photograph of him exiting a mosque, claiming it suggested that he and the mosque were responsible for recruiting jihadists for ISIS. The paper subsequentlyapologized for the image, saying it was “published in error.” That led Erdogan to crow locally that he had triumphed over the Times – and so, he meant to suggest, over America. Similarly, in the aftermath of the latest Times conflict, he warned that theTimes no longer rules Turkey: “They are used to ruling the other side of the world from 10,000-15,000 kilometers’ distance,” he declared. “But there is no such Turkey. There is no more old Turkey. There is a new Turkey.”

It was a typical Erdogan gesture: he often seeks that kind of triumph – not only over America, but over the entire world. He has famously stated that Muslims, not Columbus, discovered America, a position he defended with the assertions that “as the president of my country, I cannot accept that our civilization is inferior to other civilizations,” and that “Western sources shouldn’t be believed as if they are sacred texts.”

At speeches in Europe, he has exhorted Turkish-Europeans to resist assimilation. “Assimilation is a crime against humanity,” he told an international audience of 20,000 who attended his 2008 speech in Cologne, Germany. And in 2013, in a highly controversial move, he demanded that the Dutch government place Turkish-Dutch foster children only in Muslim homes – despite the fact that there are few Muslim families offering to house foster children.

More recently, the Islamist party he founded in 2001, the Justice Development Party (AKP), went so far as to proclaim that “God is on our side” in the upcoming parliamentary elections – a statement that in itself defies the deepest principles of a secular, democratic republic. It is a position also in keeping with Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman agenda, which to date has included the institution of mandatory religion classes and lessons in Arabic-Ottoman script in all Turkish schools. (Kemal Ataturk banned Ottoman script with the founding of the Turkish Republic, replacing it with a Latin alphabet aimed at Westernizing Turkey, turning it away from its Islamic and Arab history.)

Much about Erdogan’s vision, in fact, can be read into this reinstatement of Ottoman Turkish; as the Washington Post observed, his opponents have taken the move “as a sign of the creeping Islamization of Turkey’s resolutely secular society that has taken place under Erdogan’s watch. Bans on headscarves and veils have been lifted by Erdogan. The number of students studying in state-run religious seminaries has grown from 63,000 in 2002, when Erdogan first came to power, to nearly 1 million today – a statistic the Turkish president celebrates.” Not for nothing did Erdogan promise early in his administration to build “a new religious youth.”

From all of this emerges a confused, somewhat bizarre understanding of the role of the written word, be it in journalism or religious text, and a confusion between the two. It is forbidden to criticize Mohammed, for instance, but it is equally forbidden, evidently, to criticize Turkey’s president (as it is the leaders of most, if not all, Muslim countries).

Indeed, a 16-year-old schoolboy was arrested last December on charges of insulting the president over comments defending secularism and alleging government corruption. In an Islamist society – that of political Islam – there is no distinction between Islam and the state: to criticize one is tantamount to criticizing the other.

In the same way, Erdogan’s aim of creating a “new Turkey” that restores the Ottoman Empire and is more powerful than America or Europe, is akin to the ideal of a world Caliphate – a world under Islam. Already it is plain that, as he gradually erodes the legacy of a secular Turkey, increasingly he paves the way for the sharia state he has reportedly advocated in the past. What he may not realize is that the harder he tries to silence these truths, the clearer he makes them.

Abigail R. Esman, the author, most recently, of Radical State: How Jihad Is Winning Over Democracy in the West (Praeger, 2010), is a freelance writer based in New York and the Netherlands.

***

The Conquest Unit is scheduled to march behind the Ottoman military band. File photo

The Conquest Unit is scheduled to march behind the Ottoman military band. File photo

The Turkish Armed Forces have formed a new ceremonial brigade, dressed as Ottoman soldiers, to attend events marking the 562nd anniversary of the Turks’ conquest of Istanbul, upon the instructions of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

The 1st Army headquarters in Istanbul formed the 478-man “Conquest Unit” through its personnel. The ceremonial brigade will be joined by an 84-men Ottoman military band, known in Turkish as the “Mehter,” in the official ceremony for the anniversary, which will be held in Istanbul on May 30 this year, a day later than the conquest’s traditional commemoration date.

Costumes of the Conquest Unit, which will march behind the Mehter, will be provided by the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality. The full set of historic attire will include 14 different costumes to represent different units of the Ottoman military.

President Erdoğan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu are both scheduled to attend the event in Istanbul’s Yenikapı Square a week before the June 7 general election.

Soon after his election as Turkey’s president in August 2014, Erdoğan moved in to the massive newly-built presidential palace in Ankara, where he has hosted foreign guests flanked by actors dressed in traditional Turkish military costumes from multiple eras.

***

Rand Paul Has a Point about Republicans and ISIS

pic_giant_053015_SM_Surge-Troops-GNRO by Andrew C. McCarthy, May 30, 2015:

He could have made a perfectly respectable argument that the NSA’s metadata program is illegal because it exceeds the Patriot Act’s authority. Instead he speciously insists that the Patriot Act shreds the Fourth Amendment and the program is akin to Nixon-era “domestic spying.”

He could also have made a perfectly respectable — I would say, irrefutable — argument that there was strong bipartisan support for some reckless policies that significantly contributed to the rise of the Islamic State — the jihadist organization that now controls much of Iraq and Syria. Instead, the Kentucky Republican speciously claims that “hawks” in his own party “created” ISIS.

ISIS is a creation of Islamic-supremacist ideology, which is drawn directly from Muslim scripture. Part of the reason that Senator Paul is no improvement over the Republicans he often derides is that he is just as wrong as they are about the threat we face.

In their infatuation with Muslim engagement, Beltway Republicans imagine a monolithic, smiley-face Islam — a “religion of peace” that seamlessly accommodates Western liberalism . . . except where it has been “hijacked” by “violent extremists.” Indeed, long before President Obama came along, it was the Bush administration that endeavored to purge terms like “jihadism” from our lexicon, even assuring us: “The fact is that Islam and secular democracy are fully compatible — in fact, they can make each other stronger.”

Thankfully, Senator Paul does not seem to have gulped that Kool-Aid. Yet, his anti-government populism leads him to maintain — just as his father did in less guarded rhetoric — that it is American policy, not Islamic-supremacist ideology, that induces jihadists to attack the United States.

It’s undeniable that Republican policy contributed to the Islamist bedlam now exploding across the Middle East.

Paul appears to grasp that jihadism is evil, rooted in Islamic doctrine, and anti-American. The conclusion he draws from this premise, however, is that it should be given a wide berth rather than confronted and defeated. This is not materially different from the “blame America first” cast of mind that Jeanne Kirkpatrick diagnosed and Barack Obama instantiates. Nor is it far from the mindset that blames Pamela Geller or Charlie Hebdowhen Islamists respond to mere taunts with lethal violence — as if sharia gives Muslims a special mayhem dispensation that American law must accommodate.

All that said, if Paul’s point was that Republican policy contributed to the Islamist bedlam now exploding across the Middle East and northern Africa, that ought to be undeniable.

Because the senator hyperbolically claimed that the GOP “created” ISIS, the indignant rebukes raining down on him from Republican leaders and sympathizers focus on Iraq. It was there that the organization was born as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), eventually rebranding as ISIS upon breaking away from the mother ship and declaring its caliphate.

Having been created by Islamic supremacism, AQI/ISIS was nurtured by Iran. Notwithstanding the internecine bloodletting that now pits Sunnis against Shiites across the region, Shiite Iran has been the key supporter of both Shiite and Sunni jihadist groups since its revolutionary incarnation as “the Islamic Republic” in 1979. It has backed Sunni al-Qaeda and Hamas, as well as Shiite Hezbollah and a network of Shiite terror cells in Iraq. Its only requirement has been that jihadists of whatever stripe advance Iran’s interests by taking the fight to the U.S. and Israel.

In that vein, Iran harbored al-Qaeda operatives after the 9/11 attacks and facilitated the anti-American insurgencies in Afghanistan and Iraq. This involved collaboration with Abu Musab Zarqawi, the formative figure of AQI who was eventually killed by U.S. forces in Iraq after he had fomented civil war there.

Iran helped Zarqawi even though AQI’s strategy involved killing Shiites. Of course, the regime in Tehran kills plenty of Iranians, so it has no qualms about killing Shiites. It helped Zarqawi kill them in Iraq because its interests were advanced by chaos in Iraq, which enabled the mullahs to spread their influence and their Shiite terror network.

Although this was obvious, as was the fact that Iran was behind the killing of thousands of American troops, the Bush administration treated Iran as if it had an interest in Iraqi stability. The Republican administration ignored Iran’s fueling of the jihad; negotiated with Iran (ostensibly through intermediaries) on its nuclear-weapons program; and disaggregated the nuke negotiations from Iran’s terror promotion — just as Obama has done — despite the fact that the United States was Iran’s top terror target. Bush even backed as Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, a pro-Iranian Shiite Islamist who, predictably, drew Baghdad ever closer to Tehran while exacerbating the rift with Iraqi Sunnis. This increased an already teeming recruiting pool for AQI and, later, ISIS.

It is a gross exaggeration to claim, as Republicans do, that the surge “won” the war in Iraq.

The surge did indeed tamp down on the violence and inflict withering losses on AQI. Still, it is a gross exaggeration to claim, as Republicans do, that the surge “won” the war in Iraq. If we judge matters by Bush’s stated objective — a stable, democratic Iraq that would be a reliable Americancounterterrorism ally — Iraq was already a failure by 2007. The surge killed many jihadists and gave the warring Iraqi factions yet another opportunity to reconcile. But it was always known that (a) our jihadist enemies backed by Iran were a regional (in fact, a global) threat, so the war could not be won in Iraq alone; and (b) the surge was a temporary measure, not a permanent solution.

The latter problem was exacerbated by the status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) to which Bush reluctantly agreed. In lashing out against Paul, Republicans and their apologists emphasize that Obama changed Bush’s policies. This is true, but it conveniently omits mentioning that Bush’s policies were first changed by . . . Bush.

For years, President Bush envisioned that all our sacrifice on Iraq’s behalf would yield a permanent working alliance with a sizable post-war American presence that would help us project power and protect our interests in the region. But, despite the administration’s smiley-face-Islam depiction of the Iraqis, they in fact despise infidel Americans and wanted our forces out of their country — to the point that the free Iraqi elections our government liked to brag about became contests over which candidate could spew the most venom about the United States. With the clock running out on the U.N. use-of-force mandate, Bush agreed with the Iranian-controlled Maliki to a SOFA that called for all American troops to leave the country by the end of 2011.

By that point, it was already clear that Barack Obama would be the next president. There is no doubt that, in driving a hard bargain with Bush, Maliki leveraged Obama’s strident opposition to the Iraq war and his vow to pull Americans out. Bush may have hoped that Obama would grow into the job, be guided by America’s interests instead of his ideological leanings, and strike a new deal with the Iraqis before the 2011 deadline based on whatever conditions on the ground were at the time. But hope is not a strategy.

pic_giant_053015_SM_American-Troops

This is not to excuse the unmitigated mess Obama made of things. So determined was he to be done with Iraq, so dismissive was he of all America had sacrificed to drive our Sunni enemies from Iraq, that he was heedless of conditions on the ground as he drew our forces down. By 2011, after a steady draw-down, things were so much worse that Obama could have pressured Maliki to renegotiate the withdrawal deadline; a sizable presence of American forces would likely have prevented the advance of ISIS. Obama resisted this because he was determined to pull out at any cost, and because he calculated that abandoning Iraq would appease Iran, with which he was (and remains) desperate to negotiate a nuclear deal.

Nevertheless, the road was paved for Obama because of Bush’s withdrawal agreement. It is disingenuous for Republicans to contend that remaining in Iraq was the “Bush policy” when the president assented to a SOFA that unambiguously reads: “All United States Forces shall withdraw from all Iraqi territory no later than December 31, 2011.”

As already noted above, Iraq is not the half of the problem for the GOP. Why is it, do you suppose, that we do not know by now why our government had personnel stationed in Benghazi, Libya, one of the most dangerous places in the world for Americans, when four of them — including the U.S. ambassador — were massacred on September 11, 2012? After all, the Obama policy of empowering Islamists to overthrow the Qaddafi regime was spearheaded by Hillary Clinton, the then–secretary of state who is the Democrats’ presumptive 2016 presidential nominee. The Republicans presumably want to beat Mrs. Clinton, so why isn’t the Congress they control exploiting what, on the surface, seems like a powerful political argument against her competence?

Because influential Beltway Republicans were enthusiastic proponents of this disastrous policy from the start. On Libya, they are joined at the hip with Clinton and Obama.

Beltway Republicans were enthusiastic proponents of our disastrous Libya policy from the start.

The State Department had observed in 2009, when GOP senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham were about to lead a congressional delegation to Tripoli for meetings with Qaddafi, that “Libya has acted as a critical ally in U.S. counterterrorism efforts, and Libya is considered one of our primary partners in combating the flow of foreign fighters.” Yet no one was more ardent than McCain and Graham in calling for Qaddafi’s overthrow and for accomplishing that end by arming “rebels” who were known to be rife with top al-Qaeda figures.

The policy has rendered Libya a failed state in which jihadists control swaths of territory, a situation ISIS has now exploited, building a growing presence. The policy also led to an arms windfall for Libyan jihadists. It is now clear that some of those arms made their way to jihadists in Syria. What remains murky is whether the United States government facilitated that arms traffic. The State Department, the CIA, and administration spokesmen have been cagey about what our government did, and senior Republican lawmakers have thwarted efforts to probe the issue at at least one public hearing. But at the very least, American officials knew about arms transfers from Libyan jihadists to Syrian jihadists.

Of course, back in the first Obama term, before ISIS became a juggernaut, senior Republicans were keen to arm the Syrian “rebels” in order to overthrow the Assad regime. In essence, they wanted a redux of the Libya strategy that they and Hillary Clinton were proud to take credit for . . . right up until the Benghazi massacre and the disintegration of Libya into a failed state. But you don’t hear them speak much about overthrowing Assad anymore, just like you no longer hear much bragging about Qaddafi’s ouster. That is because it is now clear that the Syrian “rebels,” like the Libyan “rebels,” prominently included jihadists from al-Qaeda, ISIS, and the Muslim Brotherhood. When Republicans were calling for these anti-Assad “rebels” to be armed and trained (mainly through Islamist governments), that is where much of the arming and training was going.

It was no surprise. After all, when the rabidly anti-American Muslim Brotherhood took over the Egyptian government, Republicans supportedObama in providing arms and aid for them, too — an initiative that Senator Paul vigorously but unsuccessfully opposed.

Toward the conclusion of the 2012 presidential campaign, there was a candidate debate on foreign policy. It was Mitt Romney’s chance, in the wake of the Benghazi terrorist attack, to separate himself from the catastrophic, pro-Islamist policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Instead, Romney permitted little or no daylight between himself and the president — to the point that it sometimes seemed he was poised to endorse Obama.

It is fair to say that Romney was simply following a flawed strategy to narrow the election to a referendum on the economy, on which he figured Obama was most vulnerable. But Romney was able to follow the strategy with ease because, on foreign policy, there really wasn’t much daylight between Beltway Republicans and a president who makes Jimmy Carter look like Winston Churchill.

If that was what Rand Paul was trying to say, he has a point.