Download - Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 19-138-Caliphate- The State of al-Qaida-45-Our Performance-6

CdW Intelligence to Rent -2016- In Confidence [email protected]

Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 19-138-Caliphate- The State of al-Qaida-45-Our Performance-6

“An army of sheep lead by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep.”---Arab proverb

American involvement in the long Afghan war was supposed to come to a close by the end of the year, but an array of top Pentagon officials spent Thursday making clear that U.S. troops will be fighting — and potentially dying — there for years to come. The United States will “stick with Afghanistan, but not just in 2016, that’s 2017 and beyond,” Defense Secretary Ash Carter

While the obvious motivation of state sponsors is to encourage terrorist and military operations against a specific enemy, such as the United States or Afghanistan, the second and third order effects have multilayered economic and political ramifications that augment or diminish the influence and capacity of secondary targets and objectives.

The opportunity to build a powerful anti-ISIS coalition anchored by the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and other states was disrupted before it could be forged. The clash of egos, secondary agendas and an implicit lack of trust doomed the opportunity to form a superpower alliance that could have significantly devastated ISIS and other terrorists’ organizations.

Besides, the United States’ recent legacy of removing leaders – including Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya – created disastrous, complex problems. The United States may want to steer clear of orchestrating “Regime Changes” for a while and focus on building relationships and forging alliances.

The idea of defeating or destroying ISIS, al Qaeda and similar groups is not realistic, since jihadi idealism can spread and morph into different cells in addition to the remnants of the original organizations. However, they can be soundly thrashed and decimated – militarily, politically and psychologically – to the point that their status and capacity are significantly diminished.

In relation to Syria and ISIS, contemporary France can learn much from their 1954 defeat at Dien Bien Phu. At the time, the French did learn many lessons; however, the United States refused to recognize those lessons. Instead, the hubris of the United States assumed their experience would differ from the French by sheer force of will and the sentiment of “yes, but we’re not French.”

Refusing to capitalize on the French lessons, the U.S. waded deeper and deeper into the Vietnam conflict with strikingly similar strategy and tactics, which resulted in an even more famous and costly defeat than Dien Bien Phu.

Lieutenant-General John "Mick" Nicholson told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that terror groups like Islamic State and al-Qaida continue to see Afghanistan as an attractive sanctuary.

Between Oct. 7 and Oct. 11, the US military orchestrated a large-scale operation against two al Qaeda camps in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar.

In 2015, Afghan forces suffered a record number of casualties, with about 16,000 soldiers and police having been killed or wounded over the course of the year, up from 12,500 in 2014.

By now, we should have learned from the precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and the disaster that ensued that wars do not end because politicians say so,” McCain charged. “Nor will any politician be able to schedule an end to the threat of radical

“Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster”― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

CdW Intelligence to Rent of 25 03/05/2023

mailto:[email protected]


Islamist terrorism emanating from Afghanistan or the region more broadly.”

The war with ISIS will be a protracted conflict that requires a strong coalition that has the uncompromising commitment and tenacity to wage “Total War” across a broad spectrum including military, cyber, funding and income sources, recruiting and support.

The media’s and policymakers’ single-minded focus on ISIS encourages Americans to overlook the fundamental incompatibility of Iranian and Russian regional and global objectives with those of the US and Europe. Such a narrow lens ignores Russia’s revisionist grand strategy that links Moscow’s actions in Syria with its continued war in Ukraine, its subversive activities in the Baltics, and its mounting global military aggression.

Jan 28, American involvement in the long Afghan war was supposed to come to a close by the end of the year, but an array of top Pentagon officials spent Thursday making clear that U.S. troops will be fighting — and potentially dying — there for years to come.The United States will “stick with Afghanistan, but not just in 2016, that’s 2017 and beyond,” Defense Secretary Ash Carter told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday afternoon, adding that the Afghan army and police remain “a force in building.” Just hours earlier, Lt. Gen. John Nicholson, President Barack Obama’s choice to be the next general to lead the war there, told a congressional panel that “in some areas we have years to go” before the Afghan army and police can stand on their own, despite the $60 billion Washington has already spent to train and equip them.

Their comments come a year after the formal end of the U.S. and NATO combat mission in Afghanistan, though about 14,000 American and alliance troops remain on the ground to train and advise local forces. About 3,000 of those are special operations and counterterrorism forces that have been given a mandate to go after al Qaeda, and now Islamic State, fighters.

They also come amid growing evidence that the situation on the ground in Afghanistan continues to deteriorate as the Taliban have taken control of more ground than at any point since the U.S. invasion in 2001, ISIS expands its presence there, and al Qaeda itself reestablishes training camps. The moves are exacting a heavy human toll, with the United Nations reporting in August that about 5,000 Afghan civilians had been killed over the first half of 2015. Despite their combat mission having ended, 20 U.S. troops also died in Afghanistan over the past year. In 2015, Afghan forces suffered a record number of casualties, with about 16,000 soldiers and police having been killed or wounded over the course of the year, up from 12,500 in 2014. The fighting has been heavy in areas previously cleared by American and British troops in Helmand and Kandahar provinces in the south, and in the eastern provinces along the Pakistan border.The once “forgotten” war has been splashed across the front pages in recent months. In October, there was a botched U.S. airstrike in Kunduz that struck a charity hospital, killing 42 medical staff and civilian patients. More recently, there has been the release of the “Serial” podcast that takes a new look the story of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who spent five years in Taliban captivity after walking off his post in eastern Afghanistan in 2009.The hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee began with the panel’s chairman, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), offering a harsh assessment of Obama’s management of the Afghan war and his continued practice of announcing dates for troop withdrawals.

“By now, we should have learned from the precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and “Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster”

― Sun Tzu, The Art of WarCdW Intelligence to Rent of 25 03/05/2023



the disaster that ensued that wars do not end because politicians say so,” McCain charged. “Nor will any politician be able to schedule an

end to the threat of radical Islamist terrorism emanating from Afghanistan or the region more broadly.”

During his own testimony, Nicholson agreed with McCain that conditions in Afghanistan grew bleaker over the past year. But he offered a depressing caveat. “This is Afghanistan,” he said. “There will always be some level of violence in Afghanistan.”Nicholson would not tell the committee if he would recommend keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond 2017, saying he would need about 90 days after assuming command to assess the situation on the ground. Nicholson said he was alarmed by the rise of the Islamic State in Nangarhar province and of al Qaeda’s growing presence in Kandahar, describing them as “clear attempts by transnational terrorist organizations to establish sanctuary inside Afghanistan.”Pressed by senators whether the planned drawdown of U.S. forces by the end of 2016 to about 5,500 troops would be enough to fight ISIS and al Qaeda, Nicholson declined to give a direct answer. Instead, he said the U.S. “would need to have an adequate counter-terrorism force in place” without saying how big he thought that force should be.While Nicholson was careful to not advocate for an open-ended presence in Afghanistan, he placed the continued American presence there within the context of an “enduring” and “global” counterterrorism mission.

What Dien Bien Phu Can Teach the French about ISIS and SyriaKevin L. ParkerIn relation to Syria and ISIS, contemporary France can learn much from their 1954 defeat at Dien Bien Phu. At the time, the French did learn many lessons; however, the United States refused to recognize those lessons. Instead, the hubris of the United States assumed their experience would differ from the French by sheer force of will and the sentiment of “yes, but we’re not French.” Refusing to capitalize on the French lessons, the U.S. waded deeper and deeper into the Vietnam conflict with strikingly similar strategy and tactics, which resulted in an even more famous and costly defeat than Dien Bien Phu. So the larger lesson from Dien Bien Phu is to not ignore the lessons learned by others. Albert Einstein defined insanity as repeatedly trying the same thing and expecting different results. Wisdom comes from learning from your own mistakes, but it comes much easier when you can learn from the mistakes of others.In Syria, the roles have been reversed from Dien Bien Phu. This time, it is for France to learn from the U.S. experience there. It does not take a detailed review and list of lessons to say the U.S. strategy in Syria has not been effective to-date. There are two readily apparent generalizations.

First, the lack of a Syrian government capable of providing internal security is empowering ISIS.

Second, air strikes against ISIS have not been sufficient to disrupt or destroy ISIS.Having been ruthlessly attacked by ISIS on its own soil, it is more than understandable for the French people and government to want to strike back at ISIS. There is value in striking back. It shows that France will not stand for a disregard for the rule of law and sanctity of life within its borders, especially from terrorists. The immediate military response in the form of air strikes on ISIS in Syria has effectively sent this message. Accelerating air strikes on more targets risks more civilian casualties and feeding the ISIS recruiting narrative.

From this point forward, France should resist the temptation to follow a strategy “Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster”




centered on air strikes against ISIS in Syria. Doing so would follow the U.S. strategy and tactics just as the U.S. followed the French in

Vietnam.Instead, France needs to take a long-term view while also capitalizing on the momentum of current events. In response to the Paris attacks, the Western world, especially the sympathetic post-9/11 U.S., has rallied in support of the bloodied French people and in outrage against terrorism. This creates a great window of opportunity on the world stage to create a change in Syria. Since air strikes are unlikely to produce a long-term solution, the French approach should attempt to change the structure of the situation.For an effective long-term solution, the structural factor that must change is the lack of a Syrian government capable of providing internal security and a legitimate rule of law. The besieged Assad regime is too interested in staying in power to be a part of any effort to dull ISIS. Direct support from Russia to the Assad regime—political and military—is in large part keeping Assad in power. France should capitalize on its unfortunate moment in the spotlight to put international pressure on Russia to drop its support for Assad. Experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere show that transitional governments have great challenges in providing internal security, but in Syria the alternative is an oppressive leader willing to shell his own cities or a continued stalemate in a civil war while ISIS grows within its borders.If Russia is serious about defeating ISIS, as it has stated, then they must support creating a stable environment within Syria as quickly as possible. Having been the target of a coordinated attack apparently planned within the terrorist incubator of Syria, France is in a unique position to point out the inconsistency in Russian policy. Now is the time for France to not just learn, but also, and more importantly to lead.

U.S. General Sees Afghanistan 'Deteriorating'Jan 28, Jeff Seldin, Voice of America SWJThe U.S. Army general picked to lead U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan warns the security situation there is deteriorating despite a valiant effort by Afghan forces.Lieutenant-General John "Mick" Nicholson told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday that terror groups like Islamic State and al-Qaida continue to see Afghanistan as an attractive sanctuary. He warned the U.S. may need to take a more aggressive approach."We still see attempts by terrorist organizations to get into Afghanistan," Nicholson said. "Do we have the right level of CT [counterterrorism] capability to deal with that?"Of particular concern to U.S. military and intelligence officials is the spread of the Islamic State group, which has sought to establish a sanctuary in Nangarhar province, and a resurgent al-Qaida in Kandahar province.The Taliban have also re-emerged as a threat, briefly seizing the northern city of Kunduz last year while also taking key districts in Helmand province. There are concerns, too, that the Taliban have hopes of retaking their spiritual home in Kandahar. Nicholson assured lawmakers he would not let the U.S. sit idly by."We need to prevent Kandahar from falling into the hands of the Taliban," Nicholson said, adding he would "absolutely" recommend using U.S. military force to prevent the Taliban from retaking the provincial capital. If approved by lawmakers, Nicholson would take over as the commander for U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan from Gen. John Campbell, who is expected to retire.‘Crisis Situation’ The U.S. currently has about 9,800 troops in Afghanistan for counterterrorism activities and to train and advise Afghan security forces. But that number is expected to drop to about 5,500 by the end of the year, worrying lawmakers.





"I believe we are in a crisis situation," said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, a constant critic of the Obama

administration's Afghanistan policy. "It makes no strategic or military sense to continue the withdrawal of American forces."Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte also expressed alarm at the way the administration has telegraphed troop levels in Afghanistan to U.S. enemies. "This has been a constant kabuki dance," Ayotte said. "We cannot afford to take on risks that allow obviously safe havens, again, for al-Qaida and ISIS engagement." Nicholson said that, if confirmed, he would review U.S. troop levels during his first 90 days in command and make an appropriate recommendation, warning he saw the need for a long-term commitment.Realistic Expectations Needed But he also said the U.S. needed to have a realistic expectation of what can be achieved. "This is Afghanistan. There will always be some level of violence in Afghanistan," Nicholson said. "We're not trying to create a Western-style society here," he added. "We are looking at an adequate level of security to prevent the re-emergence of transnational terrorist threats." Nicholson is currently the commander of NATO's Allied Land Command, based at Izmir, Turkey. He has served several tours of duty in Afghanistan and also commanded the Army's 75th Ranger Regiment and the 82nd Airborne Division. Lawmakers praised Nicholson for his experience. Nicholson's nomination could go before the full Senate for vote as early as next week.

Jan 19 SWJ, The Convoluted Coalition Against ISISJames EmeryISIS Desire to Surpass Al Qaeda The two recent strikes attributed to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, (ISIS, also referred to as ISIL, IS, and Daesh) – downing a Russian passenger jet October 31 and the complex attack in Paris, November 13,, 2015 – provided the organization with significant media coverage and elevated status. Among the many battles that ISIS is waging one of their primary objectives is to soundly eclipse the legacy of al Qaeda as the most powerful and acclaimed terrorist organization in the world. ISIS broke away from al Qaeda in 2014 striving to become a powerful independent force instead of a second-tier affiliate.

While the insatiable ego and ambition of ISIS leadership are drivers, there is much more at stake. ISIS wants to attract additional aligned and nonaligned terrorist and insurgent cells including some that are affiliated with al Qaeda. Adding affiliate insurgent groups in Asia, Africa, and other locations significantly increases the geographic coverage, influence, and prestige of ISIS.

Some affiliates join ISIS for the enhanced power and fear-driven respect they’ll garner in their local operations including degenerate criminal gangs such as the Philippines’ Abu Sayyaf which switched to ISIS to increase the ransoms they can demand for kidnapping Westerners. Internal schisms and personality rifts within al Qaeda, Taliban and other groups will provide ISIS with additional affiliates and commanders. Some previously nonaligned groups will also be encouraged to join.

ISIS wants increased funding, recruits, supporters and publicity. This is one of the reasons why ISIS has carried out so many sensational executions – countless beheadings along with burning, drowning, or blowing up victims. ISIS quickly became media whores by waging a perverse reality television style of terrorism on the Internet. They will do anything to heighten their profile and prestige among extremists and the unsavory masses that fund, participate in or support terrorism.

ISIS has committed an incalculable number of crimes against Muslims, Christians “Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster”




and others. Generally, the more radical and outspoken jihadi leaders are the more their actions and directives go against the Qur’an and Hadith, sullying

Islam. Most terrorists and insurgents use religion and nationalism as convenient covers that conceal their primary motives – power and greed.

ISIS wants a larger share of the millions of dollars coming from wealthy supporters of terrorism in the Middle East and around the globe ranging from individuals and Islamic charities to state sponsors. For some states terrorists, insurgents and criminals are viewed as tools that can be used to attack enemies and support geopolitical ambitions,

While the obvious motivation of state sponsors is to encourage terrorist and military operations against a specific enemy, such as the United States or Afghanistan, the second and third order effects have multilayered economic and political ramifications that augment or diminish the influence and capacity of secondary targets and objectives.

For example, Pakistan’s ongoing support of radical Islamists in Afghanistan – from Gulbuddin Hekmatyar to the Taliban and Haqqani Network – are designed to strengthen their influence, while diminishing that of India. Pakistan’s obsession with India is the primary driver influencing their foreign policy, especially the activities carried out by Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and other intelligence and military sectors.

Opportunity for a Super Power Coalition Against ISIS During a two week period, October 31 to November 13, 2015, terrorist operations attributed to ISIS significantly elevated their status and their potential rewards. However, it also created a unique opportunity in which global powers were motivated to form strategic alliances to attack ISIS. The United States, Russia, France and China advocated a coalition to counter ISIS and other terrorists groups. Many other states, including North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members, were poised to join. However, conflicting agendas undermined meaningful alliances.

Previous alliances have been formed to counter ISIS, but they lacked the unrestricted and comprehensive participation of the three primary super powers – United States, Russia, and China. They also lacked meaningful objectives and follow-through.

Many U.S. or U.N. alliances focus on enlisting lots of members – most of whom contribute little or nothing to the cause. For example, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), forged to fight insurgents in Afghanistan, consisted of 51 NATO and partner nations. However, three countries, the U.S., U.K. and Canada accounted for 85 percent of the fatalities and the majority of the troops.

Weak alliances undermine mission objectives when unqualified and unmotivated allies are given responsibility for specific activities or geographic areas. On paper it appears that their respective Area of Operation (AO) is covered even when their AO is an unchallenged staging, transit and operations area for insurgents, terrorists and criminals.

The war with ISIS will be a protracted conflict that requires a strong coalition that has the uncompromising commitment and tenacity to wage “Total War” across a broad spectrum including military, cyber, funding and income sources, recruiting and support.

In addition to waging war against the military wing of ISIS and disrupting their websites and social media networks aggressive steps should be taken to eliminate their allies and facilitators. Arms traffickers, financial contributors, black-market oil dealers, money launderers and other despicable individuals and cells that support ISIS and other terrorists and insurgent groups should be identified and eliminated regardless of their





nationality and location. Individuals and groups that support terrorism are knowing accomplices to the murder, mayhem and destruction wrought by the

unsavory organizations they support.The only way to contain and deter terrorism is through a policy of total and

sustained war against everyone that participates in it or supports it including pseudo-allies and state sponsors. Effectively fighting terrorism is no place for weak political alliances forged by ego-centric, incompetent, ethically compromised, or willfully obtuse politicians and policymakers, who focus more on personal agendas and poll numbers, than on strategic objectives and significant results.

Egos and Agendas Destroy Prospect for Powerful Alliance The opportunity to build a powerful anti-ISIS coalition anchored by the United

States, Russia, United Kingdom, France and other states was disrupted before it could be forged. The clash of egos, secondary agendas and an implicit lack of trust doomed the opportunity to form a superpower alliance that could have significantly devastated ISIS and other terrorists’ organizations.

The first problem was that the United States, Russia and Turkey had conflicting objectives which could have been negotiated and neutralized. The United States and Turkey insisted upon the removal of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The Russians wanted him to stay.

Syria had been a client state of the USSR from 1955 to 1991, often receiving over $2 billion per year in military aid in addition to economic aid and political support. Bashar’s father, Hafez al-Assad, who was President of Syria from 1971 to 2000, was the most important asset the Russians had in the Middle East prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union. Hafez al-Assad, known as “The Fox” for his cunning and double-dealing treachery, selectively supported terrorists and Soviet operations when they coincided with his own objectives. Hafez al-Assad’s prestige and influence began to wane during the Gorbachev era and again following the break-up of the Soviet Union in December 1991. The Russian economic, military, and political relationship with Syria continued at varying levels from 1991 through 2015 increasing in support under the reign of President Bashar al-Assad.

Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, has aggressively sought to restore Russia to its prior status as a global superpower.

Russia has more than doubled their military spending during the last ten years, though it is still less than 15 percent of the U.S. military budget. Putin significantly strengthened the economy and restored nationalistic and global prestige.

He is supported by many Russians, especially those who suffered through the international embarrassment and economic hardships that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Putin is a strong supporter of Basher al-Assad, in part due to the long established ties to the former Soviet client state, but also due to the Putin policy not to relinquish territory or influence. Ego, pride and an ingrained sense of purpose compel Putin to consistently elevate the stature and global positioning of Russia.

Putin was reportedly upset by the violent death of Muammar Gaddafi and does not want to see Assad suffer the same fate for personal and political reasons.

Putin is using the war in Syria to flex his muscles, showcasing advanced Soviet weapons, including Tupolev Tu-160 strategic bombers, Sukhoi Su-34 strike fighters, T-90A tanks and submarine launched cruise missiles. The Russians are proudly reclaiming their role as a political and military force to be reckoned with through significant military operations,





combined with Vladimir Putin’s strategic positioning and negotiations.Unfortunately, many Russian weapons have been used against anti-Assad

forces that have also been waging a war against ISIS. Russian attacks against anti-Assad rebels can be significantly reduced or eliminated through negotiations that focus on shared concerns and a similarity of purpose. The United States and Russian objectives – to decimate ISIS and other terrorists groups that are a threat to both countries – should be a pressing priority that trumps less important considerations.

Putin is proving to be a skilled negotiator and compelling orator who excels at public appearances at the U.N. and other political and media events. It appears that many U.S. politicians and policymakers do not understand Putin nor the Russian psyche that makes Putin so appealing to his supporters. Some U.S. politicians fail to grasp the significance of the opportunity to forge a long-term, strategic, results-oriented super-power alliance to counter ISIS and other terrorists and criminal groups.

Misguided politicians who continue to demonize Putin and Russia are putting the United States and everyone else in the world more at risk from terrorist’s attacks and costly counterinsurgency operations. Some Western politicians may want to project that they are standing strong against Russia through their inflammatory rhetoric and policies but they are acting like reckless fools in the war on terror.

A declassified 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report warned that the major driving forces behind the insurgency in Syria were al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic extremists. The DIA report said that support for the insurgents may cause the formation of a radical Islamic State being formed in Syria and Iraq that unified the jihad among Sunni Muslims throughout the Arab world.

The report noted that Turkey and the Gulf States were supporting the insurgents in their effort to create a Sunni Islamic Caliphate. The reference to the formation of an Islamic State predates the actual formation of ISIS, which had previously been an affiliate group aligned with al Qaeda.

The Obama administration and other U.S. policymakers repeatedly ignored these warnings, along with additional intelligence reports and briefings, effectively setting the stage for the formation of ISIS, and the ongoing conflict in the region.

The rise of the U.S.-Sunni supported insurgency in Syria led to a revival and empowerment of al Qaeda and other extremist groups operating in Iraq. This is why wars should be planned and waged by the military, not inept misguided or ethically challenged politicians.Bashar al-Assad had previously helped the United States in countering al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical groups. He continued to provide assistance to the U.S. even after he was demonized by the Bush and Obama administrations.Removing al-Assad from power in Syria as the United States, and its Sunni allies are insisting, will create a power vacuum.

This will likely result in replacing Assad’s secular government with anti-American Islamic extremists such as ISIS or a destabilizing dysfunctional collection of adversarial insurgent groups.

What happens to al-Assad is a secondary issue, not a deal breaker. There are several dozen other world leaders aligned to the West that are as bad as or worse than al-Assad.

Besides, the United States’ recent legacy of removing leaders – including Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya – created disastrous, complex problems. The United States may want to steer clear of orchestrating “Regime Changes” for a while and focus on building relationships and forging alliances.





Double-Dealing Turkey and AssociatesTurkey, a NATO member and U.S. ally, has proven to be a tremendous asset

to ISIS. Turkey has been bombing Kurdish groups in Syria due to their ongoing internal conflict with the Kurds. However, the Syrian-based Kurds have been an effective group fighting ISIS, so in attacking the Kurds Turkey is helping to sustain ISIS in addition to undermining Ankara’s own desire to drive out President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.

Turkey has expressed concern about alleged Russian attacks on Syrian Turkmen, who are ethnic Turks, fighting to overthrow al-Assad.

This may have given Turkey additional motivation to target Russian aircraft. Critics, including Putin, claim that Turkey’s attack was initiated to protect their illegal industrial-scale black-market smuggling operations of ISIS controlled oil. Russia has been attacking convoys of ISIS oil tankers headed for Turkey.Turkey’s questionable action in shooting down a Russian SU-24 military aircraft that allegedly crossed into a small extended sliver of Turkey dealt a serious blow to an anti-ISIS alliance between the United States and Russia. This U.S.-Russian centered alliance, that would have included United Kingdom, France and many other countries, could have been devastating to ISIS, but Turkey came to their rescue.Ankara claims that the Russian aircraft had traveled into Turkey for a mere 17 seconds, and received numerous warnings before it was shot it down. Russia counters that no warnings were issued and that the aircraft never entered Turkish air space.

Regardless of its location, a 17 second violation by an aircraft that is posing no threat should not be a capital offense, especially when it’s known that NATO and Russian bombing runs are taking place just across the border in Syria. If Turkey’s neighbors carried out a similar policy the Turkish Air Force would be decimated after reportedly violating Greek air space over 2,200 times in 2014 in addition to other border violations.

The timing and predictable ramifications of Turkey’s aggressive action against Russia raises concerns that it was previously planned and approved by higher authorities. The profiles and associates of the Turkish pilot who shot down the Russian aircraft, along with the Turkish military and civilian chain of command that authorized it should be reviewed. Perhaps associations with ISIS and other radical groups might turn up.

Turkey is reportedly buying and transporting Syrian and Iraqi oil from ISIS, a clear violation of U.S. and NATO policy. The Russians reported thousands of trucks carrying ISIS controlled oil traveling into Turkey from both Syria and Iraq. Russia, the U.S. and NATO have destroyed some of these trucks but need to do more. ISIS is earning over one billion dollars a year from illicit oil sales.The son of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Bilal Erdoğan, part-owner of BMZ Ltd., is reaping huge profits from the black market sale of ISIS oil. Turkey denies these accusations. BMZ is a maritime company and an Erdoğan family business. Bilal Erdoğan has been photographed dining and socializing with leaders of ISIS and other jihadi groups.

Hundreds of wounded ISIS soldiers have reportedly been transferred in Turkish military trucks to hospitals for treatment. Several reports state that Sümeyye Erdoğan, the daughter of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, was involved in overseeing one of the Turkish hospitals providing medical care for ISIS fighters. It appears that the support of ISIS is an economic and politically rewarding Erdoğan family affair.

Numerous reports, including statements from both active and captured ISIS fighters, claim that Turkey has been running military training camps and staging centers for the Islamic State. These Turkish based operations are part of the ongoing support for





the Islamic State’s war against two of Turkey’s enemies – the Kurds and al-Assad.

Multiple sources and news reports have said that weapons are being delivered to Turkey, including some on foreign airlines. Turkey’s military and national intelligence service (MIT) are accused of escorting shipments of weapons, ammunition and other contraband to ISIS. Credible reports state that some weapons shipments have been intercepted by government officials but Turkey’s MIT with assistance from national political leaders had the shipments released so they could be delivered to ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Initially, Turkey was delivering weapons to the rebels that were purchased by the U.S. and Sunni state supporters. When the U.S. changed their policy on arms shipments the Turks kept it going.Upon arrival in Syria many of the weapons are transferred to automobiles or loaded onto trucks under layers of produce or similar coverage to hide the weapons and ammunition from NATO and Russian jets patrolling the area. Vehicles smuggling weapons and supplies will often travel at night driving with their lights off in an effort to avoid detection.Turkey has provided a porous border that knowingly allows ISIS fighters, recruits, weapons and supplies to easily move back and forth between Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Turkish newspapers reported that over 100,000 thousand Turkish passports have been given to ISIS fighters to facilitate their movement between countries. Turkish passports have also been used by jihadists traveling from China and other countries as they make their way to Turkey and Syria to join ISIS. Reports of Turkish weapons transfers, passports and other support to ISIS have been corroborated through interviews, intelligence reports and by local and regional publications.

While Turkey allows the flow of weapons and recruits that help ISIS they have severely restricted the flow of weapons and supplies to the U.S.-allied Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq who are fighting ISIS. Turkey has repeatedly bombed the Kurdish groups fighting ISIS. The Turkish military has threatened to invade Syria not to take on ISIS but to weaken the Kurdish forces that are fighting the Islamic State.

Erdogan has publically stated that he will not allow a Kurdish state to form in Northern Syria.

The Turks fear that any Kurdish state – in Syria, Iraq, or Iran – would empower the Kurds in Turkey who have been forcibly stripped of their language and culture since the formation of modern Turkey in 1923. The Kurds, who total more than 35 million in the region, make up the largest stateless ethnic group in the world. European powers were negligent in their failure to establish a Kurdish state following WWI and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire. The Kurds were, and are, loyal and dependable allies of the United States during U.S. conflicts in Iraq from 1991 to date. They bravely served as linguist, advisors and fighters who took on the enemies of the Unites States. Many Kurds continued to provide assistance to U.S. troops during their pre-deployment training in the United States. The U.S. and U.N. should take a more active role in supporting and protecting Kurdish groups in the region. They should also help forge a peace agreement between Turkey and the Kurds as this would also help reduce tensions and conflict in Iraq and Syria. The previous two ceasefire agreements with the Kurdish Workers Party of Turkey (PKK) were allegedly sullied by Prime Minister and then President Erdoğan in order to stir up nationalistic feelings among Turks to support his election and regime. The Turks deny this accusation.





It appears that Erdogan and many Turkish government, military and intelligence officers prefer to empower ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and

other radical groups if that will help prevent a Kurdish state from forming in Syria or Iraq.

Turkey’s support of ISIS due in part to their hatred of the Kurds is similar to Pakistan’s support for the Taliban and other insurgent groups in Afghanistan due to their hatred and fear of India. This makes Turkey an unreliable and untrustworthy ally in the war against ISIS. U.S. policymakers need to be smart enough to grasp this and to craft political and military actions against ISIS – and political and economic consequences to Turkey – that will neutralize Erdogan’s disruptive activities.A suicide bomber detonated himself in the Sultanahmet area of Istanbul on Tuesday, January 12, 2016, killing ten German tourists and wounding others. The Sultanahmet area is the location of many of Istanbul’s primary tourist attractions including the Blue Mosque and Hagia Sophia. It also contains hundreds of hotels, restaurants, and shops that cater to traveling foreigners.The bomber allegedly had ties to ISIS and Syria which would make the Western tourist hub of Sultanahmet a desirable target. Perhaps the attack was an independent act meant to target Westerners on Turkish soil. However, given the pressure that Turkey is receiving for their support of ISIS and the strong desire that ISIS and Turkey has to maintain their mutually supportive relationship the suicide bomber may have played an unknowing role in a larger game. ISIS, with or without the direction from Turkish MIT agents, may have initiated the attack solely for the appearance of an escalating Turkish-ISIS conflict. These types of staged and False Flag operations have gone on for centuries to justify wars or misdirect attention from underlying alliances.

NATO’s Self-Inflicted Wounds About a week after Turkey shot down the Russian jet NATO added to the tension

with Russia by inviting the tiny country of Montenegro, which only has about 2,000 combined active military members, to join NATO. This first expansion of NATO in six years could not have been more ill-timed.

Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO chief, said that the addition had nothing to do with Russia, ignoring the fact that NATO was established in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union. Other NATO officials said they wanted to send a clear message to Russia by letting Putin know that he cannot stop the eastward expansion of NATO. This type of reckless bravado and provocation should be reexamined, especially since the primary enemy is ISIS and other terrorist groups along with their sponsors and supporters.

The Montenegro addition shows how out of touch and short-sighted some U.S. and NATO policymakers are. Continuing to take in former Soviet satellites and Warsaw Pact countries into NATO is deliberately provoking and threatening Russia. The timing is nuts, unless the objective is to undermine efforts towards a NATO-Russian coalition against ISIS and other terrorist and criminal groups.

The Brussels-based NATO, with strong support from both the Bush and Obama administrations, has pushed for the aggressive acquisition of former Soviet territories and states. In their rush to add new members NATO has disregarded their own polices for inclusion, ignoring corruption, intimidation and other illegal and unethical activities carried out by political leaders, and their cronies in Montenegro and other former Soviet applicants.

Taking in additional members, including Georgia which has asked to join NATO and Ukraine which is considering it, creates a costly pre-WWI type of entangling, defense





pact that can lead to war between NATO and Russia. Article 5 of the NATO charter states that an attack on one Ally shall be considered an attack on all

Allies requiring members to provide assistance. A Russian attack against a belligerent Georgia or one of the other former Soviet members who feels empowered by their association with NATO could quickly escalate.NATO was created to counter a full scale Soviet attack against Germany, France and other European countries. It should not risk being drawn into a conventional or nuclear conflict over the reckless provocations of a belligerent recruit. Why deliberately provoke Russian pride and security by continuing to admit former Soviet states to NATO, especially when the potential consequences of reckless members are so great?Russia blames the United States and European Union for the military conflict and political schisms within Ukraine. A NATO moratorium on adding additional members would likely deescalate the unstable situation in the Ukraine. The primary motivation for Putin’s actions in Ukraine, from annexing the Crimean peninsula to supporting separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine, is the fear that it will continue leaning to the West and eventually becoming a member of NATO. That would cross a geographic, political and psychological “Red Line,” in which the perceived enemy – an aggressive, expansive NATO – would be perched on the Russian border, a mere 306 miles (490 kilometers) from Moscow.This threat would be too much for the Russian psyche, which has already relinquished non-European military bases and client states and lost virtually all of the former Warsaw Pact territory that provided a defensive buffer.

Putin has referred to Ukrainian military as a proxy army of NATO and called the appearance of NATO on Russia’s borders a direct threat. Tensions are high and so are the risks and the consequences.

The United States was named as a threat to Russia in a document - “About the Strategy of National Security of Russian Federation” - that was signed by Putin on December 31, 2015. The eastward expansion of NATO was listed as a threat. This latest version replaces the 2009 edition which made no mention of the United States or NATO.

The United States and Russia need each other’s help in combating terrorism, nuclear proliferation and other mutual concerns. Politically grounded, bi-partisan visionaries – in the U.S. and Russia – should lead the way, forging a superpower alliance that will begin dismantling and destroying the real enemies – ISIS, al Qaeda and other terrorist and criminal groups. U.S.-Russian cooperation against terrorists could strengthen ties and improve trust, creating the contextual framework for many more mutually beneficial projects.

Making Enemies and Rethinking the Iranian PolicyWhy does the United States deliberately alienate people and states with whom it is in their best interest to work with? For example, the U.S. repeatedly insulted Iran by referring to this collectivist, shame culture as a member of the “Axis of Evil” along with Iraq and North Korea, beginning with President George W. Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address.After the attack of 9/11, Iran provided assistance to the United States government in identifying and capturing al Qaeda members and in fighting the Taliban. Iran was interested in establishing better relations with the United States but was rebuffed by a Bush Administration that was coddling up to Iran’s enemies – Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - the two leading sponsors of radical jihadists. Iran’s generous cooperation with the United





States ended after Bush’s Axis of Evil speech. Foolish, short-sighted rants and posturing should have no place in foreign policy.

After the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 Iran again attempted to improve their relationship with the United States by offering a package of concessions that included assistance in stabilizing Iraq, countering terrorism, making their nuclear program more transparent and eliminating their support for Hezbollah and other militant groups to facilitate a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Key aids, who were working with Secretary of State Colin Powell, were upbeat about the offer and the positive benefits it provided. Iran was strategically located between Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries in which U.S. combat troops were fighting protracted wars. Iran was in a pivotal position to significantly help or hinder U.S. military and political objectives in the region.The timing and content of Iran’s offer was extremely beneficial to the United States. However, Iran’s peaceful overtures were quickly denounced and ignored when they got to Vice-President Dick Cheney’s office. Cheney, who navigated five deferments to avoid military service during the Vietnam War, was the primary person responsible for manipulating intelligence reports that led to the war in Iraq, which empowered al Qaeda, destabilized the region and ultimately led to the formation of ISIS. Cheney’s hostile reaction to Iran’s overtures scurried the opportunity to significantly reduce U.S. and NATO casualties and the massive financial drain of waging two protracted wars.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and other Sunni countries have reportedly provided weapons, money and other support to ISIS. They want to overthrow al-Assad, a member of the Alawite sect of Shia Islam, in their quest to promote Sunni dominance across the Middle East and around the world. Many of the accusations against Iran are supplied by Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states who would like to see Iran destroyed and all Shiites, whom they consider heretics, eliminated. Sunni Saudi Arabia considers Shia Iran as its primary enemy.

Many terrorism analysts and experts consider Saudi Arabia to be the number one sponsor of terrorism in the world. The Saudis have funded radical Islamic groups such as al Qaeda, ISIS and the Taliban in addition to massive, global funding of Wahhabi madrassas that produce countless terrorists, insurgents and suicide bombers. Most terrorists and insurgent groups are Sunni Muslims including al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban, PLO and Hamas, Al-Shabaab and many more.

Iran, which supports Hezbollah and other terrorists groups, is an island of Persians surrounded by an ocean of Arabs, most of whom they distrust. The radical elements within Iran could have been marginalized and negated, along with the hawks in the United States, by playing to the moderate middle. A mature approach to foreign policy - patiently and properly guiding both Iran and the United States - could lead to a mutually beneficial long-term relationship that would pay dividends for many years to come.

Under the Shah, Iran had been one of the United States’ strongest allies in the Middle East from 1953 to 1979. Many Iranians have favorable opinions of the United States and would like to improve cultural, economic and political relationships. Having interviewed hundreds of Iranians while working abroad over a thirty year period I found most of them to have positive feelings about the United States. The “Axis of Evil” rhetoric and harsh sanctions were unpopular but most Iranians blamed hard-line political leaders – in Iran and the United States – for the sanctions and failure to resolve differences.In addition to the devastating currency and economic problems that Iran has faced in recent years they have also suffered from the plague of drug addiction. The “Bleed





Effect,” spillage of Afghan drugs transited through Iran, evolved into making Iran a primary destination for heroin, opium, hashish and methamphetamine.

Several years ago Iran had the highest per capita usage of heroin in the world – nine times the global average in addition to three million Iranians abusing hashish and opium. The influx of methamphetamine in recent years has added to the problem as has a weak economy, free-falling currency, high unemployment and disenchanted youth. The United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) have played pivotal roles in the region. The DEA could establish ties with Iranian officials to combat narcotics trafficking within Iran and the region. The DEA and UNODC excel at building relationships across complex, political and ideological boundaries. Their role in Iran could encourage additional mutually beneficial projects with the United States and other Western and regional countries.Encouraging cultural exchanges and economic and political ties would be beneficial to the United States and Iran. Both are powerbrokers in the region, and while they have each carried out operations that undermine the other, including Iran’s support of insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq, they have many shared interests, from which mutually beneficial alliances could be formed.

The Next Strikes ISIS will continue to encourage attacks by lone wolves and small cells operating in

North America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East in order to keep their name in the headlines, securing additional donations and recruits. ISIS is also working towards carrying out large scale 9/11 type of attacks on the United States and other Western countries. Their motivation is to convincingly surpass al Qaeda, as the most dominate terrorist organization in the world.

ISIS’s adept use of social media makes them more successful in carrying out lone wolf and small scale attacks which will likely intensify – in frequency and the diversity of global locations – in an effort to elevate their stature and reach.

Al Qaeda, which has a greater capacity to carry out large scale operations, is probably planning several sensational attacks on the United States, Europe and other countries in an effort to reestablish their top ranking. They want the increased donations, affiliates, recruits and other support that come with sensational strikes and the prestige of being the number one terrorist group in the world.

ISIS and al Qaeda will continue to plan attacks that will include explosive material, and potentially, chemical and biological agents.

In addition to traditional terrorist’s methods they are likely looking for soft targets and devising unique ways to strike with the assistance of Western recruits, complicit state intelligence organizations and a global network of affiliates and supporters. Much is at stake as ISIS and al Qaeda compete for top ranking. These jihadi leaders have a tabloid mentality that craves massive casualties and sensational headlines. Their version of “Shock and Awe” will garner “Rock Star” prestige among their supporters along with substantial donations and numerous other benefits.

Exploiting Weaknesses ISIS lacks the maturity and grounding of al Qaeda and would be more likely to

implode from within if the appropriate external and internal drivers are initiated. It is rare that a terrorist group has a defined geographic area, but that is the case with ISIS. Generally, tracking terrorists is like chasing smoke – elusive and unpredictable. ISIS’s geographic base provides numerous targets and territory that can be destroyed and captured.





The psychological profile of the upstart, unstable ISIS leadership, makes it more likely they will turn upon themselves when they start losing territory,

power and prestige. ISIS leaders will increasingly kill their own soldiers for retreating or failing to fight with sufficient gusto. During the 19th century formation of the Zulu state Shaka used similar tactics requiring his commanders to kill and impale some of their own fighters, if they failed to fight bravely. He wanted his army to fear his wrath more than the enemies they fought. While this worked for Shaka it would likely increase dissention within ISIS.

In addition to killing each other, ISIS will increase the carnage leveled against civilian populations. This sordid, predictable behavior will create numerous deserters and refugees that provide useful information to the United States and other coalition members on ISIS and their supporters.

Creating detailed profiles of ISIS leadership and commanders, from current files and ongoing sources, will uncover a variety of personality disorders, feuds and psychological trigger points that can be exploited to encourage internal rivalries, suspicions, jealousies, treachery and intrigue. Some of these self-absorbed, power-crazed terrorists are hardwired to implode. It is simply a matter of identifying the fault lines within the organization and between individuals and sub-groups and applying the appropriate pressure while seeding suspicions.

At the least, this will undermine their cohesiveness and effectiveness. At best, they will begin killing each other, and deserting – individually and in groups. The U.S.-led coalition can exploit and expand fractures and schisms within and between cells. Some jihadi commanders will pull out, seeking a neutral corner or begin actively fighting other ISIS groups.

At this point several ISIS commanders can be encouraged to switch sides, providing valuable intelligence and information on all aspects of ISIS operations and their supporters.The so-called Islamic Caliphate of ISIS will degenerate into sporadic cells and oil slicks if the proper alliances, tactics and military operations are in place and supported by aggressive and finely tuned PSYOP and Information Operations that activate the trigger points within ISIS and their affiliates along with the populations within their respective areas of operation.

The idea of defeating or destroying ISIS, al Qaeda and similar groups is not realistic, since jihadi idealism can spread and morph into different cells in addition to the remnants of the original organizations. However, they can be soundly thrashed and decimated – militarily, politically and psychologically – to the point that their status and capacity are significantly diminished.

Vetting, Assimilation and Terrorism, Virginia Byers, Jan 28 SWJ. Islam expands either by military conquest or by using the weapon of hijra: immigration. Muhammad conquered Medina through immigration. Hijra is what we are experiencing today. The Islamisation of Europe continues and the West has no strategy for dealing with the Islamic ideology, because our elites say we must adapt to them rather than the other way round.“Not all Muslims are terrorists, but almost all terrorists are Muslims.”---Geert Wilders“An army of sheep lead by a lion would defeat an army of lions led by a sheep.”---Arab proverbIntroduction America has been ignoring the overall threat that has been attacking her people since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Throughout history, Americans have been attacked in various countries as well as in the United States by individuals whose aim is to





destroy her. The last major US incident, the attack of 911, jolted the American citizens into action. Many young men and women enlisted into the

military to go fight the enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan while safety measures were put into place within America’s borders. The people today are more vigilant as they watch for suspicious persons and activity within their environments.

It has been well known that Osama bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda extremist terrorist group want to destroy the United States, its values, and the Western culture.

The United States did not react with a strong club in hand when incidents such as the shoot down of Pan Am 103 flight, the various attacks against the US embassies in Africa, the USS Cole ship which had been bombed, and the World Trade Center explosion in the l990s. But when the 9/11 attacks occurred using commercial planes to hit the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the US finally came out of a deep sleep by deploying troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and declaring war on terrorists. This action, right or wrong, has shown the world if circumstances dictate America will stand to protect its people.

The real issue is to look at the whole picture involving Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Shabab, Hezbollah et al.

Despite the terroristic attacks, the United States and its citizens have continued on. If the goal is to make the United States fall from within what better way than to plant Muslims within its society to feed off the financial institutions and increase the Muslim population by gradually overtaking American society through strength and uncompromising fundamentals. This tactic has already been demonstrated within such countries as the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, and France plus others within the European Union.

Research Question – Is there a threat to the United States and its interests by allowing Muslims, without proper vetting, to be allowed inside but once in they refuse to assimilate into the United States’ culture?

This conceptual study will discuss the impact of the Muslim immigration in the United States as well as the European states, the Sharia Law vs. the US Constitution or civil law, and the threats posed internally and externally from this organization of people.Muslim Immigration in the US and European StatesThroughout the European and Muslim history, there has been confrontations from both sides which explains today’s relationship and possibly tomorrow’s. Authors Scott Stewart and Sidney Brown reports that “Islam, in the early 700s, invaded Spain and France but later down the road during the Crusades (1700s and 1800s) Europeans were colonizing North Africa and South Asia” (2013,1).

The Ottoman empire would encompass a vast area to “include Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia, Hungary, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Parts of Arabia, and much of the coastal strip of North Africa” (BBC 2009, 1).

When the “Turks took Jerusalem in 1065 and killed 3000 Christians, the Crusades would start in 1095 to take back the holy places of Palestine from them” (Lords 2013, 1). Eventually, the Ottoman Empire would fall after the First World War and Europe would again start to colonize the Middle East. This back and forth interaction between Europe and the Muslims still continues today as immigrants continue to flow back and forth across borders.

Today Muslims, who immigrated to Europe for various reasons, are now in large groups, some have integrated, some have not assimilated, and many are not employed due to the economic crisis in Europe. The lack of employment in Europe would enhance their “feelings of discrimination, at odds with European society, disenfranchised or voiceless, and some may even feel resentment” toward their host country (Stewart 2013, 2).





The Pew Research had estimated that “Europe has grown from 29.6 million in l990 to 44.1 million in 2010 (a 49% increase). By 2030,

Muslims are expected to make up 8% of Europe’s population” (2011, 1). What is interesting in the survey is that some of “the biggest increases will occur in the next twenty years in United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, and other countries in Western, Northern, and Southern Europe” (Pew 2011, 2). With a bigger percentage or rise in Muslim population will only acerbate economic, societal problems, and possibly terrorists’ actions.

With the arrival of more Muslim immigrants from various places throughout the world, are they being vetted properly? When an immigrant comes to the United States, he/she can apply for legal permanent resident (LPR) status. This allows a person to live, work, own property, attend public schools, colleges, and universities as well as join branches of the US Armed Forces. After 5 years living in the US, the LPR participant is able to apply for US citizenship. The LPR applicant form (I-360) containing the usual requested personal information does not question the LPR participant’s connection to any criminal or membership of groups, organizations, or associations in which they have advocated the overthrow of the US government. It is possible that any background checks on foreign LPRs may be done through the US embassies within the respected home countries. It is likely that local nationals hired by US embassies are doing the background checks since they speak the language and understand the environment of the foreign applicant. This allows for corruption for monies to be paid to be granted for visa approval and the possibilities that terrorists will be able to slip through the channels to enter into the US undetected.Through the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics representative Nancy Rytina reported that on “January 1, 2012 there were an estimated 13.3 million LPRs living in the United States” (2013, 1). There was no listing for the number of Muslims who had LPR status for this time period as the US Census Bureau collects only voluntary “self-described religious identification of the adult populations which is done by random-digit-dialing telephone surveys of residential households in the continental US during 1990, 2001, and 2008. The survey estimates that in l990 there were 527,000 Muslims; in 2001 there were 1,104,000; and in 2008 there were 1,349,000 who considered themselves Muslims” (U.S. Census 2012, 61).When the Census Bureau takes a census among the US population, the question is asked what category does one self-identify with in regards to race. The categories are: White, Black or African America, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific islanders, two or more races and some other race during the 2010 census. The “White” category is described as “a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as “White” or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian (U.S. Census 2012, 61). Understanding the definition of each of these categories shows that one is not able to distinguish the number of actual Middle East peoples, or Muslims who are actually living in the US whether legally or illegally.One of the requirements of becoming a citizen is to live in the US for five years before an applicant can submit a completed Form N-400 for Naturalization. Included in this form are questions such as the number of times that LPR has been outside the US during the past five years, dates of departures and returns, what countries were entered, and were any trips six months or longer. Another category asks the LPR what “affiliations of any group, organization, fund foundations, part, club, society, or similar group in the US or in any





other place in which the applicant must identify or report. Has the applicant ever persecuted (directly or indirectly) any person because of race, religion,

national origin, membership in a particular social group or political opinion” (U.S. Form N-400 2013, 7). In this author’s opinion, these types of questions should be asked on the legal permanent resident application form I-360 which may help to alert officials of possible terroristic leanings before the foreign immigrant has been granted entry into the US. This assumes of course that the potential terrorist or subversive would provide true statements or that the local national (LN) approving the document would bother to do a background investigation. Since 9/11, it has been the radical Muslims who have terrorized and waged a campaign against the US and Western affiliates and because of this America has had to spend huge amount of monies towards security measures which places an economic burden on the American people.

The above mentioned process applies to those who seek actual US citizenship. It does not account for those whose goal is to simply infiltrate the US to possibly commit terrorist acts.

This is easily accomplished by acquiring a job with a US contracting company within their country. The US Embassy in both Iraq and Afghanistan (assume it occurs in other countries) put on lectures with various contractors as to how their employees could vet local nationals (usually Muslims) to be allowed into the US. This is a vetting procedure by a contractor with virtually no knowledge of the individual beyond the facts of their work ethic and how they got along. Once the LN receives a signature and statement and with no obvious problems, it was quite common to get up to a 10 year US visa. With that visa in hand there is no further need to complete the process of assimilation let alone become an actual US citizen.

Shariah Law vs. US Constitution Shariah Law comes from two sources: “The Quran, which many Muslims consider

to be the literal word of God; and the Sunnah, the divinely guided tradition of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad” (Sacirbey 2013, 1). There are three components of Shariah—belief, character, and actions. The belief component “commands Muslims to believe in God, the angels, prophets, revelation, and other… aspects of the faith” (Sacirbey 2013, 2). This is contradictory to the Christian beliefs that it is up to the individual to accept or reject God. The Bible does not command anyone to believe or not believe as it is written in the New King James Version, John 3:16 that “whosoever believeth in him (God) shall not perish but have everlasting life.”

Since the US Constitution was based on the Biblical principles of crimes against person (i.e. murder, manslaughter, bodily injury from assaults, kidnapping, slander against another); crimes against immorality (i.e. adultery, sexual relations with next of kin, sodomy, whoredom, bestiality, rape); crimes against society (i.e. obstructing or perverting justice, contempt for the law, perjury or lying, bribery, rebellion against government or rules, treason, civil liberty); crimes against property (i.e. theft, fraud, destruction of public or private property), it is found that Shariah Law covers these types of crimes, too. Therefore, there is no need to have a second form or a shadowed form of government with an overbearing religious rule of law within the United States. By acknowledging of Shariah Law and allowing it to exist within a democracy only breaks down the principles in which Americans have lived for over two hundred years. These Constitutional principles have kept our society from being ruled by any one religion and from a totalitarian or dictatorship government.For our forefathers emphasized that our government was not to have a state overrule the





church and likewise, the church shall not overrule the state. Classical Shariah Law (100% enforcement) can be seen in countries

like Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan as Author Omar Sacirbey contends. Countries like Turkey, Chad, Tunisia, Senegal, Albania, Kosovo, Kazakhstan (to name a few Muslim-majority nations) Shariah Law plays no role in government. Sacirbey goes on to say that “some Muslim-majority countries have criminalized violations of the belief, character, and action components of Shariah” (2013, 2-3). As an example, the detention of the American Christian Pastor Saeed Abedini, an Iranian-born US citizen, who was arrested in Iran June 2012 and incarcerated in September 2012 after being charged “for undermining the Iranian government, the basis for the charge was Christian gatherings” (Ferrell 2013, 2).This is an example of a country which is ruled by Shariah Law and does not allow the practice of freedom of religion as provided by the United States Constitution. This shows that a US democratic freedom society and a ruling religious-led Sharia Law society would not be able to co-exist in a civil society such as America. Muslims will expect Americans to compromise or give into their demands to incorporate their Shariah Law. Sharia Law contradicts the law of the land in which law enforcement must investigate crimes against persons such as husband beating wives, killings of children who dishonor the Muslim family, or murder of converted Muslims to other religions.

Threats Posed Internally and Externally from this Organization of PeopleDespite the increase of drone operations to counter the radicalized elements of Islam by eliminating them from their safe havens, Islam is not dead. Author John Cooley (2000) in his book, Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, argues that Islam is taking another approach to increasing their power. “Islamists in many lands are trying to infiltrate the rest of society; to impose curbs on what people can read; see on television or in the movies; what clothes they (especially women) can wear; and how they can amuse or entertain themselves” (Cooley 2000, 262). Even Dr. Petr Pelikan an Arabic scholar, Czech Muslim, and an honorary Sudanese consul in the Czech Republic argues in his writing The Future of Islam that “one of the basic characteristic of Islam as a religion is its rigorous adherence to tradition and the rejection of development” ( 2011, 81). He points out that “European society strictly adheres to two incompatible principles (l) the idea that civic identity is more important than religious affiliation, and (2) that everyone should have the freedom of religion. These two principles are incompatible to Islam and are far from the reality of Islam” (Pelikan 2011, 84). If this is the case, then Western democracies will never get the Muslim immigrant populations to successfully integrate fully into their societies. These democratic societies will only be fooling themselves.

The former Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini leader’s ideology as well as those who have followed in his footsteps, want to “garner political power that would ensure the running of Muslim states in a Muslim manner as defined by such ideologues, and thereby able to resist Western control over minds, resources, culture, and politics while simultaneously reinstate pride in Islam and self-governance—hence the definition of an Islamist as one who holds that every aspect of a Muslim’s life must be governed by Islam through Shariah Law and whose ultimate aim is to take over the reins of both public and private life and to regulate these according to the particular illegal regime of the orthodoxy creator to whom they subscribe” (Sterba and Kassan 2003, 120).

To support the concept that radical Muslims are quietly working behind the scenes of their European and American host countries, Author Lorenzo Vidino has “proposed or describes a pyramid of three levels of radical Islam. The bottom of the pyramid contains the largest section of radical Muslims. They support





democracy and integration into the European communities, openly, but underneath they work to radicalize the population of the Muslims.

The second level houses those who oppose or reject any of the Western values and advocate establishing a world Islamic state. This group is made of violent and non-violent organizations. The very top of the pyramid includes the smallest group of Jihadists who push their Salafism interpretations of Islam and this group has fallen under al-Qaeda’s umbrella of total jihad of the world through violence” (2009, 168-174).

Even though each level is a threat to Western cultures and values, the lowest level Muslim group operates under the moderation theme while staying under the wire of scrutiny. The Western governments as well as the US are taken in by the Muslim façade of moderation as a way to justify to native populations that Muslims are okay. By earning the trust of host country nationals they also gain legitimization and power so they can push for their Islamic agenda. This is only leading host countries down the path of cultural, rule of law and nationalization destruction. The clerics within a host country in this pyramid’s level are quietly pushing their agenda—“the spread of Islam, until it rules the world” as expressed by Muhammad Akif, the supreme guide of the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (Vidino 2009, 172)

It is not just the immigrants coming through customs which pose a threat; it is the unknown number of illegal Muslims that may be the greatest threat of all. “While Americans have had their sights on Al-Qaeda and the Middle East, Hezbollah, the most technically and militarily capable terrorist organization in the world has moved into our own backyard. There have been multiple intelligence and law enforcement reports that the influence and criminal activity promoted by Hezbollah is already making its way into the United States” (Bencie 2013, 13).

One report in July of 2011 reported to members of Congress “indicated that the threat to the US border is already here and that Hezbollah operatives were already infiltrating the Southern border with Mexico as well as Canada. In July 2010, their first improvised explosive device exploded in the US-Mexico border town of Ciudal Juarez” (Analysis 2011, 3). The Assistant Secretary of State, Roger Noriega stated; “I believe there will be an attack on US personnel, installations or interest in the Americas’ as soon as Hezbollah operatives believe that they are capable of such an operation without implicating their Iranian sponsors in the crime”(Analysis 2011, 3).

“Hezbollah has training bases and sleeper cells in Mexico. They also assist drug cartels such as Los Zetas with skills in bomb making and explosives. Hezbollah has created tunnels on the American border that are extremely similar to those dividing Gaza and Egypt. These tunnels can be used to transport conventional and biological weapons to Muslim contacts within the US. Weapons built by Hezbollah are capable of killing thousands of US citizens” (Rosenthal 2013, 3).

“The conflicting views between the diplomatic corps and the defense apparatus are creating a significant barrier to any attempts at a unified government response to combating Hezbollah’s influence in regions south of the border. This lack of a comprehensive approach could very well be a more significant threat than the presence of Hezbollah itself” (Bencie 2013, 16). While everyone has their attention elsewhere, Muslim terrorists are silently moving into our own backyard and even into our unprotected home. In the end it will be non-Muslim populations who will take on the Muslim influences and some of their beliefs. A democracy has the concept of compromising but an Islamic state does not. Islam will not change so what will be the next step for Western and Muslim societies? Dr. Petr Pelikan an Arabic scholar and Czech Muslim, suggests that extreme





immigration limits may be implemented to curb migration, no future construction of mosques, or even forced exodus which could produce more

radical Islamists. From the other end of the spectrum, “forced exodus of Europeanized Muslims back to the Middle East could introduce more Western elements into their local societies” (Pelikan 2011, 85-86).

It has been suggested that Western civilization who wishes to keep its freedom should adopt the motto “we do not tolerate intolerance” (Janda 2011, 79). Janda argues that it is impossible to force Muslim immigrant minorities to integrate and assimilate. His suggestion is “to educate the group that religion is a private matter within a secular society but that building of assimilated Muslim middle class should be the aim” (Janda 2011, 79).

If immigrant Muslims, who refuse to adhere to the values, philosophies, and the rule of law of their host country, then they should return to their home country where they can practice and maintain the Muslim culture as they see fit and not force their beliefs on other cultures or nationalities. After all,” history tells us that national declines are preceded by cultural declines” (Clark 2013, 263).

ConclusionFrom history and from the attacks that have taken place, both in and against Europe and America by Muslim extremists, it is obvious there is a threat and one that is growing. This threat is compounded by the refusal to adapt to American values, norms and culture. Previous immigrants, regardless of country, have assimilated. They wanted to become Americans not just for the purpose of having access to monies or to conquer that nation but to have all the freedoms which America promises. With the unlimited and largely un-vetted migration through either legal or illegal means (through Mexico and Canada), the threat will continue to grow. The increase in legally registered Muslims in Europe has grown by 49% in 20 years. The numbers of illegal increase that percentage by an unknown factor but are assumed to be high. With Hezbollah on our border and the failure of our government to recognize let alone respond to the events taking place only serves to increase the danger America is facing. ReferenceAnalysis Intelligence. 2011. “Iron Triangle of Terror: Iran, Hezbollah, and Los Zetas?” (December 19). http://analysisintelligence.com/intelligence-analysis/iron-triangle-of-terror-iran-hezbollah-and-los-zetas (accessed 11 November, 2013).BBC Religious. 2009. “Islam: Ottoman Empire (1301-1922)”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/ottomanempire_1.shtml (accessed November 10, 2013).Bencie, Luke, David Rosen, and Elizabeth Gomez. 2013. The A-Team: Hezbollah in Latin America. The Journal of counter Terrorism 19, no. 3(Fall): 12-16.Clark, Bruce M. 2013. Intelligence Analysis: A Target-Centric Approach 4th ed. California: CQ Press.Cooley, John K. 2000. Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism. London: Pluto Press. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/ehost/detail?vid=4&sid=a0fde059-6a02-4b92- a1e9c9197af2053a%40sessionmgr13&hid=22&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=nlebk&AN=72566 (accessed October 12, 2013).Ferrell, Eric. 2013. “American pastor jailed in Iran is moved, relative told no visitors, rights group says” CNN: Cable News Network (November 7). http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/world/meast/iran-imprisoned-pastor (accessed November 9, 2013)Janda, Jakub. 2011. Autocensorship: are we scared to speak about European Muslims? New Presence: The Prague Journal of Central European Affairs (Winter): 69-80. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/ehost/detail?sid=ca4fc53f-7472-4d3c-bf9d-8ec22aa3543e%40sessionmgr113&vid=37&bk=1&hid=121&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=85724180 (accessed October 13, 2013).Lords and Ladies Organization. 2013. The Crusades. http://www.lordsandladies.org/the-crusades.htm (accessed November 10, 2013).Pelikan, Petr. 2011. The Future of Islam. New Presence: The Prague Journal of Central European Affairs





(Winter): 81-86. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/ehost/detail?vid=61&sid=ca4fc53f-7472-4d3c-bf9d-8ec22aa3543e

%40sessionmgr113&hid=121&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=85724181 (accessed October 13, 2013).Pew Research: Religion & Public Life Project. 2011. “The Future of the Global Muslim Population: Region: Europe” (January 27) http://www.pewforum.org/2011/01/27/future-of-the-global-muslim-population-regional-europe (accessed November 10, 2013).Rosenthal, Terence. 2013. Los Zetas and Hezbollah, Deadly Alliance of Terror and Vice. Center for Security Policy (July 10). http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/07/10/los-zetas-and-hezbollah-a-deadly-alliance-of-terror-and-vice/ (accessed November 11, 2013).Sacirbey, Omar. 2013. “Sharia Law in the USA 101: A Guide To What It Is And Why States Want To Ban It.” Huffington Post, July 29. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/sharia-law-usa-states-ban_n_3660813.html?view=screen (accessed November 4, 2013).Sterba, James P. and Zayn Kassan. 2003. Chapter 6: Can a Muslim be a Terrorist? Terrorism and International Justice: 114-131. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/ehost/detail?sid=7632f984-77e6-40bd-8e97-4cea10eb3801%40sessionmgr112&vid=75&bk=1&hid=124&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=tsh&AN=23174981 (accessed October 11, 2013).Stewart, Scott and Sidney Brown. 2013. The Acute Jihadist Threat in Europe. Stratfor Intelligence (April 4). http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/acute-jihadist-threat-europe (accessed November 3, 2013).U.S. Bureau of the Census, Population Estimates Program (PEP). Race. 2013. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/meta/long_RHI525211.htm (accessed November 4, 2013). Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012. Table 75: Self- described Religious Identification of Adult Population: 1990, 2001, and 2008. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0075.pdf (accessed November 4, 2013).U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Form I-360, Petition for Ameriasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant. 2013. http://www.immigrationdirect.com/USCISForms/forms/I-360.jsp?r=cse-organic-none-I-360%20form (accessed on November 2, 2013). Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America. 2013. http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/naturalization- test/naturalization-oath-allegiance-united-states-america (accessed November 9, 2013). N-400 Application for Naturalization. 2013. http://www.uscis.gov/n-400 (accessed November 9, 2013).U.S. Department of Homeland Security: Office of Immigration Statistics. Annual Flow Report. U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2012, by Randall Monger and James Yankay. March 2013. http://www.dhs.gov/publication/us-legal-permanent-residents-2012 (accessed October 9, 2013).Vidino, Lorenzo. 2009. “Islamism and the West: Europe as a Battlefield.” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 10, no. 2 (June): 165-176. http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/ehost/detail?sid=df2f3d0e-6115-42f8-beab-70b156eb4e4f%40sessionmgr112&vid=53&bk=1&hid=117&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=46837761 (accessed October 13, 2013).

27 Jan At least 55 Iraqi soldiers and pro-government tribal fighters have been killed in two attacks attributed to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group in the country's western region, near the city of Ramadi.The first attack took place in the early hours of Tuesday when several suicide car bombers attacked the headquarters of the tenth Iraqi army division in northern Ramadi, killing 30 soldiers and pro-government fighters.Previously held by ISIL, Anbar's provincial capital was recaptured by Iraqi forces three weeks ago, though ISIL remains strong in some pockets, particularly in the city's eastern district and in the al-Sijariya neighbourhood.

28 Jan A new wave of ISIL suicide attacks, sniper fire, and roadside bombs targeting Iraq forces and their militia allies killed more than 30 fighters on Thursday in and around the city of Ramadi, a military source told Al Jazeera. The heavy fighting comes after more than 50 Iraqi soldiers and pro-government tribal fighters were killed earlier in the week during attacks by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant group near the city, which lies just 100km west of Baghdad. Earlier in January, the Iraqi army declared Ramadi liberated





after a major offensive reclaimed government offices in the city centre. But, since then, Iraqi forces have faced continued onslaughts from ISIL and fierce

resistance in areas it holds in Ramadi's suburbs. During Thursday's fighting, four suicide car bombers were killed by US-led coalition air strikes, but two others were able to plough into the main gates of an army division headquarters in Ramadi's al-Thirthar area, inflicting significant damage.

Regards Cees***

Experts examine the US strategy for defeating ISIS and Al QaedaInstitute for the Study of War and Critical Threats Project The Institute for the Study of War and the Critical Threats Project for the American Enterprise Institute held a planning exercise (PLANEX) in late 2015 and early 2016 to look at the threats facing the West from Salafi-jihadi groups, particularly the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS) and Al Qaeda. During the week of January 18, ISW and CTP will release the first of a series of reports detailing the findings from this PLANEX. This article explains the overall goals of the exercise and how it looked at defining US grand strategic objectives, as well as how the threat facing the US and the West has been persistently mischaracterized in a very fundamental way. The next article on Business Insider will focus on the objectives of the various players as well as an examination of the enemy and possible courses of action. The terrorist attacks in Paris, France, and San Bernardino, California have focused the West again on the threat that militant Salafi-jihadist groups pose to its security and way of life.They have provoked France, Britain, and the United States to increase their military efforts against the ISIS in Syria and Iraq. They have demonstrated the fallacy of the idea that ISIS can be indefinitely contained within Iraq and Syria, the Middle East, or even the Muslim-majority world. They have revealed the inadequacy of current strategies to address the threat. These tragedies have thus created space for a serious discussion about the nature of the threat and the responses required to counter it.

Pervasive Mischaracterizations of the ChallengeThe current discussion of these attacks is cementing fundamental mischaracterizations of the national security problem, however. It presupposes that there is a single war that ISIS is the only enemy or adversary in that war, and that defeating ISIS in Syria and Iraq is tantamount to defeating the organization as a whole.





It has given superficial credibility to Vladimir Putin’s call for a grand coalition of all major powers to unite in the fight against ISIS. It largely

ignores al Qaeda, including its powerful franchise in Syria called Jabhat al Nusra (JN). It also downplays the importance of the sectarian war that has engulfed the Middle East. That sectarian conflict is one of the primary drivers of the massive flow of refugees now undermining the integration of Europe, facilitating the destruction of multiple states in the Middle East such as Iraq and Yemen, and encouraging the mobilization and radicalization of global Sunni and Shi’a populations in the face of what increasing numbers of people perceive to be existential threats. Any effort to counter the al Qaeda and ISIS threats will fail as long as conditions on the ground do not change.

The media’s and policymakers’ single-minded focus on ISIS encourages Americans to overlook the fundamental incompatibility of Iranian and Russian regional and global objectives with those of the US and Europe. Such a narrow lens ignores Russia’s revisionist grand strategy that links Moscow’s actions in

Syria with its continued war in Ukraine, its

subversive activities in the Baltics, and its mounting global military aggression.It simplifies an extremely complicated set of multi-actor, multi-theater conflicts into a problem that can be solved through counter-terrorism-targeting and homeland security measures. It guarantees that the West will not design or execute a coherent strategy to secure its vital national interests. The San Bernardino attack in California adds superficial validity to the idea that the US must turn inward to secure itself. It brings to the fore domestic issues such as gun control, law enforcement procedures, immigration policies, religious freedom, profiling, and many others. Each issue is important in its own right, and finding the right balance among competing valid concerns is essential to enhance America’s ability to protect its citizens without compromising the civil liberties and individual rights that are the bedrock of our society. There are multiple, separate wars ongoing at the start of 2016. Many share belligerents. The war in Yemen stems from a geopolitical struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia that has been gravely exacerbated by the ongoing war in Syria. A





broader regional war in the Middle East may emerge as the Saudi-Iranian conflict escalates. Russia’s establishment of an airbase in Syria close to

Turkey’s border on NATO’s southern flank connects the war in Syria with that in Ukraine, as both challenge the brittle alliance.The United States must prevent the separate wars from merging into a general war, involving great powers, regional powers, and non-state actors. Such a situation may not be imminent, but it is possible and can stress the United States beyond anything we now see in January 2016. Goals and Methods of this Planning Exercises.The exercise began with a complete re-consideration of the vital national security interests and objectives of the United States, its partners, rivals such as Russia and Iran, and its enemies including both ISIS and al Qaeda. The exercise also considered the nature of the current international environment in which many factors are undermining global order, stability, and international laws and norms.It evaluated the threat posed by the persistence of safe havens for al Qaeda and ISIS in Iraq and Syria as distinct from the individual cells of those organizations planning and conducting attacks in the West. The group then designed and tested many possible courses of action to mitigate and, if possible, eliminate these conditions and the threats.None of the courses of action we examined, including a continuation or minor modification of the current strategy, achieved American national security objectives. The planning team is therefore continuing to examine other approaches to the problem and re-evaluating its assessments as circumstances on the ground change.The planning group will thus present its results in several publications. This first paper examines American global grand strategic objectives as they relate to the threat from ISIS and al Qaeda. It also considers the nature of those groups from ideological, structural, and military perspectives and evaluates the relationship between the territory and resources those groups possess in the Muslim world and the direct violent threat they pose within the United States and Europe.The second paper will present the group’s assessment of American strategic objectives in Iraq and Syria in light of the issues considered in this first report. It will also describe the interests and objectives of Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia in Iraq and Syria as they relate to the overall goals of those states. It will then articulate the minimum conditions that a political-military resolution of the conflicts in Iraq and Syria must meet in order to meet US national security requirements.The group will publish one or more additional papers describing in detail the specific courses of action we have evaluated, assessments of their results and whether or not they would achieve core American security objectives, the risks they pose to those objectives, and approaches to mitigating those risks. These results will most likely appear in February 2016.




Download - Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 19-138-Caliphate- The State of al-Qaida-45-Our Performance-6

Top Related