Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ISIL/Terrorism Update
Right now, however, its not clear exactly how plausible U.S. strikes against Islamic State within Syria would be
without some kind of approval, tacit or otherwise, from Assad. The Syrian government has warned that unilateral
strikes against Islamic State on Syrian soil would be seen as an act of "aggression," though it has indicated it is open to
some kind of cooperation. Assad's regime has anti-aircraft capabilities and an air force which could be used to
hinder any U.S. intelligence gathering or strikes in Syria. Another factor is Russia, a prominent supporter of the
Assad regime, which has also voiced criticism.
Joshua Landis, director of Center for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma, argues that a key problem is
that the more secular rebel groups don't have the support they would need to actually control Syria.
claim, the network said the officials are worried that ISIS militants with passports might travel to the U.S. to launch
attacks on American soil.
ISIS is a Threat
ISIS has a 30,000 person army and a billion dollars in cash
The Cincinnati Enquirer (Ohio), August 26, 2014 , US must present united front on ISIS, p. A7, FredKundrata, Retired
Air Force Lt. Col. Fred Kundrata is the Democratic nominee for Congress in Ohio's 1st District.
Having served in the Air Force for 28 years, including combat time in the Persian Gulf War, I know that decisions to
pursue military action should never be taken lightly. But ISIS presents a new kind of threat, a terrorist army with
more than 10,000 fighters, American-made weapons and billions in cash.
The United States must present a united front to the world on this critical national security issue.
Congress should put partisanship aside and pass a resolution that gives President Barack Obama the authority he
needs to take on ISIS.
In addition, Congress should fast-track funding for Kurdish and moderate Syrian forces, as requested by Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel, that won't be available until Oct. 1. With the backing of Congress, the president will have clear
authority to expand the mission, within defined parameters, and pursue the objective of destroying ISIS wherever it
exists.
A former CIA officer told radio host Laura Ingraham that ISIS and other terror groups have been reaching out to
Mexican cartels; the massive new terror state in Iraq has plenty of money to pay for the smuggling services of topshelf coyotes. Former CIA director Mike Morell noted last week that it wouldn't take a lot of sophisticated
equipment for terrorist operatives to rack up an impressive body count in urban or suburban America: "If an ISIS
member showed up at a mall in the United States tomorrow with an AK-47 and killed a number of Americans, I would
not be surprised."
Morale and willpower are the alpha and omega of war. ISIS claims the balance of morale is on its side, and it can
show its devotees plenty of evidence to back up that claim, including dim-witted editorials in major American
newspapers lecturing the Western world on the "moral hazard" of referring to ISIS as "evil," because George Bush
created them by calling them nasty names. When a terrorist reads crap like this, he's got every reason to think a
good massacre in suburbia is all it will take to bring a significant fraction of the American liberal establishment to its
knees, sobbing Bush's name and gargling about "outreach" while they staple white handkerchiefs to pool cues. Also,
since ISIS thrives on its barbaric prestige, it has defensive reasons to pull off some kind of atrocity on 9/11; it will
appear weakened to its followers if it doesn't prove it can draw blood from the West. The occasional murder of a
Western hostage won't be good enough to keep those fires of jihad burning.
With all of that in mind - aggressive recruiting by ISIS with a track record of success in Western nations, adept
use of social media, weak American border security, plenty of soft targets to exploit, plus a weak and confused
White House headed by a disconnected President and the anniversary of 9/11 hard upon us - which of the threat
assessments I mentioned at the beginning of this article sounds more plausible
Last January, President Obama dismissed the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) as a mere junior varsity terrorist
outfit compared to al-Qaeda. "The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate," he told the New
Yorker, "is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant."
Flash forward to this summer. Islamist radicals control vast swaths of land across Iraq and Syria, and this week
crossed the border into Lebanon.
Their victims' heads festoon telephone wires in Raqqa, Syria, and they have posted videos online showing mass
executions of prostrate Iraqis.
Other terror groups are rallying to their black banner. ISIS has been so successful that at the end of June it shortened
its name to simply the Islamic State (IS), with its leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi assuming the title of caliph. President
Obama may think they are JV, but they clearly see themselves as big league.
The Islamic State is metastasizing much the same way al-Qaeda did, but on an accelerated timeline.
Osama bin Laden's network grew in the 1990s by recruiting foreign fighters who had battled the Red Army in
Afghanistan in the 1980s.
The Islamic State has developed its own deep bench of transnational terror talent, recruiting from countries
throughout the Middle East, Europe, and even the United States.
Franchises are reportedly opening in Libya and Tunisia. The North African terror conglomerate Al-Qaeda in the
Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) has aligned with IS.
Nigerian Boko Haram leader Abu Bakar Shekau has sworn allegiance to Abu Bakr, as has Abu Sayaaf leader Isnilon
Hapilon in the Philippines.
The Islamic State currently controls more fighters, more territory, and has a vaster alliance system than al-Qaeda
ever did.
Like bin Laden, Abu Bakr is exploiting the breakdown in state sovereignty and seizing control of ungoverned spaces.
The problem of governance is even worse today than it was in the 1990s, though the White House seems unaware.
In June, Obama declared that "the world is less violent than it has ever been," and in July, White House press secretary
Josh Earnest boasted of the administration's role in increasing the "tranquility of the global community."
Mr. Obama's perspective is that America is winning the war on terrorism because Osama bin Laden is dead and U.S.
drones continue to decimate "core al-Qaeda."
However, this perspective is dangerously outdated.
The war on terrorism has always been less a battle against a specific terror organization than a struggle against a
violent, transnational extremist ideology.
Al-Qaeda is no longer the leading force in global Islamist terrorism; the torch has passed to the Islamic State, which
we ignore at our peril.
In his first public statement as caliph, Abu Bakr proclaimed that the world is divided into two camps, the "camp of
Islam and faith" and the "camp of the Jews, the crusaders, (and) their allies," led by the United States.
And like bin Laden, he has a vision.
10
With ISIS now controlling significant portions of Iraq and Syria, the U.S. faces a threat potentially more grave than
Saddam and al-Qaeda combined. Because ISIS is a Sunni organization fighting against Shiite governments in Syria
and Iraq, the governments of Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have been largely silent even though ISIS represents
a threat to their economies as well as their respective regimes. For Turkey, the ISIS fight against the Kurds
conveniently limits the capabilities of a regional nemesis. Nevertheless, the ISIS threat could soon hurt Turkish
commerce routes as well as tourism revenues. The threats to the monarchies of Jordan and Saudi Arabia are more
direct. Any Sunni movement creating street unrest creates pressures on the viability of monarchies forged on the
implied consent of the populace. Much of the financial support for ISIS comes from individuals in Jordan, Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait. The Kuwait banking system is a sieve that funnels funds to the organization. Again, along the
theme of unintended consequences, U.S. forces tossed Saddam out of Kuwait, yet a significant portion of the
monetary lifeblood for ISIS comes from or flows through Kuwait. According to reports, the U.S. government is
working with Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to slow down or stop the flow of funds, but the task is difficult.
11
12
13
WASHINGTON - Protesters against Israel's operation in Gaza should pay close attention to what is happening in
northern Iraq. From a mountaintop, with a view over enemy combatants from a clear moral high ground, the United
States is acting against the pending threat of actual genocide: the intentional, regime-sponsored systematic
extermination of a people based on their identity.
Genocide is not a word often uttered by American presidents. In part, that is because genocide is an exceptionally rare
crime. But when the act occurs, it is unmistakable in its scale and its hallmarks: the world knows what has happened,
because historically, its perpetrators hold a worldview that their murderous actions were justified.
In that tradition, the medieval Islamic State, or ISIS, has made no secret of its goal to rule a caliphate full of zealot
Sunnis, where women are enslaved and mutilated, and nonbelievers are tortured and beheaded. Tens of thousands
of innocents have run for their lives from its warpath without much help from the international community - until
now, from the United States, which has committed its military to the enforcement of the norm codified by the Geneva
Conventions, against tolerating genocide.
Can we expect mass protests in Vienna, Paris and Berlin calling for the protection of the oppressed of Iraq? The United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says over 1 million have been displaced across Iraqi territory in the last
month alone, with over 100,000 Christians, Yazidis and many Muslims now seeking shelter.
This is what the threat of genocide looks like, for all those confused by its definition. Yazidi children are dying of
thirst on the peak of a low mountain, without roofs over their heads to protect them from the August Iraqi sun, in
flight from their homes because ISIS believes their families should submit and convert or perish. ISIS wants these
people dead at their hands; the acute travesty unfolding in Iraq is just that simple.
International norms require that the world make every effort to protect these innocent people stranded on Mount
Sinjar, regardless of their religion, creed or ethnicity. Thankfully, due to the hard-fought successes of liberal
democracies, that standard applies to all peoples, everywhere, including the Jews of Israel and of the Diaspora, and
the desperate Palestinians of Gaza.
Unfortunately for Gazans, they are ruled by a government that, like ISIS, makes no secret of its intention to kill,
systematically, on a massive scale.
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
14
Undeniably, these are bloodthirsty religious fanatics who revel in beheadings and crucifixions and have exhibited
battlefield bravery and skill.
But are 17,000 jihadi fighters in landlocked regions of Iraq and Syria really an imminent and mortal threat to an
America with thousands of nuclear weapons and tens of thousands of missiles and bombs and the means to deliver
them?
How grave is this crisis? Consider the correlation of forces.
Who are the vocal and visible friends and fighting allies of ISIS?
They are nonexistent.
The Turks, Saudis, Qataris and Kuwaitis who, stupidly, have been aiding ISIS in bringing down Bashar Assad and
blowing a hole in the "Shia Crescent" of Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus and Hezbollah, have lately awakened to their
idiocy and are cutting off aid to ISIS.
Moderate Sunnis detest ISIS for its barbarism and desecration of shrines. The Christians and Yazidis fear and loathe
them. The Kurds, both the Syrian YPG and PKK, which broke open the exit route for the Yazidis from Mount Sinjar, and
the peshmerga despise ISIS.
Lebanon's army, Syria's army, Hezbollah and Iran have been fighting ISIS with Russian assistance. Vladimir Putin
himself warned us of the absurdity of our attacking Assad last year, arguing that we would be allying ourselves with
the same terrorists who brought down the twin towers.
15
group took over Iraq's second largest city, Mosul, in June, and has since declared an Islamic state, or caliphate, in a
swath of territory covering northeastern Syria and northern and western Iraq. U.S. airstrikes and a new policy of direct
military aid to Kurdish Peshmerga fighters have served as a check on a threatened ISIS advance toward Kurdish
territory in northern Iraq.
On Sunday, Dempsey contrasted ISIS to the Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which has plotted
and attempted attacks against the U.S. and Europe. As a result, the U.S. has conducted counterterrorism strikes
against the group within Yemen.
Dempsey said that so far, there is no sign that the Islamic State militants are engaged in "active plotting
against the homeland, so it's different than that which we see in Yemen."
"I can tell you with great clarity and certainty that if that threat existed inside of Syria that it would certainly be
my strong recommendation that we would deal with it," said Dempsey. "I have every confidence that the president of
the United States would deal with it."
Yes, says the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), who appeared
on ABC's "This Week" to warn, "Don't kid yourself for a second that they aren't intent on hitting the West," adding
that he believes "external operations" are already under way.
16
their evident naivet and largely because of groups' concerns about operational security and possible penetration.
17
L
Yet so far no U.S. citizen involved in fighting or supporting the Nusra Front or ISIS has been charged with plotting to
conduct an attack inside the United States despite the fact the war in Syria is now in its fourth year and the war in
Iraq is its 11th year. Indeed, some Americans who have traveled to Syria have ended up dead apparently because
they have no combat experience to speak of; for instance, Nicole Mansfield from Flint, Michigan, was killed in Syria
last year by forces loyal to the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.
Further, ISIS' predecessor, al Qaeda in Iraq, never tried to conduct an attack on the American homeland, although it
did bomb three American hotels in Jordan in 2005.
And it's also worth noting that in none of the successful terrorist attacks in the States since 9/11, such as the Boston
Marathon bombings last year or Maj. Nidal Hasan's massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009, did any of the convicted or
alleged perpetrators receive training overseas.
Returning foreign fighters from the Syrian conflict pose a far greater threat to Europe, which has contributed a much
larger number of foreign fighters to the conflict than the United States, including an estimated 700 from France, 450
from the United Kingdom and 270 from Germany.
Unlike in the United States, European countries have reported specific terrorist plots tied to returning Syrian fighters.
Mehdi Nemmouche, a suspect in the May 24 shootings at a Jewish museum in Brussels, Belgium, that killed four
people, spent about a year with jihadist fighters in Syria, according to the Paris prosecutor in the case. But
Nemmouche's case is the only instance of lethal violence by a returning Syrian fighter in the West.
Still, the United States must consider European foreign fighters returning from Syria as more than a European problem
because many of those returning are from countries that participate in the U.S. visa waiver program and can enter the
States without a visa.
Moreover, experienced al Qaeda operators are present in Syria. As one senior U.S. intelligence official put it to us,
these are veteran members "with strong resumes and full Rolodexes." The wars in Syria and Iraq allow such longtime
fighters to interact with members of other al Qaeda affiliates. For example, in July, the United States adopted
enhanced security measures at airports based on intelligence that bomb-makers from al Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula were sharing their expertise in making bombs capable of evading airport security with members of the
Syrian Nusra Front.
Despite these dangers, however, the threat to the United States from foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq remains only a
potential threat.
The administration's airstrikes in Iraq are properly focused upon the more imminent threats to U.S. government
employees and American citizens in the Kurdish city of Irbil who are threatened by ISIS advances and the humanitarian
catastrophe befalling the Yazidi population in areas controlled by the militant forces.
The last time there was a similar exodus of American citizens and residents to an overseas holy war was to Somalia
following the U.S.-backed invasion of Somalia by Ethiopian forces in 2006. More than 40 Americans subsequently went
to Somalia to fight with Al-Shabaab, an al Qaeda-affiliated group.
Just as is the case today in Syria, for a good number of the Americans who went to fight in Somalia it was a one-way
ticket because 15 of the 40 or so American volunteers died there either as suicide attackers or on the battlefield.
In 2011, U.S. Peter King, R-New York, then-chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, warned of
Americans fighting in Somalia. "With a large group of Muslim-Americans willing to die as 'martyrs' and a strong
operational partnership with al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan and in Yemen, al-Shabaab now has more capability than
ever to strike the U.S. homeland."
As it turned out, those Americans who returned from the Somali jihad did not attempt or carry out any kind of
terrorist attack in the States.
Now King is back at it again, telling NBC last week, "ISIS is a direct threat to the United States of America. ... They are
more powerful now than al Qaeda was on 9/11."
ISIS relatively weak militarily and does not present an existential threat
Patrick Buchanan, 8-14, The Lawton Constitution (Oklahoma), Is ISIS 'an existential threat' to our homeland?
18
"I think of an American city in flames because of the terrorists' ability to operate in Syria and Iraq," said Graham, "Mr.
President... what is your strategy to stop these people from attacking the homeland?"
This semi-hysterical talk of an "existential threat" to the "homeland," and the dread specter of "an American city in
flames" is vintage war party, designed to panic us into launching a new war.
But before allowing these "Cassandras" to stampede us back into the civil-sectarian Middle East wars that resulted
from our previous interventions, let us inspect more closely what they are saying.
If ISIS' gains are truly an "existential threat" to the republic and our cities are about to "go up in flames," why did these
Republican hawks not demand that President Obama call back Congress from its five-week vacation to vote to
authorize a new war on ISIS in Syria and Iraq?
After all, King, McCain and Graham belong to a party that is suing the president for usurping Congressional powers.
Yet, they are also demanding that Obama start bombing nations he has no authority to bomb, as ISIS has not attacked
us.
King, McCain and Graham want Obama to play imperial president and launch a preemptive war that their own
Congress has not authorized.
What kind of constitutionalists, what kind of conservatives are these?
Is Graham right that an "existential threat" is at hand? Is our very existence as a nation in peril? Graham says no force
in the Mideast can stop ISIL without us. Is this true?
Turkey, a nation of 76 million, has the second-largest army in NATO, equipped with U.S. weapons, and an air force
ISIL does not have.
If President Recep Tayyip Erdogan wanted to crush ISIS, he could seal his border to foreign fighters entering Syria and
send the Turkish army to assist President Bashar Assad in annihilating ISIS in Syria.
The jihadists of the Islamic State may be more motivated, but they are hugely outnumbered and outgunned in the
region.
The Syrian government and army, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Shia-dominated government of Iraq, a Shia Iran of 70
million, and the Kurds in Syria and Kurdistan are all anti-Islamic State and willing to fight.
All are potential allies in a coalition to contain or crush ISIS, as is Vladimir Putin's Russia, if U.S. diplomacy were not
frozen in the 1980s.
Only last August, McCain and Graham were attacking Obama for not enforcing his "red line" by bombing Syria's army,
the most successful anti-ISIL force in the field.
The threat of the Islamic State should not be minimized. It would provide a breeding and training ground for terrorists
to attack us and the West. But it should not be wildly exaggerated to plunge us into a new war.
For wherever ISIS has won ground, it has, through atrocities and beheadings, imposition of Sharia law, and ruthless
repression, alienated almost everyone, including al-Qaida.
19
And what does destroying the group really mean? Our experience with al-Qaeda should have taught us to ponder
that question long and hard. We killed innumerable number three leaders of al-Qaeda, we killed bin Laden himself,
and we have rendered Ayman al-Zawahiri a largely irrelevant fugitive. We have in effect destroyed the organization, or
at least as much as can be expected from more than 13 years (yes, the process started before 9/11) of destruction. But
the methods we really were worried about lived on through a metastasis that led to the emergence of other
organizations. ISIS is one of those organizations. If ISIS is destroyed, there is little reason to believe that the methods
we most worry about, and associated ideologies, will not take still other forms.
20
General John Allen is the latest military leader to speak out against the growing threat of ISIS
Allen, who led international forces in Afghanistan, said the U.S. had to 'eradicate' the terrorism organization now - or
risk attacks in the future
He praised Obama for recent airstrikes, but urged him to 'move quickly to pressure the organisations entire "nervous
system"'
Allen's comments come the same day as Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned of the threat from ISIS
Terror network in Iraq and Syria is 'an imminent threat to every interest we have,' he said
Tensions are high in the Obama administration following a gruesome video showing an ISIS Islamist beheading
American journalist James Foley
A top Marine general has warned that President Obama must use the might of the U.S. military to 'eradicate' ISIS
now - or risk paying the price later with more attacks on the West.
General John Allen, who led international forces in Afghanistan, warned that if ISIS is allowed to build a stable base of
power in Iraq and Syria it will be able mount more attacks on Americans and American interests.
He spoke out in DefenseOne, days after the brutal execution of James Foley - and on the day Chuck Hagel admitted
that the threat from ISIS could surpass even that posed by Al Qaeda.
SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO
'They are an imminent threat to every interest we have, whether it's in Iraq or anywhere else,' said Hagel on Thursday.
'They are beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of...military prowess. They are
tremendously well-funded. This is beyond anything we've seen.'
Writing for the DefenseOne website, Allen was quick to praise President Obama for the airstrikes he had already
ordered on ISIS camps in northern Iraq, but he went on to urge the President to 'move quickly to pressure the
organisations entire "nervous system", break it up, and destroy its pieces.'
'The U.S. is now firmly in the game and remains the only nation on the planet capable of exerting the kind of
strategic leadership, influence and strike capacity to deal with IS,' he wrote.
'It is also the only power capable of organizing a coalition's reaction to this regional and international threat.'
'This group is not a flash in the pan that will go away of its own accord or if we don't poke at it.'
Allen did not propose a return to ground combat, but urged a 'focused advise and assist' mission to bolster Iraqi and
Kurdish soldiers and non-jihadist Syrian rebels, a commitment that would require a reintroduction of significantly
more US military advisers.
He also warned that the threat from ISIS was not something that was simply limited to the countries in the in Middle
East, but provided a very real treat in the western world too.
ISIS foot soldiers with U.K., European, and American passports pose a serious threat to all our safety, he warned - and
the organization was clearly more advanced than al-Qaeda.
'It's worth remembering the Taliban provided the perfect platform from which al-Qaeda attacked the U.S., and the
Taliban were and remain as cavemen in comparison to ISIS,' he wrote.
General Allen denied that the U.S. military was war weary and was fully capable of attacking and reducing ISIS.
'We should do it now, but supported substantially by our traditional allies and partners, especially by those in the
region who have the most to give - and the most to lose - if the Islamic State's march continues.'
Allen wrote that James Foley's killing 'embodies' the threat from Isis, which he called 'an entity beyond the pale of
21
22
23
24
Still, IS is now ensconced in its host Syrian environment like a barnacle attached to the side of a boat. If you believe
that it can be defeated or rolled back without a major ground campaign either by the United States or its allies on the
ground and without the emergence of stable and good governance on both sides of the Iraq-Syria border, I've got a
great tip on some yellowcake in Niger I'd like to sell you.
3. Americans ain't interested: Polls suggest most Americans don't like Obama's foreign policy. Who would? It's messy
and seemingly devoid of strategy, and he hasn't had a slam dunk since whacking Osama bin Laden. To try to sell
another ground war in Iraq (and/or Syria) with grandiose conflict-ending goals won't be politically popular or even
feasible. Look at the quandary Congress confronted in 2013 when asked to authorize limited airstrikes in Syria in
response to Assad's use of chemical weapons. I was told calls to some congressional offices were running 10 to one
against. Given IS's particularly unique brutality, today's politics might sustain airstrikes, special operators, drone
strikes, and the supply of weapons to the rebels. But much more beyond that seems unlikely now.
The only circumstance that might engender the kind of political consensus to sustain a comprehensive military
strategy to defeat IS would be an attack on the homeland. But even after America's sad experience in Iraq, it would
have to be a pretty significant event to justify anything more than a tactical response. You can blame Obama all you
want for the rise of IS -- heading to the exits too quickly in Iraq and not supporting Syria's moderate rebels early
enough -- but his predecessor's unpopular policies in Iraq gave birth to the group that is now the Islamic State.
Americans are right to be cautious about being scared into another quixotic Iraqi adventure.
4. The homeland's doing just fine: Terrorism isn't a strategic threat to the United States right now. Last year, the State
Department's annual terrorism report identified 17,891 global fatalities to terrorism; 16 of those were Americans. And
despite the Islamic State declaring its intention to fly the flag of Allah from the White House, the reality is that it's very
unlikely the group will ever be an existential threat to the homeland. But with the money, weapons, passports, foreign
fighters, and sanctuaries it has been acquiring, the Islamic State clearly poses a significant risk to the United States and
its allies.
James Foley's murder isn't the equivalent of 9/11. But former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell's warnings that IS
has declared war on the United States and that he wouldn't be surprised if a member opened fire with an AK-47 at a
U.S. mall has shifted the image of the group as a distant regional threat to one here at home.
Indeed, the chilling picture of a masked terrorist executing Foley has brought the conflict home, making a bunch of
crazy terrorists killing people in a far-off region a deeply personal and American problem.
But I think few people would argue that Obama should make a major military commitment in Syria to avenge the life
of one American.
5. Assad still isn't our friend: The final downside hasn't changed in four years. Any campaign to weaken the Islamic
State will help out Assad. Many analysts argue that IS, in fact, is a creation of the Assad regime, which has used the
brutality of this Islamist group to present the message to would-be enemies in Washington and other capitals that
Damascus is defending Syria from a fate far worse. After reportedly releasing up to 1,000 hardened prisoners in 2012
and willfully avoiding the targeting of IS positions, the Syrian regime has finally gotten serious about trying to weaken
the Islamic State as the jihadists have moved against regime facilities in northeastern Syria.
The alignment, however indirect, of U.S. and Syrian regime interests may be an inconvenient truth, but it's hardly a
shocker. Assad is killing his own people and radicalizing Sunni jihadists, but unlike the Islamic State, he hasn't singled
out the United States or Europe as a primary target of his military campaign. And though he might be a coldblooded
killer, his status quo mentality and secularism don't quite alarm us in the way that IS's nihilist fundamentalists do.
Nobody is calling for a U.S. alliance with Assad. But it seems clear that Washington has accepted the reality that his
regime is going to survive.
25
26
27
28
29
Once again we are invited to a war of ciilvilzations and our extreme right war party, the one that say we cannot afford
higher wages, the... we are wasting our time and energy on this. there will always be an "ISIS" in that part of the
world. there will always be one angry...
This editorial calls for an international effort to combat ISIS, but never mentions the United Nations. As C.J. Tams has
argued in The...
Creating a regional military force may be required, including assistance from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries
and Turkey. It certainly will require money, intelligence-sharing, diplomatic cooperation and a determined plan to
cut off financing to ISIS and the flow of ISIS fighters between states. Frances suggestion for an international
conference deserves consideration.
A comprehensive military response coordinated with allies is needed to arrest the ISIS
threat.
Thai News Service, August 27, 2014, United States: US Lawmakers Urge Obama to Expand Military Action Against
Islamic
State
The U.S. Congress is in recess and members are scattered across the country in their home districts.
But a number of congressional leaders appeared on Sunday talk shows to voice alarm about the threat posed by the
Islamic State militant group in the wake of the brutal murder of American journalist James Foley.
The Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Michael McCaul [said] that the Islamic State,
also known as ISIS, presents the greatest threat the world has seen since the September 11th terrorist attacks of
2001.
"This has been festering for the past year, and now it is culminating with the killing and beheading of an American
journalist, which I think is a turning point [for] the American people," McCaul said on ABC's This Week. "It has sort of
opened their eyes to what ISIS really is."
The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Mike Rogers, agreed. Rogers told NBC's Meet the
Press that some fighters from Europe and the United States who have gone to the Middle East to join the terrorist
network could travel easily back to the West.
They are one plane ticket away from U.S. shores and that's why we're so concerned about it," he said.
Retired U.S. Marine General John Allen agreed on the seriousness of the threat, and said the United States needs to
take a regional approach, working with its allies.
It's going to require a comprehensive approach," Allen said on This Week. "It's got to be more than simple pinpoint
attacks on key ISIS locations that are just security locations in and around dams.
While airstrikes, a new government in Baghdad that may fulfill President Obama's call for "inclusiveness," and
support for Kurdish and other forces battling ISIS, are all helpful, something more is needed. An international
coalition of armies must be created to fight and defeat ISIS.
The preliminary "targeting" is already happening. The Mail Online reports that ISIS supporters recently distributed
30
leaflets on Oxford Street in London. They want people to abandon Britain and join the new Islamic state.
Scotland Yard says it's investigating to see whether any anti-terror laws were broken. If not, new laws should be
passed. This is sedition and any nation that tolerates sedition aids in its own demise. If seditionists are aliens, they
should be deported; if they are citizens, they should be arrested.
Straight talk from British Prime Minister David Cameron: "... this threat cannot simply be removed by airstrikes alone.
We need a tough, intelligent and patient long-term approach that can defeat the terrorist threat at (its) source."
The "source" is Islamism and because it is an amalgam of religious and political doctrines, people regarded as infidels
and deserving of death do not have enough diplomats to dissuade them.
Cameron said Britain has recently strengthened its Immigration Act "to deprive naturalized Britons of their citizenship
if they are suspected of being involved in terrorist activities." He should advocate the same for native born Britons
who are being radicalized. Mosques that preach hatred of Christians, Jews and the West should be closed and their
imams deported or arrested.
As Cameron correctly noted, "We are in the middle of a generational struggle against a poisonous ideology, which I
believe we will be fighting for the rest of my political lifetime."
31
analysts of the facts on the ground; and regional and international official responses to it.
Despite this, all of these accounts are unanimous on three main points that can be presented as follows:
- First, the battle with this organization will be long and is not expected to be decided soon.
- Second, the organization does not pose a threat to Iraq and Syria only; it threatens the entire world.
- Third, there is no possibility of destroying this organization without the broadest possible international coalition.
It is noteworthy that none of these points now seems the subject of a serious treatment, at least as far as is known by
a public opinion that is terrified by what is happening.
32
33
One of the problems is that different countries have different clients among the fighting groups in Syria, said Robert
S. Ford, a former American ambassador to Syria. To get them all to work together, the best thing would be for them
to pick one client and funnel all the funds through that client. Youve got to pick one command structure.
But persuading counties to help the United States in a military campaign in Syria will require more effort,
administration officials said. Turkey, for example, is in the midst of a political transition, with Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan ascending to the presidency.
His likely successor as prime minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, has been deeply immersed in Syria as foreign minister. The
White House, meanwhile, has been unable to win Senate confirmation of a new ambassador to Turkey, John Bass,
leaving the post vacant at a critical time.
Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf emirates are important as a source of funding for the rebels, but there are strains
among them. Qatar, for example, helped negotiate the release of an American hostage, Peter Theo Curtis, who was
being held by a less extreme militant group, the Nusra Front. But Saudi Arabia does not talk to the Nusra Front, and
the Obama administration has sought to navigate between the feuding gulf countries.
Enlisting the Sunni neighbors of Syria is crucial, experts said, because airstrikes alone will not be enough to push
back ISIS. The administration, Mr. Ford said, needs to pursue a sequential strategy that begins with gathering
intelligence, followed by targeted airstrikes, more robust and better coordinated support for the moderate rebels, and
finally, a political reconciliation process similar to that underway in Iraq.
The White House is also debating how to satisfy a second constituency, Congress. Mr. Obamas advisers are
considering whether to seek congressional authorization for expanded military action and if so, under what legal
rationale. Lawmakers had been reluctant to vote on airstrikes in Iraq, but several have begun arguing that the broader
action being contemplated by Mr. Obama would demand a vote in Congress.
I do not believe that our expanded military operations against ISIL are covered under existing authorizations from
Congress, said Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, a Democratic member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Senator Bob Corker, the Tennessee Republican who is the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said
on MSNBC that Congress needed to own any further military action against the militants.
On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said in a statement that seven Western countries had pledged to provide
weapons and ammunition to Kurdish forces who are fighting ISIS in northern Iraq.
Albania, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, France, Italy and Britain have committed to sending arms and equipment to the
Kurds, Mr. Hagel said, adding that operations would accelerate in coming days with more nations also expected to
contribute.
Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said Albania and Britain had started moving supplies to the Kurds.
34
Congress should put partisanship aside and pass a resolution that gives President Barack Obama the authority he
needs to take on ISIS.
In addition, Congress should fast-track funding for Kurdish and moderate Syrian forces, as requested by Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel, that won't be available until Oct. 1. With the backing of Congress, the president will have clear
authority to expand the mission, within defined parameters, and pursue the objective of destroying ISIS wherever it
exists.
To be clear, I am not advocating for ground combat troops to re-enter Iraq. However, additional troops in supportive
roles, with a cautious eye toward mission creep, may be needed. American leadership and air power are necessary to
win this conflict, but so are the efforts of our European and Middle Eastern allies. For that reason, the support of
Congress must be conditional on the president's building a coalition of nations, in particular Arab States, so that the
United States is not acting alone.
Building a coalition is not unrealistic; calls for action from European and Middle Eastern leaders are being put forth
daily. Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, among others, have declared war on radical Islam due to suicide bombings and
terrorist attacks within their own borders. The Arab League, Qatar, Tunisia and Bahrain condemned the murder of
journalist James Foley, and they fear the rise of ISIS in their own countries. We can also count on the Kurds, who are
fierce fighters and have been our allies since the Persian Gulf War.
Ultimately, the answer to ISIS lies in a stable, inclusive Iraqi government, coupled with a watchful eye toward Syria.
Writing in National Review Online, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) says: "Allowing the Islamic State and its jihadist leaders
to maintain their newly established caliphate in the heart of the Middle East is a national security threat to the
United States and to our allies in the region."
While airstrikes, a new government in Baghdad that may, or may not fulfill President Obama's call for "inclusiveness,"
and support for Kurdish and other forces battling ISIS, are all helpful, something more is needed. An international
coalition of armies must be created to fight and defeat ISIS. While the U.S. and Britain might help assemble it, the
coalition should be led by the Kurds and Muslim nations. If ISIS and the other fanatics don't represent true Islam, the
"moderates" should take the lead in restoring not only their good name, but a semblance of order. President Obama
needs to say that victory is, in fact, the goal. Our enemies are certainly fighting to win.
Echoing Sen. Rubio is British Prime Minister David Cameron, who wrote for The Sunday Telegraph that what ISIS is
doing in Iraq and Syria affects us all and "we have no choice but to rise to the challenge" in defeating it. "If we do
not act to stem the onslaught of this exceptionally dangerous terrorist movement," he added, "it will only grow
stronger until it can target us on the streets of Britain."
35
36
Zaid al-Ali, a former legal adviser to the United Nations in Iraq and the author of a book on Iraq's future, said the
American insistence on inclusive politics was misguided. Iraq's recent governments have included representatives
from all the major sects, he noted, ''But this is not a solution -- it has never translated into the trickle-down politics
that everyone assumed it would.''
Western officials in Baghdad acknowledge that a new government would be only a first, modest step in a long process
of necessary reform.
Highlighting the amount of distrust, many Sunnis immediately blamed the mosque attack on Shiite militias.
''What happened was a mass execution in cold blood,'' said a Sunni resident who lives near the attacked mosque, and
who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he feared retribution. ''That was a message to tell us that our time
on this land has finished.''
Abdul-Salam Hashim, a 55-year-old Sunni shopkeeper in Baghdad, said, ''I'm with any kind of revenge against this
cowardly crime.'' He added, ''This is what Maliki has left to Iraq, and it will not end easily.''
The Shiite militias, many of them originally formed to fight American forces, were supported by Mr. Maliki and called
back into service to fight ISIS. But Sunnis consider them little more than gangs operating outside the law, and
human rights groups have accused them of killing and detaining Sunni civilians.
Even so, in many areas they have been the factor that halted ISIS' advance, and they are so embedded in the current
political reality that even the transportation minister, Hadi al-Amari, heads a powerful militia.
The leader of a local Shiite militia in the area near the mosque, Sheikh Abdel-Samad al-Zarkoushi, struck out at those
who want to disband his group, saying it is necessary to fight ISIS.
''How can the politicians tell us what to do, when they don't know what is happening in our region?'' said Sheikh
Zarkoushi. ''If I withdrew from the area, that would be goodbye for everyone. ISIS would take it over in a few hours.''
The violence in Iraq continued on Saturday, with three car bombs exploding in the northern city of Kirkuk, killing 21
people and wounding 100, security officials said. Several more attacks were reported in other areas.
The American air campaign against ISIS targets in the north continued as well. A vehicle operated by militants was
destroyed near the Mosul Dam, according to the American military's Central Command. The newest attack brings to
94 the number of American airstrikes since President Obama approved the mission; 61 have been aimed at pushing
back ISIS fighters near the dam.
Hyperpartisanship now
Kimberly Haas, 8-23, 14 Foster's Daily Democrat, Dover, N.H, Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News, August
23, 2014, Collins:
Obama's policy ' ... has undermined America's place in the world'
Aug. 23--DOVER -- U.S. Senator Susan Collins said on Friday that she feels like the world is on fire.
"There is so much going on in the world today that I don't even know where to begin," Collins said as she sat down for
a meeting at Foster's Daily Democrat.
Collins, who is known for pulling together the Common Sense Coalition, a group of 18 senators from both sides of the
aisle and independent Angus King of Maine, said that the country lacks the kind of leadership in Washington to deal
with the problems facing a modern America. As a result, issues such as the national debt, transportation, foreign
policy, defense and illegal immigration are not attended to as hyperpartisanship stalls progress in the House of
Representatives and Senate.
37
"They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded,"
he told reporters. "Oh, this is beyond anything that we've seen. So we must prepare for everything. And the only way
you do that is that you take a cold, steely, hard look at it and get ready."
He refused to rule out the possibility of air strikes against ISIS targets in Syria.
Broad-based approach
At the same time, Hagel and Dempsey emphasized that defeating ISIS requires a broad-based approach that
includes diplomacy to forge an international coalition and better governance in Iraq and Syria to build public
opposition to the extremists.
"Political reform will make it harder for (ISIS) to exploit sectarian divisions," Hagel said. "The United States and the
international community will increase support for Iraq in tandem with political progress."
38
39
The United States should actively and openly hold a dialogue with Sunni, Kurdish, and opposition Shiite
figures. It should be clear that the United States does not trust Maliki, wants him gone, and will not take sides
against Sunnis or strengthen Maliki in ways that might threaten the Kurds. If Maliki will not accept this, the
United States should make it clear that he must go or there is no aid.
The United States should actively and openly pressure Iraq to deal with the suspect and abusive elements of
its Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and intelligence efforts as it did during the Iraq War between 2003 and 2011. It
should publicly identify elements of the ISF that Maliki uses to suppress and abuse Sunnis and build his own
power and make aid conditional on their being excluded.
U.S. advisers should only work with mixed and national elements of the security forcesnot polarized
Sunni or Shiite led forcesand only provide aid within the structure of the professional officers and
commanders that actually serve Iraqs interests rather than those of Maliki or Shiites. The United States
should only provide support of a kind that will assist in the creation of an effective force than serves Iraqs
national, rather than sectarian, interests.
The United States should either publicly report onor leakany action by the Maliki or any successor
government that is corrupt, favors Shiites and pro-Maliki elements of the ISF over the need to defeat ISIS and
bring Sunnis and Kurds back into the government and ISF, and links Maliki to Iran.
The United States should place strict restraints on the use of new arms deliveries to prevent them from being
used against Sunni or Kurdish populations in ways that solely serve Malikis interests and exacerbate the civil
war.
The United States should restrict any use of U.S. airpower and intelligence data to targets that are clearly
linked to the Islamic State or other extremist movements. It should shape its strategic communications to
make it clear to all Iraqis and all those in the region that Iranian and Russian arms, advisers, and volunteers
are being used in ways that do not serve the interests of all Iraqis.
The United States should more openly and separately reach out to Sunni tribal and other leaders to
encourage them to resist the Islamic State. It should back the Kurds in creating an expanded security zone
and energy exports through Turkey as a counterweight to Maliki, Islamic extremists, and Iran.
The United States should reach out to the full range of moderate Shiite leaders to seek support for a united
and truly national government. It should also both highlight abuses of Sunnis by Shiite militias and consider
offering covert or overt support and training to militias that are tied to Shiite leaders who seek to rebuild
Iraq on a national level (like Ali al-Sistani).
40
The United States needs to act now to create a stronger military advisory effort and work with Iraq to selectively rush
U.S. foreign military sales (FMS) deliveries. This effort should involve the following actions:
The United States should provide more advisory teams, including teams in the field, where this can already
mean supporting the rebuilding of all the elements of the Iraqi Security Forces along professional and
national lines. It should, however, be careful not to repeat its past mistakes in doing this the U.S. way, rather
than the Iraqi way.
As part of this stronger training and advisory effort, it should explore the option of deploying Special Forces
quietly in the field to provide operational support, tactical intelligence, and the carefully targeted flow of aid.
The United States should expedite new arms deliveries, seeking congressional approval of fast tracking and
allocation of assets in U.S. forces where necessary. It should rush the supply of weapons and material to the
ISF that will allow them to defeat ISIS and other Sunni factions, including attack helicopters.
The United States should begin to use airpower from nearby bases and/or carriers and unmanned aerial
combat vehicles (UCAVs), selectively striking only against clearly defined critical Islamic State and other
extremist military targets.
The United States should tie the targeting of Islamic State and other Sunni extremist targets in Iraq to strikes
that will impact on their strength and capability in Syria. U.S. efforts in Iraq should be linked with efforts to
strengthen pressure on both ISIS and the Assad regime in Syria, treating the operation in Iraq as part of a
broader policy in dealing with Syria-ISIS-Iraq-Iran.
The United States should seek to repeat the effort it made in restructuring the national police. It should work
with the Iraqi government to publicly identify and change the elements of the ISF that Maliki has used to
suppress and abuse Sunnis and to build his own power and work to change their structure, composition, and
commanders. It should persuade a new government that promotions and command positions must be
approved by the entire government, to cease temporary command positions and other ways of linking
command to the prime minister, and to create a national force based on merit.
The U.S. advisory mission should be large enough to help Iraqi forces in the field, and Special Forces and
other expert elements should be deployed to help with targeting and intelligence at a tactical level. The
United States should help Iraqi forces use of U.S. airpower and intelligence data to target the Islamic State
threat on a broad level.
The United States should examining options to increase its civil advisory role in helping Iraq develop effective
governance and development, with the possible option of encouraging a functional form of federalismand
supporting a strong Kurdish region or state if Iraq should actually divide.
The United States should more openly and aggressively reach out to Sunni tribal leaders to encourage them
to resist the Islamic State and actively work to persuade the Kurds to reach a solution with the new
government that will tie the size and nature of their security zone and energy exports through Turkey to the
rebuilding of Iraq as a unified stateencouraging an Iraqi examination of options for federalism in the
process.
The United States should reach out to other Shiite leaders to seek support for a united and truly national
government. It should also both highlight abuses of Sunnis by Shiite militias and consider offering covert or
overt support and training to militias that are tied to Shiite leaders who seek to rebuild Iraq on a national
level.
The United States should work with Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE to try to develop an integrated
approach to dealing with counterterrorism, the Islamist extremist threat in Syria, and the Assad regime. It
should not only encourage strong security ties, but consideration of plans to fully integrate both Jordan and
Iraq into the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).
In the process, the United States should seek to strengthen support from Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey to
limit the ability of the Islamic State to operate, cut off external sources of income and better seal key borders,
and support and train Iraq forces.
The United States should not try to exclude other countries from playing a role when this is constructive, but
it should openly identify any Iranian and other outside efforts that serve sectarian interests or those of an
41
outside power. The United States needs a clear strategic communications plan focused on helping a national
Iraqi government succeed as well as defeating the ISIS threat.
The United States should shape its strategic communications to make it clear to all Iraqis and all those in the
region when Iranian or Russian arms, advisers, and volunteers are being used in ways that do not serve the
interests of all Iraqis.
At every step in this process, the United States should openly make it clear that while it will never commit ground
troops or try to save Iraq from itself if it does not make serious reforms, it will sharply increase its level of assistance if
Iraq does complete the creation of new government without Maliki and without turning to a competing political show
like Ahmed Chalabi.