As terrorism becomes part of our daily lives, President Obama is not even looking for the battlefield.

As much as possible, I try and keep the blog politics-free.  The truth is, that occasionally, its just not possible, nor should it be.  Politics impact every aspect of our lives, and it certainly plays a large part in the current events we address here at Mukhabarat, Baby!  The day of the San Bernardino shootings, I posted a blog that delivered a dire warning regarding the future.  I opined that if Islamic extremists had been able to develop a network of sleeper cells in cities across the United States, than we can expect not a rash of high profile attacks, but a monthly event to keep the issue in the news, and keep the fear alive in our communities.  The enemy doesn't want a body count as much as they want to change the way we live our lives.  An attack in this west coast location this week, and another incident in the southeast two weeks later, will be the modus operandi of a forward-thinking terrorist group.  As long as the newspapers and the media are talking about preparedness and the need to react by altering our schedules and lifestyles, then the bad guys are on track.  The attack in Philadelphia today, and other similar incidents have me very concerned that the enemy is taking this route, in its never-ending effort to see us abandon our hard-won freedoms and retreat behind locked doors and security systems.  I urge my readers to live your lives with a reasonable amount of caution ("no vacation to Damascus this spring, Mildred"), but to fight the enemy with the tools for which so many heroes over the years have made the ultimate sacrifice: enjoy the freedoms we have, spend time out with family and friends, and take that vacation to the Ozarks.  For those of us who can no longer carry a rifle on the battlefield, we have our own way of fighting back.  We must live free.

Last week, President Obama once again used Executive Authority to make law.  Executive Authority exists for a reason.  It provides the president with the tools necessary to make decisions in a time of great national crisis.  President Obama, taking full advantage of the raw emotions relating to the recent events in San Bernardino, signed an ideologically motivated law that will make it more difficult for persons who want to legally purchase a firearm.  Obama sees himself as a master of theater, but truly, he is an amateur.  We've seen the tears before, and bringing the kids on stage isn't a novel idea either.  The law that you passed using abusing Executive Action will not impact criminals and terrorists who want to repeat what occurred in San Bernardino.  Creating more laws to impede law-abiding citizens has been shown time-and-again to accomplish one thing: it strengthens the Black Market, which is where the bad guys usually get their weapons, anyways.  The shooters in San Bernardino allegedly convinced a friend to  buy the weapons.  Will Obama's new law prevent friends from buying firearms and then illegally selling them or giving them away?  I don't think so.  The point is, Obama is anxious to solidify his legacy as a progressive thinker who didn't let something as meaningless as our checks-and-balances system of government interfere with his obligation to help the American people who are too stupid to help themselves.

I've heard a number of Obama supporters screeching about the use of Executive Action by George Bush (oh, how they do still hate Bush! LOL.) and others.  If a president chooses to utilize Executive Action in  manner that does not threaten the separation of powers and our checks-and-balances system, then it is not an ABUSE.   Executive Action has been used in the past, but not for avoiding a confrontation with Congress that the Executive Branch is sure to lose.  Obama put Executive Action into effect because he would not be able to get Congress to pass gun-control legislation that was possibly unconstitutional and did nothing to address the actual problem.  While this issue is being slapped back-and-forth by commentators and analysts in the media, ISIS, Al-Qaida, and all the other party poopers continue to kill people.  I believe we have reached a point in the history of the United States in which domestic terrorism in the form of the activation of Islamic Extremist sleeper cells (not just groups but single operators as well) may very well become a part of our lives.  Our immigration system, built for a moderate level of security by a nation with a tradition and history of welcoming visitors, is not difficult to exploit. Not only would it be possible for the bad guys to set up shop through legal entry on tourist visas, but hiring an expensive and proven smuggler in Mexico is not Rocket Science; the enemy can enter illegally just as well.  But the real problem is our complete unwillingness to address the problem at its root.  If ISIS is destroyed (and we should take out Al-Qaida, Al-Nusra, Khorasan, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Boko Haram simultaneously), then the cells in foreign countries, no longer having access to a support network and resources, dry up and disappear.  President Obama would be hard-pressed to declare war on Islamic terrorism, considering he has just sponsored a nuclear treaty with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's greatest supporter of terrorism (you know Iran....the "death to America" bunch).

As things are, we can only hope that our superb law enforcement and intelligence organizations can keep a lid on things until we can have a change in the oval Office.  Actually, I'm predicting the use of Executive Action on Amnesty/Immigration Reform as well; President Obama does still have a year to work on that legacy, you know.

What's Up With The Republic Of Turkey Nowadays?

Links: War Moves Into Turkey


Wikipedia On Turkey



Where have you been, Turkey?  Every few days I am obliged to create a post about the struggle against the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIS, ISIL or IS); bad news seldom takes a holiday.  How did we get to this place?  Following the ritualistic beheading of two Americans, President Obama announced that the United States was taking military action against IS targets in Iraq and Syria.  Obama added that the United States would, under no circumstances, introduce ground forces into the conflict.  Instead, the U.S. Air Force would bomb the IS into the Stone Age.  For good measure, we are training and arming a surrogate army to finish off the IS with a ground campaign (but not for four, maybe five months because that's how long it takes to train and equip a surrogate army in 2014).  The surrogate element identifies itself as the "Free Syrian Army", and consists of many Syrian Army former officers and front-line troops.  President Obama was able to enlist France, The United Kingdom, and the Arab Gulf monarchies to join his "Coalition of the Unwilling to use Ground Troops", but some enormously important questions remain unanswered.  What will the Free Syrian Army do after the IS has been defeated?  Will it turn its weapons on the regular Syrian Army, which is heavily supported by Vladimir Putin and Russia?  What about all the other groups the Administration has parade by during press conferences (Al-Nusra Front, Khorasan, Al-Qaeda)?  Are they also targets of the Free Syrian Army? And if not, how does the IS tell them apart?

To repeat myself, where are you, Turkey?  The Turks share a southern border with both Iraq and Syria.  (A large part of that geographical piece is considered by the Kurds to be part of Kurdistan).  For centuries, back to the years of the Ottoman Empire, the Turks and the Kurds have struggled for control of this part of the world (since its not Asia Minor, and its not really Mesopotamia, I will just refer to it as "Asia Minopotamia").  Some of the blackest pages in Turkey's personal history book have to do with Kurdistan.  On more than a few occasions over the past two centuries, the Turks have committed acts of genocide against the Kurds.  I realize that by saying this, I royally piss off a number of very close Turkish friends, but it is my interpretation of history; believe me, I wish it weren't so.  The Kurds have always been a thorn in Turkey's side, and when historically bad famines and droughts hit Turkey, the Kurds were last to receive help.  I won't spend anymore time on the subject, especially since there is so much open source material available.  Fast forward to 2014, the Kurds are fighting for their lives not against the Turks or famine, or even Saddam Hussein, but against the IS.  At present, its not really possible to draw a static map of who-occupies-what.  The Kurds are in possession of some territory in northern Syria, but the main theater of war at the moment is in Iraq.  In the north, the Kurds are fighting the IS, and the central part of Iraq, the Iraqi Army and Shia Brigades are opposing the IS.  Back in Syria, the regular Syrian Army continues to occasionally engage IS forces.  For the time being, though, all eyes seem to be on very north central Syria and the town of Kobani.

At times I find it difficult to accept that Syria and Turkey share such a continuous, strategic border. For many centuries, the border did not exist, as Syria and Turkey were both part of the Ottoman Empire.  Now, for all practical purposes, the border separates wealth from poverty, Europe from the Levant, and West from East.  I know many will disagree, and argue (effectively, I'm sure) that Asia Minor is not Europe and that Turkey is not a first-world country.  I make my call through personal experience.  I was obsessed with Turkey in my younger days, and loved every chance I had to visit.  The Turks are a friendly, proud people; you will rarely see beggars or hungry children in Turkey.  But the Turkey of my youth is disappearing.  Secular Turkey (with its handful of generals ready to take charge if the civilians get too ambitious) has seen a rise in Islamist political activities and a movement to strengthen Turkey's Islamic cultural heritage and traditions.  President Recep Erdogan, who was elected in August 2014 with a 51% to 38% margin over his nearest competitor, is not fan of the Army.  During the later half of the last century, the Turkish military did not hesitate to remove elected leaders at the slightest sign of movement away from secularism.  I believe Erdogan is too popular for the military to act against, so I just keep my fingers crossed that he doesn't allow Turkey to suffer an Islamic revolution like the one that swallowed Iran in 1979.

Regarding the situation in Syria and Iraq, where does Turkey stand?  One thing to keep in mind: Turkey has a FORMIDABLE Armed Forces.  There was a time when Turkey was only interested in keeping an army larger than Greece's, but membership in NATO changed everything.  For all practical purposes, Turkey's military was created, nursed and raised to adulthood by the United States military.  Because of the all-important NATO missile sites located in Turkey (and aimed at Russia, I believe, although there may be one aimed at the Eifel Tower), The United States was more than willing to train and equip the Turkish Army.  Roughly 15 years ago, the Turkish military took the surprising step of conducting joint operations with Israel (the advent of Erdogan has cooled relations between Ankara and Jerusalem).  In equipment, size, and readiness, I believe that the Turkish military is en par with France, the UK and Germany (Greece who?).  Where does Turkey stand?  Why haven't the Turks taken a stand against the IS, which is about as nasty a group as there is?  Allegedly, Erdogan offered to join the Coalition and use the Turkish Army if Obama would guarantee the removal of Assad in Damascus.  Obama does not have the testicular fortitude for such a call, which would piss off Putin to no end.  At the moment, Turkey sees no strategy that benefits Turkey, with the exception of waiting until the dust settles.  If Turkey mobilizes, they would sweep the IS from the face of the earth in a matter of days (Turkish Special Forces....Bad Ass).

 But what good does that do if Assad, the thorn in Turkey's backside, stays in power?  Maybe Erdogan is thinking that an IS government in Damascus is preferable to the Ba'athists and Assad?  Wouldn't that be something...Turkey joins the conflict ON THE SIDE of the IS!  Its just a thought; it can't happen.  Turkey is a functioning Democracy with a Tiger of an economy (which is headed for a fall, say many forecasters...hope not), a thriving tourist industry and a military that would make Suleyman the Magnificent jealous.  An on its southern border Turkey nurses two recurring boils; Kurdistan and the civil war in Syria.  Although Erdogan has been willing to snuggle up to the Kurds for political expediency, I don't think he feels compelled to resolve the issue of Kurdistan at the moment.  Besides, the Kurds have proven to be reasonable.  The IS conflict, though, threatens to spill over into Turkey proper (not to mention the steady flow of refugees).  Surprisingly, the Turks have yet to really mobilize militarily.  What would happen if one of the combatants (count 'em again, folks: Al-Nusra Front, IS, Khorasan, Kurds, regular Syrian Army, and the free Syrian Army) began using Turkish territory as a staging point for military operations?  Unfortunately, I don't see Erdogan acting proactively in this situation.  He is content to let the circumstances come to him.

Everything you wanted to know about ISIS but (understandably) were afraid to ask.....

Anyone who spent the summers of 2003 and 2004 chasing intelligence in the wasteland that is Iraq is familiar with the group "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI), and its founder, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.  After arriving in Iraq following the successful capture of Baghdad, it was up to the various U.S. intel groups (military and otherwise) to chase down the folks on the most-wanted list (which also became a deck of cards, you might recall).  Saddam Hussein was number one on that list.  From Saddam on down the names became more and more unfamiliar, but it didn't take long for our joint efforts with the military to track down most of the list.  In reality, Saddam was not on everyone's mind. The terrorist group AQI had made its presence known, and its founder, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was a serious character.

Zarqawi was Jordanian by birth and spent his youth getting in trouble with the law.  After a particularly unpleasant stint in jail, he decided to focus his energy in a different direction.  In 1989 Zarqawi traveled to Afghanistan hoping to get in on the action against the Soviets.  But Abu Musab had just missed the bus.  The war between the U.S.-backed Mujahedeen and the Soviets was coming to an end.  But something monumental did occur in Zarqawi's life at this time.  He was introduced to Osama Bin-Laden.  Zarqawi left Afghanistan with a new focus and a clear mission: to overthrow the Hashemite Family in Jordan and create an Islamic State.  It is believed that at this time he created the al-Tawhid (doctrine of oneness, or "monotheism" . . . you can Google it if you are interested).  He was unable to avoid the attention of Jordanian authorities, and spent six years in prison for possession of illegal weapons.

Upon his release in 1999, he stepped up his activities.  He was involved in attempting to blow up The Radisson Hotel in Amman before relocating to Peshawar, Pakistan and then Herat, Afghanistan.  Zarqawi attempted to set up a training camp (with $200,000 provided by Bin-Laden) but his efforts were frustrated by successful Jordanian infiltration of his latest organization, Jund al-Sham (Soldiers of the Levant).  Zarqawi found himself back in Jordan in 2001 and was picked up by the police, but for some reason, he was released.  It was only after his release and subsequent disappearance that a warrant was issued for his arrest for involvement with the Radisson bombing.
Zarqawi and a few followers made their way back to Afghanistan in time to join the Taliban and Al-Qaeda efforts to  repel the U.S. invasion.  He was seriously injured and it is believed in convalesced in an Iranian hospital (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).  After recovering from his wounds, Zarqawi made his way to Iraq, and in 2004, after swearing allegiance to Bin-Laden, created AQI (also known by its longer and less sexy name, "The Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers").  During this time Zarqawi planned and participated in a number of very bloody attacks against U.S. military targets and also Iraqi Civil Administration.  Zarqawi also released a video of his participation in the beheadings of two U.S. citizens.  When it became apparent that the Shia religious leaders of Iraq were going to allow for the participation of Iraq's Shia population in Iraqi elections, Zarqawi began targeting Shia communities and gatherings.  Zarqawi was killed in 2006 during a targeted U.S. bombing raid on an AQI safehouse in Baqubah, Iraq.

I provided this background information on Zarqawi because I believe that ISIS/ISIL as it exists today is a direct reflection of Zarqawi, his tactics and his motivations.  In 2006, conflict began between AQI and some of the other Sunni militant organizations in Iraq.  There was a growing concern among these groups that Zarqawi and his gang were too quick to target civilians, and too bloody in their methods. This heralded a period of decline for AQI which continued until the beginning of U.S. troop withdrawals in 2009.  In 2010 Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was appointed leader of AQI, which was now calling itself the "Islamic State of Iraq" (ISI).  Attacks against Iraqi military and civilian targets increased, and volunteers, including persons from European nations and the United States, were welcomed.  In August 2011, Baghdadi, taking note of the growing insurgency in Syria, began sending ISI fighters to Syria to establish an ISI presence.  ISI immediately began recruiting members and establishing cells throughout Syria.  The ISI initiative in Syria declared itself the "Al-Nusra Front", and was fully supported by ISI.  Baghdadi ran afoul of Al-Qaeda leaders when he attempted to merge Al-Nusra and ISI. This schism resulted in Al-Qaeda actually repudiating ISI, its leaders and its activities.  The merged group was now known as either the "Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham" (ISIS), or alternately the "Iraqi State of the Levant" (ISIL); hence the confusion between ISIS and ISIL.  In previous posts I have attempted to demonstrate the danger this group poses so forgive me for not repeating myself.  Suffice to say this group is well-funded, well-armed, and has no qualms with wholesale butchery.  As I have stressed previously, I believe the two keys to combating the growth of ISIS/ISIL is controlling the recruitment of trained individuals who can assist ISIS/ISIL in taking full advantage of the weaponry it has captured in both Syria (Migs for goodness sake) and Iraq, and controlling the resupply network.  With Russia taking this opportunity to be everyone's asshole, I can't say how successful we can expect to be controlling the northern border of ISIS/ISIL-occupied territory.  But by denying ISIS/ISIL the skill and the ammunition/parts it will inevitably need, it is possible to neutralize the damage done by the recent well-documented weapons hauls.

Bringing this post full circle, I think its obvious that ISIS/ISIL is exactly was Zarqawi would have wanted from an organization that traces its roots to his efforts.  All we need to do is remember the disturbing scene of Zarqawi beheading a non-combatant and refresh that horrible memory with the video of the beheading of non-combatant James Foley.  Hagel and General Dempsey are both absolutely correct when they state that ISIS/ISIL is the most dangerous terrorist group the United States, and the free world for that matter, has faced.  Another bit of bad news: Al-Qaeda, which seemed to be jealous of all the attention the new kid on the block was getting, appears to be mending fences with ISIS/ISIL.