Russia's latest bombing sorties require closer evaluation.

Link: Russia bombs 448 ISIS targets in Syria.

In the last three days, the Russia Air Force in Syria has conducted 137 bombing sorties against 448 ISIS targets.  This latest uptick in the Russian bombing campaign in Syria comes as ISIS continues to claim responsibility for the October 31 destruction of a Russian passenger airliner over the Sinai.  It is beginning to appear likely that ISIS is behind the tragedy, with the recent high-intensity Russian bombing sorties considered to be a response.  Russia claims that the bombing raids have targeted ISIS' infrastructure, in particular destroying a munitions warehouse near Damascus which hosted makeshift unguided missiles.  The attacks have also resulted in numerous civilian casualties, with multiple claims that non-military targets were bombed.  As ISIS and Russia become more familiar dealing with each other as battlefield opponents, and civilian targets on both sides become more frequent, many more episodes of retaliation-type attacks can be expected.  If ISIS was able to plan and execute the destruction of the Russian airliner in question, it will signify an expansion of ISIS' ability to reach beyond the battlefield and attack non-combatants outside of the Middle East.  If Russia continues to conduct its air sorties with little concern for civilian casualties, ISIS have less trouble recruiting supporters and soldiers from the local population.  And if another airliner affiliated with Russia or one of the members of its budding "coalition" becomes victim of ISIS sabotage, expect the Arab community to be less than sympathetic.  After all, its their families who are being indiscriminately blown to pieces and their farms and homes that are being destroyed by Russian bombs.

One development that warrants closer review is Russia's claim to have targeted multiple ISIS infrastructure locations and munitions factories.  When Russia entered the Syrian conflict, one of its priority concerns should have been the lack of intelligence sources.  On the other hand, the United States, with its sponsorship of ISIS opposition groups and its historic close ties to Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and the Kurds, must have a well-developed network of sources providing timely intelligence.  Its true that Russia has always been very close to the Assad regime, but the intelligence that is most needed, information on ISIS and its movements, is in no way accessible to elements of the Assad regime.  Be that as it may, Russia has managed to locate many important ISIS targets.  The question is, if the United States has a well-developed network for collected intelligence in Syria, then why did those ISIS targets exist to be the recipients of Russian bombing sorties? Why hasn't the U.S.-led air coalition already destroyed those facilities and munitions warehouses?          

Russia masquerades a moderate international powerbroker, while the Obama Administration belatedly attempts to protect U.S. interests.

Links: U.S. troops "on the ground" have usual rules of engagement.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is aggressively pursuing a policy that is intended to re-mold Russia's international image.  For the greater part of the Ukrainian crisis, Putin was faced with regular difficulties complicated by Russia's image as the aggressor in the conflict.  When the Russians originally demonstrated their intention to militarily support de facto Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, the question was, to what extent?  Russia has been a long-time ally of Assad, his predecessor father, former President Hafez al-Assad, and the Syrian Ba'ath Party apparatus, and Vladimir Putin's desire for a Russian naval base on the Mediterranean is no secret.  How far would Russia go to prop up Assad?  When considering this issue, I was missing out on the greater plan that Russia was putting into place.  In order to understand Putin's motivations in Syria, it is necessary to understand Russia's international ambitions.  First, lets examine Russia's diplomatic initiatives vis-à-vis some of the bit players in this drama.

  Russia has softened it tone in all its diplomatic conversations, and is portraying itself as moderate and much less militarily focused as in the past.  This may seem like a hard sell, given that Russian jets are currently pounding targets in Syria.  But Putin has been successful in shifting world opinion to the idea that Russia is truly interested in destroying ISIS, and that support for Assad is secondary.  Certainly no one would accuse Russia of wanting to annex Syria as they Crimea.  Russia has targeted U.S. allies Jordan, Egypt and Iraq as part of its campaign to "co-opt" U.S. supporters in the region.  Although the U.S. has recently made attempts to defend its traditional turf, the Russians had weeks to chip away at the pro-U.S. attitude in all three nations.  In particular, Russia wants to perpetuate the idea that United States is no longer willing to support its allies in serious times of crisis.  The knowledge that the Obama Administration is theoretically opposed to large-scale military action is no secret, and these "at risk" countries know that ISIS can only be defeated by a full-on, large scale military commitment, similar to the one the Russians are making in Syria.  The comparison makes itself.  In fact, the pronouncements of the last few days have come in response to Russian activity.  The international community is catching on to something that many of us have known for a some time; that the Obama Administration, all the way back to the days of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is intent on being REACTIVE, as opposed to PROACTIVE.

In eastern Europe, Russia has also mended a few diplomatic fences and won some important electoral victories.  A number of towns and communities in eastern Ukraine elected pro-Russian representatives, which was a blow to efforts by Kiev to take the electoral momemtum before any serious referendums are planned.  The results also take pressure off Russia regarding the current ceasefire.  If fighting breaks out again, Kiev won't be able to accuse Russia and its Donbas separatist allies from trying to refocus world attention after disappointing election results.  Most important, and visible from the beginning of Russia's direct military involvement in Syria, is the creation of a Russian client-state in Iran.  Everyday it becomes more apparent that these two former adversaries have become BFFs, with Iran going so far as to deploy volunteer "militia" members to fight alongside Lebanese Hezbollah in Syria.  Russia successfully lobbied to have Iran invited to an upcoming major international conference on the conflict in Syria.  This is the first time that Iran has been invited to a conference of this importance.  The question is, why was Iran invited?  They do not share a border with Syria, although they have been strong allies of Bashar al-Assad.  An even more prescient question? Instead of an invitation to attend the conference, why wasn't Iran issued an invitation to remove its "militiamen" from Syria?

The world needs a leader to stand up to ISIS; can Putin fill the role?

Link: Putin using media and military to make headlines in Syria.

Over the last two years, the world has become a much more dangerous place.  Russia seems intent on presiding over the dismemberment of Ukraine, Libya has become a magnet for jihadist groups, Iran, arguably the world's foremost exporter of terrorism, has been given open access to purchase modern military equipment, and ISIS seems unstoppable as it racks up battlefield victories in Iraq and Syria.  What the international situation calls for is the arrival on the scene of a true leader.  Barack Obama does not have the courage or the conviction to be that leader, and the various European Heads of State  are permanently frozen in "surrender" mode.  Whose left?  What about Vladimir Putin?  Sure, I'm disturbed by Russian aggression in Ukraine, but the situation in Donbas and Crimea does not present a current threat to world peace.  Let's take a serious look at the danger posed by the continued existence of the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham, or the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant, or ISIS/ISIL, or whatever name suits you.  Simply put, this Islamic Extremist Organization is about Death.

ISIS claims to be singularly focused on the creation of a new Islamic Caliphate.  The most recent Caliph was embodied in the form of the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire.  What is a Caliph?  A Caliph is the spiritual leader of the Islamic World, and the Caliphate is intended to be whatever geographical area that accepts his total authority.  At times, ISIS has claimed to be only interested in Syria, but that interest was expanded to include Iraq, upon the ill-timed withdrawal of U.S. troops.  Now we here the area of interest has expanded to include "The Levant" which is a colonial term used to describe Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestine, and Jordan.  The reality is, ISIS is a plague with world domination goals.  The organization has spread to Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, Europe and the United States.  Quite a reach for a group only interested in The Levant.  As for its Modus Operandi, ISIS flourishes through the spread of tyranny, domination and mass murder.  The tools most frequently utilized are terror and fear.  Its ability to spread to so many disparate communities, including the Philippines and Kenya, allows ISIS to spread its message like a virus.  How are they able to convince so many young people to join?  ISIS provides the one thing missing in the lives of young people from the poorest corners of the earth: hope.  For the individual, ISIS provides sustenance, and in many instances, a little money to send home.  And at the end of the day, anyone who dies in pursuit of the Caliphate, will most certainly qualify as a martyr.  For the hundreds of thousands of unemployed, hungry young men in places like Cairo, Nairobi, Damascus, Sana'a, the Balkans, Chechnya, Tajikistan, Somalia, and Libya, ISIS puts a gun in their hands and gives them not only something to do, but something powerful to belong to.

Again, anyone one of a dozen nations, if properly motivated and mobilized, could defeat ISIS on the present battlefields of Iraq and Syria.  Even with their F5s and stolen Iraqi Migs, I believe the Iranians could vanquish ISIS.  In fact, a coalition of Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E. and Kuwait could probably get the job done as well.  Ideally, the United Nations would sponsor the creation of an international military coalition to destroy ISIS.  There was a day when the President of United States would ideally fit into the role of political leader of this coalition, given the amount of diplomatic relationships and influence the United States enjoys.  But it doesn't appear that our current President is up for the job.  Just when it appeared that no one was willing to take the job, Vladimir Putin announces that Russia has decided to aggressively re-engage in Syria, in opposition to ISIS.  Vlad puts his money where his mouth is; Russian heavy tanks, artillery, and necessary troop-support equipment has started to arrive in Latakia, on Syria's northwestern coast.  If the Russians so chose, a dedicated offensive campaign against ISIS, that utilizes whatever resources are necessary (and with the "no troops on the ground" assistance from the U.S. and Europe), would eventually crush ISIS.  But the elephant-sized question in the room, is can we allow Putin to become that leader of an international coalition to defeat the worst of the bad guys, when in the first paragraph, we identified Putin as one of the (lesser) bad guys?

In every post on this blog that focuses on Ukraine, I have made my pro-Ukrainian stance obvious.  I'm not Ukrainian, nor do I have any close Ukrainian friends.  I support Ukraine simply because they are a nation attempting to become more free and democratic, that has been invaded by its more powerful neighbor.  I will continue to support Ukraine, but I'm willing to avert my gaze for a period of time, if it will encourage Putin to dive head-first into the battle to defeat ISIS.  I recognize this evil organization for what it is, and what it has the potential to accomplish.  The time to smash ISIS is now, when it is still basically in its infant state.  Can you imagine the kind of conflicts that are raging in Iraq and Syria, also happening in South Africa, Argentina, and Thailand?  Unfortunately, its not as far-fetched as it was a year ago.  Someone with international influence has to stand up and build a coalition to destroy ISIS, and it needs to happen now.  Since no one else wants it, as far as I'm concerned, Putin has my total support to assume the job. 

The expansion of ISIS and its intended future targets.

Link: A.  The expansion of The Islamic State.
          B.  Hamas aiding ISIS in Sinai?
      

This blog has regularly taken the opportunity to provide information regarding the recruitment efforts ands expansionist intentions of the extremist group, The Islamic State (ISIS).  From out perspective, the United States and its European and Arab allies have not been nearly proactive enough regarding the ISIS' ability to establish itself rapidly in almost any part of the world.  In fact, the allies haven't been proactive whatsoever.  Until now, that is.  We are beginning to see a bit more attention paid to the activities of ISIS, and more importantly, groups that have aligned themselves with the Islamic State.  June and July were pivotal months regarding the expansion of ISIS from within the conflict zones of Syria and Iraq, to Egypt, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Kenya, and possibly even the United States itself.  As detailed in our blog posting from July 8 (Link B), ISIS arrived with a bang in Sinai, taking out one Egyptian checkpoint before being dispatched themselves.  Although the international press had published occasional stories regarding certain established terrorist groups pledging allegiance to ISIS, it was the attack in Sinai that sounded the alarm.  From a strictly military perspective, the attack was a disaster.  The ISIS fighters, most of whom were local Palestinian recruits with a few veterans of Syria thrown in for good measure, managed to kill a handful of Egyptian soldiers, but they lost roughly two hundred of their own.  We know from a source on the scene that the Egyptian soldiers, especially the ones attacked at the original checkpoint, exhibited tremendous courage and determination.  No doubt their ability to keep ISIS from quickly moving through the checkpoint and on to larger targets, saved many lives.  In the end, though, the attack achieved its goals.  ISIS wanted to announce to the world that the conflict was no longer limited to Syria and Iraq, and also demonstrate its ability to recruit and utilize dedicated supporters was basically unlimited.

Since the early July events in Gaza, ISIS has not conducted anymore high-profile attacks outside Syria and Iraq, at least not of which we are aware.  In July, an Islamic extremist gunman opened fire on a U.S. military facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee, killing four Marines and a Sailor.  Was this deranged young man connected to ISIS?  Not according to the U.S. government.  He was a frequent visitor to ISIS-friendly websites, message boards and chat rooms, and he recently spent six months in Jordan, which makes the "lone-wolf" declaration by the Obama Administration seem to us to be bizarrely premature and suspiciously political.  We suspect that the shooter probably had some contact with ISIS agents while in Jordan, who ratcheted up the hate and anti-infidel message which was spinning in his head when he returned stateside.  The most difficult question to answer, is what kind of sleeper-cell network has ISIS, and Al-Qaeda beforehand, developed in North America?  From our optic, Al-Qaeda appears to favor the well-planned, highly trained, carefully chosen target, patient approach with regards to its cells, while ISIS seems to have no problem just handing someone a gun or a vehicle full of explosives, and telling them that when the signal comes in, just go out and kill people.  Interestingly enough, Bin Laden, Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda loved a carefully planned, well-resourced operation, and al-Baghdadi and ISIS seem to prefer operations that result in the highest casualty list, regardless of cost.  In the end, though, all three were definite believers in the power of fear.  However the operation comes about, in the end, it must create enough fear in the target communities, to make people consider changing the way they and their families live life.

On a positive note, the new administration in Nigeria seems intent on destroying Boko Haram (BH)once and for all.  The terrorist group has basically been on the run for some weeks, as the joint military efforts of Chad, Nigeria, Benin and Cameroon have left BH very little room to maneuver.  BH achieved a great deal of attention with its announcement of allegiance to ISIS, but ISIS is smart enough to stay out of northern Nigeria, at least for the moment.  The same can't be said for Libya, which seems to become more of a complicated mess everyday.  The fact that Libya hasn't already been united under one Islamic extremist banner is a surprise in itself, because it certainly seems destined to happen.  But for the time being, the United States and Europe continue to utilize some form of diplomacy to effect positive change, while at the same time, ISIS does its business out in the desert, visiting one isolated community after another, and adding them to the cause.  I'm not sure if the current Libyan government sits in Benghazi or Tripoli, or if any government is currently being recognized by the United Nations.  But the U.N. and the United States have been aware of the delicate state of affairs in Libya, since long before the Benghazi incident which killed five Americans.  You could not plan a more advantageous situation for ISIS, as the people are desperate for someone to institute a bit of law and order, and maybe get the water turned back on.  As demonstrated in Iraq, ISIS has learned the art of local government, and is expanding its footprint in Libya by providing communities with some level of organization and relief.

ISIS has also become active in Yemen, but to what degree is still a mystery.  ISIS has also established itself in many of the large, urban township communities in central and southern Africa, which has the potential to be an unlimited source of recruits.  Has ISIS found its way to the townships of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paolo?  When young people see no future, the color of their skin makes no difference.  They will be a captive audience when the ISIS recruiters show up, with stories of glory on the battlefield, the holiness of killing infidels, and the providing of a wife (in this world, and forty additional ones in the next).  But one of the most important thing that ISIS can provide is something that the planners at the U.N. and the Pentagon haven't really started to notice: ISIS provides these young people with DIRECTION, a cause, a reason to get up in the morning.  One can never overestimate the value of "raison d'etre".  If the various governments in Africa are unable to solve endemic problems of unemployment and homelessness, then we should have a good idea from where the next batch of young recruits will originate.  Maybe the next Gaza-like statement will be in Pretoria, or Nakuru.  One thing is certain: the problem of global youth unemployment will only feed the fire of discontent that continues to provide extremists like ISIS with young people who are willing to die for the cause. 

The rise of a terrorist superpower: the Islamic State in 2015.

Most analysts and military strategists in the United States have focused on the activities of Daesh (Islamic State) in Syria and Iraq.  After all, our equities appear to be most at risk in those two particular theaters.  We have been conducting an Allied Air Campaign  in both areas of conflict for roughly a year, and today, for the first time, we have learned exactly how aggressive this Air Campaign has been.  The Allied Air Campaign (which includes the United States, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Bahrain) is averaging fourteen missions per day against Daesh targets.  In comparison, the U.S. Air Force averaged 800 missions per day against Iraqi and insurgency targets in Operation Enduring Freedom.  When questioned about the low number of missions, the Pentagon pointed out that the targets are more complicated, and the coalition is determined to avoid hitting civilian targets in error.  I will leave that comment to stand on its own.  Recently, Daesh has become more visible in its efforts to expand into other countries.  Saudi Arabia has started to suffer from internal bombings conducting by Daesh operatives, and the presence of Daesh has been noted in Algeria, Mali, Libya, Egypt, Pakistan, Yemen, and Armenia (this includes countries with Islamic extremist groups who have declared their allegiance to Daesh).  Currently, the Islamic State has the momentum in both Iraq and Syria.  In fact, with only the remnants of the regime left to oppose their advance, Syria is beginning to look like a done deal, at least as far as Assad is concerned.  Last week, Daesh operatives captured the Syrian/Iraqi border town of al-Tanf (al-Waleed in Iraq), which is a major victory for the extremist group.  Controlling this entry point will allow Daesh to resupply its forces in Iraq more quickly, and vice versa.  It solidifies their communication and transportation network between the two countries, and will undoubtedly bring more pressure on the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) in Anbar Province.

Outside of Saudi Arabia and a few isolated incidents in other countries, Daesh has yet to conduct a major operation in a theater other than Syria and Iraq....at least as far as we know. This group continues to impress with its planning and patience, and its ability to transform financial support into military equipment and supplies.  No doubt its recent successes on the battlefield have increased the flow of volunteers.  Last summer, when the United States appeared to be taking this threat seriously, there was hope that the Daesh movement would be limited to Iraq and Syria.  But the organization has executed a much more successful military strategy than the United States and its allies.  We celebrated when the Kurds won a few victories in northern Syria, and we rejoiced when the ISF recaptured Tikrit.  But each minor Daesh setback was followed by a major military operation against weak targets.  Although Ramadi wasn't thought to be a weak target.  It became one when the ISF deserted its positions and equipment/vehicles, and left the people of Ramadi to fend for themselves.  The example that the Iraqi Army continues to set (with the exception of a modest-sized number of well-trained, disciplined troops that get deployed whenever the government in Baghdad needs a headlining-grabbing victory somewhere) is only encouraging scores of Sunni in Anbar and elsewhere to back the winner, which at this stage is Daesh.  Each little step east, closer to Baghdad, allows Daesh to seed Sunni communities with locals who have become supporters.  No doubt, actual Daesh operatives are already in place in the bedroom communities of Baghdad.

From a larger perspective, the EU and the United States had better recognize the danger of Daesh "sightings" in Africa and in other Middle East countries.  This extremist group is nothing like we have seen before, with the exception of the Taliban, on a much smaller scale.  It has brought a conventional military capability to an extremist agenda.  These groups feed off the poverty and misery of the third world to recruit and spread a message of hate and blame.  Sadly, in 2015, they have no shortage of expansion opportunities.  We have been concerned for some time with the activities of Al-Shabaab in East Africa, and the potential for recruitment in the townships of Kenya.  There is no doubt that Al-Shabaab and Daesh are in regular communication, and that Daesh is already considering ways to tap into the mountain of discontent that exists in East African townships.  Another troubling development is the easy manner in which Daesh seems to co-opt existing guerilla movements, sometimes even groups that are not Sunni in affiliation.  One would have though that the mass executions and beheadings would have damaged the brand at least to some extent.  But the reality is, at the end of the day, what really impresses is success, which at the moment, Daesh is enjoying in Spades. Anyone that is able to make the United States appear reactionary and unresolved will always attract a certain element of bad guys, but Daesh has managed to force the United States, Saudi Arabia, the EU, the Emirates, and even the Assad regime, stand behind the same target.  As far as Daesh is concerned, they have one enemy that just happens to speak different languages and wear different uniforms.  It would be in our best interest if we also adopted the same approach, instead of continuing with this obsession of separating the motivations of various extremist groups that all share the same goal: the expansion of Islamic extremism and the destruction of the western way of life.

Is This A Glimpse Of Obama's True Sympathies?

Link: A. Islamic State Executes Jordanian Pilot
          B. Obama Compares Islamic State Terrorists To Crusaders

As I gave my internet news sources a quick scan before sitting down to write this post, a few articles caught my attention.  It seems that the video clip of the unfortunate Jordanian pilot being burned to death may be a fake, or a hoax.  I studied a couple of the claims, which both seemed legitimate.  I have to say, though, that at the end of the video, the young man is dead.  Whether he was burned, or executed first and then burned doesn't matter to me anymore.  The actions of the Islamic State for a Caliphate in the Levant (ISIL) have reached a level a barbarism not seen since the Gestapo and Einsatzgruppen in the Second World War.  The treatment of women, children and the elderly in the hills of northern Iraq was as beastly and inhumane as anything I can recall.  Not to mention the routine-like execution of rows and rows of Iraqi young men, whose only crime was to join the army in order to bring home a little money to help feed the family.  The group ISIL is as bad as it gets.  I am convinced that both ISIL and Al-Qaeda are working towards the same goals as part of the strategy of Islamic Extremism.  We keep coming up with different names: Boko Haram, Al-Qaeda, Khorasan, and ISIL, just to name a few.  Boko Haram used to kidnap girls and force them to adopt their extreme conservative Islamic beliefs.  Now they have started kidnapping all children that they come across, and the real fear is that Boko Haram is building an army of child soldiers, similar to what has been seen in Africa in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sudan, Rwanda, and with the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda.  Since President Obama took office and Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, Islamic Extremism and Islamic Terrorism have flourished.  Its a dangerous word to use, but unfortunately its appropriate.  During the Bush Administration, security officials frequently spoke of the fear that Al-Qaeda would spread into Africa.  Al-Qaeda is not only present in Africa, it is expanding.  Operatives in Mali are conducting raids in Niger and Boko Haram has carried out attacks from Nigeria into Cameroon.  The West has not been spared, as we have witnessed attacks in Boston, London, Paris and Australia.  And we have the Middle East; I can't remember a time that the Levant, the Holy Land and Mesopotamia were in such trouble.

The point is, Islamic Extremism is on the move, and it is a real danger to the United States.  I'm relieved to note that the current administration has excepted this reality.  The murder of the Jordanian pilot was a horrific act, but no more horrific than any of the other beheadings and executions.  The reaction of the Jordanian people was very encouraging.  The population of Jordan consists of a majority of Palestinians; since the various wars with Israel, the native Hashemites have become a minority.  There has been some concern that ISIL might find sympathizers within the Palestinian-Jordanian community, and within the more conservative Islamic circles.  But I was pleased to see the entire nation of Jordan rise up in support of its brave and well-spoken King, Abdullah.  For a time, Jordanian officials were negotiating with ISIL regarding the possibility of a prisoner swap.  Once the tape was released, it became apparent that ISIL was not negotiating in good faith, and that the Jordanian pilot had probably been dead for days, if not longer. King Abdullah ordered the immediate execution of the two terrorists that had been of interest to ISIL, and unleashed twenty F16s from the Royal Jordanian Air Force to blast those ISIL assholes to bits.  In a final salute, the same F16s flew over the home of the murdered pilot, and then flew over the capital Amman, to the joy of the hundreds of thousands of people who had gathered to express their opposition to ISIL.  Abdullah has vowed to continue using the Jordanian military to harass ISIL at every opportunity.  King Abdullah, like is father King Hussein, is good man, widely respected and admired for his leadership and wisdom. He understands the mentality of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIL.  The only language they speak is the language of strength.  You can't defeat ISIL from a position of weakness, assuming your goal is to defeat them.

On Thursday, February 5, at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Barrack Obama discussed the murder of the young Jordanian pilot in the context of the continuing conflict in Syria and Iraq.  As he has done previously, President Obama introduced the subject of the Christian Crusades in the Holy Land, the last of which occurred in the year 1291.  Just to make sure that no one missed the point, Obama added that,  “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ."  I can't remember the last time I was so offended by something said by an elected official, let alone the President of the United States.  "And lest we get on our high horse".....have you seen anyone getting on a high horse?  Are we not allowed to express indignation and anger towards Islamic Extremists?  What did I do to deserve a scolding?  Hell, lets get right to the truth of the matter: why does the United States have to share the blame for all heinous acts, because of our history?  No doubt we have some dark periods, but we face up to our legacy, good and bad, and with all the of the strength given us by God, we try and learn from it, and become better human beings.  President Obama, I'm not ashamed of my country, and I see not connection whatsoever between the last crusade 724 years ago, and the actions of the Islamic State.  A little advice, Mr. President.  Read up a bit on the enemy.  Al-Qaeda and ISIL are not trying to punish the United States (and the West, by proxy) for our past bad behaviors; you are the only one on that kick.  Al-Qaeda and ISIL are interested in creating a world controlled by the word of the Quran.  So please stop bringing slavery, and the Crusades, and Jim Crow into the discussion.  Most importantly, Mr. President, stop apologizing for me.  Over and out.          

Historic Issues Behind The Conflict In The Middle East (Part I)

Link: The Crusades

The Birth of Israel


Part I

Trying to explain the genesis and motivations behind the Arab/European/Jewish conflicts in the Middle East is probably a bit much for my modest little blog.  But my dear friend Jennifer's brilliant, inquisitive 10-year old daughter Amanda asked her mother for an explanation, and I decided to give it a shot.  Not that Jennifer didn't respond to Amanda; I'm sure her answer made complete sense (Jennifer is fluent in the reasoning of young people....she is a teacher).  But if Jennifer is brave enough to give it a shot, I will as well.

The link I provided is the typical Wikipedia (I keep typing Wikileaks by accident...Freudian?) collection of useful and streamlined details regarding the various European Crusades during the High and Late Middle Ages.  My explanation begins earlier, at the time of Roman occupation of Judea.  The Romans were originally allied to the Jewish state, but under Pompey, absorbed it into the Empire in 6 CE.  In 66 CE the Jews rose in revolt, and the entire population was either wiped out or sold into slavery (give or take...).  The area we know as Palestine was occupied by various Muslim nation-states for almost ten centuries (with times of conflict involving the Byzantine Empire), with Christians usually welcomed as pilgrims to the Holy Land.  This changed in 1096, with the occurrence of the First Crusade.  At the time, Palestine was occupied by Seljuq Turks.  The Crusaders were successful in capturing both Antioch and Jerusalem (the city of Jerusalem was defended by both Muslims and Jews against the Crusaders, and together the Muslims and Jews of Jerusalem were put to the sword).  The First Crusade established what came to be known as the Crusader states- the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.  I would love nothing more than to dive head-first into the history of the Crusades, but I've already taken up too much time.

Over the next two centuries, eight more Crusades would be attempted (the last in 1272); the former rulers were not happy with the Christian occupation of land that was just as Holy in their religion as it was to the Christians.  Eventually the Kingdom of Jerusalem was sacked, and the land reverted to Muslim control.  Lets fast-forward to 1914, with Palestine as a province of the Ottoman Empire.  Then in World War One, the Ottomans chose the wrong side and ended up losing control of Palestine.  The entire area we now know as the Levant (Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Jordan) was occupied by France and Great Britain until the conclusion of the Second World War (see Sykes-Picot Treaty for a taste of European land-grabbing at its best).  At first, with the Balfour Declaration, it appeared that the British government was seriously considering establishing a Jewish state in Palestine.  The opposition of the Arab Palestinian community ended any such plans.  During this time, attempts were made to locate land for the creation of a Jewish state in other areas, including Africa (the Jews of Europe and Russia had suffered great hardships even before the Holocaust).  The displacement of so many European Jews by the Nazis left many without a home.  In 1947, a United Nations partitioned Palestine into two-separate nations, one for a Jewish state and one for a Palestinian state.  The Arab nations bordering Palestine (Egypt, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and even Yemen and Saudi Arabia sent troops) declared war against the nascent Jewish state.  The war was completely one-sided, as have been the two wars since that were fought to destroy Israel.  The Israeli Armed Forces earned a reputation from the very beginning of being disciplined, courageous, cunning and formidable in the methods of war.  That reputation exists today.  The history lesson is complete.  Now on to the difficult part.

Has Iraq Become A Failed State?

Link: Blog Of Anglican Minister Andrew White In Baghdad


("The creed of the desert seems inexpressible in words, and indeed in thought".)*

During my tour in Baghdad I had the opportunity to meet Canon Andrew White, and Anglican Minister who resides in Baghdad.  He has been a prolific voice for the Christian community in Iraq, and is considered by many to be the "Vicar of Baghdad".  I remember being very impressed with Canon White, who expressed optimism that Iraq would rebuild after Saddam Hussein was a distant memory.  I'm sad to say that he was mistaken, and his blog posts bear evidence to the collapse of security for both Christians and Muslims (see link).  Although the U.S. military shows video of Islamic State (IS) targets being destroyed, and the numbers of successful sorties is provided, persons on the ground claim that the airstrikes have done nothing to slow the IS advance.  A quick examination of the current circumstances may clear up this picture.

The Iraqi Army is a mess.  Training, reorganization, and collecting new equipment are priorities.  Daily bombs rock Baghdad and discourage any type of commerce.  Just a few years ago, the markets had reopened, the streets were full of kids going to school, and Karadah was noisy with traffic.  My Iraqi friends tell me that the days of 2003 have returned, with daily car bombs depositing body parts up and down the streets.  Shops are empty as people are scared to leave their homes.  Recently, mortars have been fired into Sadr City, the large, desperately poor Shia community in northeast Baghdad.  Everyone in Baghdad blames the IS for the car bombs and the mortar attacks.  Rumor on the street is that IS guerillas, working in groups of two and three, have already infiltrated the city.  Government ministers travel everywhere in armored vehicles, surrounded by dozens of bodyguards and related security.  Unfortunately the average Iraqi, who must walk to the store to buy bread, can't afford that kind of protection.  The Christian community in Baghdad has swelled to four times is usual size, as Chaldeans and Yezidi from the Mosul area add to the number of refugees.  The normal route out of Baghdad is to the west (Jordan and Syria), but that territory is controlled by the IS.  The only way out of the city is east to Iran, our south to the Shia marshes and Basra (not a promising option for Christians and peaceful Sunni).

In August, when the Iraqi Army deserted the battlefield and there was real concern for the safety of Baghdad, the venerated Shia cleric, His Eminence Ali Al-Sistani, issued a call to arms for the Shia faithful.  True, Al-Sistani appeared to be more concerned with the safety of the Shia Holy Cities of Najaf and Hillah, but the call resonated and 15,000 Shia volunteered to fight the IS.  As the Iraqi Army does what it can to equip and organize the Shia, the fear of the IS continues to mount.  Baghdad is home to many embassies and NGOs, and the International Airport is busier than ever (Iraqi Airways is a tremendous success story in a sea of disasters).  In fact, its impossible to get a seat on a commercial flight out of Baghdad.  Most Europeans in Baghdad believe if an IS attack on the capital city was imminent, that their governments would guarantee their safe evacuation.  This is where the game gets tricky, folks.  Is anyone out there old enough to remember the fall of Saigon?

The international community in Baghdad looks to the United States to determine when Baghdad must be evacuated.  I'm worried that the current Administration will play a dangerous game with the order to withdraw, because an order to evacuate the U.S. Embassy is an admission that neither the military support given to the Iraqi Army nor the air strikes had any impact on the IS' ability to conduct offensive operations.  Most military analysts don't believe that the IS has the resources to launch an assault on Baghdad.  I fear that they are making the cardinal mistake of anticipating a conventional assault. I believe the IS attack on Baghdad has already begun.  In fact, the mortars fired into Sadr City could have only been fired from somewhere else in Baghdad.  The bombings and the assassination attempts will increase as more and more IS operatives move in.  During the worst of the insurgency, the United States managed to convince the Sunni Shaykhs (and other prominent Sunnis) to isolate the insurgents (especially Al-Qaeda in Iraq...AQI) and support the new legislative and electoral process.  Guess what, folks...AQI is back, only now they call themselves the Islamic State of the Levant (IS), and we are way past the deadline for getting the Sunni in line.  The current Iraqi government's only hope is to mobilize the Sunni community that has not already sided with the IS (my sources tell me that almost all Baghdad Sunnis are vehemently opposed to the IS, thank goodness).

Former Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki seems to be on everyone's naughty list (including mine).  At best, his term in office can be described as "sectarian" (thanks, Wikipedia).  When Maliki took office he followed the tradition of most politicians in this part of the world.  He filled every job, every office, every military uniform and every bureaucratic position with someone from his political movement.  Since Maliki is Shia, this action was not seen in a very positive light by the Sunni of Iraq.  He would have been much better served (at least Iraq would have been better served) if he had presented a diversified cabinet of Shia, Sunni and Christian officials.  It doesn't help that Maliki has always been followed by rumors of corruption and is believed to be a  puppet of the CIA (just something I heard folks, that's all). When the shit hit the fan (early August 2014, Maliki was very hesitant to resign (in favor of a cabinet that included a few Sunni and maybe a couple of Christians to open and close the doors).  Personally, I think its hard to get a thief to let go of the purse before the purse is empty.  Iraq's true wealth is in its oil industry.  Maliki wasn't in office long enough (and Iraq's refining capacity is still recovering) to find a permanent way to siphon off a percentage of the state oil revenues.  Believe me, another six months and he might have succeeded.

Currently, Iraq is governed by a coalition of well-meaning Sunni and Shia (and Kurdish) leaders who are trying desperately to rebuild the national army.  But old habits can be hard to break.  Most Iraqi soldiers joined the army because they needed a paycheck, and they had no interest in fighting other Sunnis in support of a Shia (Maliki) government.  The timetable established by the U.S. military in its original schedule for training and organizing the new Iraqi Army, would have been successful.  Unfortunately, the rush was on to get out of Iraq, and the Iraqi forces were not yet prepared to die for their country.  For the life of me, I can't envision how a handful of U.S. military personnel (who were here just last year) will be able to build an Iraqi army in even less time.  I am encouraged by the chutzpah (I don't think they would appreciate me using that word, but they can go to hell) of the Shia volunteers, who will be sorely needed if the IS starts moving from house-to-house and street-to-street.  Its obvious that the IS does not have the numbers necessary to sack Baghdad, but making the city ungovernable is a first step to occupation.  I am very concerned that not too long from now we will witness a Saigon-like nightmare, with Europeans and Iraqis alike desperately trying to find a way out of the city.  Its one of those rare times I would love to be wrong.

*T.E. Lawrence

President Obama Announces Airstrikes Against ISIL

List: Obama Orders Bombing of ISIL


Tonight, on the eve of the 13th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in New York City and Washington DC, President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. Air Force would be conducting bombing raids into both Syria and Iraq to downgrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State of the Levant (ISIL) terrorist group. ISIL is the direct descendant of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) terrorist organization that was almost destroyed by U.S. forces in Iraq in 2006-2007. The remnants of AQI hunkered down in the deserts around Tikrit and Ramadi until they were strong enough to become active in the recent quagmire in Syria. Once the U.S. pullout in Iraq began in earnest, AQI stepped up its activities in northern Iraq.  The ISIL discussed by President Obama this evening is stronger than ever, and militarily active in both Syria and Iraq (who are we kidding; I'm sure they are all over Jordan and Lebanon as well).

In his speech, President Obama outlined a multi-faceted approach to defeat ISIL, including providing support to allies already engaged on the ground. This is the place where we usually get into trouble. Who is it exactly that will be receiving U.S. military hardware and ammunition? I'm very curious which groups have been identified as "the good guys". Better yet, how did the administration (through the CIA more than likely) make that decision? It matters a great deal to me. We have made a habit lately of arming our enemies by arming our surrogates. No doubt its much more palatable for the administration to conduct a war without U.S. troops, but finding other folks to die on our behalf (maybe a bit harsh...it is their fight as well or they wouldn't be there) does not come without a price tag.  In the late 1970s the CIA armed the Afghan Mujahedeen with all sorts of yummy killing accoutrement. I can tell you that on more than a few occasions, those same weapons have been used to kill young American soldiers. Then we decided to train and arm the Iraqi Army before pulling out recently, and where are those weapons? An unpleasant number were left on the battlefield by deserting Iraqi troops before a shot was even fired. And now, if this conflict does eventually require U.S. troops on the ground, ISIL will have American-made weapons to use. Recently I wrote a post in which I called for immediate military assistance to the Ukrainian Army. I did so safe with the belief that whatever we give the Ukrainians will not one day end up pointed at U.S. soldiers. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. Another group that gets my full approval for military support is the Kurdish Peshmerga.

If you've been reading my blog, you've probably already noted my affection for the Peshmerga. They may not look like much to the naked eye, but they are as disciplined and intelligent a military organization as you will find. They work well in smaller units, and can transport just about any piece of equipment great distances in no time. They have shown a tendency to avoid prisoners, and they are loyal to the Kurdish cause to the death. I've never known the Peshmerga to leave weapons on the battlefield because I've never known them to lose a battle. The Peshmerga enjoy fighting in conditions that others avoid, which is one of their best assets.  The next time you are visiting Sulaymaniyah, have a walk through those rugged mountains where the Peshmerga train.  You'll understand why they all seem to be in great physical shape. Oh, And they stink really bad...not big fans of deodorant.

President Obama's plan includes all the hallmarks of his foreign policy as we have come to know it.  Once the air campaign begins (still no concrete date), the U.S. Air Force will target ISIL in both Syria and Iraq. One year ago today, this administration was contemplating an air campaign against ISIL's enemies, the repugnant Bashir al-Assad regime. Now we will be bombing Assad's opponents. There is no way that this will not tremendously help Assad and the Syrian military (let me see....the friend of my enemy is my friend, or my friend is my friends enemy, or is it my friend has an enemy who is also my friend, or....I quit!). As a traditionalist, I don't like war that is undeclared, and I don't like conflict that basically involves only one branch of the military. But I am all for ending blood sacrifices in this part of the world without a clear and bold strategy to turn the enemy into a pile of dust.

Basically, I appreciated the speech and I'm glad that we will be raining death upon these bastards somewhere. I understand that there was some concern about where exactly we would be dropping the bombs. I can assure everyone that the Air Force and our intel targeting guys and gals RARELY make mistakes, but someone will be inconvenienced (okay, so someone's house and goat herd may get blown to smithereens...we usually provide some sort of compensation). Also, be prepared for the bodies of innocent victims that will be paraded around. I remember one occasion in Iraq when the locals dug up a previously buried body and declared the corpse to be the victim of "American artillery".  Unfortunately the body was roughly 100 yrs old, and when the arm fell off they realized the game was up. As for President Obama and the new strategy to attack ISIL, he has my full support.  Again, I don't believe in "sorta" fighting a war. When you have identified that a foe has reached the point of being a deadly threat to the United States, then you utilize all of your resources to defeat the enemy in the quickest time frame possible. This strategy saves lives and makes the necessary point.

I won't spend too much time on the parts of the speech that I found disturbing.  Here we go again with the coalitions. How many are we talking about? We have NATO, which is more or less a living coalition.  We have separate coalitions in both Bosnia and Kosovo and we have the coalition which has been working with us in Afghanistan. When Obama spoke of a coalition including the United States, and then mentioned a coalition of Arab nations, was he referring to the same coalition? First and foremost, coalitions involving Arab states don't usually achieve much. And if they had any inclination to get involved in this mess, wouldn't they have done so by now?  Hell, most of them have internal elements that are raising money for ISIL. And just when President Obama had me warming up, he had to remind us that this conflict is not about religion, and that Islam is about peace. We've heard it ad nauseam, Mr. President. By repeating that same mantra, you enable the average, peace-loving Muslim to avoid getting involved.  Regardless of the numbers, true, peaceful Muslims need to stand up and be heard!  And not to yell at me, but to do something about these fanatics in our cities and in our own neighborhoods who are using bastardized versions of your holy book to recruit killers.  No one gets a free pass anymore.  Everyone has a part to play.

Obama's speech on the crisis in Ukraine and the threat posed by ISIS/ISIL

Link: Obama's Sept. 3, 2014 speech on Ukraine and ISIS/ISIL

(In the Spring of 2010 I had a conversation with my dear friend Lindsay Moran regarding my impending retirement and ongoing medical challenges.  Lindsay suggested that as a form of therapy I should write a book.  She correctly surmised that it would be both cathartic and possibly of interest to other folks.  Lindsay is an author herself and had tremendous success with her 2002 publication Blowing My Cover.  After I realized that the book I was writing was evolving into something more than therapy, we discussed the difficulties in getting books published.  Not to mention, a review of the genre shows no lack of "CIA memoirs" available on Amazon.  We decided that because of the original focus, my book would be very different from the numerous espionage-related non-fiction books that can be found at Barnes & Noble.  For me personally it was important that my book be as non-political as possible.  I wrote about people, and it takes quite a few personalities to fill up a room full of Case Officers, Analysts and Linguists.  I saw no point in excluding anyone just because I didn't agree with their politics.  I have tried to mirror my blog with the same effort in mind.  That being said, I have some critical observations to make about President Obama's speech today.  It's the nature of the business he is in and I will not tip-toe around in an attempt to not offend someone.  I would approach any speech by President Bush with the same perspective.)

President Obama began his first term with a whirlwind visit to Europe, Mexico and the Near East.  In particular, I recall visits to Cairo, Egypt and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.  It was the speech he gave in Cairo that appealed to many Americans who had hopes of building a

2009 Speech at Cairo Univesity

better relationship with the Islamic world.  My recollection of the speech is that it was an apology, which should not have been surprising given the disagreement within the United States and in the International Community regarding the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  Many Americans, I'm sure President Obama included, believed that U.S. diplomacy must move in a different direction in order to build peaceful, long-lasting relationships with the Arab world.  I would have been thrilled to see this Administration succeed in their efforts.  It would be nice if 6 years of Obama foreign policy would have resulted in no more beheadings of innocent Americans or conflict in Iraq.  But this has not been the case.  The Obama Administration has failed in its efforts to build a successful policy in the Near East (I say Near East vs. Middle East).  Libya is a political quagmire with the future leaders of that country almost guaranteed to be Islamic fundamentalists, Egypt teeters on the edge of a civil war, Jordan is overrun with terrorist groups, Syria is a complete battleground between repressive fascist Bashir al-Assad and Islamic terrorists, Iraq has split into spheres of Kurdish, Sunni, Shia, and ISIS/ISIL control, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hasn't been this bloody since the Intifada. 

Speech at Nordea Concert Hall in
Tallin, Estonia Sept. 3, 2014

During the speech he gave on September 3, President Obama stated that the United States must "organize" the Arab nations in an effort to combat terrorism, defeat ISIS/ISIL, and bring peace to the region.  He continues to avoid any implication that the United States might be obliged to intervene military (excluding the bombing raids in Iraq).  According to Obama, peace can be achieved in Ukraine, Syria, Libya, and Gaza, through diplomacy and through the use of sanctions.  You cannot convince me that he sincerely still believes this argument.  In both Ukraine and in the various Near East hot spots, none of the players involved seem predisposed to a peaceful resolution.  How do you force the kids fighting on the playground to put down their sticks, especially when your own stick is not nearly as big as it used to be?  In a previous blog, I made the argument that the sanctions regime enacted by the United States and the European Union against Russia, was going to hurt two groups that Vladimir Putin appeared to have under his complete control: the super-rich and the poor.  I'm sure the sanctions have impacted all members of Russian society to some extent, but I don't see even a hint of demonstrations in Red Square, how about you? (Except for the demonstrations in support of Putin's policy.)  Providing direct military assistance to the Ukrainian Armed Forces is long overdue.  I'm not sure that we have decided to take that step.  Time will tell.  I'm still convinced that the Russian Army is not prepared for a full invasion of Ukraine, or that Putin wants to re-attach the entire country to Mother Russia.  I believe Putin is hoping for the pieces to fall together that will allow him to annex Crimea and he is willing to give up eastern Ukraine in the bargain.  This development has given the Poles (and Byelorus, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) the opportunity to review military planning and policy, which in this case is a good thing.

Back to the organizing of Arab states to fight Islamic-based terrorism:  Luckily I'm not afraid to say "ISLAMIC-BASED TERRORISM" or "ISLAMIC FUNDAMENTALISM".  The misuse and misinterpretation of the Quran is at the heart of the problem.  It's true that the huge majority of Muslims in the world just want to live their lives in peace and at peace with their neighbors.  But the bad guys have become an international crisis not because they willed it, but because they have found plenty of wealthy donors who secretly agree with their misuse and misinterpretation of the Quran.  The first thing these groups need are sponsors.  Secondly they need recruits.  You can't have the second without the first because someone has to pay the bills.  President Obama will not be successful in his effort to organize Arab states against terrorism because it is elements within these same Arab states that are supporting terrorism.  In Saudi Arabia, the Wahabi movement has long been a source of conservative and anti-western dogma.  The size of the royal family and its wealthy acolytes makes it impossible to accurately follow the money that flows out of the Kingdom.  The same can be said for Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait.  I'm giving Oman and Jordan's King Abdallah, who seems to be a truly decent man, the benefit of the doubt.  The United Arab Emirates (UAE) are a true mystery.  At one time the UAE were known as the Trucial States and did most of their diplomacy through Great Britain.  Once oil became a huge commodity and the Brits granted independence, the seven separate emirates (Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Um al-Quwain, Fujairah, Ajman, Sharjah, and Ras al-Khaimah) smartly banded together and formed the UAE.  Europeans see the UAE as a great holiday destination and the place to see the latest monumental skyscraper.  The Emiratis have some amazing accomplishments to their credit.  They have turned desert into shiny cities and have pioneered desalinization research.  Wealthy Emiratis love horse (and camel) racing and enjoy the ancient sport of falconry. Each of the seven families controls tremendous wealth, created by the oil they sit upon.  Again, we have no real idea whether any of that money finds its way into the hands of terrorists.  The point is, while agreeing to tow the line diplomatically, the Arab states have no obligation to open their books to us or anyone else, and it is tremendously difficult determining if any particular player is funding terrorist activities.  Some evidence does exist that money from the various royal families of the Gulf region has found its way to Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah and the like.  In fact, various humanitarian organizations active throughout the Near East have been discovered laundering money on behalf of terrorist groups, and that money certainly must originate somewhere.

President Obama finds himself in a difficult position.  For continuity's sake, he must stress the need for diplomatic solutions to the various problems in Ukraine and the Near East.  But the reality is, the United States does not have the diplomatic influence to impact any of the current crises.  Once it was obvious to ISIS/ISIL that the United States military would be out of Iraq by such and such date, they began to re-establish themselves in the rural communities and stepped up attacks on Iraqi government targets.  Considering the cost paid for what was achieved in Iraq (establishment of an electoral process, rebuilt refining capacity, new schools, rebuilt transportation infrastructure, rebuilt economy, etc.), I don't think it would have been too much to ask for the United States to have an Army base and an Air Force base in Iraq.  It would have made a huge difference to the folks around Mosul, Arbil, and Tikrit, I can assure you.  I do understand that the Administration is pressed to continue searching for diplomatic solutions to the conflicts we are discussing, but I for one can't help but focus on the real opportunities we have (which are not necessarily diplomatic in nature).  We need to give the Ukrainian Armed Forces full military support (short of feet on the ground).  The current exercises in Ukraine involving elements of the U.S. Army is a very smart move.  As for ISIS/ISIL, we must combat the recruitment efforts in the United States and Europe, and we must disrupt their supply/resources network, which includes tracking and cutting off financial support.  But sooner or later, I believe the U.S. military will have to engage ISIS/ISIL.  And when that day comes, ISIS/ISIL will pay the bill in full.

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.