The migrant crisis becomes an international problem.

Link: Austria welcomes new migrants from Syria.

At times I am tempted to avoid posting on certain issues for fear of alienating my audience.  We all have strong opinions about particular issues, but some subjects can be more emotionally charged than others.  The heartbreaking photo of the three-year old Syrian boy who drowned trying to reach Europe, and washed up on the shore in Greece, has really energized the western media.  The horrible reality is that young children die unnecessarily everyday, some by starvation in Ethiopia and Bangladesh, others as victims of war in Afghanistan, Syria and Nigeria.  The immediate response to this particular photo will be typically knee-jerk and focus on a quick-fix for the symptom, without addressing the root problem.  Because this young boy, who was traveling with his family from war-torn Syria to an unknown future in Europe, drowned and has his picture taken, all the major governments in Europe met to discuss their particular response to the issue of undocumented migrants, and the only question the media wanted answered was, "how many of these people are you willing to accept responsibility for and allow into your country?"  In reality, what the activist European and American press wanted was an announcement that the European Union intended to establish a blanket policy for accepting all applicants for Asylum and Amnesty, no questions asked.  Would this provide an answer to the growing number of migrants from the Middle East, Africa, the Indian Subcontinent and Southeast Asia who are looking for a new place to live?  Yes, but at the same time it would bankrupt the EU and destabilize the cultural balance and identity of its member states.  Anyone who seriously wants to address this problem must address not only the symptom, but also the root cause.  These people come from somewhere; why are they leaving?

I live in Texas, therefore I am very familiar with the issue of undocumented migrants/immigrants.  The term has changed over the years, as liberals decided that the terms "illegal" and "alien" were too harsh to use when discussing human beings.  Again, just another distraction from facing the actual root of the problem.  The United States of America, through a variety of mechanisms, financially supports the United States of Mexico.  We accept their unemployed, and we provide a market for the narco-trafficking that has made Mexico its super highway.  The Mexican nationals who live illegally in Mexico return a staggering amount of money back to Mexico to support family.  This financial windfall has become a pillar of the current Mexican economic system.  Simply put, roughly five to ten percent of Mexicans control the wealth of Mexico; it has always been this way, and the average Mexican has no reason to believe that it will ever change.  Mexico is a wealthy country; although its petroleum deposits have started to dry up (all the easy stuff has been pumped out; only the hard-to-reach deposits remain), Mexico continues to have a tremendously bountiful agricultural sector, not to mention car-manufacturing and a growing textiles and high-tech industry.  The government keeps a tight control over much of the economy, which allows a small percentage of Mexican families, utilizing endemic corruption, to steal much of the nation's wealth.  The under-and-unemployed just cross the northern border into the United States to find work and create a life for their families.  Mexico is in need of a real revolution, to rebuild the government so it works for the people, not vice-versa.  The people need to become so desperate, that they take the issue into their own hands, and drag the thieves, corrupt politicians and narco-traffickers into the streets, and distribute a bit of mob justice.  But this will never happen as long as the United States is willing to accept, feed and house the struggling Mexican under-and-unemployed, before they have reached the necessary point of desperation.  This is a lesson that some in the United States are beginning to learn (thanks, Donald Trump), but I just don't see Europe ever having the courage to take the steps necessary to defend itself.  Until the migrant believes that Europe offers no sanctuary, then the numbers will continue to grow.

In reality, it may be too late for the United States.  President Obama will no doubt use Executive Action to sign an Amnesty Bill into law that provides a path to citizenship for at least twenty million Mexican nationals living illegally in the United States.  Mind you, Obama isn't interested in providing a path to Legal Permanent Residency, his intent is to create citizens and new voters for his Democratic Party.  But that is a story for another day. When we speak of addressing the genesis of the migrant problem in Europe, we must examine the circumstances that created this particular flow of refugees.  The war in Syria, which has been raging for more than five years, has been displacing hundreds of thousands of people.  Europe and the United States have welcomed many of these refugees already, and Turkey is already dealing with a refugee crisis.  But the migrants aren't only coming from Syria.  The majority actually come from Africa, and pay to be ferried across the Mediterranean in all sorts of dangerous, unseaworthy craft.  Many are hopeful of finding a home and a steady job so they can support their immediate family, and eventually send for the rest.  South Africa has been dealing with a refugee crisis since the end of apartheid; Nigerians, Ghanians, Zimbabweans, Congolese, all headed to South Africa, convinced that a good job and a new life awaited.  Australia has been dealing with refugees from Southeast Asia since the end of the Vietnam War.  The reality is, the prosperous western nations of the world do not have enough wealth to support its refugees.  The math just doesn't add up, which is very frustrating, because the planet is nowhere near reaching the limit of its ability to support the human population.

Accepting the refugees as new European citizens will only guarantee an increased number of refugees.  Europe's generosity is actually to blame for the direction of many of these refugees to begin with. Europe has always been willing to take Turks, Somalis, Algerians, Albanians, Palestinians, and others who are fleeing conflict, searching for the opportunity for a new life.  But the problem has become so big that the only solution is to deal with it at its source.  Syria is in upheaval because of the spread of ISIS; the Iraqi Refugees, especially from the north, are also beginning to make their presence felt. Since the entire world acknowledges what a horrific threat ISIS is to free people everywhere, then why hasn't some European or United States statesman risen to the occasion, and led an allied military campaign to destroy this human pestilence?  Its not as if ISIS is willing to confine their expansion to the Levant; they have created cells as far away as South America, Canada, and The Philippines.  Their stated goal is our destruction, so why haven't we solved the Syrian/Iraqi refugee crisis and the ISIS threat with a united military effort?  In Africa, the refugee problem stems from what appears to be an inability for an African government to function outside the boundaries of institutionalized corruption.  Even humanitarian aid has a habit of ending up in the hands of one smuggler or another.  Since the end of apartheid, the ANC has started to follow in the footsteps of the Mugabes and Mobutus, with government ministers using public funds as a private bank account.  If a nation does not have the resources to support economic growth, stagnation and recession occur, and the people will have no jobs.  We can't invade Africa and force corrupt-free governments on the continent; it must be something that is decided at home.  The same is true for Mexico.  I have often heard that the United States should just invade Mexico, use the military to root out the narco-traffickers, and make Mexico work for the Mexican people once again.  But its not our place; the people of Mexico have to decide when the time has arrived for a political sea-change, even though it does impact our national security when terrorists are able to utilize the same undocumented immigrant pipeline to enter the United States as the Mexican worker.

It's heart-warming to see those in need receive succor.  I'm pleased that the various European governments have made the decision to address the migrant crisis this week.  But what about next week, and next month?  What about next year, when we may be dealing with hundreds of thousands?  The total lack of shame on behalf of the wealthy Arab nations as they refuse to accept refugees, is very telling.  They understand that once the spigot has been turned on, its difficult to shut off.  Again, I argue, wouldn't it be in everyone's best interest if we destroyed ISIS together, while it is in its infancy, and bring some relief to the people who have yet to become refugees, and also give the current migrants a place to return to?    

Al-Shabab Makes A Statement.

Link: Al-Shabab Attacks University in Eastern Kenya.


On Thursday of last week, Somalian-based terror group Al-Shabab orchestrated an attack against unarmed, innocent students and teachers at Garissa University (College) in Garissa, Kenya.  To date, authorities state that 148 persons died in the attack, along with many if not all of the gunmen.  Since the attack included the taking of hostages (with Muslims and non-Muslims being separated), and some students are still listed as missing, Kenyan officials are hesitant to provide an exact number of gunmen.  I have received a bit of flack from visitors to my blog, because of the amount of attention I give to Africa.  I don't deny that I'm an Africaphile, but my focus on the continent as far as the blog is concerned, is solely related to the issue of terrorism.  To be more precise, I am concerned about the spread of the Islamic extremist message, and also the potential for recruitment of operatives.  It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to recognize that young men who have no jobs and very little hope for the future, are prime candidates for recruitment by these groups.  And young men looking for work is something that Africa, unfortunately, has way too many of.

The blog has addressed the increased presence of Al-Shabab in Kenya in numerous postings during the previous three months.  The International Media noted that Al-Shabab had taken a huge hit in their home country of Somalia, and an attitude seemed to creep in that maybe, just maybe, Al-Shabab was finished.  You can separate terrorist groups into countless sub-categories, but for the sake of this post, lets point out that there are two types of terror organizations: the ones who fight solely for the cause; and the ones that use their actions to also make a living.  Al-Shabab was never going to disappear, because they fit into the second category.  Too many members of Al-Shabab had found a way to feed themselves and their families, at a time and place where food is scarce.  Besides, Al-Shabab has too many operatives and too much equipment and too many friends to no longer be considered useful by Al-Qaeda.  Hence to move away from Somalia and into Kenya.  Analysts have been expecting a minor explosion in terrorist activity in Kenya for some time, probably because of its proximity to Somalia combined with the permanent state of economic stagnation.  I have been more concerned with the probability of recruitment in the vast townships outside Nairobi.  Whatever the vehicle, it is imperative that the Kenyan authorities realize that Al-Shabab is in the midst of relocating from Somalia to Kenya.

Many folks in Europe and the United States will automatically assume that by attacking shopping malls and college campuses, Al-Shabab is crippling its image among all the people of Kenya.  Unfortunately, that's not the case.  Forgive me if my comment appears to be ethnocentric (I don't believe it is), but sub-Saharan Africans don't automatically adopt the same perspective as westerners.  In many cases, they approach issues very differently.  By conducting the operation in Garissa, Al-Shabab was providing an example of its strength and power.  Likewise for the attack at the shopping center in Nairobi.  Where was the government?  Where were the police and the military?  Authorities in Nigeria have had a real problem dealing with the same predicament.  Some northerners (Muslims, to be sure) were beginning to support Boko Haram, because they certainly were looking like a winner.  Al-Shabab can provide a hungry, disillusioned young man with three essential things: food, a weapon, and a cause.

An important factor that should never be far from any discussion of Al-Shabab, is Al-Qaeda.  Just how close are these two groups?  I guarantee you that the analysts in Langley know.  If we take a quick look at Al-Qaeda's modus operandi regarding relations with other organizations, it would appear to be always be a one-sided relationship.  I think we will soon discover, though, that the "new" Al-Qaeda, under Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a bit more willing to be interactive with like-minded groups.  In the last few years of Osama bin-Ladin's life, the organization became very isolated and secretive, and for good reason.  I believe that Zawahiri believes in the philosophy of the struggle, just as much as he does the actions being taken.  I think we will see more instances of Al-Qaeda communicating with the Boko Harams and the Al-Shababs, and trying to lay the groundwork for a uniting message.  I believe a great deal has already been accomplished along this path, and the various groups on the ground in Syria are not nearly as separate from each other as they would lead the western media to believe.  Nothing lives forever.  Even Al-Qaeda will eventually disappear.  The key is the message.  It must resonate and be strong enough to live forever.  The message can survive long journeys across mountain ranges and oceans, when men cannot.  The message can survive the battles when all the combatants lie dead on the field.  Zawahiri and Al-Qaeda will depend upon the Boko Harams, and the Al-Qaeda in Magrebs, and the Al-Shababs, to be the caretaker and delivery system for that message.  And the message never changes.  it continues to be about domination, intolerance, hatred and bigotry.  It would behoove us to take down the caretakers before they really get a handle on the message.

Why should the West be concerned with the intentions of the Islamic State in Africa? (Part II)

Links: A. ISIS supporting Al-Shabaab in Africa?
           B. ISIS eager to recruit South Africans.

In Part II we will focus on the Islamic State (IS) in Sub-Saharan Africa.  The Muslim states of West Africa are vitally important, because they will discreetly provide financial and material support to Islamic extremist groups, while publicly disavowing any involvement or knowledge of these organizations.

Mauritania.  To start, Mauritania is a bit of a mystery.  The government gives the appearance of being deeply observant of all Islamic Laws and traditions.  At the same time, Mauritania has steered a very moderate course diplomatically, snuggling up to France in particular.  In truth, Mauritania is a lightly-populated country that consists almost exclusively of SAND.  Eventually, the engineers and researchers will find oil in Mauritania, mark my word.

Al-Qaeda in the Magreb.   Al-Qaeda remains active in West Africa, in Mali and Niger in particular.  In 2013, Al-Qaeda more-or-less surprised everyone by hopping the coat tails of a Tuareg insurrection in northern Mali.  The Tuaregs, who had made repeated complaints to the government in Bamako, were suffering from private French companies occupying oases and disturbing traditional Tuareg trading patterns.  The Tuaregs felt that they had no choice but to take up arms, at least long enough to attract the European press.  But before you can say, "Camel Fart", Al-Qaeda had hijacked the Tuaregs little rebellion.  The Tuaregs quickly faded away, but Al-Qaeda in the Magreb (AQM) meant business, attacking Malian military and government installations as far south as Timbuktu.  In steps the French, who roll up AQM in record time (not many prisoners taken, from what I understand).  In the Fall of 2014, AQM, taking advantage of a government focused exclusively on combating Ebola, popped back up in northern Mali.  And this time, they were better armed and willing to involve others.  AQM repeatedly crossed the border into Niger and conducted raids against simple villages, along with the usual attacks against government and civilian targets in Mali.  Again, the French military has arrived on the scene, and I expect and even more thorough accounting of AQM.  I can hear you now, asking, "why all this AQM bullshit when the post is supposed to be about the IS"?  The answer is simple; the post is about the IS.  Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are, for all practical purposes, the same organization.  They are both Sunni-based, violent, terrorist groups dedicated to the removal of infidels from their "Holy Land".  They communicate with each other, they assist one another, and they play-up the western media's insistence on separating the two. As always, this is only my opinion.  Come see me in a year and remind me how wrong I was.

Al-Shabaab.  One fact that is not debatable is that the IS was born into the Al-Qaeda family.  In its former life, it was known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq".  After the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was appointed as the leader of the organization, and a new name, "the Islamic State in the Sham" (ISIS) was chosen.  Folks, I'm leaving out all sorts of important background to the genesis of IS, but this post has to stay within reasonable limits.  Al-Baghdadi really began to make the IS about himself, and let it be known to Al-Qaeda head Ayman Al-Zawahiri, that IS was able to function on its own.  Now this is as close to a complete rift with Al-Qaeda as ever occurred.  Zawahiri didn't have much to bitch about because the IS was kicking ass and taking names all over Iraq and Syria.  More recently, as the organization stretches its legs a bit, relationships have been established with like-minded Sunni extremist groups around the world, including Africa.  Al-Shabaab, that nasty bunch of turds that tried to turn Somalia into an Islamic State ruled by Islamic Courts (sounds wonderful, doesn't it?), have established themselves in the townships of Kenya, which are ripe recruitment areas.  Social Media is the master at bringing people together, and the IS and Al-Shabaab have been expressing support for one another for some time.  These two groups need each other.  Al-Shabaab needs the organizational skills, the discipline, and the funding of the IS, and the IS needs the geographic reach, and the potential recruitment opportunities available to Al-Shabaab.  They are both Sunni based, therefore there will be no trouble finding ideological (read: idiot-logical) common ground.  Al-Shabaab has established a presence as far south as South Africa and as far west as Namibia.

Boko Haram.  Ehen the Nigerian based terrorist organization, "Boko Haram", announced its support for the IS, the news was treated as a truly important development.  During the same week, the combined military forces of Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon and Benin inflicted defeat after defeat on Boko Haram, who was now only in control of four northern communities (from twenty just the week before).  It was no surprise that Boko Haram (BH) wanted to change the headline, and the press obliged.  The poor Nigerian Army; after months of getting raked over the coals by the domestic and international press, they finally have a very successful strong of victories, and they get upstaged by BH's announcement of love for the IS.  The truth is, even though BH has very recently received a black eye and a bloody nose, this organization is built similar to the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, and it is more than able to retreat into the jungle and reconstitute itself.  I find BH to be the most dangerous terrorist group on the continent, and that includes north Africa.  Anyone engaged against BH needs to be familiar with its history, as BH is very loyal to its founding principles and the accompanying religious ideology.  The organization was originally established in support of providing Islamic education in northern Nigerian schools.  At the time, there was a need for a bit of a "siege mentality", as the Islamic community in Nigeria had many opponents.  Through concentration of resources and discipline, the Islamic community in northern Nigeria was able to effectively establish a network of Islamic schools.  As is often the case, this well-meaning effort got out of hand.  BH quickly morphed into a organization that allowed no disagreement and enforced the strictest of Islamic codes.  Instead of living peacefully with the Christian community, BH made every effort to either drive them off or convert their children.  When it became apparent that the Nigerian authorities were either unwilling or unable to respond, BH began large-scale forced conversions.  Instead of focusing on education, BH became a para-military organization, bent on proselytizing extremist Islam.  At the zenith of its reach, BH was smart enough to reach out to other like-minded organizations, which will provide a lifeline, if the Nigerian military is successful in forcing BH out of Nigeria.  BH is present in Ghana, in Cote d'Ivoire, and in the Cameroon.  Many of his soldiers are "brainwashed" teens, some not much older than ten, eleven years of age.  In many cases, these young fighters are the most dedicated.  I won't mention the fate of the young girls that are randomly kidnapped.  Suffice to say that the lucky ones are forced into sometimes plural marriages with men usually many years older.

Because of the growing population rate in sub-Saharan Africa, the pressure on the various national economies will only increase.  At the moment, even the most optimistic economies like South Africa, Nigeria, Namibia, Botswana, Gabon and Ghana, have unemployment rates for post-high school males as high as forty percent.  This group of unemployed, bored, many times hungry, unable to afford university fees, young men are the perfect targets for the IS.  Since the Islamic faith has done such an outstanding job introducing Islam to poorer African communities, many of these young men are already halfway home.        

Why Has ISIS/ISIL Been So Successful? (Part II)

(Part II)

Another reason that the IS has been successful is that it Islamic Extremism does not consist of a handful of disparate, arguing, selfish groups that can't ever get on the same page.  I believe that once we get past all the bullshit, we will discover that one command structure exists for Khorasan, Al-Nusra and the IS.  The little identity game they play has already caused problems for the "air campaign" coalition, as certain Gulf States have refused to participate in targeted bombing raids because they weren't comfortable with the target.  The reality is, the IS has grown stronger because the Extremist cause has learned the importance of supporting one another.  AQIM will support Boko Haram, just as the Taliban support Al-Qaeda.  Unfortunately, the bad guys are finally grasping the ancient cliché that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" (from a Muslim prince, by the way).   Recently, the world was focused on Yemen (for about seven minutes).  Al-Qaeda, who control a good part of the southern coast east of Aden and up to the border with Oman, have been utilizing Yemen as a training environment for new recruits.  Once we are in a position to interview (we don't use the word interrogate anymore)some of the IS soldiers who surrender in Syria after a battle, it will be fascinating to determine just how many of them had previous training assignments in Yemen.  Any Islamic Extremist who has trained in Yemen is affiliated with Al-Qaeda, so the discovery of a Syrian battlefield of veterans of the AQ training module in Arabia Felix, will destroy the myth that Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State are distinctly separate terrorist groups.

I believe that the willingness and ability of Islamic Extremist groups to modernize and take full advantage of the advances made in telecommunications has been the most important part of their success.  That, and their use of Social Media has positively affected just about everything else they try to accomplish.  I am saving another important factor for last.  The Islamic Extremist cause was forced to adapt in a constantly evolving, modern world.  George Bush recognized this fact, and following September 11, 2001, Bush (and the Pentagon, I assume) realized that to force Al-Qaeda into a conventional war would require all of its resources and would eventually cripple the organization.  And the only way to force Al-Qaeda into a conventional war, was to take the conflict to a Muslim country.  Iraq was the perfect patsy, and even provided justification (let's face it, Saddam had been breaking U.N. prohibitions for years).  The United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and although things did not always go smoothly, (Abu Ghraib, the Sunni Insurgency) The U.S. military left Al-Qaeda crippled and down for the count.  Unfortunately, the American people voted for an Administration with an entirely different perspective regarding U.S. obligation and debt to the Muslim world.  The message that we would be basically inactive for some time (with the exception of finding Bin Laden, which was nothing more than a political tool) was telegraphed to the Gulf States, North Africa and beyond.  Al-Qaeda was allowed to lick its wounds and rebuild.  Bin Laden structured his organization so that his death would not impact the long-term plans of the group.  At this point, something pivotal occurred: Ayman al-Zawahiri became the go-to man.   Why is this so pivotal?  Because Zawahiri is arguably brilliant, and he spent his cave-time as number two, analyzing the history and strategy of the conflict, and creating a map to victory.  First and foremost, the Islamic Extremist cause had to create a conventional military element; and army, for lack of a better term.  AQIM had risen from the dust or far west Iraq and had inserted itself into the Syrian conflict, as "the Islamic State for Iraq and al-Sham", and later to "the Islamic State for the Levant"; but make no mistake - Baghdadi or no Baghdadi, this group looks west to the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, to a shrunken, tiny old Egyptian Doctor, for their guidance and leadership.

The decision to adopt a more formal approach to the struggle was not accomplished overnight.  In fact, it would be wise to assume that the Islamic Extremist cause continues to keep a smaller, discreet more typical capability on hand.  But after embracing the move to a more conventional model, the call went out for recruits.  A legitimate army must have soldiers, and Yemen was the location chosen to train the new recruits.  Why else would Al-Qaeda be devoting so many resources to that rocky, barren, stinky, qat-obsessed little dump?  The Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan and Iraq have provided training-under fire at one time or another.  The options have become a bit more limited as of late, with Yemen and Iraq getting special attention.  Surprisingly (at least to me), the bad guys have taken to the idea of conventional warfare quite quickly.  IS units in the field appear to be well-fed, supplied and rested.  Just last week, the IS launched a mini-offensive in Anbar Province that took the Iraqi military by complete surprise.  This offensive was coordinated with attacks south of Tikrit and Samarah.  The IS is attempting to cut off Iraqi military units and Shi'a militia in place around Baiji, and the manner in which the offensive was conducted (the IS waited until the weather was overcast, to limit the impact of coalition air attacks.  As you read this, the IS is causing some serious headaches in Tehran, which is really such a shame.  Just when the Iranians were preparing to storm our embassy a second time (on this occasion, in the guise of a treaty with the United States regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions), the IS has to start making noise in a province that borders the Islamic Republic Of Iran.  What is truly interesting is that all of the Islamic Extremist groups are beginning to show signs of military discipline and planning.  Certainly Boko Haram and AQIM function in this manner.  After the death of Bin Laden, I believe Zawahiri made the decision to start infusing techniques of modern warfare and the benefits of the twenty-first century into the Islamic Extremist gameplan.  Does the current environment support my theory?  Isolated attacks in Paris, London, Boston, Sydney and Copenhagen, Boko Haram acting with impunity in Central and West Africa, the IS running a bit wild in Iraq and pushing the envelope in Syria, and real concerns about a well-funded, organized (surprised?) IS beginning to stretch its legs in Libya.  I guess they were just waiting for the dust to clear.  Certainly the almost complete disappearance of the United States in the battle against Islamic Extremism has contributed to this high-water mark, but the changing of the guard must have had an impact as well.

Why Has ISIS/ISIL Been So Successful? (Part I)

Links A. Stratfor Assessment Of The Islamic State
          B. IS Tweets Itself To Success
          C. Obama Haunted By Yemen Comments

Please take the time to visit the links I have chosen.  Today in particular, they are very useful in support of our discussion. Is this really a discussion?  Well,.....I hope the post will stimulate conversation between you and your colleagues/family/friends, during which you present my perspective, which inserts me into your discussion.  Ideally, that's the way it works.  To be honest, I wouldn't want to be present during everyone's conversations, because people might yell at me and call me a fascist, which would hurt my feelings.

Next to the debate about Bruce/Belinda Jenner, I think the most pondered question has been, how did the Islamic State become so powerful?  Its a truly fascinating issue, one that involves many factors.  I will approach the subject with the confidence of a blogger with six months of my own attitude and opinion to back me up.  Our society has seen Terrorist Groups come and go.  Some have died away, others have ended up in jail.  A few have re-made themselves into peaceful political participants (the Sandinistas, Hamas, Hezbollah), but the peaceful part seems to be a flexible description, especially in the case of Hamas and Hezbollah.  Our friends with Hezbollah have managed to involve themselves in the conflict against the Islamic State (IS).  You see, Hezbollah has been snuggling with de facto Syrian President Bashir al-Assad for some time, and his father before him (gross!).  When Lebanon became a proxy state for Syria, Hezbollah flourished at the discretion of Assad in Damascus.  To their credit, Hezbollah has been on the front lines in Syria, bleeding by the bucketful for Assad.  The IS has given heartburn to just about everyone at one time or another, including the Peshmerga, Syrian Kurds, SAF, IAF, Shi'ite militias, and even the Iranians.  As we've pointed out previously (and was repeated word for word by numerous sites with no attribution......assholes), the Islamic State used to be Al-Qaeda in Iraq, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was still breathing.  So even the United States military has had its run-ins with the IS.  Another point that I continue to make repeatedly but has yet to catch on, is that all of these Sunni-based Islamic Terrorist Groups are connected.  Assigning different names and creating the impression that one group is actually ten or fifteen, increases fear and knee-jerk reactions from the west, which usually leads to mistakes of one kind or another.  The leader of Al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the Egyptian physician and former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, is the top dog as far as I'm concerned.  Since these groups operate with such apparent independence, I don't expect Zawahiri to act as the CEO or CIC of Islamic Extremism.  But they do work together.  Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) is aware what is happening is Syria, and Boko Haram is in regular communication with bad guys in Libya.  Al-Shabaab in Somalia and Kenya follows the company line, and has been doing yeoman's work as of late recruiting in the townships of Nairobi.  I see the military wing of Islamic Extremism to be one entity fighting on many fronts, and the sooner our leaders accept this reality, the better off we will be.

When International Terrorism fist made itself known to the west, it was through the hijacking of airplanes, the kidnapping of bankers and industrialists, and attacks in airports.  Even though I was still in short pants, I remember the 1972 Munich Terrorist Attacks.  But even the horror of Munich did not truly bring the reality home (unless, of course, you were Israeli).  September 11, 2001 made everyone feel vulnerable; this was a group of twenty determined young men, who must have been supported by a much wider network.  Terrorism could no longer be thought of as four men with Uzis and one woman with a floppy hat, sun glasses, and a pistol.  Terrorism has arrived into the twenty-first century with a resounding thud.  They network, the plan, they recon, and they practice.  Advances made in telecommunications have made everything easier.  If an operation planned for Lagos is short one explosives expert, relief is a phone call (or text, or email, or Skype) away.  The bad guys have turned Twitter into a huge propaganda loudspeaker, and the ability of just about every cell phone to take and share videotapes has been invaluable as well. The IS can announce that a hostage was just beheaded, and to expect a video within twenty minutes.  The press gets prepared, and the video shows up, right on schedule.  Islamic Extremists use social media to incite fear; they are thrilled with the idea that their disgusted videos are causing people to no longer feel safe in their homes.  Social Media has also been a boon with regards to recruitment.  Today I learned that supporters of the IS (or bored, sick people) have been tweeting the wives of soldiers, and you can imagine what is being said.  Social Media has made planning, organizing, supply, communication, recruitment, and the spread of propaganda so much easier than before.  This is a big part of their success.

Click here to continue on to Part II of this post 

Al-Qaeda In Africa

Link: A. Al-Qaeda Presence In African Countries


(Today's post is the first in a four-part series to begin 2015.  This series will discuss the current state of affairs for the various Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups around the globe.  The next in the series will be the Middle East, followed by Southeast Asia, and concluding with Europe/United States.  Somewhere along the line I will throw out a few comments about Al-Qaeda's presence in Latin America, especially as it relates to drug trafficking, smuggling and the tri-borders region.)

When I originally googled "Al-Qaeda" and "Africa", I expected to find a Wikipedia page full of useful dates and details.  Have a look at the link so you can share in my disappointment. No matter; Al-Qaeda is so active at present that a review of any international news provider should bear fruit.  Surprisingly, the link from Wikipedia doesn't even identify Mali as a location of interest, and Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) has been stirring the pot in the north of the country for a few years now.  But enough criticism of Wikipedia.  It is an invaluable resource that I would hate to lose, so follow my example and give them a few dollars whenever they start one of their fund-raising drives.  Back to Al-Qaeda and Africa.

Personally, the U.S. Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998 were the first time that I connected the terrorist group Al-Qaeda to the African continent.  I was aware of the organization, mainly because I was already employed for an Intelligence Agency, and I was working in a counter-terrorist branch at the time.  Having spent some time in Kenya and Tanzania, I was immediately useful, as street maps were spread out over desks and rolled-up, dusty maps were pulled out from behind cabinets.  Interestingly enough, I can't remember a time when the group Al-Qaeda was not synonymous with Osama bin-Laden.  Even then in the early years pre-9/11, everyone was already referring to the two as inseparable evils, and with good reason.  Bin-Laden carried his organization on his back, figuratively and literally.  He had spent some time in Afghanistan and trained in the Sudan and Yemen.  I can't be sure but I believe the planning for 9/11 was already in place when the embassy bombings occurred.  I believe another attack was intended, one involving multiple airliners that were to be hijacked out of Manila, and these three attacks (Kenya, NYC, Manila) were going to deliver a message to the West.  The third operation never got off the ground, thank goodness.

Since the 1980s, Al-Qaeda has been active in Africa.  When Somalia descended into post Siad-Barre hell, Al-Qaeda positioned itself to become an integral part of the conservative and extremist Islamic Courts Union, which was the de facto government in Moqdishu for a while.  Once the African Union and the Ethiopian Army removed the Courts from Somalia, they found a comfy exile in Eritrea.  I just don't understand the government of Eritrea, why they would want to announce to the world that they are friendly with Al-Qaeda.  Obviously this is just another case of, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and the Eritreans despise the Ethiopians with a venom that is hard to match.  Presently, with Puntland trying to sort itself out, and the Somali government in Moqdishu just trying to get the power back on, the bad guys, who have morphed from the "Islamic Courts Union", to "Al-Shabaab", are doing what they can to cause trouble in Kenya.  Don't be fooled; Al-Shabaab is an unpolished, illiterate, ill-trained version of Al-Qaeda, and they understand the importance of establishing a presence in Kenya.  The unemployment rate in Kenya is so high, I don't think the Kenyan government bothers to log it anymore.  Most young men, at an age when they are supposed to be the most physically productive, are playing soccer in the townships and smoking hash behind the shabeen. The first time I ever saw someone wearing an Osama bin-Laden t-shirt was in Kibera, the huge township that feeds and feeds off of Nairobi.  They are hungry in Mombasa as well, and in Nakuru and Kisumu.  Al-Qaeda has always intended on taking advantage of the squalor and hopelessness of the third world, to recruit and spread its anti-west, anti-glutton message.  But for some reason they have never really succeeded in appealing to the masses.  But Africa, and Kenya in particular, give them an ideal opportunity.  For Al-Qaeda, Somalia is over.  The question is, to relocate the operatives and resources to Sudan and Yemen (and Eritrea), or to make a real push in Kenya. 

In west Africa, Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) has caused quite a bit of heartburn.  A few years back in Mali, the Tuaregs attempted a bit of a revolution.  These usually non-confrontational, private nomads were having their traditional way of life negatively impacted by the activities of various French oil and mineral exploratory operations.  They complained to the government in Bamako, but the Euro talks, and the Camel walks, so to speak.  So the Tuaregs started a bit of a rebellion.  Almost from the start it was hijacked by AQIM, and before long, the Tuaregs had been basically muscled out of the conflict altogether.  AQIM proved too much for the Malian Army, so Mother France was called, and to make a boring story short, the French military sorted out AQIM in short-order.  In the summer of 2014, when all of west Africa was focused on the anti-Ebola campaign, AQIM popped up again, and this time began attacking targets in Niger.  Fortunately the French military always seems to be available, and it is yet to be determined if AQIM will acquit itself in a more positive way this time around.  Unfortunately, the French can only be in so many places at one time, and AQIM has a habit of attacking Malian military targets, separate from a French military presence.

Boko Haram has been described as "Al-Qaeda in Nigeria", which is not far from the truth.  Originally, Boko Haram was created as a method of educating and providing security for Muslim communities in northern Nigeria.  A change in leadership was instrumental in Boko Haram's evolution into an Islamic extremist group, and they have quickly silenced the Islamic opposition (what there was of it).  I have never considered Al-Qaeda to be overly religiously motivated, but they won't pass an opportunity to hijack a conservative Islamic movement, as they have demonstrated many times.  In reality, I don't think Al-Qaeda has any input into the actions of Boko Haram.  They make a bunch of noise and get a good deal of press, but until Boko Haram takes control of the Nigerian Oil Industry and starts pumping that oil to fill Al-Qaeda's coffers, I don't see the possibility of an Al-Qaeda initiative here (unless the U.S. and Nigerian security is lax and the embassy becomes a target of opportunity).

Africa can be a dangerous place for Americans.  Because of the ease in which a person can cross one border after another, the U.S. Diplomatic Security folks have to always be on their game.  Africa is useful to Al-Qaeda for three reasons: targets of opportunity, training, and recruitment.  We know about the first two, but just how much success have the bad guys had at recruiting operatives in Africa?  Up to now, I think it has been negligible.  But that could change this year.  Keep your eye on Kenya.      

Kenya And Its Al-Shabab Problem

Link: Al-Shabaab Killing Kenyan Civilians

We don't hear much in the news about Somalia anymore.  It only makes sense that when U.S. soldiers were involved in Somalia that the American media would be much more focused on the Horn of Africa.  I have no specifics, but I'm sure our military and clandestine folks occasionally have business in Somalia.  It very difficult to gauge the level of progress in attempts to bring peace and stability to the Somali people.  In early October 2014, soldiers of the internationally recognized government retook Barawe, which had been an important base of operations for Al-Shabaab.  With Moqdishu under total government control, and the African Union (AU) continuing its anti-Al-Shabaab campaign in Somalia, I started to consider the possibility of a war-free east Africa.  The events of the last week, which are highlighted in the link, brought me back to reality quickly.

On a personal level, I have greater interest in Kenya than I do Somalia.  I have lived in Kenya and have numerous Kenyan friends.  I'm certainly not disinterested in Somalia; its just never been on my list of "places to visit before I flatline".  But as circumstances would have it, a porous border and "easy targets of opportunity" have obliged me to refresh myself on the current state of affairs in Somalia.  Somali troubles have been easily exported into Kenya, and the Kenyan national defense options appear to be limited.  Al-Shabaab (AS) is crossing the Kenya/Somali border at will and conducting acts of violence against Kenyan civilians.  Its true that the Kenyan military is participating in the African Union initiatives in Kenya, and AS is using this as an excuse to execute innocent Kenyans.  The ability of AS to conduct operations in all corners of Kenya is quite surprising and alarming (please see map in link).  When AS was part of the Islamic conservative movement that attempted to govern Moqdishu at one time, they occasionally appeared to be interested in reform.  Any sense of objectivity and progressive thinking has since disappeared, as AS has embraced the habit of executing non-Muslims out-of-hand.  Over the past few decades, the Kenyan people have busied themselves with working towards a democratic and corruption-free electoral process.  Kenyans have also been very focused on developing an economy that creates jobs and opportunity for all.  The specter of terrorism reared its ugly head in 1998 with the Al-Qaeda attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, but until the last five years or so, Kenyans had no real concern that a shopping mall would get shot up, or that a taxi would be hikacked and all its occupants murdered.  Al-Shabaab has brought that fear home to roost in Kenya, with attacks and fatalities in Mombasa, Nairobi, Wajir, Hindi, and Diani.

Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, who has been much more effective and detail-oriented than I expected, has promised that AS attacks in Kenya will only encourage the Kenyan military to be more determined with their activities in Somalia.  Kenyatta seems to be sincerely pissed off regarding the apparent ease with which AS is slipping across the border.  I'm not so surprised with AS' ability to cross the border at will.  But I am perplexed at the complexity of the AS network in Kenya.  How else would they be able to support attacks in Diani (in the southeast), Wajir up north in the rocky desert, and also in Eastleigh, just outside of Nairobi?  In an otherwise accurate and valuable article, one point in the link causes a bit of heartburn.  I don't think its fair to label the Kenyan security forces as "ill-equipped".  Its fair to question the training and ability of the soldier assigned to whatever equipment, but I believe that the Kenyan military and security forces have recently upgraded some of its more important equipment.  As is apparent to anyone who watches the international news or reads the newspaper, Kenya is a very close ally of the United States.  It is also the second home (at least by heritage) of President Barrack Obama.  No one can convince me that our military, et al, would allow the Kenyans to take on experienced, sociopathic terrorists with outdated or broken equipment.  Its possible that I'm wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it.

So Kenya has a real problem.  Even as AS gets pushed to the edge in Somalia, it appears to be very mobile and effective in Kenya.  Might AS move its operations from Somalia to Kenya?  No doubt there are many jobless, hungry young people in the townships outside of Nairobi and Mombasa who are waiting for a message of deliverance.  In order to be effective in that type of outreach operation, terrorist groups must have access to cash.  Part of the seduction of the young population is the sharing of wealth.  In this instance, AS will probably be limited to using the "change for the better" argument by itself, but it is possible that AS has stepped up its activities in Kenya as a prelude to relocation.  To resolve this problem, Kenyatta has the option of basically putting the fight into the hands of the Americans.  I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time that an African leader made that kind of decision.  Alongside asking for planning and strategy support, Kenyatta must also ask for assistance with resources.  If he effectively demonstrates that he is one hundred percent dedicated to the complete destruction of AS, he will find to better ally than the United States of America.   

Somalian-based Terrorist Group Al-Shabaab Threat to U.S. Interests in Uganda

Link: Uganda Foils Imminent Al-Shabaab terror Plot


To understand the particular brand of compost that makes up the Somalian terrorist group Al-Shabaab (The Younger), Mookie Baby will have to take a quick trip through history.  Somalia, which occupies the eastern Horn of Africa, was an Italian colony until the end of World War II.  At one time it was home to a sizable Italian population, and would have made a strategic port for the Italian Navy. (Why does the new Italian Navy have glass bottom boats?  So they can look at the old Italian Navy.)  After the war it was administered as a protectorate by the Brits until Independence in 1960.  In 1991 Somalia descended into the nastiest kind of civil war.  In the ten years leading up the civil war, the economy had broken down, the capital Moqdishu was often without power, and the government had become more unpopular and repressive.  When the government finally fell, Somalia collapsed into many separate areas of authority.  A group of Islamic Courts was created to help the people work through conflicts (using Sharia Law, of course).  These Courts eventually started providing aid and healthcare and adopted the name "Islamic Courts Union" (ICU).  The ICU swallowed up weaker authorities and expanded quickly. 

In 1999 the Courts and various affiliated groups merged to create a militia, the ICUP.  At its greatest strength, ICU was in control of Moqdishu and all of south Somalia.  Interestingly enough, a government run by judges is called a "Krytocracy" (thank you, Wikipedia).  From 1999 to 2006, the ICU fought against a variety of different home-grown groups including a number of "Transitional Governments" supported by the Arab League and African Union.  In 2006, with the ICU apparently in control of all of Moqdishu and large parts of Somalia, Ethiopia invaded.  The Ethiopians had no trouble defeating the various militias aligned with the ICU.  A Transitional Federal Government (TFG), supported by Ethiopia, the African Union, and apparently the UN, forced the remaining elements of ICU into the rural areas (although certain sectors of Moqdishu remained in Al-Shabaab control until 2011).  The ICU splintered into a number of groups, including Al-Shabaab, which describes itself as carrying out a jihad against the enemies of Islam, the TRG, and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM).  Al-Shabaab is known to butcher herds of elephants to raise money from their Ivory, and also collects ransoms from kidnappings.  Internationally, Eritrea (Eritrea's Intelligence Service in particular), has been accused of providing support to Al-Shabaab (Eritrea hates Ethiopia, Ethiopia is at war with Al-Shabaab, therefore Eritrea supports Al-Shabaab; just another verse in the famous tune "the enemy of my enemy is my friend").

After 2006, Al-Shabaab began to resemble a smaller, more tactile terrorist group.  Attacks were conducted against targets in Kenya, especially areas frequented by western tourists.  Starting in 2011, Al-Shabaab began conducting small scale attacks against defenseless targets in Nairobi and also in areas of northeast Kenya.  Hundreds of people were killed.  In December 2013, Al-Shabaab attacked an upscale shopping market in Nairobi (frequented by ex-pats, diplomats, and wealthy Kenyans) and thirty-nine people were killed.  In September 2014, a Drone strike killed Al-Shabaab leader Moktar Ali Zubayr.  Operations by Kenyan police and Special Forces, with assistance from western allies, conducted many successful raids against Al-Shabaab in 2013 and 2014.  It was believed by many that the death of Zubayr spelled the beginning of the end for Al-Shabaab.  It might have been wishful thinking, as the link provided above details Ugandan authorities working against a suspected Al-Shabaab operation in Entebbe, Uganda.  In 2012 Al-Shabaab announced a merger with a Somali-based Al-Qaeda group.  Intelligence has also confirmed that Al-Shabaab is in contact with Al-Qaeda In the Maghreb (AQIM) and Nigerian Islamic fundamentalist group Boko Haram (see previous post on Boko Haram).

It would be unwise to consider Al-Shabaab irrelevant.  In many instances, terrorist groups become more of a threat as they become smaller.  They are able to travel easier and don't require much in the way of resources (although everyone needs an AK-47, a beheading knife, and a bomb or two).  I can imagine the poor folks at CTC in Langley trying to make sense of all these various groups.  One of the reasons they splinter in this manner is to make it difficult for the good guys to stay on top of their game.  It would be much easier to follow and destroy three large terrorist networks, as opposed to the difficulty (and resources needed) to combat over one hundred different groups.  The key is not to get bogged down in the different names and titles.  These people all have the same basic goal, creating chaos and fear through murder and destruction.  They are best confronted as one monster: International Terrorism.