Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of our Republic.

I can't help but be amazed every time I hear a Clinton supporter brag about HRC having been Secretary of State for the Obama Administration from 2009 to 2013.  No doubt, Hillary was awarded the position because of her efforts to campaign and raise money for Obama following his trouncing of her in the 2008 Democratic Primary.  The Democrats formulated this plan for Hillary to "muscle-up" her foreign policy gravitas as Secretary of State, in order to be a much more attractive candidate for the Presidency in 2016.  It hasn't turned out exactly as planned.  Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State our nation has witnessed.  I welcome the opportunity to debate this point with anyone, mostly because the evidence for my claim is knee-deep.  But the Democrats continue to talk about Hillary's great tenure at the State Department, as if by repeating the lie, it will somehow become the truth.  Lets start from the beginning.

Hillary Clinton announced her intention to rebuild our relationship with Russia.  During her initial meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, she brought along a prop: a board with a red button attached.  This pantomime was intended to illustrate " a re-setting" in the relationship.  Not long afterwards, Hillary spearheaded negotiations on the New Start Treaty (NST).  The NST had as its goal a reduction in nuclear arms for both the United States and Russia.  Under the terms of the treaty, the number of nuclear missile launchers was to be reduced by half, and a new inspection and verification regime was to be established.  In reality, the treaty resulted in a significant reduction in America's nuclear weapon capacity, but didn't impact Russia's.  Russia continues to maintain a 10-to-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, which for some reason, are not counted in the treaty!  Its the type of agreement that the Obama Administration just can't stay away from- the United States gives up the store in exchange for NOTHING.  This treaty has HRC's fingerprints all over it.  For some time she spoke of the signing of the treaty as "a moment of personal pride".  Interestingly, we never hear about the treaty anymore.  I don't think it was mentioned at all in the Democratic National Convention.  I'm very disappointed that the Trump campaign hasn't brought it up, but with so much already to pick at, I guess I understand.

Let's get the Foundation out of the way.  Hillary Clinton assured the Obama Administration that there would be no crossover between her husband former President Bill Clinton's billion-dollar Foundation, and the United States State Department.  Obama could have taken that assurance and flushed it down the toilet.  Members of HRC's personal staff continued to do work for the Foundation while collecting a State Department paycheck (Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills), and fifty-five percent of persons who obtained a personal interview with Secretary Clinton, turned around and donated to the Foundation.  Evidence already exists that Hillary went to bat for some of these donors.  Its called "Influence Peddling" and its supposed to be against the law.  By the way, is anyone actually aware of something tangible that has been accomplished by this Foundation, aside from providing lucrative jobs to members of the extended Clinton network?

At about the same time that President Obama was speaking in Cairo and apologizing for U.S. behavior in the Middle East, a serious storm was brewing.  Our intelligence agencies were reporting on alarming developments in some of the normally stable Arab countries like Tunisia and Egypt.  Young people were joining political groups and protesting in the streets, demanding change.  As this movement grew, it became known as the Arab Spring.  This event took form and exploded while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.  The government of Tunisia, a key ally in the war on Terror, was removed from office as we watched on CNN and Fox News.  Egypt was next, as huge crowds of people from all segments of the population, demanded a more equitable system under which to live.  It was an ideal opportunity for the United States to position itself as a supporter of change, which would have accomplished a lot more than Obama's apology tour.  Instead, our diplomats were constantly caught wrong-footed.  Instead of being proactionary, our State Department was forced to be reactionary.  The Administration pointed out that it was caught off-guard; why, when the intelligence was pouring in that these events were destined to occur?

In 2010, with the full support of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Obama Administration precipitously evacuated American troops from Iraq.  The Department of Defense had an agreement in place with the Iraqi government to train the Iraqi Armed Forces.  This agreement meant nothing to the Oval Office.  These events were observed by ISIS, which had positioned itself in Syria and reconstituted its ability to conduct conventional warfare.  As soon as our troops started departing, ISIS invaded.  The untrained Iraqi Army was no match on the battlefield to the ISIS fighters, who cut their teeth in the Syrian Civil War.  Soon, all of the gains that had been earned with the lives of so many young U.S. men and women, disappeared.  Our influence in this strategic part of the world also waned, as the Iranians moved into the void, providing advisors and volunteers to fight alongside the Iraqi Army.  Why was it necessary to pull out of Iraq so quickly in 2010, when it wasn't in 2009?  Because of politics, folks.  The Obama Administration needed to shore up its base before mid-term elections, and the base was pissed off because Obama had yet to fulfill his campaign promise to pull troops out of Iraq.  Secretary of State Clinton should have had the foresight to advice Obama to act a bit more patiently, but she didn't.  ISIS now controls almost one-third of Iraq.

What occured in Benghazi was a tragedy.  The State Department, trying to make up for lost time, was putting its diplomats in dangerous locations in order to stay on top of an evolving environment.  Ambassador Christopher Stephens, who was our diplomatic representative to whatever Libyan government was in power from week-to-week, did not have adequate security, and once everything went to hell, the greatest military in the world was unable to rescue its people or provide reinforcements.  There appears to have been some concern on behalf of the State Department regarding the necessity to not offend the Libyans.  Is it true that the Obama Administration waited for "permission" to rescue its people?  We will probably never know the truth regarding the events of that night, but one fact is certain: four brave Americans died.  Hillary Clinton repeatedly publicly accepted responsibility for what occured, then spent the next few months explaining how everything was someone else's fault.  We would have been satisfied with something like this: "Four brave Americans died last night in a terrorist attack on a State Department facility in Benghazi, Libya.  I accept full responsibility for the tragic loss of these young men, and I ask you, as we mourn with and support the families of those who were lost, to work with us to make sure something like this never happens again".  Sadly, instead it was all about finger-pointing about anti-Muslim video tapes and politics, politics, politics.

Aside from the whoppers that I've just detailed, I have yet to hear the Clinton camp explain to us just what she did accomplish as Secretary of State?  Get back to me of you come up with something.

ISIS and its Global Strategy

Since The start of the new year, the world seems to be paying less attention to ISIS.  So many of us were sitting on pins and needles during the various New Year's celebrations in New York, Paris, London, and other great cities around the globe, hoping not to hear any breaking news stories about terrorist attacks.  We made it through the new year basically unscathed, and I think that with a huge sigh of relief, many of us went back to "business as usual" before the October 2015 Paris attacks and the December 2015 shootings in San Bernardino.  The fact that the mainstream press in the United States seems intent on pushing the narrative that ISIS is being beaten on the battlefield, so its OK to do non-stop new stories about Donald Trump and the circus that has become the Republican nomination process (the Republicans are the circus, even though the Democrats are going to nominate a potential felon in Hillary Clinton or an outright lunatic in Bernie Sanders).  Why is the press so intent on downplaying the threat by ISIS?  Because Barack Obama told us that the threat was being exaggerated.  The press always responds in a defensive posture to everything Barack Obama does.  No doubt if he farted at a State Funeral, the press would blame the White House Chef.  So Obama says that we aren't headed to World War III, and that ISIS is not a threat to the United States.  I assume that the family members of U.S. citizens killed in San Bernardino, California, and Chattanooga, Tennessee, by persons claiming allegiance to ISIS would disagree; I know I do.  ISIS has a series of strategies, each one going into effect after the previous has been accomplished (or altered by events).  ISIS has reviewed the current state of the battlefield, which has it in possession of one-third of Iraq and one-half of Syria, and decided that the time is ripe to exploit its surprisingly successful international outreach efforts.  The monsters making the decisions at the top of this organization are no dummies, nor will they put their equities at risk for ideology's sake (are you listening, President Obama?)  We are entering a new phase in the battle with ISIS, and it includes the introduction of a new strategy.

ISIS believes that the key to successfully expand its brand of worldwide-revolution is to dedicate resources to its budding operations in nations with strong Islamic traditions.  This includes all the nations of North Africa, and it includes Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia.  Most of these nations are in no military position to fight off a serious ISIS invasion, at least not without assistance in the form of "troops on the ground".  ISIS rakes in an incredible amount of money on a daily basis.  Why the Obama Administration has not been able to dent this flow of financial assistance is a mystery to me, because so many pundits in the media seem to know the various sources of this support.  Regardless, ISIS is intent on spreading the conflict outside of the borders of Syria and Iraq.  It has been testing its ability to project itself with operations in Libya, West Africa, and Indonesia, and results have been encouraging.  ISIS knows that any attention drawn to Southeast Asia or North Africa, will draw the enemy away from the battlefields of Iraq and Syria.  So by increasing recruitment and eventually, attacks in Tunisia, Libya, and Pakistan, ISIS will be not only spreading the Caliphate revolution, but also forcing the United States and its lock-step European partners to devote resources and attention to other allies and battlefields.  I'm still not sure where Russia fits into the picture; with all the hubbub and hardware that Putin brought to his Syria adventure, I expected much more in the way of battlefield victories by now.  Assad's internal opposition will eventually disappear completely under the weight of daily Russian attacks, and Putin will be obliged to either leave Syria or attack ISIS.

Obama must be aware that ISIS is expanding all over the globe, and yet he still makes public claims diminishing the threat that ISIS actually poses.  If they are so "insignificant", Mr. President, then why haven't we been able to defeat them?  True, we haven't really tried.  What a joke this Administration's entire Syria policy has been.  We still don't know what became of the millions of taxpayer dollars and the "Free Syrian Army" we were training in Jordan to take the place of U.S. infantry.  Obama still has one more year in office; no doubt it will be dedicated to domestic politics.  We all know that an Executive Order of some sort will be in place before the November election.  The uproar this will cause will certainly distract us all from the activities of ISIS in North Africa and Southeast Asia, but what a mess it will leave for his predecessor.

Russia attempts to block IMF lending to Ukraine as Russian separatists violate ceasefire.

Link: Russia attempts to disrupt Ukrainian IMF loan.

It took two months for Russian-backed separatists to violate the latest ceasefire in eastern Ukraine.  The only surprise was that the ceasefire lasted as long as it did, but we can probably blame the delay on Russia's current pre-occupation in Syria.  The government of Ukraine and the various Russian-backed separatist groups in the east have agreed to two previous ceasefires, at least by my count.  In every instance, the apparently inevitable violation was committed by the separatists, which begs the obvious question: why does Kiev keep making agreements with these jerks?  Simply put, Ukraine has no choice.  President Petro Poroshenko has yet to implement any personal strategy for resolving this conflict.  Every decision from Ukraine's corner has been made by Kiev's European allies.  Ukraine is in no position to ignore the "advice" put forward by the U.S., French and German diplomats, and we all know that these three would just as soon see Ukraine completely overrun with Russians before agreeing to any type of aggressive military action.  Not that the Ukrainian Army is in a position to conduct a serious offensive in the southeast.  Repeated requests for military aid, to the U.S. in particular, have been denied, as the U.S. strives to encourage a more "peaceful" approach the to crisis.  Russia has taken full advantage of the prostrate policy currently put forth by the Europeans and the Obama Administration to occupy strategic villages and all-but off the vital port city of Mariupol from the rest of Ukraine.  During the last three years, Russia and her surrogates in eastern Ukraine have been able to dictate the time and pace of negotiations and military action to suit Russia's international strategy.  Expect the Ukrainian separatists to step-up military action in an attempt to occupy as much territory as possible before the election of a new, less-accommodating administration following the November 2016 presidential elections in the United States.

It appears that Russia's very recent diplomatic effort to interfere with Ukraine's relationship with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has failed.  Russia has been known for this type of occasional diplomatic overreach, and who  can blame Moscow for trying?  Internationally, Russia continues to court various U.S. allies.  Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to enhanced military ties with the Emir of Kuwait, and Putin's envoy to Afghanistan has announced preparations to sell Hind Attack Helicopters and small arms to Kabul.  Russia has also reached out to Tunisia and Algeria, expressing the desire for increased cooperation in the fight against international terror.  The U.S. Department of State will respond to these overtures with some belated offer of aid or a concession on a trade treaty,  but the real problem for the United States has nothing to do with a Russian agreement with Kuwait or Helicopter sales to Afghanistan.  The fact is, Russia is running diplomatic circles around the U.S., and is showing no hesitation to flirt with long-time U.S. partners.  In the past, the United States would have reacted swiftly to Russian diplomatic advances to an ally by taking the same action.  The Bush or Reagan presidencies might have responded by agreeing to sell weapons to Ukraine, or by increasing the presence of U.S. troops in eastern Europe.  At present, the U.S. has no response to these Russian overtures.  Russia continues to express an interest in forming a security alliance of sorts vis-à-vis Syria, to include the U.S. and its allies.  Washington DC has responded in a positive way to this potential agreement, but many suspect it is nothing more than a Russian distraction.   

Link: ISIS stakes its claim to Libya.

Libya provides the most glaring example of the complete non-existence of proactive thinking on the part of the Obama Administration.  As Qaddafi was close to recapturing Benghazi, David Cameron and allies, including Barack Obama, elected to use Tomahawk missiles to prevent the city from falling back under regime control.  What was so wrong with regime control, anyway?  Hadn't Qaddafi displayed an increasing willingness to open up his country and his economic system to change?  Wasn't Libya a reasonably wealthy Arab country, where Libyans could still enjoy some modicum of quality of life?  Well, we intervened, Qaddafi was intercepted moving from one location to another and executed, and we did.....nothing.  Libya didn't descend into hell overnight.  The people celebrated for a week or so, and various temporary governments were set up, usually compromised of academics and human rights activists.  As of August, 2015, Libya has become a battlefield between so many different militias and jihadist factions that its not worth your while trying to separate them all.  Towns change occupiers by the day, as two rival governments sit in separate former capital cities, each claiming administrative and diplomatic authority over what was once called the Islamic Republic of Libya.  Why has the West been so reticent to get involved, especially after basically being the harbinger of Qaddafi's end?  Obviously the United States maintained some modest presence in Benghazi, otherwise, how would a random gang of Islamic Extremists find a U.S. Ambassador and four Department of Defense employees to torture and murder?  The real tragedy, is that the Administration was aware of the unstable nature of the situation in Benghazi, yet no exfil plan existed in emergency circumstances.  To former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not having an exfil plan is a small issue; it only cost the life of five Americans.  What should be a glaring gap in U.S. foreign policy is the complete lack of a coherent strategy to support democratic growth in Libya.  We are supposed to support the good guys, remember?  The ones who support freedom of religion, speech, and the establishment of a fair and all-inclusive Constitution?  I see nothing happening in Libya that is not instigated by militias and jihadists.  I don't see the French or the British anywhere, and I certainly don't see the United States.  Barack Obama was in Africa last week, but he skipped over Libya and landed in Kenya.  I hope he was able to visit some of the relatives he has living in the slums of Kibera.

Last week, a militia loyal to Al-Qaeda actually retook the town of Derna from ISIS, and according to the New Yorker (see link), executed the ISIS commander.  What a choice for a dinner guest....ISIS or Al-Qaeda.  Even with the temporary setback at Derna, ISIS has shown real strength in Libya, occupying Qaddafi's home town of Sirte and threatening Misrata.  More importantly to western petroleum interests, ISIS is also making inroads in Libya's "Oil Crescent"; maybe ISIS will start exporting oil from Libya first, as opposed to Baiji in Iraq, what has been the popular concern.  As the well-written and detail-heavy link explains, Libya has not been a functioning state since the death of Qaddafi, and today, any number of militias and extremist groups are having at each other, increasing the suffering of the average Libyan beyond belief.  Do we have a plan to provide aid to the needy people of Libya?  Absolutely not, because the country is thick with heavily armed teenagers with itchy trigger fingers.  Nothing useful can be accomplished without force.  In the past, the West has shown much more flexibility in these situations, deploying coalition forces to bring aid to the needy.  But we have returned to the thought process that saving Libyan lives is not worth putting at risk any American or European soldiers.  But the movers and shakers in DC, Paris, London and Den Hague may have to reconsider their position, as the complete breakdown in authority has allowed Libya to become the easiest transit route for African immigrants to reach Europe.  Even though ISIS kills any African Christian it gets its hands on, they will continue to come, in even greater numbers.  By this time next year, Italy will be facing a humanitarian crisis.  We recognize this, but is anyone doing anything?

Egypt and Tunisia are well-aware of the reach of ISIS, and both North African countries have take concrete steps to militarize their borders with Libya.  The Egyptians and Tunisians will be successful to a degree in keeping their beaches and tourist hotels safe, but they will also be enclosing all the African refugees and innocent Libyans.  May God protect the Christians, homosexuals, open-minded students, pregnant and single women, and human rights activists of Libya, who will be soon become the hunted.  How much responsibility does the West deserve for this development?  Not much, except for those Tomahawk missiles, which for all practical purposes, removed one stable government in favor of a new political matrix, which has yet to fully show itself. 

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

Links: A. The Islamic State in Africa
           B. So this is the latest version of the Caliphate.....

We've already addressed the presence of the Islamic State (IS) terrorist group in Africa in a number of posts. FYI, I'm one of those bloggers who analyzes statistics, and I'm well-aware, that for my core audience, anything having to do with the continent of Africa is about as welcome as a fart in a spacesuit.  Its vital to me that my blog remain relevant; unfortunately, that requires continued efforts to increase my audience, but it also obligates me to discuss all theaters of conflict.  No doubt this includes both North and Sub-Saharan Africa.  North Africa is rather simple to break down, and I usually include it with the Middle East anyway.

Egypt.  This particular piece of Mediterranean-bordered geography is important because Egypt shares a border with Israel, and has a huge, well-equipped and well-trained army.  And in spite of the best efforts of the current government, Egyptian society is inundated with extremists.  The Muslim Brotherhood, which commands a shockingly impressive number of supporters, is lurking around every corner.  Egypt also borders Libya.

Lybia.  When Libya started to crack at the edges, Muammar Gaddafi looked to the West, particularly to the United States, for assistance in creating some level of order.  Gaddafi had recently taken the first step and reached out to the West and the United States.  But the Department of State under Hillary Clinton never seemed prepared for any contingency.  When she accepted the position of Secretary of State, the Department itself was meant to be a vehicle for her star-studded arrival at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in 2016.  A review of foreign affairs during the Clinton tenure at Foggy Bottom makes it clear that the only events, issues or summits that were worth our attention were the ones that allowed Hillary to shine.  It's as if the entire State Department morphed into her make-up closet.  As for developments in the real world, our entire diplomatic posture was reactive.  Again, except for the New Start Treaty, and a handful of other expertly-crafted engagements, the State Department just waited for things to happen, and then looked to the White House for direction.  Gaddafi was left out in the cold, and the opportunity to create something positive for the Libyan people, from the people of the United States, never materialized.  We sat back and watched Gaddafi get butchered, and a flock of nasty extremists move in to fight over what's left of Libya.  The night of the Benghazi incident, the State Department claims that efforts were made to contact the Libyan government.  WHICH ONE?

Tunisia.  Tunisia is very important.  The people of Tunisia fought and sacrificed to keep their nation from falling into the talons of extremists.  The removal of the ruling family, which had become so corrupt that certain members of the ruling family actually considered the Gross National Product (GNP) of Tunisia to be their own personal ATM account, was absolutely essential.  Since independence from France, the governments of Tunisia have always been at least a little corrupt, but they also exhibited a love of country that allowed for most of the GNP to be used for the good of the state.  Because Tunisia had good roads, nice resorts, and well-maintained historic sites, revenue from tourism continued to support economic growth and job creation. But recently, things had begun to get a bit out of hand.  Tunisia deserves an honest, Democratic government, and their relatively low population removes a major stress faced by many of Tunisia's neighbors.  But one threat that won't go away without a fight, is the presence of Islamic extremists.  Last week they shot up the Bardo Museum in Tunis and killed a bunch of European tourists.  The government of Tunisia, fresh off free and fair elections, needs the support of the United States and the international community now more than ever.

Morocco & Algeria.  At present, both Morocco and Algeria enjoy the security of effective, no-nonsense security forces.  The military in both countries, which traditionally seconds the security forces, are both disciplined, well-equipped, well-trained, and loyal to the government.  Hell, for all practical purposes, the military IS the government in Algeria.  But don't quote me, please.  I'm a huge fan of King Mohammed VI of Morocco.  Like his father, he has a keen sense of politics in the Islamic world, and manages to avoid really pissing off anyone.  Mohammed VI is as progressive as it gets for a Muslim regent, and he considers his inherited position to be a full-time job which he takes with the utmost seriousness. Algeria's economy can rely on oil for the foreseeable future, but Morocco imports $38.7 billion worth or goods every year, and exports only $16.8 billion.  Thank goodness for the relatively low population growth rate and high revenues from tourism.  But the pseudo-fascist government in Algiers and the monarchy in Rabat must look at the same map I have provided (link B).  Both Morocco and Algeria are part of the Caliphate, baby.  Realistically, the armies of either Morocco or Algeria could defeat the IS in a conventional war.  But the trick is, the IS won't limit itself to a conventional war.  The IS will engage in every type of warfare at its disposal.  The tourists will stop coming to the beaches of Morocco after a few well-placed incendiary devices and blown people to pieces.  And the Algerian government will lose its cash cow if the IS can successfully capture or blow up a refinery here and there.  And if this conflict grows to the point of endangering Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, then the IS will have grown into a military force to be feared.

North Africa is very important to the conflict that currently is being waged in Iraq and Syria. The IS is in Egypt, it is in Libya, and it is in Tunisia.  I guarantee you that operatives are in place in Algeria and Morocco, recruiting, reminding poor, jobless young men about the lifestyles of the rich diplomats and generals in Algiers, and the sinful lifestyle of the monarch in Rabat (it has long been suspected, and in fact, discreetly accepted that King Mohammed VI lived a homosexual lifestyle in Europe before the death of his father.  He has since married and fathered and heir, which at this point is all anyone seems to care about).

Click here to continue to Part II of this post. 

Just How Much Separation Really Exists Between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State? (Part II)

Links: A. Conflict Between Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State.
           B. Are Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State at War?

I believe that Yemen and Iraq, and possibly locations in Pakistan and Africa, are currently being utilized as training locations for the IS foot soldier.  Intelligence services have already located a number of locations in Iraq which are suspected of being training centers of IS, but I believe that Yemen should be added to the list.  Those who disagree with me with point out that AQ already uses Yemen as a "breaking-in" location for its members.  No doubt AQ continues to conduct certain types of training in Yemen, alongside the IS.  In fact, I believe that they are one and the same.  We will know soon enough.  Eventually a few IS prisoners of war from the Iraq and Syria conflict will, during interrogation, mention travel to Yemen for training purposes.  If I'm correct, hopefully this will be the catalyst for the west to stop the damaging and wasteful routine of differentiating between these Sunni Muslim extremist groups.  I do not buy into the narrative that the leader of Khorasan is angry at al-Baghdadi, so the IS and Khorasan can't be friends, or that AQ is embarrassed by the number of young men who were decapitated by IS this week, so AQ can't be tainted by association.  Believe me, at the end of the day, that AK47 will be pointed at you and I and our children, it will not be pointed at another extremist.  I might be a bit more sympathetic to the argument that major rifts exist between various Sunni Muslim extremist groups, if I could be presented with hard evidence.  Social media captures aren't worth a bucket of shit, and neither are rumors that someone from one group shot up a few people from another group.

Islamic extremism is a giant of a beast, but at present, it has only one head, and that is Ayman al-Zawahiri.  Beneath that head, a number of phalanges are jockeying, positioning themselves to move into the void once the sixty-three year old Zawahiri finally floats off to meet his virgins (we might just find him as well).  For anyone who argues that these groups are not fighting together with a unique, singular goal in mind, I would ask them to please have look at the state of affairs in the world today.  I cannot recall a time in my life when terrorism was so rampant and so conventional.  Our military is handicapped by an Administration made up of political appointees and outright amateurs, and every move we make is reactive.  Not surprisingly, the same can be said for our efforts and strategy in the Ukraine.  When IS originally became aggressive in Iraq, our attempt at being an ally resulted in an entire Iraqi Army Corps deserting the field of battle, and people scurrying out of Baghdad as if it were Atlanta before Sherman came to town.  The Iranians step in, and IS appears to be in retreat.  The case is different in Syria, which is almost impossible to evaluate effectively.  The IS (and AQ) are active in Tunisia, Libya, and various other countries in Africa.  Its interesting to note that the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram recently declared its allegiance to the IS.  Well guess what folks; Boko Haram has already declared its loyalty to AQ.  Really, what is the difference?  Both groups are working in the same arena towards the same goal: the destruction of the west and Israel.  You can put all that Caliphate bullshit into the backseat.  No doubt Mr. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi envisions himself as the Caliph in such a manifestation, but Zawahiri sees it for what it is: just another story in a sea of distractions, that keep the infidels from unifying their aim at the singular target.