A military veteran has penned a brutally scathing message to the Islamic State militants in the Middle East who are slaughtering innocent men, women, and children.
The powerful response from Nick Powers, identified as a Marine Corps veteran by one website, comes after terrorists beheaded American photojournalist James Foley and posted the propaganda video online for the world to see.
The main, undeniable point of his message to ISIS terrorists is this: You really don’t want to pick a fight with America’s veterans.
It’s best to read his message in its entirety (Paragraph breaks added):
“As I sit here constantly hearing and watching you execute innocent men, women and children in the Middle East I chuckle. Why do I chuckle you may ask? Well let me explain something to you cowardice fools who think you are so tough behind all your propaganda videos. You are scaring a population that doesn’t know how to fight, you’re bullying the weak.
You say Islam is the religion of peace, but since when does terrorizing the innocent and beheading men, women and children constitute peace? WTF? But keep in mind, what did Saddam’s troops do when we came rolling into town? They surrendered, twice… So all your empty threats of coming to America and raising your flag over the White House amuse me more than any of you sick, sadistic bastards could ever imagine or comprehend.
In 2012 there was about 21.2 million veterans in the United States. Do you understand what that means? Let me break it down for you. That means there are literally millions of disgruntled, dysfunctional, pissed off veterans who have been dealing with years of abuse from their government stabbing them in the backs and having to watch their friends die because you Islamic extremist idiots can’t seem to act like normal human beings and stop terrorism and the violence.
It’s one thing to take over an Islamic state, but if my memory serves me correctly, I’m pretty sure we plowed through Fallujah in 4 days. Better yet, it took us about month to control your entire country. At this point, with 13+ years of war under our belts, how long do you think it would take us to do it all over again? I’ll let you draw your own conclusions on that one. Do you really think you stand a chance on US soil? Do you really think it would be smart to poke that bear? Remember, never bite the hand that feeds you.
Remember we are armed to the teeth in the US and I can promise you this… the Geneva Conventions will not apply to you. You attack us and there will be no mercy. We will bring the righteous hand of God down upon you and crush you. The ball is in your court now ISIS. We are more than ready to arrange your so called “meeting” with your 72 virgins and send you to your “prophet” Mohamed.”
U.S. Digging Into ISIS Funding Sources — “Anyone Funding Islamic State Extremists Will Hear From Us” — Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey Calls the Islamic State an “Immediate Threat”
.
Defense Secretary Chuch Hagel looks worried at a briefing on the Islamic State at the Pentagon on Thursday, August 21, 2014.
By Tom Hayes
NEW YORK (AP) — Officially, the FBI agents who swarmed Donald Ray Morgan at Kennedy Airport this month were there to arrest him on a mundane gun charge. But they whisked him away to their Manhattan office and grilled him for two hours on an entirely different topic: Islamic State extremists. Related Stories
Over and over, they asked Morgan, a 44-year-old American, converted Muslim and author of pro-extremist tweets, whether he had traveled to Syria to support the militant group. More important, they wanted know whether he could identify any fighters with U.S. ties who had left the region to return to America.
The two hours of questioning, recounted in a recent court hearing, offered a glimpse into U.S. law enforcement’s intensifying efforts to identify Islamic State sympathizers who could help export the group’s brand of violent jihad to the United States.
They come amid a new barrage of U.S. airstrikes against the Islamic State group that beheaded American journalist James Foley. The group called Foley’s killing revenge for previous airstrikes against militants in Iraq.
Federal and New Police York Department officials have estimated that at least 100 Americans could be fighting with the Sunni extremists who have seized territory in northern and western Iraq. In April, a Colorado woman and convert to Islam was arrested before she could travel to Syria to marry a fighter she had met online. More recently, a Texas man who was arrested trying to board a flight to Turkey pleaded guilty to terror charges alleging he wanted to join the group.
In a Pentagon news conference, Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey called the Islamic State an “immediate threat,” in part because of the number of Europeans and other foreigners who have traveled to the region to join the group.
“And those folks can go home at some point,” he said.
NYPD counterterrorism officials, long wary of another al-Qaida strike since the Sept. 11 attacks, have increasingly turned their attention to the Islamic State threat and efforts to recruit supporters through social media.
The group used hashtags like #BewareAmerica and #CalamityWillBefallUS to make threats against the United States, NYPD analyst Rebecca Weiner said at a recent briefing for private security officials.
“What we’ve seen in these hashtag campaigns is a lot of pictures of U.S. cities, including New York,” she said.
Weiner cited the arrest this year of a Frenchman — radicalized after spending a year in Syria — in a fatal shooting of three people at the Brussels Jewish Museum. An AK-47 found in his possession was wrapped in a flag with inscriptions from the Islamic State — giving more cause for concern about “about returning foreign fighters from Iraq and Syria,” she said.
Morgan, who once worked as a reserve police officer in North Carolina, spent eight months before his arrest in Lebanon, where his wife lives. He caught the attention of federal authorities in July with his Twitter rants under the name “Abu Omar al Amreeki.” In one, he pledged allegiance to Islamic State leader Abu Baker al-Baghdadi. Another asked Allah for martyrdom.
Others read, “To the brothers inside Syria and Iraq, be humble and grateful. Many of us are trying to come. Some are arrested and others are delayed,” and “Honestly, can we not kill one piece of crap Zionist?”
At the time, Morgan, of Landis, North Carolina, was wanted for selling an assault rifle and other weapons over the Internet — a business he continued when he was overseas with the help of his ex-wife. U.S. authorities used the gun warrant to intercept him at Kennedy Airport on Aug. 2 and question him about the Islamic State, FBI agent J.L. Pickford testified at a bail hearing Aug. 5.
Morgan admitted that he was the “Amreeki” on Twitter and that, as a devout Muslim, he was required to support any caliphate imposing strict Sharia law, the agent said. But he denied knowing the identity of any extremists who may be moving back and forth between war zone and the United States.
“I take it that was the $64 million question and he said he didn’t have a clue,” said federal defender Peter Kirchheimer.
Despite the agent’s admission that there was no direct evidence Morgan ever joined or provided material support to the Islamic State — designated by U.S. officials as a terrorist organization — prosecutors argued he had the potential to supply arms to the militants. A judge ordered him held without bail and sent him to North Carolina to face the gun charge.
Morgan’s lawyer in North Carolina, Richard McCoppin, said he won’t discuss any pending case. Reached by phone, Morgan’s ex-wife also declined to comment.
Jibril Hough, spokesman for the Islamic Center of Charlotte, said he didn’t recognize Morgan. Hough said he could see how someone can get frustrated with U.S. foreign policy, but not enough to turn on their beliefs.
“Anyone who would be willing to join a group like that is leaving the principles of their faith if they call themselves a Muslim,” he said.
___
Contributing to this report were Associated Press writers Skip Foreman in Charlotte and Jake Pearson in New York and news researcher Rhonda Shafner in New York.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Thursday at the daily briefing, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf declined to acknowledge ISIS’ declaration of war with the Untied States of America.
When a reporter said,”The reality is ISIS has announced it’s in a war against America,” adding, “Right or wrong that is what they are saying.”
Harf replied, “Well they can say whatever they like. But what I am making clear that is not what ISIS represents and they don’t represent any religion. They are at war with everyone they come in contact with.”
I just listened to a clip from Hagel - who said these guys are beyond anything we've known. "We need to prepare... for 'everything'..." whatever the hell that means.
Defense Secretary: ISIS Is An 'Imminent Threat To Every Interest We Have'
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel warned of the threat posed by militants from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL), calling the group an "imminent threat to every interest we have."
"They are as sophisticated and well-funded as any group that we have seen. They're beyond just a terrorist group," Hagel said at a joint press briefing with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.
Hagel added: "This is beyond anything we've seen. We must prepare for everything."
Hagel and Dempsey's briefing addressed the ongoing U.S. military campaign to aid Iraqi and Kurdish forces against ISIS militants in Iraq, as well as the group's brutal murder of American journalist James Foley and the failed attempt by U.S. forces to rescue him and other hostages.
The U.S. campaign in Iraq, Hagel said, remains limited in scope, and he said President Barack Obama had been clear about not allowing so-called "mission creep" with U.S. forces. But he said a long-term strategy was being pursued against ISIS because the threat had clearly been established. Both he and Dempsey said ISIS must also be defeated in Syria as well as Iraq.
Dempsey, the U.S.' top general, said it would be possible to "contain" ISIS, but not without going after the group in Syria.
"This is an organization that has an apocalyptic end-of-days strategic vision that will eventually have to be defeated," Dempsey said. "Can they be defeated without addressing that part of the organization that resides in Syria? The answer is no."
REUTERS/Stringer
A fighter of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL) holds an ISIS flag on a street in the city of Mosul on June 23.
When asked whether the U.S. would consider expanding the U.S. mission into Syria, Hagel said, "We continue to explore all options."
Both Hagel and Dempsey said U.S. airstrikes against ISIS had blunted the militants' advances. Dempsey said the U.S. had so far conducted nearly 90 airstrikes. But Hagel said he expected ISIS to regroup and launch a new offensive in Iraq soon.
The Obama administration has clearly stiffened its rhetoric against ISIS over the past few weeks, as the group has made gains in Iraq and after the brutal murder of Foley.
"The United States of America will continue to do what we must do to protect our people; we will be vigilant, and we will be relentless," Obama said in a statement from Martha's Vineyard on Wednesday.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Agenda 21 Radio Sources have confirmed to Agenda 21 Radio that one of the 5 Gitmo Taliban released by President Obama in the Sgt. Bowe Bergdhal prisoner exchange in June has now resurfaced in Texas. According to sources the report of one of the released Taliban came as a result of facial recognition security cameras used at a large shopping mall. The yet unidentified (by name)Taliban was seen in a shopping mall apparently ‘scoping’ the mall. The source stated the pourus border in Texas was cited for the apprent return of the Taliban ex-prisoner.
The Long War Journal has a profile on each of these terrorist and it reads like a list of reasons why none of these individuals should ever be allowed to walk free(in any society).
Mohammad Nabi Omari
Mohammad Nabi Omari, senior Taliban leader who served multiple roles
Abdul Haq Wasiq, a former Taliban intelligence official, “had direct access to Taliban and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) leadership,” according to a leaked JTF-GTMO threat assessment. Wasiq “was central to the Taliban’s efforts to form alliances with other Islamic fundamentalist groups to fight alongside the Taliban against US and Coalition forces after the 11 September 2001 attacks.”
Sources have confirmed to Agenda 21 Radio that one of the 5 Gitmo Taliban released by President Obama in the Sgt. Bowe Bergdhal prisoner exchange in June has now resurfaced in Texas. According to sources the report of one of the released Taliban came as a result of facial recognition security cameras used at a large shopping mall. The yet unidentified (by name)Taliban was seen in a shopping mall apparently ‘scoping’ the mall. The source stated the pourus border in Texas was cited for the apprent return of the Taliban ex-prisoner.
The Long War Journal has a profile on each of these terrorist and it reads like a list of reasons why none of these individuals should ever be allowed to walk free(in any society).
Mohammad Nabi Omari
Mohammad Nabi Omari, senior Taliban leader who served multiple roles
Abdul Haq Wasiq, a former Taliban intelligence official, “had direct access to Taliban and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) leadership,” according to a leaked JTF-GTMO threat assessment. Wasiq “was central to the Taliban’s efforts to form alliances with other Islamic fundamentalist groups to fight alongside the Taliban against US and Coalition forces after the 11 September 2001 attacks.”
JTF-GTMO concluded that Wasiq “utilized his office to support al Qaeda and to assist Taliban personnel elude capture” in late 2001. Wasiq also “arranged for al Qaeda personnel to train Taliban intelligence staff in intelligence methods.”
Al Qaeda’s training of Taliban operatives, arranged by Wasiq, was reportedly conducted by Hamza Zubayr, a terrorist who was formerly an instructor at one of al Qaeda’s most important training camps. Zubayr was killed during the same September 2002 raid that netted 9/11 facilitator Ramzi Binalshibh. The assistance from Zubayr was crucially important to the Taliban’s intelligence efforts, according to the JTF-GTMO file, because many of the administrators in the Taliban Ministry of Intelligence “had no prior intelligence background.”
Mullah Norullah Noori, senior Taliban military commander
Another leaked JTF-GTMO file described Noori as a “senior Taliban military commander” who was engaged in hostilities “against US and Coalition forces in late 2001.” Noori is “wanted by the United Nations (UN) for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims.”
When the JTF-GTMO threat assessment for Noori was authored in February 2008, his brother was still active in the fight against the Coalition. Noori’s “brother is a Taliban commander directing operations against US and Coalition forces in Zabul Province.” Noori himself “remained a significant figure to Taliban supporters” even after his capture.
In addition to his ties to Mullah Omar and other senior Taliban leaders, Noori was “associated with…senior al Qaeda members and other extremist organizations.”
Declassified memos authored at Guantanamo provide more details about Noori’s al Qaeda ties. Noori “fought alongside al Qaeda as a Taliban military general, against the Northern Alliance” in September 1995. Noori also “hosted al Qaeda commanders” and “met a subordinate of Osama bin Laden to pass a message from the Taliban supreme leader” – that is, a message from Mullah Omar. Mullah Mohammad Fazl, Taliban deputy minister of defense
Mullah Mohammad Fazl was one of the Taliban’s most experienced commanders prior to his capture in November 2001. Like Noori, according to another leaked JTF-GTMO file, Fazl is “wanted by the UN for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiites.” Fazl “was associated with terrorist groups currently opposing U.S. and Coalition forces including al Qaeda, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG), and an Anti-Coalition Militia group known as Harakat-i-Inqilab-i-Islami.”
Fazl had “operational associations with significant al Qaeda and other extremist personnel,” according to JTF-GTMO. One of the high-ranking al Qaeda commanders Fazl long cooperated with was Abdel Hadi al Iraqi, who led Osama bin Laden’s Arab 055 Brigade in the Taliban’s Afghanistan. The 055 Brigade was bin Laden’s chief fighting force and served alongside Taliban units.
Immediately “following the assassination of Northern Alliance commander Ahmad Shah Massoud in September 2001,” al Iraqi explained to US officials, “the Northern Alliance was demoralized” and he met with Fazl to “coordinate an attack with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance.”
Prior to his detention, Fazl “wielded considerable influence throughout the northern region of Afghanistan and his influence continued after his capture.” Fazl’s “name and capture have been used in recruiting campaigns by the Taliban.”
“If released,” JTF-GTMO warned in a February 2008 memo, Fazl “would likely rejoin the Taliban and establish ties with [Anti-Coalition Militia] elements participating in hostilities against U.S. and Coalition forces in Afghanistan.” Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa, former governor of Herat province
Khairkhwa was one of Mullah Omar’s closest confidantes prior to his capture. According to a JTF-GTMO file, Khairkhwa “was directly associated” with both Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. “Following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks,” the leaked JTF-GTMO file reads, Khairkhwa “represented the Taliban during meetings with Iranian officials seeking to support hostilities against US and Coalition Forces.” In June 2011, a DC district court denied Khairkhwa’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, based in large part on his admitted role in brokering the Taliban’s post-9/11 deal with the Iranians. [See LWJ report, DC district court denies former Taliban governor's habeas petition.]
As the governor of Afghanistan’s western Herat province, Khairkhwa and “his deputy were probably associated with a militant training camp in Herat operated by deceased al Qaeda commander (in Iraq) Abu Musab al Zarqawi.”
In declassified memos prepared at Guantanamo, US officials alleged that Khairkhwa became a major drug trafficker as well. Khairkhwa reportedly built three walled compounds that he used to manage his opium trade. And he allegedly oversaw one of Osama bin Laden’s training facilities in Herat, too. One US government memo noted that only Khairkhwa or bin Laden himself “could authorize entrance” to the facility, which was one of bin Laden’s “most important bases” and “conducted terrorist training two times per week.”
Mohammad Nabi Omari, senior Taliban leader who served multiple roles
In a leaked memo dated Jan. 23, 2008, JTF-GTMO analysts recommended that Nabi be held in “continued detention” by the Defense Department. Nabi “was a senior Taliban official who served in multiple leadership roles,” according to JTF-GTMO. Nabi “had strong operational ties to Anti-Coalition Militia (ACM) groups including al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG), some of whom remain active in ACM activities.”
Intelligence reports cited by JTF-GTMO indicate that Nabi was a “member of a joint al Qaeda/Taliban ACM cell in Khowst and was involved in attacks against US and Coalition forces.” Nabi also “maintained weapons caches and facilitated the smuggling of fighters and weapons.”
Prior to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Nabi worked for the Taliban’s border security and in this capacity had “access to senior Taliban commander and leader of the Haqqani Network, Jalaluddin Haqqani.” Haqqani was the Taliban Minister of Frontiers and Borders at the time and this is what gave Nabi the opportunity to become Haqqani’s “close associate,” according to JTF-GTMO.
One “sensitive contact” told authorities that Nabi was one of “three former Taliban commanders loyal to Haqqani.” The other two are Nabi’s brother-in-law, Malim Jan, and Gul Majid. The three worked under still another Taliban commander, Zakim Khan.
Malim Jan was nicknamed the “Butcher of Khowst” for his reported role in murdering 300 people there. Jan was a sub-commander under Haqqani and the head of a “Secret Police” unit.
Intelligence reports cited by JTF-GTMO indicate that Malim Jan, Gul Majid, and Zakim Khan were all still active in the insurgency in Afghanistan as of late 2007.
A “sensitive contact” told authorities that Nabi participated in a Jan. 26, 2002 “planning session to identify a new Governor of Khowst and to propose a list of members for the Khowst City Shura Council loyal to Haqqani.” Several other high-level Taliban and Haqqani officials attended the meeting. One of them “directed the group to reconvene after members discussed names with al Qaeda members in their provinces.” The leaked JTF-GTMO memo notes: “The plan was to have all personnel identified and vetted to prepare for future al Qaeda control of the area under Jalaluddin Haqqani.”
Beginning in February 2002, according to another intelligence report cited by JTF-GTMO, Nabi and “three al Qaeda affiliated individuals held weekly meetings to discuss ACM plans and to coordinate Haqqani loyalists.”
Then, in July 2002, an “Afghan government employee” reported that Nabi had joined “a new Khowst province ACM cell comprised of Taliban and al Qaeda commanders who had operated independently in the past.” The list of cell members provided by this source included not only Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, but also individuals affiliated with the HIG and the Haqqani Network.
The JTF-GTMO file includes an intriguing detail about one member of Nabi’s cell – a Haqqani money courier named Malik Khan. “Ayman al Zawahiri, the number two leader of al Qaeda” at the time, and now al Qaeda’s emir, “has stayed at Khan’s compound located outside Miram Shah,” Pakistan.
In August 2002, Nabi reportedly helped two al Qaeda operatives smuggle “an unknown number of missiles along the highway between Jalalabad and Peshawar,” Pakistan. The missiles were smuggled in pieces, with the intent of rebuilding them for attacks near the Jalalabad airport. On Aug. 28, 2002, JTF-GTMO analysts noted, “two Americans were killed during attacks against the Khowst, Gardez, and Jalalabad airports.”
Nabi was captured in September 2002, detained at Bagram, and then transferred to Guantanamo. It was the end, temporarily at least, to a career that started in the 1980s when Nabi first fought as a mujahideen against the Soviets.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The apparent beheading of American journalist James Foley by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a stark reminder of the group’s terrible brutality and the seriousness required to counter them. Unfortunately, much of the political discourse about the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is counterproductive to good policy. Many of the basic facts are wrong and the arguments—whatever the merits of the policies they prescribe—tend to be political, overly personal, and hyperbolized. President Obama’s policies in the Middle East have failed in numerous ways, but he is right that the paucity of our political debate is the greatest threat to our global standing.
One cannot credibly argue that the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq in 2010 contributed to the rise of ISIL without also acknowledging that the U.S. invasion in 2003 did the same.
The former without the latter is a political argument, not a policy position. The same goes for airstrikes in Syria and arming the Syrian rebels. It’s a reasonable hypothesis that supporting the Free Syrian Army earlier might have blunted ISIL, but that’s a pretty hollow position if one also gives Syrian rebel factions a pass for tolerating and even embracing ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusrah through late 2012. As a long-time analyst of jihadism in the Middle East, it was clear to me in the summer of 2011 that the Islamic State of Iraq was well-positioned to capitalize on what was then a largely peaceful Syrian protest movement. And it was just as obvious that the group—whose brutality, extremism, and grandiose political aspirations were well-documented long before the Syrian uprising—would later turn on the Syrian rebels whose cause they claimed to champion. The same should have been obvious to the Syrian rebels, their external supporters, and pretty much anyone interested in the Syrian uprising and the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad.
Retired U.S. Army Col. Pete Mansoor is a serious man, but his assessment that the mission against ISIL will require 10,000-15,000 troops does not match up with the policy the President has chosen. Mansoor’s troop numbers are based on a policy “to roll back ISIL”, when the President has carefully limited his policy to “stopping the current advance” and aiding refugees. Reading most of the media coverage over the last few weeks, you’d be forgiven for thinking President Obama was seeking to defeat ISIL in detail, but had chosen ineffectual means. But that is not his goal, even considering the coordinated U.S., Iraqi, and Kurdish effort to retake the Mosul Dam from ISIL. It is fair to criticize the President’s policy as too limited or vague (I think it is both), but it is not to roll ISIL back and should not be measured on that basis. That distinction makes a difference, because as Doug Ollivant and Ken Pollack have both pointed out, airpower is much more effective against an army massing for an offensive than on troops settling in to govern in urban areas.
The larger problem with Mansoor’s vision is that “rolling back” ISIL is an unstable and untenable policy at this time. The Islamic State is a threat to U.S. interests because of the safe haven it creates and the instability it fosters; the exact location of its borders is not the most important factor. And so a policy of pushing them into a smaller box does not solve the problem; it is a temporary fix, an open-ended commitment, an invitation for mission creep, or all of the above. If destroying ISIL becomes the near-term policy goal—which seems the likely outcome of saying you are going to “roll back” the group—then 10,000-15,000 troops vastly understates the true commitment, which will actually require years, direct military action on both sides of the Iraq/Syria border, tens (if not hundreds) of billions of dollars, and many more than 15,000 troops. ISIL is an inherently resilient organization—look how far they have come since getting “rolled back” during the Surge in 2007 when 150,000 American troops were occupying the country.
One thing is clear about President Obama: right or wrong in his decisions, the guy does not want to be fed a bunch of bullshit. And many of the arguments made about ISIL, Syria, and Iraq these days are spurious —even when used to advance reasonable policy recommendations. The arguments to “roll back” ISIL fall into this category. Obama recognizes his critics are, intentionally and unintentionally, trying to back him into mission creep and he intends to avoid that outcome. As a result, he does less than he should (and maybe would) if he could manage the domestic politics and the U.S. Congress better. Whatever Obama’s mistakes, it is hard to blame him for being gun-shy politically after watching the Benghazi shenanigans for two years. If Obama’s political opponents talk impeachment over an incident like Benghazi, what would they say if U.S. weapons provisioned to Syrian rebels wound up in the hands of ISIL, as is almost certain to happen to some degree with a large scale weapons delivery program?
This is why politics should stop at the water’s edge: partisan tussling makes for bad national security policy and makes us less safe.
No one has offered a plausible strategy to defeat ISIL that does not include a major U.S. commitment on the ground and the renewal of functional governance on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border. And no one will, because none exists. But that has not prevented a slew of hacks and wonks from suggesting grandiose policy goals without paying serious attention to the costs of implementation and the fragility of the U.S. political consensus for achieving those goals. Although ISIL has some characteristics of a state now, it still has the resilience of an ideologically motivated terrorist organization that will survive and perhaps even thrive in the face of setbacks. We must never again make the mistake that we made in 2008, which was to assume that we have destroyed a jihadist organization because we have pushed it out of former safe-havens and inhibited its ability to hold territory. Bombing ISIL will not destroy it. Giving the Kurds sniper rifles or artillery will not destroy it. A new prime minister in Iraq will not destroy it.
Please do not step in here with the fly-paper argument: that the conflict will attract the world’s would-be jihadis to one geographic area where we can target them all and thereby solve the problem. Notice that no authorities on jihadism ever make this argument. That is because they understand that war makes the jihadist movement stronger, even in the face of major tactical and operational defeats. The conflicts in Syria and Iraq strengthen ISIL because war is the only force terrible enough to hold together a broad and extreme enough Sunni coalition to be amenable to ISIL. Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi recognized this in 2004 and built a strategy of provoking Shia militias in order to consolidate fearful Sunni groups. The concept was sound so far as brutal jihadi strategies go, but Zarqawi’s organization was just too weak relative to his opposition (U.S. troops and Shia militias) to execute it. Zarqawi picked a fight he could not win—provoking attacks on Sunnis without being able to defend them. At the same time, he was moving into Sunni turf and infringing on tribal prerogatives. This had the effect of alienating his would-be allies.
But the balance has shifted. ISIL has more strength than al Qaeda in Iraq ever did and its enemies on the ground are weaker. Without war, ISIL is a fringe terrorist organization. With war, it is a state.
So long as it exists, the Islamic State’s borders will always be bloody.
This is where I am supposed to advocate a brilliant strategy to defeat ISIL by Christmas at some surprisingly reasonable cost. But it won’t happen. The cost to defeat ISIL would be very high and would require a multi-year commitment. I wish, very much, that the United States had taken ISIL and its predecessors more seriously after the Surge in 2007—but we did not, and that represents both a political and analytical failure. In a post-Benghazi world, looking toward the 2016 Presidential election, the political consensus to incur the risks and costs of destroying ISIL is tremendously unlikely. And even then, success hinges on dramatic political shifts in both Iraq and Syria that under the best of circumstances will require years. (Despite a new Iraqi Prime Minister, there is no short-term prospect for credible governance across either Iraq or Syria.)
It would be irresponsible to support a national security policy dependent on infeasible military operations or ludicrous assumptions about an enemy’s shortcomings. War is a matter of matching ends, ways, and means – including political and popular support. It would therefore be irresponsible to support a policy that would require a level of commitment that our political institutions do not possess. Our discourse is too broken. Short of a major terrorist attack, our leaders do not have the ability to produce consensus. And without real national consensus to sustain a strategy, there is no viable mechanism to defeat ISIL.
Advocating the defeat of ISIL over the short-term without acknowledging what will be necessary to achieve that end is a recipe for mission creep. Mission creep is a recipe for policy failure because the American people will not allow sustained investment in a policy they did not commit to originally.
This is the most important strategic lesson from Iraq: Don’t bullshit the American people into a war with shifting objectives (even if those goals are important) because they will not put up with that commitment long enough for those goals to be achieved. This is not a call for pacifism; it is a call for fighting to win, which requires sustained commitment, which requires forthrightness in our discourse about whether to choose war. We should only fight if we are fighting to win, and we will only win when we commit as a country—not 51 percent, or the viewers of one cable news station or another, or because one party or faction has managed to back a president into a political corner. The country must be ready to accept the sacrifices necessary to achieve grand political ends. Until then, any call to “defeat ISIL” that is not forthright about what that will require is actually an argument for expensive failure.
Brian Fishman is a War on the Rocks Contributor and a Fellow at the New America Foundation.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
In the days before journalist James Foley was brutally beheaded by a member of the Islamic State militant group, an e-mail sent to Foley's family threatened his execution in "vitriolic" terms, the CEO of the international news service he had worked for said Wednesday.
Philip Balboni told a news conference that the e-mail, which was received sometime last week, did not contain any demands, in contrast with previous missives dating back to last fall.
Balboni said the company had hired an international firm shortly after Foley disappeared in November 2012, and the New Hampshire native was located in September 2013. Balboni added that Foley was always kept in Syria, though his captors moved him around often.
Foley was abducted in northern Syria while covering that country's civil war and had not been heard from since.
On Tuesday, Islamic State, the militant group formerly known as ISIS, released a video showing a militant beheading Foley in apparent response to U.S. airstrikes against militant positions in Iraq. At the end of the video, the militant is shown threatening to behead another missing American journalist, Steven Sotloff.
Citing a representative of Foley's family and a former hostage, the New York Times reported that ISIS militants had pressed the U.S. to pay a $100 million ransom in exchange for Foley's release. That demand was refused. The Times also reported that ISIS is holding at least three other Americans hostage, including Sotloff, and has threatened to kill all of them if their demands are not met.
In addition to money, the militants' demands also reportedly included prisoner swaps. One prisoner specifically named in the Times report is Aafia Siddiqui, a neuroscientist with ties to Al Qaeda who has been imprisoned in Texas since 2010 after a conviction for attacking U.S. agents in Afghanistan.
In a rare move Wednesday, the Pentagon revealed that U.S. special operations forces had attempted to rescue hostages held by Islamic State, including Foley, earlier this summer.
Pentagon spokesman Rear Admiral John Kirby said in a statement that the mission had targeted a "captor network" inside the militant group, and included air and ground elements, but was unable to locate the hostages.
On Thursday, the U.S. military continued to launch airstrikes on ISIS in the vicinity of the Mosul Dam, which was overtaken from the militant group by Kurdish Peshmerga forces earlier this week.
The six strikes destroyed or damaged three ISIS Humvees, a vehicle and several IED emplacements, U.S. Central Command said in a statement.
Meanwhile, new details were being reported in the British press about the identity of the militant who beheaded Foley in the video. American and British intelligence officials were working to firmly identify the man, who speaks in the video with a distinct British accent and is believed to be from London or southeast England.
A former hostage told The Guardian that the man was the head of a group of three British militants whose main job is to guard foreign captives in the northern Syrian city of Raqqa, an ISIS stronghold.
The hostage said the man called himself "John" and described him as intelligent, educated, and devoted to radical Islamic teachings. The hostage said that his fellow captives referred to their three British overlords as "The Beatles."
The Guardian also reported that "John" is a point man for hostage negotiations and has had discussions about possible ransoms with families of several foreign nationals via Skype.
The British government has estimated that up to 500 citizens of that country have traveled to Syria and Iraq to join up with ISIS and other militant groups since the beginning of the Syrian civil war in 2011.
British intelligence officials also reportedly believe that those nationals have developed into particularly dangerous fighters, willing to carry out suicide attacks and, as in the case of Foley's death, beheadings. According to The Daily Telegraph, approximately half of those 500 have returned to the United Kingdom. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Obama probably wants to get the news off of immigration entirely and the Ferguson thing is about played out....so he starts leaking vague threats from ISIS and the media picks 'em up and starts chomping away.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure, than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat."
-- Theodore Roosevelt
By Bob Unruh, WND – “The ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee in the U.S. Senate is warning that ISIS terrorists, those who this week beheaded an American journalist, are trying to develop the capability of blowing up an entire American city.
The comments from Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., came in an interview with the Fox affiliate in Oklahoma City.
He said the U.S. now is in ‘the most dangerous position we’ve ever been in.’
Responding to questions about terror and the threat facing Americans, he said: ‘They’re crazy out there. And they are rapidly developing a method of blowing up a major U.S. city. You just can’t believe that’s happening.’
He told the station the threat is significant, and he blamed it on the cuts in defense spending made by President Obama.
‘He’s going to have to come up with something we’re going to do because they’re holding another hostage … and the problem is the president, he says all these things and he never does them.’
ISIS members, he said, are ‘really bad terrorists.’
‘They’re so bad that al-Qaida’s afraid of them.’
The threat to the U.S. should not be underestimated, he said.
‘This idea they’re coming in, infiltrating the United States. Sure some are coming in that are associated with ISIS, but a majority of them are still over there and they are undoing a lot of the good that has been done,’ he said.
According to a report in The Hill, ISIS, also known as Islamic State, ‘has long threatened to carry out a catastrophic attack on American soil, with a spokesman recently boasting that the militant group would fly its flag over the White House.’
WND reported just a day earlier that ISIS is training jihadists to attack targets in the U.S. and Europe.” Read more.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the highest-ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Oklahoma City FOX affiliate KOKH 25 that because of the threat of groups like ISIS “we’re in the most dangerous position we’ve ever been in as a nation.” “[ISIS], they’re crazy out there, and they’re rapidly developing a method of blowing up a major US city” he said.
Inhofe also criticized President Barack Obama’s handling of the ISIS threat, saying “he’s going to have to come up with something that we’re going to do, because they’re holding another hostage in place, and the problem is, the president, quite frankly, he says all these things and he never does them.” And expressed support for the NSA’s surveillance programs, arguing “you have to have an intelligence process going on to stop attacks on America.”
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Fears grow for 18,000 Shi’ite Muslims as ISIS surrounds Amerli
Posted on
Iraq’s most influential cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has expressed concern for the Shi’ite Turkmen community in Amerli after their food and water was cut off.
Now WGN Investigates has found an online war of words and disturbing images that includes an implied threat to a Chicago landmark building.
It’s a nasty, sometimes horrible back and forth coming on the heels of U.S. bombing of ISIS forces in Iraq involving Facebook and Twitter pages with titles like, #AMessageFromISIStoUS and vice versa.
Near the top of this tit for tat is the gruesome video and pictures of journalist James Foley’s beheading.
Some Americans posted on the site disgusting photoshopped images Islamic religious leaders having sex with animals and images of U.S. firepower.
They’re reacting to one of the tweets which shows the ISIS flag in front of the White House.
But scroll down a little farther and you see a picture that might look familiar. Not the writing, which appears to be in Arabic, but the building in the background. That’s on Michigan Ave.
307 N. Michigan Ave to be precise. It’s at the corner of Michigan and South Water Street and it’s called the Old Republic Building.
What we found online was stunning. So we brought it to the attention of the building security team. The apparent message in this photo dated June 20th of this summer, is “soldiers of the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria will pass from here soon.”
Other tweets show the same two pictures saying “we are in your state/ we are in your cities / we are in your streets. You are our goals anywhere.”
More tweets say “we are here #america near our #target sooooooooooooon.”
No one in security at the Old Republic Building would comment, nor did the secret service, the FBI, or Chicago police.
So we don’t yet know who posted the picture in Chicago or why they chose that location.
Don’t forget, the same people who are whipping you up into a frenzy, are the same people who created the conditions, over there, by destroying the infrastructure of the governments we didn’t like, that kept the lid… on the Jihad Genie bottle. And guess what? We did it all in the name of democracy! Ain’t that… cute. Ah yes… The Project for the New American Century! Hurrah… And let’s not forget The Pentagons New Map! Ya know, to bring the Gap into the New World Order Core!
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Breaking News: Just reported on CNN as I was about to publish this after writing it. The White House has classified the beheading of journalist James Foley by ISIS as a terrorist attack on the U.S. by ISIS.
Isoroku Yamamoto’s sleeping giant quote is a saying attributed to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto regarding the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor by forces of Imperial Japan. The quote is portrayed at the very end of the 1970 film Tora! Tora! Tora! as:
“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”
Although the quote may well have encapsulated many of his real feelings about the attack, there is no printed evidence to prove Yamamoto made this statement or wrote it down.
Since the execution of journalist James Foley by ISIS, the Isoroku Yamamoto quote about awakening a sleeping giant has been mentioned by Americans, journalists, and people in the U.S. government, being circulated by social media.
Yesterday and today the Pentagon and the White House have made new statements about ISIS, as well as the beheading of journalist James Foley. Mainstream news media asked questions. The answers were not the usual answers about red lines, what we will do, and what we will not do – like not putting boots on ground in Iraq and/or Syria.
This time, they made it crystal clear that they will NOT announce what they will or will not do, when, and where. Be assured, there will be no leaks. I’ve not seen this kind of seriousness since the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001.
There is a major difference between what was possible after the 11 September 2011 terrorist attacks, and what is now possible with ISIS. It was clear from the start that a conventional military response against such terrorists would not be possible, or at best extremely difficult. That was said. The war in Iraq was a different issue than the war in Afghanistan. Fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban was not like the U.S. going to war with countries like Japan and Germany during World War II. Now, ISIS has become a conventional military force, with which it has captured a significant amount of territory in Iraq and Syria, to become the Islamic State. President Obama and his administration refer to it as ISIL. A full-scale conventional military response is now possible.
President Obama has referred to ISIS as a cancer that must be removed. Long before he said that recently, I and many others have referred to ISIS as a virus – worse than Ebola, and that it must be treated like a virus. Likewise, many people have said ISIS must be “exterminated” totally.
A victor gives no quarter when the victor shows no clemency or mercy and refuses to spare the life in return for the surrender at discretion (unconditional surrender) of a vanquished opponent.
Under the laws of war, “….it is especially forbidden….to declare that no quarter will be given”. This was established under Article 23 (d) of the 1907 Hague Convention IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land.
Since a judgment on the law relating to war crimes and crimes against humanity at the Nuremberg Trials in October 1946, the 1907 Hague Convention, including the explicit prohibition to declare that no quarter will be given, are considered to be part of the customary laws of war and are binding on all parties in an international armed conflict.
However, in this case, for ISIS, there should be no mercy. No prisoners taken. To trials. They should be killed wherever they are found.
Those opinions are not the only opinions out on social media about ISIS. There is also a strong belief that the use of nuclear weapons against ISIS should be authorized by U.S. Congress – that the U.S. should withdraw from “No First Use” and take the same position as NATO for the use of nuclear weapons. I agree. Although unlikely to happen, I believe the kind of seriousness I’ve seen by those speaking for the Pentagon, the White House, and President Obama himself – whose tone on this issue has significantly changed, could make use of nuclear weapons a serious option. Possibly low radiation yield battlefield tactical nuclear weapons. Otherwise the most powerful bombs in the U.S. arsenal.
Will the U.S. return to Iraq? Will the U.S. invade Syria? I believe the answer to both is yes – but only for the limited mission and goal to wipe ISIS totally off of the face of the earth. It will very likely be done with minimal “boots on ground” as spotters before the missiles are launched and bombs are dropped, and then for any needed mop-up after the primary attacks. I predict, that after the mission is complete, parts of Iraq and Syria will glow in the dark and be visible from the moon. It might be referred to as Armageddon.
U.S. response to ISIS for the beheading of journalist James Foley should be: We’re coming, and hell is coming with us!
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The brutal murder of the brave American journalist James Foley is meant to directly terrorize the world’s media, the international community, and the United States. If all the actions of the Islamic State, or IS, to date weren’t sufficiently reprehensible, this act and the potential for other similar acts will snap American attention with laser-like focus onto the real danger IS poses to the existence of Iraq, the order of the region and to the homelands of Europe and America.
Make no mistake, the abomination of IS is a clear and present danger to the U.S. The only question really is whether the U.S. and its allies and partners will act decisively now while they can still shape events to destroy IS, an act that seems increasingly self-obvious.
President Barack Obama, our commander-in-chief, was right to order airstrikes on IS elements in northern Iraq. He was also right to order humanitarian relief for the Yazidis and other desperate Iraqi minority elements fleeing the onslaught of IS elements, but until the grisly death of James Foley much of the American public was only beginning to awaken to what IS is and the enormity of the threat it represents.
The U.S. is now firmly in the game and remains the only nation on the planet capable of exerting the kind of strategic leadership, influence and strike capacity to deal with IS. It is also the only power capable of organizing a coalition’s reaction to this regional and international threat. As a general officer commanding at several levels in the region, I can say with certainty that what we’re facing in northern Iraq is only partly a crisis about Iraq. It is about the region and potentially the world as we know it.
Weeks ago I called for this group to be attacked in the manner only the U.S. can undertake – suddenly, swiftly, surgically – to deal it a setback and to begin the systematic dismantlement of this scourge. As we consider this threat there are some important points to consider that give urgency to the imperative to act:
The Islamic State is executing a well-thought-out campaign design intended to dismantle both Syria and Iraq and install in their place an Islamic Caliphate. Though we’re keyed into it now, we missed it initially.
IS is a well-organized entity, almost certainly supported by former Saddamist regime elements whose hand can be seen in the campaign design now unfolding. This group is not a flash in the pan that will go away of its own accord or if we don’t poke at it. It is not benign. IS is reinforced by Sunni tribal elements from Syria and Iraq, and most alarmingly, is aided by a witch’s brew of foreign fighters from Chechens to Uighurs to Pashtuns, but also including Europeans and Americans. The Caliphate’s Western recruits will be felt in the European and American homelands for years to come regardless of the fate IS and its cause.
IS is quite well heeled. It is flush with recently captured American and Iraqi ordnance and armored vehicles, and awash with dollars lifted from Iraqi banks along its route of advance. It is demonstrating an alarming ability to absorb heavier and more complex military capabilities and put them to work against their erstwhile opponents. IS is able to demonstrate substantial battlefield innovation and agility — two qualities none of us can afford as IS continues its forward movement and attempts to consolidate.
So how should we “see” IS and what is this terrorist group up to?
Within its means, IS is waging total war on the region and its “unbelieving and apostate” populations. Just ask the Christians, Yazidis, Kurds, Shi’a and some Sunni populations who’ve been unlucky enough to be along the IS axis of advance. Before our very eyes, it is transitioning from being a non-state actor into a state-like entity. The leadership of the so-called Caliphate has been clear that it will focus on Western and American targets if given the chance to consolidate its holdings into the so-called Caliphate. It’s worth remembering the Taliban provided the perfect platform from which al-Qaeda attacked the U.S., and the Taliban were and remain as cavemen in comparison to IS. As well, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, has attacked the U.S. at least twice, and they are a mere shadow of IS. Worse, the IS foot soldiers holding U.K., European, and American passports number in the hundreds. We need to prepare ourselves for what this will mean. Foley’s executioner spoke with a British accent.
So what now?
IS must be destroyed and we must move quickly to pressure its entire “nervous system,” break it up, and destroy its pieces. As I said, the president was absolutely right to strike IS, to send advisors to Iraq, to arm the Kurds, to relieve the suffering of the poor benighted people of the region, to seek to rebuild functional and non-sectarian Iraqi Security Forces and to call for profound change in the political equation and relationships in Baghdad.
The whole questionable debate on American war weariness aside, the U.S. military is not war weary and is fully capable of attacking and reducing IS throughout the depth of its holdings, and we should do it now, but supported substantially by our traditional allies and partners, especially by those in the region who have the most to give – and the most to lose – if the Islamic State’s march continues. It’s their fight as much as ours, for the effects of IS terror will certainly spread in the region with IS seeking soft spots for exploitation.
American and allied efforts must operate against IS from Mosul in the east across its entire depth to western Syria. In that regard, “sovereignty” in the context of its airspace and territory is not something we should grant President Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. Syria is a failed state neither capable of acting as a sovereign entity nor deserving the respect of one. We cannot leave IS a safe haven anywhere or a secure support platform from which to regroup or enjoy sanctuary across the now-irrelevant frontier between Syria and Iraq.
The tentative successes of the Kurds in rolling back IS from the Mosul Dam should offer a clear signal that this formula of employing indigenous forces coupled with American and allied firepower can be undertaken with effect. Accelerating the refurbishment of the Iraqi security force through a focused advise and assist program can open fronts against IS to the north along the Tigris and west into Anbar Province and along the Euphrates River. To that end, Iraq and Syria’s Sunni tribes and the Free Syrian Resistance can also play a central role in dismantling IS. Many of the tribes are fighting now and many others, ready to fight IS, are begging for U.S. and international support. Their advisory and military support should be a high priority. The Kurds, the Sunnis and the Free Syrian resistance elements of the region are the “boots on the ground” necessary to the success of this campaign, and the attack on IS must comprehensively orchestrate these diverse forces across the entire region. We’ve done this before, but we must view this crisis regionally and cannot fall victim to segmented thinking, approaches and policies that leave any potential allies out of the game or give IS any safe havens or maneuver space.
Bottom line: The president deserves great credit in attacking IS. It was the gravest of decisions for him. But a comprehensive American and international response now — NOW — is vital to the destruction of this threat. The execution of James Foley is an act we should not forgive nor should we forget, it embodies and brings home to us all what this group represents. The Islamic State is an entity beyond the pale of humanity and it must be eradicated. If we delay now, we will pay later.
Gen. John R. Allen, USMC (Ret.) led Marines in Anbar Province and was commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. He is a distinguished fellow of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution.
Libertatem Prius!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 15 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
The ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee in the U.S. Senate is warning that ISIS terrorists, those who this week beheaded an American journalist, are trying to develop the capability of blowing up an entire American city.
The comments from Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., came in an interview with the Fox affiliate in Oklahoma City.
He said the U.S. now is in “the most dangerous position we’ve ever been in.”
Responding to questions about terror and the threat facing Americans, he said: “They’re crazy out there. And they are rapidly developing a method of blowing up a major U.S. city. You just can’t believe that’s happening.”
He told the station the threat is significant, and he blamed it on the cuts in defense spending made by President Obama.
“He’s going to have to come up with something we’re going to do because they’re holding another hostage … and the problem is the president, he says all these things and he never does them.”
ISIS members, he said, are “really bad terrorists.”
“They’re so bad that al-Qaida’s afraid of them.”
The threat to the U.S. should not be underestimated, he said.
“This idea they’re coming in, infiltrating the United States. Sure some are coming in that are associated with ISIS, but a majority of them are still over there and they are undoing a lot of the good that has been done,” he said.
According to a report in The Hill, ISIS, also known as Islamic State, “has long threatened to carry out a catastrophic attack on American soil, with a spokesman recently boasting that the militant group would fly its flag over the White House.”
U.S. intelligence sources said the al-Qaida splinter group includes thousands of European and American jihadists who fought in the Syrian civil war and came to Iraq to train and fight, first on behalf of various jihadist groups and now ISIS.
ISIS has declared the establishment of a caliphate that includes portions of northeastern Syria and western and central Iraq. It has threatened to expand throughout the Levant, which includes Syria, southern Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
ISIS could join forces with other al-Qaida groups such as Al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula, or AQAP, and Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, or AQIM.
The development would make Europe particularly vulnerable from the south, especially through Spain, as WND recently reported.
Sources report in all, there are more than 2,000 Europeans and some 100 Americans who have gone to Syria to join ISIS.
The International Center for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College in London believes among the Europeans are some 700 French, 50 British, 100 Dutch, 300 German and 300 from various other countries, including Spain.
In June, Spanish officials arrested eight men attempting to recruit militants to fight for ISIS and then return to Spain.
Last fall, Britain’s MI-5 domestic security service stopped a plot to conduct an attack in London on the scale of the one conducted in Mumbai, India, in 2008.
The intelligence sources tell WND that officials in Europe and the U.S. are unprepared for what could be large-scale attacks.
WND also reported military experts are warning the Obama administration’s $1 trillion cut in defense spending will put U.S. military forces at a serious technological disadvantage in future conflicts.
In the past, U.S. technology has acted as a force multiplier, giving American fighting forces a huge advantage in combat situations.
The concern arises not only as ISIS threatens American interests in Syria, Iraq and possibly beyond. It also comes as Russia and communist China are increasing their defense spending for technological development.
“The loss of a long-held technical advantage would be a body blow to the U.S. military,” according to analysts of the open intelligence Langley Intelligence Group Network, or Lignet.
The technologies that would be affected include robotics for specialized combat duties, development of next-generation navigation and reconnaissance systems, unmanned mini-submarines and faster helicopters, the analysts said.
“Times are changing,” the analysts said. “After more than a decade of war, perennial federal budget deficits and a foreign policy notable for its reticence rather than vision, the U.S. defense budget for the next five to 10 years is likely to contract significantly” with a projected $1 trillion in cuts.
Re: Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham - ISIS
Reply With Quote
Davaan Ingraham / REUTERS
REUTERS/Stringer
Don’t BS the American People About Iraq, Syria, and ISIL
sooooooooooooon.”
Bookmarks