Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2014 Part 19-77-Caliphate By Capt (Ret) C de Waart, feel free to share: in Confidence.

In The "War of the Cross, we need a Strategy."The Islamic State is a clear and present danger to the security of the U.S. We must therefore pursue an iterative approach that tests basic assumptions, develops our understanding, and builds partnerships with willing parties on the ground, especially the Sunni Arabs in Iraq.

President Barack Obama's strategy to "degrade and ultimately destroy" the extremist group calling itself the Islamic State (also known as IS, ISIS or ISIL). The Syrian opposition force that the US will help train and arm in the fight against ISIS will be trained only to defend territory. It will not go on the offensive, because operations of that magnitude would require US ground troop commitments, something Obama has explicitly ruled out. "Assad clearly benefits from a US-led coalition fighting against his mortal domestic foe," Ian Bremmer, the president of Eurasia Group, told Business Insider in an email. "But Assad was already winning on the ground before the US bombing started, and there was neither a credible plan nor international willingness to remove him." The key limitation of the coalition's strategy has been a general unwillingness to become more involved in Syria's still-deepening, three-plus-year long civil war. The thinking now is to go for the removal of Assad in an effort to prevent Syrian opposition fighters from joining ISIS, which has declared the establishment of a “caliphate” ruled by Islamic law over the territory it has captured in Syria and Iraq. Sources say that the strategy of bombing only ISIS targets helps Assad and, by extension, Iran and the Shiite government in Iraq, which also is battling ISIS. Sources say the Obama administration believes its approach of training “moderate” Syrian opposition forces will take too long in light of ISIS’ increasing strength. Until now, removal of Assad wasn’t the priority.

Baghdadi outlined his priorities of first attacking Shiites then Saudi Arabia’s Mecca and Medina, two of Islam’s most revered holy places, and Shiites in Yemen. Following that, he

intends to target the Saudi royal family and, only then, the Western “crusaders.” His emphasis clearly is giving priority to eliminating Shiites wherever they may be. In the lands he’s already conquered in portions of Syria and Iraq, Baghdadi’s fighters have summarily killed all Shiites, often not even giving them a chance to “convert” or pay a tax, as he’s doing with Christians. ) The grand design pursued by both al-Qaida and ISIS is to create a caliphate. However, they have gone about that in different ways. ISIS, which already has

proclaimed large portions of Syria and Iraq as part of its Islamic “caliphate,” has stated it aims to take over all of the Levant, which not only would include Lebanon but all of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Iraq, portions of southern Turkey and Israel

The Word Unheard points us to an article in Spiegel Online by a Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein, who is believed to be a reliable source of information on al-Qaida. His main source for this article on al-Qaida strategy is none other than Saif al-Adel, al-Qaida’s military commander who is currently operating from Iran. Al-Qaida’s purported strategy can be broken down into seven “phases” which span from 2000 until 2020, at which time they believe the global Islamist Caliphate will be established and they will achieve “definitive victory.” Here are the phases, which are followed by commentary when appropriate. The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared.

The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order. The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.” As soon as the caliphate has been declared the “Islamic army” it will instigate the “fight between the believers and the non-believers” which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden. The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as “definitive victory.” Hussein writes that in the terrorists’ eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the “one-and-a-half million Muslims,” the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn’t last longer than two years.

Mullah Omar’s 2011 Eid ul-Fitr (marking end of Muslim holy month Ramadan) speech serves any indication – it is Taliban’s latest strategy to regroup and enhance its prospects to rule Afghanistan but in a new format. In his 2011, Eid speech of Mullah Omar appeared more political and less religious, and sounded as if the radical cleric has emerged as a political reformer to transform state and society in Afghanistan under his benevolent guidance as Amir-ul-Momineen. Omar exuded confidence that soon ‘occupation’ of Afghanistan will be over, and unlike the past cases of ‘slavery’ there will be a peaceful Afghanistan. He made it clear that in the new format Taliban will not go solo in ruling Afghanistan but take along other stake holders in the affairs of the country. Mullah Mohammad Omar’s Eid al-Fitr Address for 2014“We are not ISIS.”

The Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar has claimed victory in Afghan war through his message issued on the occasion of Eid. “Your Jihad and ungrudging sacrifices against the occupation have defeated the Americans, their Western allies and domestic supporters altogether with the Help of Allah (May Glory be upon Him),” Mullah Omar said. He also added, “All their strategies have proved to be ineffective, with their diplomatic efforts facing fiasco,

besides disgrace and ignominy. The NATO Summit in Wales under the leadership of America, the recent slandering in Afghanistan under the name of elections and the continuous advancements of the Mujahideen of the Islamic Emirate are proofs, speaking well for themselves.”

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

1 Dec, Baghdadi’s Gamble; On November 7, 2014, coalition airplanes in northern Iraq fighting the Islamic State organization (ISIS) carried out an assassination attempt on ISIS leaders, including Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the organization’s head. Although the attempt failed, it underscored that Baghdadi is a principal target of both external and domestic enemies. Baghdadi’s actions over the last year and a half have made it clear that while

assuming calculated risks, he is intent to stay his current course. Thus, he presumably weighs the pros and cons of his actions carefully, including his decision to appoint himself caliph and establish the Islamic State in parts of Iraq and Syria. Baghdadi apparently feels that his self-appointed status as caliph gives him several advantages:

• a. Status as leader of the jihadist camp, replacing Zawahiri, the leader of al-Qaeda: Baghdadi’s announcement was partly a response to the threat to his status in the global jihadist camp resulting from the camp’s internal rift, specifically the dispute between him and Zawahiri that emerged in the first half of 2013, when Baghdadi unilaterally announced the establishment of ISIS. This dispute reached a climax in February 2014 when Zawahiri publicly expelled ISIS from al-Qaeda’s network of alliances.

• b. Political and religious validity to the new framework: The announcement helped Baghdadi leverage the successes of ISIS, which had already conquered large tracts of Syria and Iraq and wrested control of tremendous economic resources and a wealth of advanced weaponry and given him the confidence that he could announce the establishment of an Islamic state toward realization of the vision of a restored caliphate.

• c. Legal and traditional authority: Baghdadi stipulated that hijra (migration to Islamic land) and ba’yah (oath of allegiance) are obligations incumbent upon all Muslims. Being caliph gives Baghdadi’s edicts and instructions the status of rulings that cannot be violated and turns his opponents into enemies of Islam, even if they are Muslims, and all the more so if they aren’t.

• d. Redress for the sense of humiliation, rage, and frustration among masses of Muslims and hope for a glorious future: Baghdadi wants to make the Islamic State a lodestone for young Muslims looking for solidarity and a source for identity. For them, the Islamic State is supposed to fulfill the promise of a future Islamic empire that will serve as a source of pride and power for Muslims around the globe.

At the same time, by appointing himself caliph, Baghdadi incurred several serious drawbacks:1. His personal survival has become a source of weakness toward fulfillment of the

vision: Finding a replacement to Caliph Baghdadi will be no small matter. His unprecedented and controversial move has aroused widespread criticism on the part of many religious scholars of Islam who have vehemently rejected his self-appointment. It has even been said that his conduct is contrary to the values of Islam. Therefore, although in the past Salafist jihadist organizations were able to come up with acceptable replacements for assassinated leaders, the appointment of a new caliph with the authority and status meriting that lofty title and earning the approval of the religious establishment will be difficult.

2. Many internal enemies: Baghdadi has challenged the leadership of Zawahiri and other leaders of Salafist jihadist organizations, including senior partners in al-Qaeda’s alliance, such as al-Qaeda in the Hijaz and Islamic Maghreb, the Somalian al-Shabaab, Jabhat al-Nusra, and organizations that identify with al-Qaeda and draw inspiration from Zawahiri. Baghdadi has thus aroused a coalition of some 126 prominent Islamic religious figures, including Muhmad al-Makdisi, Abu Katada, Siab’ee and others, who have called on him to recant his declaration as a step that does not befit Islamic religious law and arouses civil strife (fitna).

3. Opposition from local populations seeking revenge: The brutality of ISIS, which meets opposition on the part of defenseless locals who have fallen under the organization’s control with force, cruel punishment, and a Robespierre-like reign of terror, has engendered a blood feud between local populations and the organization. In the Middle East, blood feuds play a significant role, and one day ISIS may be made to pay dearly for its conduct.

4. An extensive international coalition against ISIS: The public beheadings of Western journalists and aid workers have served ISIS’s media strategy and recruitment campaign. For many Muslim youths, both Arab and Western, these acts communicate the might of the emerging Islamic empire and the West’s impotence in confronting it. At the same time, these brutal actions aroused negative public opinion around the world, especially in the West. The public outrage has moved many national leaders to enlist in an international coalition to stop the emerging threat represented by the Islamic State. The coalition now includes more than 60 nations involved to some degree or another in the campaign to stop ISIS.

In a video released shortly after the assassination attempt and intended to refute the rumor of his death, Baghdadi laboured to inspire his followers. In his address, he promised success in his effort against the “crusade” being waged against the Islamic State and emphasized the importance of the personal participation of every Muslim in the battle as well as military jihad as sacred principles of Islam. He also stressed the weakness of the coalition partners, afraid of the achievements of ISIS and the anticipated restoration of the caliphate. Baghdadi warned of the false propaganda war the coalition is waging against ISIS’s successes in its attempt to deter new volunteers from joining the organization and swore that this war is doomed to failure. Furthermore, Baghdadi mocked the coalition’s aversion to the use of ground forces in the campaign as a fear of defeat at the hands of fierce, brave Muslim fighters. Such rhetoric is a gamble because it reflects his preference that large international coalition forces enter the battlegrounds in Syria and Iraq. It seems that he prefers the risk of massive foreign intervention given his belief that a development in that direction – despite the clear danger it poses to the survival of the Islamic State – will serve to nurture the recruitment narrative of a religious war against a foreign invader to Muslim land. Baghdadi added that the Islamic State also intends to act against Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Algeria.At this point it is too early to determine whether Baghdadi’s positive assessment of the balance of pros and cons of his moves is justified. While it is true that the Islamic State has managed to establish control over the locations it has conquered and attract tens of thousands of Muslim volunteers from all over the world, it also seems that the intervention of coalition forces, which are still in the early stages of activity, has already succeeded in stopping the rapid and successful spread of ISIS. The evil wind blowing from ISIS is out in the open, and therefore a clear and present danger for all to see. To stop the movement, the world needs a broader, more aggressive, and more resolute international coalition to combine military, political, legal, and ideological steps against this common enemy. Israel, which thus far does not figure at the top of the ISIS agenda, must view Baghdadi’s rhetoric against “the Judeo-crusader alliance,” and especially his explicit reference to the help Israel is extending to the coalition dedicated to his demise, as a warning of a possible change in the organization’s priorities. Israel must take into account the possibility that in the not-too-distant future the organization will act, directly or via its like-minded partners, against Israeli and Jewish targets in Israel and abroad.( Institute for National Securities Studies,)

BEIRUT, 15 Nov Lebanon – The Obama administration is contemplating ways to remove the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad as part of its ISIS strategy, but the approach requires the acquiescence of Syria backers Russia and Iran, who don’t want to see him removed by force. The Obama administration’s method for removing Assad is still open to discussion. Two possibilities are establishment of a no-fly zone over Syrian opposition-controlled territory and a Turkish military invasion. The U.S. and a loose coalition of Sunni Arab countries have been bombing strictly ISIS targets in Syria, although the Arab allies are less inclined to go after ISIS than to topple the Assad regime. Informed U.S. sources tell WND that airstrikes alone will not be sufficient to eliminate the ISIS threat. The thinking

now is to go for the removal of Assad in an effort to prevent Syrian opposition fighters from joining ISIS, which has declared the establishment of a “caliphate” ruled by Islamic law over the territory it has captured in Syria and Iraq. Sources say that the strategy of bombing only ISIS targets helps Assad and, by extension, Iran and the Shiite government in Iraq, which also is battling ISIS. The majority of the population in Syria is Sunni while Assad is a Shia-Alawite. The Assad regime has protected many of the minorities in Syria, including Christians, even during the tenure of his father, Hafaz Assad, before him. ISIS would be the strongest Sunni group to take over if Assad were forcibly removed. However, ISIS has no tolerance for religious minorities and has a reputation for beheading and crucifying those who do not convert to Sunni Islam under its strict interpretation of Islamic law, or Shariah.ISIS-al-Qaida unification; The intent of the Obama administration is to weaken ISIS membership by redirecting Syrian opposition forces to topple Assad and not join ISIS. However, the Syrian opposition is comprised mostly of jihadist fighters who are siding with ISIS and the al-Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra. Now, al-Nusra and ISIS have decided to put aside their differences temporarily in the interest of furthering the objectives of creating the caliphate and subjugating the population to its more radical Sunni interpretation of the Quran. In effect, the Obama administration is bowing to pressures not only from the Sunni Arab countries that are members of the anti-ISIS coalition but also to Turkey, which has been a conduit for the flow of fighters and financial resources to ISIS and other jihadist groups. The U.S. also is reacting to the growth of Iranian influence in Syria and the region through the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has sent fighters to back Assad in Syria. Sunnis in the region have become more concerned recently about the growing influence of Iran, which backed the recent Houthi clan takeover of Yemen, which borders Sunni Saudi Arabia. They’ve also seen recent concessions by the U.S. to allow Iran to maintain some of its nuclear development program, which they believe Tehran would use to develop nuclear weapons.Removal by force, if necessary; Still left unanswered by the administration is the approach to removing Assad. It either can be done through a political transition subject to the approval of Russia and Iran or through a military campaign undertaken by a combination of U.S. bombing and a military invasion of Syria by Turkish forces. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been advocating the removal of Assad by force, if necessary. According to a CNN report, the White House has convened four meetings of the president’s national security team on defeating ISIS and how its strategy on Syria can accomplish the objective. Sources say the Obama administration believes its approach of training “moderate” Syrian opposition forces will take too long in light of ISIS’ increasing strength. Until now, removal of Assad wasn’t the priority. Indeed, the vetting and training of any moderate Syrian forces by the Pentagon hasn’t yet begun. “The vetting hasn’t started,” said Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby. “Once it does start, that will be a three-to five-month process, and then it’s about eight to nine months of training after that. So we still got a ways to go.”Strategy adjustment; Calls for the administration to review its current Syria policy came after a letter from Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel last month to National Security Adviser Susan Rice. In a three-page memorandum to Rice, Hagel warned the U.S. would risk gains in the war against ISIS if adjustments weren’t made to the policy, especially on the future of the Assad regime. In weighing the approach to removing Assad, Secretary of State John Kerry has been meeting with diplomats from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Russia to work out a diplomatic transition for Assad, his family and inner circle while maintaining large portions of the government and its institutions. The Arab countries, however, are impatient, sources say. But the sources add that the fundamental elements of the Assad government must remain in place, or Iran, which appears to be calling the shots on the future of Syria, will not agree. The Russians already tacitly have agreed to a Syria without

Assad but with the Shiite minority remaining in power. Sources have confirmed to WND that the Iranians want to maintain Assad in power, for now. Syrian sources tell WND, however, that the Assad regime’s days are numbered anyway, and they see the country potentially dividing into three parts, for Sunnis, Shia and the Kurds. They add that this ultimately may be the outcome for Iraq as well. Other sources contend, however, that Russia and Iran will insist on maintaining Shia leadership in Syria. It would retain Iranian influence while keeping the basic institutions of the Syrian government in place with added reforms. It’s a scenario the Syrian opposition originally wanted before becoming radicalized with the influx of foreign jihadist fighters. (Cees, it seems we still have no strategy)

01 Dec, BEIRUT, Lebanon – In the race between al-Qaida and the Islamic State to lead global jihad, Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has scored a big one in al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri’s own backyard of Egypt. Earlier this month, the Egyptian group Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, or Defenders of Jerusalem, announced allegiance to ISIS, which gives Baghdadi a major foothold in the largest Sunni Arab country in the world. A Salafist jihadist group, Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis is based in the Sinai Peninsula and has carried out attacks in Cairo and the Sinai, from which it also has attacked Israeli targets as well. The group appeared during the 2011 Egyptian revolution and has become more active since the overthrow of Muslim Brotherhood-backed Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi in 2012. Baghdadi’s coup in the jihadist world comes as he seeks allegiance from various al-Qaida groups in areas outside his established caliphate, which include portions of northern and eastern Syria and western and central Iraq. In recent days, he’s announced recruitment efforts in Algeria, Libya and parts of Saudi Arabia and Yemen, something which has stoked the ire of Zawahiri. He even has acquired allegiances from prominent jihadist groups in non-Arab countries such as Pakistan and in some south Asian countries. As WND recently reported, Baghdadi’s assertiveness in regions not directly connected to the caliphate also has raised consternation with al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula, or AQAP, which recently took Baghdadi to task publicly for encroaching on their turf in obtaining allegiance from elements of AQAP. Despite the complaints from Zawahiri and other al-Qaida affiliated groups, Baghdadi is expected to step up further conquests in the months ahead and press for oaths of allegiance from other Sunni jihadist groups – in both Arab and non-Arab countries – that show a capability to control the territories in which they operate. Competition between Baghdidi and Zawahiri began last year after the al-Qaida leader admonished the ISIS leader for attempting to bring the al-Qaida-affiliated group in Syria, the Jabhat al-Nusra Front, under ISIS. Zawahiri also objected to the brutality1 Baghdadi displayed even over fellow Sunni Muslims as well as Shiite Muslims in capturing territory. (Cees: As WND recently reported, Baghdadi outlined his priorities of first attacking Shiites then Saudi Arabia’s Mecca and Medina, two of Islam’s most revered holy places, and Shiites in Yemen. Following that, he intends to target the Saudi royal family and, only then, the Western “crusaders.” His emphasis clearly is giving priority to eliminating Shiites wherever they may be. In the lands he’s already conquered in portions of Syria and Iraq, Baghdadi’s fighters have summarily killed all Shiites, often not even giving them a chance to “convert” or pay a tax, as he’s doing with Christians. ) The grand design pursued by both al-Qaida and ISIS is to create a caliphate. However, they have gone about that in different ways. Al-Qaida launches occasional attacks and seek adherence from Sunni Muslims. ISIS takes over actual territory, which has had a strong appeal for recruitment efforts, especially of young foreign fighters.Calculated; Middle East sources tell WND that Baghdadi’s latest play against AQAP appears to have been calculated. They point out that jihadi groups within AQAP in Yemen, where it is headquartered, and in neighboring Saudi Arabia, already have sworn allegiance to ISIS, suggesting that AQAP doesn’t have firm control over those groups and that ISIS already has begun to make inroads into the Arabian Peninsula. For Western intelligence, a merger of 1 http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/isis-puts-bulls-eye-on-other-muslims/

AQAP with ISIS would be troubling. Not only would it garner ISIS more territory to declare for its caliphate, but AQAP is known for its excellence in bomb making and is one of the few jihadist groups in the world capable of directly threatening the U.S. homeland Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told Al-Monitor that it was “inevitable” that once Baghdadi asserted his independence of Zawahiri by operating in Syria and then proclaiming himself caliph that the two would be in competition for the allegiance of jihadist groups throughout the Islamic world. “What is now increasingly clear is that Baghdadi has been taking the offensive in this battle and dispatching important emissaries secretly to coax support and pledges of loyalty from key targeted groups,” said Riedel, a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency. In persuading the leadership of Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, Baghdadi enlisted the help of another major former al-Qaida figure, Mohammed Haydar Zammar, who was involved in recruiting in Hamburg, Germany, the hijackers who flew suicide missions into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. Almost on a daily basis, Zammar met the Hamburg cell which included soon-to-be hijackers Mohammad Atta, Ziad Samir Jarrah and Marwan al-Shehhi and Ramzi Binalshibh, who was the financial courier and coordinator of the 9/11 attack.Zammar’s own history; Zammar has his own history and is well-known in the jihadist world. A native of Aleppo, Syria, and a member then, in 1982, of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, Zammar fled to Germany following the brutal Brotherhood purge by the late Syrian leader Hafez al-Assad, the father of the current but embattled Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. While in Hamburg in 2000, he caught the attention of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, which sought to recruit him under the noses of the domestic German intelligence service, the BfV, the Bundesamt fur Verfassungsshutz, or Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Even before 9/11, the CIA had been watching Zammar’s frequent visits to the apartment on Marionstrasse in Hamburg where those who would be hijackers lived. In Hamburg, Zammar ran a “travel agency” to recruit jihadists for al-Qaida operations. In 1996, he had traveled to Afghanistan where he met Osama bin Laden at the late al-Qaida leader’s request. He then travel numerous times to Afghanistan prior to the 9/11 attacks. Following the 9/11 attack, Zammar fled to Morocco where the CIA then conducted an operation to lure him to Syria when U.S. relations with that country were better. He was sentenced to death but later exchanged in a prisoner swap for Syrian army officers being held by the rebels. Zammar subsequently joined ISIS in the Syrian city of Raqqa, headquarters of ISIS. Baghdadi then dispatched him to meet with the leadership of Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis to discuss allegiance to ISIS. “Zammar’s credentials as a bin Laden protégé with ties to the Hamburg cell undoubtedly helped his argument,” Riedel said. “Getting the jihadist Egyptians, of course, steals a march on Zawahiri by taking away his fellow Egyptians at home. Zammar delivered a big prize.”While Zawahiri still retains most of various groups which belong to al-Qaida, Zawahiri lacks Baghdadi’s “winning image. Baghadi looks like a winner, which is always good for a competition.” “Of course, one way to win a terrorist loyalty contest is to be the architect of an attack on the Crusader homeland,” Riedel said. “Nothing would cement Baghdadi’s or Zawahiri’s credentials as the true heir to Sheikh Osama bin Laden than a spectacular attack in America.”

Nov, WASHINGTON – Northern Lebanon could fall into the hands of the Islamic jihadist army ISIS as battles between Sunni jihadist groups and the Lebanese army in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli portend even greater violence in coming weeks. “The northern part of the country could explode in the next several weeks,” one Lebanese source who is closely monitoring developments told WND. ISIS, which already has proclaimed large portions of Syria and Iraq as part of its Islamic “caliphate,” has stated it aims to take over all of the Levant, which not only would include Lebanon but all of Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Iraq, portions of

southern Turkey and Israel. Sources tell WND that as winter approaches, it is possible for a two-pronged attack in coming weeks from the north and from the Qalamoun mountain region in Syria. The offensive would place a combination of jihadist fighters from the al-Qaida-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra Front and ISIS in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley in the heart of the country. As winter approaches, sources say the ISIS jihadists in the Qalamoun Mountains near the Lebanese border will want to make their move to avoid becoming stranded. The Bekaa Valley region, however, is controlled mainly by Shiites who are well-armed but see an increasing flow of Syrian refugees who could take up arms with the jihadist militants.Currently, there are close to 2 million Syrian refugees in Lebanon living in squalid conditions in isolated camps with lack of fresh water and exposure to disease. Lebanon itself has held the refugees at arm’s length and now is refusing to take on any more, even though one of main entry points from Syria into Lebanon, the Masnaa crossing, is teaming daily with refugees who want to escape the civil war. Sources say the conditions add to the desperation of refugees who see no alternative to their current plight, making them susceptible to ISIS recruiting efforts, especially among the young people.Swallowed up; The informed sources say concern is mounting that the northern portion of the country that encompasses Tripoli could be swallowed into the ISIS caliphate as the Lebanese army – along with the help of the Iranian-backed Lebanese Hezbollah – engage ISIS and al-Nusra fighters who also are aligned with another extreme Sunni jihadist group, the Abdullah Azzam Brigade. Both al-Nusra and ISIS have taken captive some 20 Lebanese army soldiers and are using them as leverage. Each group, however, has executed a captured soldier to press demands for the release of captured jihadists who are in a prison in Beirut.“If more Lebanese army troops are killed, it will definitely bring on an all-out Sunni-Shiite war,” one source told WND. He indicated that Hezbollah fighters then will launch an all-out attack on Sunni strongholds as well as the Syrian refugee camps.Another source said the strategy of ISIS and al-Nusra is to put the Lebanese army more into an urban warfare environment, increasing the chances of collateral damage to civilians. The objective is to portray the army and its Hezbollah ally as hostile to Sunnis. To prepare for luring the Lebanese army into urban warfare, sources say ISIS and al-Nusra fighters have deployed themselves near army positions. Lebanese army checkpoints already have been attacked. Mosques in many of the Sunni-controlled towns are said to be supplied with arms.It wouldn’t be the first time that Sunni jihadist fighters have taken on the Lebanese army.Beginning in May 2007, the Lebanese Internal Security Forces, the ISF, confronted the al-Qaida-affiliated Fatah al-Islam at the Nahr al-Bared Sunni Palestinian camp a few miles from the Lebanese city of Tripoli. For some three months, the ISF shelled the camp, with most of the inhabitants fleeing to nearby Palestinian refugee camps in Tripoli, Beirut and Saida, or Sidon. Nahr al-Bared is the home of some 30,000 displaced Palestinians. Fighters of Fatah al-Islam allegedly had robbed a bank and had hidden out at the Palestinian camp, which like many similar camps are overpopulated. They have a very high rate of unemployment and are home to many jihadist groups, including al-Nusra, Abdullah Azzam Brigades and ISIS.Sources tell WND that ISIS already may have some 40 cells spread out in Sunni-dominated regions of Lebanon. The jihadist group seeks to protect the Sunni areas from the Shiite Hezbollah, which has been sending its own fighters into Syria to help prop up the embattled regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a Shiite-Alawite allied with Shiite Iran.Declaration of war; Earlier this year, al-Nusra had “declared war” on the Lebanese army, which had manned checkpoints in Syria and accused the army of permitting Hezbollah fighters to pass to fight alongside the Syrian army. Now, the Sunni jihadist groups equate the Lebanese army with Hezbollah in seeking to extend its influence in Lebanon. In light of the uptick in attacks on the Lebanese army, the United States has begun to rush weapons and ammunition, among other logistical support. Sources tell WND, however, that much of the

logistical support destined for the army is winding up in the hands of Hezbollah. WND was unable to confirm the development independently. There remains concern over the Lebanese army confronting al-Nusra and ISIS fighters who resort to guerrilla warfare in the face of a standing army. Counter-insurgency tactics generally are effective against a standing army that isn’t trained in such tactics.

Oct, NEW YORK – Unless the United States deploys Special Forces on the ground and acknowledges its enemy is Islamic jihadists, the Obama military strategy against ISIS is doomed to failure, charges retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin and former congressman and retired Army Lt. Col. Allen West. Retired Lt. Gen. William G. BoykinWest pointed out, affirming a CIA estimate, that ISIS is “a non-state belligerent army consisting of some 31,500 fighters, having grown from a mere 1,500 to 2,000 fighters last January, earning approximately $1 million a day from black-market oil revenues.” Last week, Congress approved Obama’s plan for training and arming so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels of the Free Syrian Army, the FSA, to fight ISIS. There is evidence that members of the FSA have openly cooperated with ISIS and the al-Qaida-linked group Jabhat al-Nusra. Boykin, an undersecretary of defense for intelligence under President George W. Bush, insisted the U.S. “cannot destroy ISIS with the strategy President Obama has laid out.” “If we arm and equip the Free Syrian Army, all we are doing is supporting al-Qaida,” he said. “We’ve got to realize ISIS is dedicated to attacking the United States, and any weapons we give the Free Syrian Army are only going to end up in the hands of ISIS.”West agreed. “No single Republican in Congress should have put their name on voting for the lack of a real military strategy in what amounts to giving away $500 million to the Free Syrian Army, a rebel force we don’t fully control or understand,” he said.Both agreed the only way to defeat ISIS is to deploy Special Forces. “We have a military that is capable and ready, such that ISIS could be destroyed in less than 90 days, much like what we saw in the early days in Afghanistan,” West argued. “At that time, we had 500 to 600 Special Forces operators that in conjunction with the Northern Alliance routed a 70,000-man Taliban army and 5,000 other al-Qaida fighters in less than 90 days with American air power. That is the correct model.” Boykin also referenced the effectiveness of Special Forces combining with the Northern Alliance in the initial phase of U.S. combat involvement in Afghanistan. “It’s ridiculous to talk about ‘bringing to justice’ these guys who behead Americans on television for the world to see,” Boykin said. “What we need to get the job done is U.S. Special Forces on the ground combined with U.S. air power. Then we might get somewhere convincing the Sunnis in Iraq that ISIS, like Iran, are holy warriors that will continue to behead people if they are allowed to get away with it.”Already at the border; Boykin added his concern that ISIS has already entered the U.S. by penetrating the nation’s porous southern border with Mexico. “If you can get the Border Patrol aside, you will find something like 80 percent of the OTMs, the ‘Other Than Mexican,’ illegal immigrants are from the Middle East,” he told WND. “We know Americans have gone to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS. We should also realize that ISIS terrorists entering through Mexico are already here.” Boykin and West took strong exception to Obama’s assertion that ISIS is not Islamic. “A Muslim from Great Britain fighting with ISIS savagely and barbarically beheaded two Americans and one British citizen,” West pointed out. “If we continue to bring together this false sense of multiculturalism in order to make us feel comfortable fighting ISIS, we are not going to be successful,” he said. “We cannot win on the battlefield in Iraq and Syria by being politically correct. We have to win by correctly

defining the enemy.” Boykin, whose 36-year military career included 13 years in the Delta Force, with two years as its commander, was equally emphatic. “If President Obama does not realize ISIS is radical Islam, then his military strategy is not going to be worth a plug nickel. Al-Qaida is Islam, and ISIS is al-Qaida,” Boykin stressed. ‘Islamic sympathizer’; Both expressed concern that the way Obama has chosen to fight ISIS shows he’s not serious about winning. “Barack Obama is an Islamic sympathizer who enables the other side to be quite successful – a political leaning that was obvious as far back as 2009, when he invited the Muslim Brotherhood membership to occupy the first two rows when he spoke in Cairo,” West told WND. “You want to look at how many Muslim Brotherhood members Barack Obama has brought into the administration and how closely the Obama administration works with groups like CAIR, or how hard the Obama administration works to purge any law-enforcement training material that might offend Muslims?” Boykin stressed ISIS wants to create an international Islamic caliphate. He took exception to Obama calling the group ISIL, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, instead of ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria. “I refuse to use ISIL, because the Levant is a concept that does not include Israel,” Boykin said. “So when President Obama uses the term ISIL, he is acknowledging they are an organization that does not recognize the right of Israel to exist,” he said. “This is about radical Islam – this is a war and these are holy warriors,” Boykin concluded. “ISIS is already in America today, and if we don’t identify and stand up to them, we are going to suffer the consequences.”

Sep, Retired U.S. Navy Capt. Chuck Nash says radical groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, can never be completely eradicated, and any meaningful degrading of the terrorist army will only come with competent ground forces working in tandem with powerful airstrikes like Americans saw Monday night. Nonetheless, Nash is impressed by the performance of U.S. forces this week in the first airstrikes conducted in Syria and is pleased to see Arab allies, particularly Sunnis, joining the fight. Late Monday, the Pentagon confirmed that the U.S. was carrying out the first wave of airstrikes inside Syria. War planes with precision-guided munitions and multiple U.S. Navy vessels firing a variety of missiles took part, with varying levels of assistance from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. By all accounts, the strikes were on target and avoided civilian casualties. However, Nash said Americans should have no illusions about what U.S. military efforts can and cannot accomplish in taking the fight to ISIS. “It will never be destroyed. The violent element is in the DNA of Islam. It’s in their documents. Moderates and radicals read the same documents and draw their inspiration from the same religious texts. It will never disappear. It can only be degraded,” said Nash, who is also a military analyst for the Fox News Channel. According to Nash, air power can be very effective, but it has the greatest impact when accompanied by competent ground forces that can take the fight to the enemy’s ground forces. He said the U.S. learned that the hard way in the NATO campaign against Serbia in the late 1990s. In that campaign, without guidance from the ground, U.S. pilots were very focused on striking Serbian tanks, only to discover they were decoys. “Unless you have a ground force to oppose a ground force, there’s no reason for that other ground force to coalesce into a defensive position and become dense enough to become a lucrative air target,” Nash said. Finding effective ground troops in this campaign could prove difficult. U.S. officials say it will take up to a year to get moderate Syrian rebels prepared to fight ISIS. Iraqi forces continue to prove they are not up to the task. Last Sunday, ISIS militants successfully smuggled explosive-laden Humvees onto an Iraqi base in Anbar Province. Once detonated, up to 500 Iraqi soldiers were lost. Nash said the Iraqis will need to shape up in a hurry if they are to be used effectively against ISIS.

“They’re going to have to get competent leadership at the officer level,” he said. “They do have some good troops in the commando units, the special forces units that we’ve trained. Those guys are good, but there just aren’t enough of them. The regular army infantry that the Iraqi forces have are not properly led, not properly equipped. The events of last Sunday showed that.” Even if the Iraqi military improved drastically in the coming months, Nash sees little alternative but to have U.S. personnel at the front to coordinate the air campaign. “There have to be boots on the ground at some point that are working on the same goals as we are,” he said. “I’m not saying they have to be U.S. boots necessarily. We’re either going to have Title 10, some people in uniform who are used to working with U.S. aircraft, or Title 50 where they are chopped from the military to another agency where they’re on the ground.”Nash added, “But call them Americans on the ground. Sooner or later, there are going to be Americans on the ground. Otherwise, we’re just going to be chasing ghosts.” Nash also sees a couple of significant positive developments in the wake of Monday night’s bombings, especially the involvement of five Arab nations in the mission: Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates. An even more “critical step,” he says, is that Sunnis in the region are ready to confront other Sunnis.“The critical step is admitting and going out to defend, in their own populations, the fact that these Sunni countries are in combat against a Sunni unit in this ISIS group,” he said. “They’re taking on the risk of having internal problems, internal terrorist acts or demonstrations in their own countries.” While Monday’s strikes are just the beginning of a campaign the U.S. admits will take years, Nash also reminded Americans to marvel at just how good the U.S. military is at what it does. “We make this look really easy. It’s not,” he said. “There’s a lot of skill, a lot of practice. The experience of war over time has educated the people who are flying the airplanes and planning the missions. It makes it look easy, but it’s fairly complicated.”How complicated is it? “The big thing is getting everything to work as it’s supposed to work,” Nash explained. “You plan on it to work, and then you come up with backups if things go wrong, if the weather intervenes, if this group is running late because they got off late. How late can you get off and still make the mission? What are the fall-back positions? Is everybody communicating or is somebody in a ducting layer, where you can’t hear them?”He said, “There are all kinds of things that can happen in the environment and in human performance that can really throw a monkey wrench into things. So when things go smoothly, everybody says, ‘Well, that’s the way it’s supposed to work.’ But it’s hard to pull off.”

Regards Cees