Category Archives: Islamic State

The Road to Defeating the Islamic State Runs through Kurdistan

Now that President Trump concluded that the Syrian gas attack “crossed many, many lines” and reacted accordingly, he must formulate a battle-plan to convert dynamic “talk” into ongoing “walk.”

In the process, he should recognize that it is in America’s best interest to recognize Kurdistan as a sovereign state and to deduce how to proceed thereafter based upon the historic, military, economic, religious and political implications of this overdue stance.

Its immediate impact would be felt in the Pentagon, as it plans how to defeat the Islamic State, but its long-term import can provide a template as to how to remodel the Middle East to maximize the interests of the United States, American allies, and long-suffering Middle Eastern peoples.

And it would serve as the culmination of regional battle plans we have proposed for almost a decade: in 2008, we focused upon how to confront the major source of global terrorism, and in 2015, we demonstrated why the United States cannot evade this trouble-spot.  In 2013, we simply concluded that the Kurds can lead a reborn Syria, at peace with all of her neighbors, and in 2014, we suggested thatNATO must help the Kurds now.

Historically, the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres was one of 35 treaties addressing the disposition of the former Ottoman Empire following World War I.  It was signed by the Ottomans, French, British, Italians, and Armenians.

Unfortunately, the Turks reneged after initially having accepted it, leading to its being supplanted by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne that officially settled the conflict.  It was signed by Turkey, Greece, Italy, Japan, and Great Britain.

The former advocated for a Kurdish referendum to decide its fate, which was to include the Mosul Province, per Section III, Articles 62-64.  The latter defined the borders of the modern Turkish Republic.

Thus, the unfinished business created by the former should yield re-establishment of an independent Kurdistan in the Syrian-Iraqi region.  To accommodate the latter, acknowledged, would be a regional diaspora in Eastern Turkey and northwestern Iran, thereby resolving presumed vague territorial claims.

Yet, following defeat of the Islamic State, the only superpower that could subsequently protect the Kurds (and Kurdish Yazidis) from Turkish, Iranian, Russian, and Syrian attack is America.

And the only way to prompt Moscow to act to oust Iran from Syria is for America to ante up and – functioning as a player who no longer is following from behind – to encourage implementation of a Grand Plan to end this half-decade civil war by creating key spheres of influence:

Russia would legitimize its military presence along the Mediterranean, while America would both provide a buffer between Damascus and the Golan Heights (in southern Syria) and protect the Kurdistan region of Syria (currently and historically heavily populated by Kurds) south of Turkey from the Mediterranean Sea to the Tigris River (in northern Syria).

Indeed, it may be the pendency of this Grand Plan that explains both why President Trump had avoided criticizing President Putin and why relocation of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem has been delayed.

In any case, militarily, by introducing troops into Syria in conjunction withOperation Inherent Resolve, America would help create safe zones to which Syrian refugees could be relocated (from Europe, Turkey, and Jordan), within which they could be able to work with non-Islamists to found a country led by freedom-loving Kurds and to defend it against barbaric terrorists.

Two constituencies would have to become convinced of the wisdom of assuming this limited leadership role: myriad Kurdish factions and American public opinion.

The former would have to adopt a unified structure that maximizes its independence from foreign influences, and the latter would have to be educated as to how the United States would benefit from achieving stability in this volatile region.

Pivotal would be creation of a coalition government composed solely of Kurds who share Western values, thereby precluding inter-Kurdish conflict as occurred in the 1990s in Iraq.

Under American leadership – respecting “facts on the ground” – the pro-Assad YPG (“People’s Protection Units”) in the northeast would join with the pro-American KurdNAS (“Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria”) in the northwest to create a solitary administrative unit.

Positive public opinion could be mustered from Europeans (and their governments) to gain support from the NATO alliance, for they are increasingly recognizing that many restless refugees may be “overstaying their welcome.”

It would then be easier to muster domestic support for this limited incursion – already presaged by the presence of  about 5,000 special forces in the arena – behaviorally answering Iran’s “slap America in the face” threat.

This region would be contiguous with the semi-autonomous Kurdistan region of northern Iraq – that some feel should have become an independent entity after the Gulf War – and, thus, could subsequently become the Kurdish homeland envisioned a century ago.

Re-establishing Kurdistan would resolve the agitation of the PKK (“Kurdistan Workers’ Party”) in eastern Turkey, for the Turkish Kurds would constitute a diaspora that would no longer rebel against Ankara.

Sensitivity to this concern were reflected by delay in American provision ofheavy armaments to the Kurds, who are leading the assault on Rakka, until after the upcoming Turkish referendum, a posture that perhaps was enhanced by recapitulation of the demand that Ankara release an American pastor.

American’s military and diplomatic moves during the past fortnight – as also detailed at the DebkaFile – are consistent with these strategic goals, including U.S. helicopters having dropped Kurdish and Arab fighters west of Raqqa, and Secretary of State Tillerson having met with embattled Russians and Islamist Turks.

Thereafter, absent Iranian involvement, Turkey suddenly ended its “Euphrates Shield” invasion of Syria, and the Syrian army and rebel groups signed an agreement that will allow an estimated 60,000 people to depart from four besieged areas of the country.

Any residual Turkish resistance to this negotiated outcome would be resolved by providing President Erdoğan the corner of Syria that encompasses the Tomb of Suleyman Shah – who was the grandfather of Osman I (d. 1323/4), the founder of the Ottoman Empire – that arguably triggered his military to invade.  He would no longer feel compelled to purchase missiles from the Russians.

The exit strategy could, unfortunately, allow secular President Assad to remain in power if elected in a referendum conducted within a shrunken country, for myriad governmental and non-governmental militias would be left to determine the character of the resulting entity, including Christian forces.

Unfortunately, the Alawite-Russian bond has strengthened following ex-President Obama’s initial failure to honor his “red line” pledge and his ongoing blind neo-isolationism.

Kurdistan’s oil reserves and ingenuity – born of its sustained ancient culture – would allow her to continue to flourish economically, American support for this entity would undermine claims of anti-Muslim religious posturing, and the outcome could help resolve longstanding political conflicts such as friction between Baghdad and Erbil and conflict among myriad Kurdish factions.

Thus, at long last, America must recognize Kurdistan and, by serving as midwife for a new country, would defeat the Islamic State and obtain both immediate and long-term dividends.

Kurds would become the buffer for Europe and America’s allies in the region by interdicting Iran’s dream of creating a Shia Crescent to the Sea and Turkey’s aspiration to recreate an Ottoman Empire.  American inactivity would constitute a lost opportunity that might become irretrievable.

Sherkoh Abbas is president of the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria.  Robert Sklaroff is a physician-activist.

Advertisements

ISIS: The Embodiment of Islam

For the last few years, the world has been subjected with increasing regularity to bloody terrorism waged upon innocent civilians worldwide by the Islamic State in their holy war against all non-believers. Their warfare, once reserved and contained within the Middle East, is now a battlefield in the streets of Paris, Brussels, London, New York, Orlando, Boston, Sydney, and San Bernardino, and many other cities.

Here in the West, the many Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations, ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), and MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council) would have us believe that ISIS has perverted Islam. They advance a false narrative that labels Islam as  religion of peace and that we non- believers have nothing to fear. In their quest to deflect any criticism of Islam, the Muslim Brotherhood even coined the term “Islamophobia” in 1991 in their Explanatory Memorandum On The General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America.

For those familiar with Quranic doctrine, the Sunna, (social, legal andtraditions of the Islamic community), the Hadith (narrative sayings and teachings of Mohammad), and Sharia (Islamic law), all disclose that the embodiment of Islam is the Islamic State.

Islamic doctrine mandates a global Islamic Caliphate where all of mankind is under the dominion of Allah and governed by Sharia.

It commands Muslims to achieve world dominance through dawa(proselytizing of Islam), Jihad, and the Hijra (immigration to the lands of non-believers). All three methodologies are now actively in play throughout the West.

While the continuous tools of “dawa” and the “hijra” command little attention by the international press and thus, inadvertently aid and abet the stealth “civilizational Jihad,” the use of bloody barbaric violence by the Islamic State commends center stage.

Contrary to what the many apologetic Muslims in the West offer as an aberration of Islam, ISIS is the militant Jihad required of Muslims by Quranic doctrine. The refusal by any organized Muslim group to admit it is an act oftaqiyya (deception) permissible for the advancement of Islam.

ISIS, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida, Al Shabab, and the numerous other Islamic terrorist organizations are the Jihadist military wings of Dar Al Harb (the House of War) as outlined in the Quran. What Western Muslims will not divulge is the written text that divides Islam into Dar Al Islam (the House of Peace for the believers) and Dar Al Harb (the House of War for all non- believers); thus, since its inception, Islam has been at war with all non-believers. Wherever Islam has raised its bloody head, violence has followed. Vast areas of the globe in the Middle East, Africa and in the Far East, once home to Christians and Jews, have been cleansed of them.

Contradicting Muslim Brotherhood apologist front groups is the nearly 66% of material contained within Quranic doctrine filled with violence directed at non-believers. In Quranic verse 9:5 Mohammad instructed his followers to “fight and kill thedisbelievers wherever you find them.” In Quranic verse 9.112 he warned, “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.” Likewise, Quranic verse 8:39 states “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).” One particular command (beheadings) practiced by ISIS is found in sura 47, verse 4 which states, “so when you meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks until, when you have inflictedslaughter upon them, then secure their bonds, and either confer favor afterwards or ransom them.”

Members of ISIS are fulfilling Mohammad’s commandments by turning European and American cities into killing fields. Each attack strikes fear in the hearts of the non- believers and they will continue to strike fear until either wesubmit to Islam or Islam is defeated. From the Quran 3:151 “We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve.”

Additionally, the practice of Islamic subjugation of Christians, Jews, and all non-believers as well as slavery can still be found in parts of Africa. It is derived from Quranic passage 33:50 “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.” Many verses in the Quran encourage Muslim men to keep woman as sex slaves as Mohammad did in his lifetime. Today, ISIS is following in Mohammad’s footsteps in parts of Syria and Iraq.

Muslim apologists often point out that these passages have been taken out of context or are practiced only in time of war. They deceptively omit that there is no context to the Quran and thatIslamic text considers itself to be perpetually at war with non-believers until global dominance is achieved. Americans mustbegin to learn the truth about Islam. It is not a religion by any Western standard, but is instead a violent political ideology that hides behind religion to justify the slaughter of those who do not submit.

Unlike a tumor which can be eradicated, Islam is more akin to a cancer which has metastasized within the world body organ. Like a cancer on the world stage, for the last fourteen hundred years, Islam has taken the lives of 60 million Christians, 80 million Hindus, 10 million Buddhists, and 120 million Africans. The questions that need to be asked are why was this cancer permitted to enter our collective American home and how many more of usneed to die before this cancer will be eradicated once and for all?

Shari Goodman is an educator, activist, and journalist. Her political commentaries have appeared in American Thinker, World Net Daily and other publications. She is a red dot residing in the blue state of California.

Extremely vetted Syria refugee had unvetted contacts with Islamic State

988457_745547472189439_3807513502083424843_n

The liberal media like to say over and over that refugees from the Middle East are already subject to extreme vetting.  The most extreme!  The bureaucratic equivalent of waterboarding!  Why, they sat down refugees and actually asked them questions!  How much more thorough could they be than that?

Apparently, they missed something, because they let in at least one ISIS operative.

Federal agents are reinvestigating the backgrounds of dozens of Syrian refugees already in the United States after discovering a lapse in vetting that allowed some who had potentially negative information in their files to enter the country, two U.S. law enforcement officials said.

Do you appreciate the minimalist way this was written?  There’s nothing to worry about – merely “potentially negative information in their files.”  Doesn’t sound very serious, does it?

The refugees whose cases are under review include one who failed a polygraph test when he applied to work at a U.S. military installation overseas and another who may have been in communication with an Islamic State leader, according to the officials

I would say communicating with an Islamic State leader would be very “potentially negative information” in a refugee’s file.  Wouldn’t you?

President Obama ramped up the acceptance of Syrians last year to address the humanitarian crisis in that country, admitting 15,479 Syrian refugees, a 606% increase over the 2,192 admitted in 2015. Since the civil war started, the U.S. has accepted more than 18,000 Syrians seeking asylum, according to the State Department.

The vast majority pose no threat, officials say.

So what’s the problem?  If 60% or 70% or even 80% pose no threat, is there any reason to be concerned about Syrian refugees?

The 21-step screening process for Syrian refugees is among the most rigorous for anyone seeking to enter the United States.

The most rigorous!

Typically, the refugees are first screened by the United Nations and then referred to the State Department and other countries for potential resettlement.

Good to know we can rely on the U.N.!

As they review the applications, U.S. law enforcement and intelligence officials check the names and identities against databases.

What databases? When someone comes from a regime with no central government, what database is there to check against?  What do they do, a keyword search for ISIS on LinkedIn?

The vetting gap stemmed from a technological issue that for a period of time limited how agents searched CIA databases during the background check process, the officials said. As U.S. intelligence agents cross-checked refugees’ names and biographical information against CIA databases, the computer systems were not initially set up to automatically inspect data contained in “attachments” to the records, the officials said.

I have complete confidence in extreme vetting, don’t you?

Refugee applications have been rescreened before. In 2011, the files of more than 58,000 Iraqi refugees already living in the U.S. were vetted after the FBI learned that an Iraqi man living in Kentucky had participated in roadside bomb attacks in Iraq before he was granted asylum. He and another Iraqi refugee were arrested by the FBI and pleaded guilty in 2013 to trying to send explosives and missiles to the group known as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Did they forget to check their email attachments?

Maybe they’re not doing the right keyword searches.  Or maybe there’s a problem with their spreadsheets.  Or maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t let an incompetent bureaucracy let any of these people in.  One of the great things Donald Trump is doing is stopping immigration from Syria, on a temporary basis.  It should be made permanent.

Ed Straker is the senior writer at NewsMachete.com.