We shall know them by their name (s)

The media, the White House and even our Defense Department want to play some silly semantics game about IS, so JK referred me back to the Sinjar Records, captured by American forces in Iraq in 2007 and compiled and analyzed at the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) located  at West Point:


The very first sentence in the introduction states:

“On December 4, 2007 Abu Umar al‐Baghdadi, the reputed Emir of al Qa’ida’s Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), claimed that his organization was almost purely Iraqi, containing only 200 foreign fighters.”  1
(1. Abu Umar al-Baghdadi, For the Scum Disappears Like Froth Cast Out, posted to http://www.muslm.net on December 4, 2007.)

So, al Baghdadi is not some new nemesis to mysteriously come out of nowhere in Iraq and certainly his IS is not some completely new entity – it’s the same al Qaeda terrorists, who are now following through on their stated mission – to create a new Caliphate.  The White House can pretend it’s some new radicalized group, but really it’s still al Qaeda.  Our officials love to regale us with the endless stream of #2s and #3s in the al Qaeda power structure they’ve eliminated with their leadership decapitation strategy, whilst the al Qaeda leadership remaining prefers to follow a straight up literal decapitation strategy.

 Does this administration read any intelligence reports?  So we’ve gone from “Assad the reformer”, to “Assad the threat to civilization”, to Assad our partner in the new “war on terror” against evil-doers” or um, I am awaiting a new WH narrative to explain whose side we’re on now:


Filed under Culture Wars, Foreign Policy, General Interest, Islam, Military, Politics

7 responses to “We shall know them by their name (s)

  1. JK

    Turd In The Punchbowl Comment:

    Recall – not so long ago – news reports reporting “Obama released al Baghdadi from US custody”?

    (Lemme see how many results … Okay, here’s one I’ve seen recently [and notably US Partisanly adapted


    … I do wish, given the threat of AQI → IS that we needn’t do this over and over and all over again. But with the very few exceptions of nine of my “neighborhood democrats” … yeah I realize everybody who reads LB is, naturally, a Republican is mostly … well I was trying sort of but, that’s not true. Mostly because I “know” a bunch of the new Readers don’t recognize (as likewise I don’t) the difference between the “Establishment” Republicans and/or Democrats. … Generally speaking for the Foreign Visitors it’s “Who Comments on Which Blog” and how much shit winds up on that commentor’s windshield [windscreen].

    For the Foreign Reader – what’s happening here in the US is … we can no longer Respectfully Agree To Disagree. …

    But that gaining lack in sentiment Respectfully Agree To Disagree is precisely why I’ll be visiting this blog Daily.

    More precisely. It’s to do with Reasoned Argument. And “Coolness.”

    No. Not James Dean or Me even. (Though I’m about the Coolest Guy in These Days USA.) Besides, James Dean is dead and I’m … getting very near.

    So let’s dissect LibertyBelleDiaries.

    1) She allows me – but doesn’t allow my “cool”

    2) We – by that word I’m meaning not just Me but “everybody” I’ve noticed to offer comment – adapt, configure, reconfigure, develop and [dread-thought on a blog] adapt some more.

    3) Then we meet again next post. *(*My Friends, Y’all might get a bit of guff ’cause of being “of the Obama Party” but we here do not Repeat – Do Not! report you to the Department of Homeland Security or, to your local Fusion Center.

    Now. Let’s compare that “Gateway Pundit” link above to LibertyBelleDiaries, To keep stuff simple I note “just from the link’s title” terror-leader-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi-was-released-by-obama

    Compared to what LB herself made the decision to post, from a 2007 CTC Brian Fishman et al preliminary it would appear – given what we know of Ryan Crocker’s timetable following Abu Ghraib …

    Okay … so my assessment.

    “LibertyBelle” doesn’t give a shit so much for “What’s-What” as she does the more simple


  2. JK, the truth is there is enough blame on both sides of the political aisle for strategic blunders since the 9/11/01 attack on the United States. Both the neocon happy horseshit about a cakewalk in the ME to the Obama delusions about “ending the war” when the enemy is still intent on annihilating us. Domestic politics pollutes every decision these idiots in Washington make. Both sides cherry-pick intelligence and sadly, it sure seems that way too often even our intelligence agencies filter their assessments to fit partisan political tastes rather than giving their best honest assessment of the situation.

    John McCreary’s Nightwatch had a comment a while back (haven’t located it yet), on the US drone leadership decapitation strategy, where the US targets Al Qaeda leadership. That comment makes more sense out of what is happening inside Al Qaeda than anything else I have seen. The comment stated that as we eliminate more and more of Al Qaeda’s top echelon, seasoned leadership, those top positions will be filled with less-seasoned and more radicalized fighters – hence, as we can see with IS, that “new” terrorist threat is really the old terrorist threat that has adapted to our strategy. All we will do is the same old crap – not even thinking outside the box for a second or trying to analyze the situation without the partisan blinders on.

    Of course, the biggest strategic advantage Al Qaeda has against us is:
    We seem to lack a strategic focus and fixate more on selling made-up narratives to the American people. An honest assessment is that even though we possess all the military advantages, without a clear mission or strategy, we won’t win. We spend more time trying to find ways to blame Bush or Obama and we refuse to even define our goal as the defeat of this enemy, who has stayed committed to annihilating us. They utilize suicide attacks to inflict damage on us; we have chosen a suicidal overall strategy – fighting amongst ourselves.

  3. JK

    ” … the truth is there is enough blame on both sides of the political aisle … ”

    Just tabbed over LB, to the good ol’ ROK and commenced to steal from Jeff.

    We thought, because we had power, we had wisdom.

    Can’t permalink from there until the next post posts.


  4. JK

    Henry Kissinger from 2005!

    “There have been conflicting reports about the timing of American troop withdrawals from Iraq. Gen. Casey, commander of U.S. forces there, announced that the United States intends to begin a “fairly substantial” withdrawal of U.S. forces after the projected December elections establish a constitutional government. … [S]ources have indicated this will involve some 22 percent of U.S. forces in Iraq.

    “A review of withdrawal strategy therefore seems in order. For one thing, how are the terms “progress” and “improvement” to be defined? In a war without front lines, does a lull indicate success or a strategic decision by the adversary? Is a decline in enemy attacks due to attrition or to a deliberate enemy strategy of conserving forces to encourage American withdrawal?

    “For someone like me, who observed firsthand the anguish of the original involvement, and who later participated in the decisions to withdraw [the] announcement revived poignant memories. … Once the process is started, it runs the risk of operating by momentum rather than by strategic analysis, and that process is increasingly difficult to reverse.

    “The war in Iraq is less about geopolitics than about the clash of ideologies, cultures and religious beliefs. Because of the long reach of the Islamist challenge, the outcome in Iraq will have an even deeper significance than that in Vietnam. If a fundamentalist radical state were to emerge in any part of Iraq, shock waves would ripple through the Islamic world. Radical forces in Islamic countries would be emboldened in their attacks on existing governments. The safety and internal stability of all societies within reach of militant Islam would be imperiled.

    “This is why many opponents of the decision to start the war agree with the proposition that a catastrophic outcome would have grave global consequences – a fundamental difference from the Vietnam debate. [T]he military challenge in Iraq is more elusive. Local Iraqi forces are being trained for a form of combat entirely different from the traditional land battles of the last phase of the Vietnam War. There are no front lines; the battlefield is everywhere. We face a shadowy enemy pursuing four principal objectives: (1) to expel foreigners from Iraq; (2) to penalize Iraqis cooperating with the occupation; (3) to create a chaos out of which a government of their Islamist persuasion will emerge as a model for other Islamic states; and (4) to turn Iraq into a training base for the next round of fighting, probably in moderate Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

    “The insurgents are betting that by exacting a toll among supporters of the government and collaborators with America, they can frighten an increasing number of civilians into, at a minimum, staying on the sidelines, thereby undermining the government and helping the insurgents by default.

    “[T]he US is … counting on a different kind of attrition: that the insurgents’ concentration on civilian carnage is due to the relatively small number of insurgents, which obliges them to conserve manpower and to shrink from attacking hard targets; hence, the insurgency can gradually be worn down.

    “Because of the axiom that AQI wins if they do not lose, stalemate is unacceptable. American strategy, including a withdrawal process, will stand or fall not on whether it maintains the existing security situation but on whether the capacity to improve it is enhanced. Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.

    “What is the real combat effectiveness of Iraqi security forces, and against what kind of dangers?

    “Experience suggests that the effectiveness of local forces is profoundly affected by the political framework. The divisions defending the provinces in which they were stationed and from which they were recruited were often quite effective. When moved into a different and unfamiliar corps area, however, they proved far less steady.

    “The Iraqi equivalent may well be the ethnic and religious antagonisms between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. In Iraq, each of the various ethnic and religious groupings sees itself in an irreconcilable, perhaps mortal, confrontation with the others. Each group has what amounts to its own geographically concentrated militia. In the Kurdish area, for example, internal security is maintained by Kurdish forces, and the presence of the national army is kept to a minimum, if not totally prevented. The same holds true to a substantial extent in the Shiite region.

    “Is it then possible to speak of a national army at all? Today the Iraqi forces are in their majority composed of Shiites, and the insurrection is mostly in traditional Sunni areas. It thus foreshadows a return to the traditional Sunni-Shiite conflict, only with reversed capabilities. These forces may cooperate in quelling the Sunni insurrection. But will they, even when adequately trained, be willing to quell Shiite militias in the name of the nation?”


    I for one am glad to see somebody isn’t attached to General Keane and the Kagan’s (and of course that Irish Syrian/FSA Lady “Expert”) Institute for the Study of War sorts who’ll be appearing (probably pretty soon) on the “A Pages Section” of The Wall Street Journal.

    Eliza … cough. Cough. Cough cough (excuse please I got a loogie hung someres) Hack-O’Bagy

    Goodness. Now I can breathe freely.

  5. Thank you JK – timely as always and you should forward that link to the White House. The entire article is from the August 12, 2005 Washington Post: http://www.henryakissinger.com/articles/wp081205.html

    • Oh and JK, yes, little Lizzie O’Bagy is now John McCain’s Syrian subject matter expert….. so, he’ll be pounding that same “arm the Free Syrian Army” mantra. I’m going to write something about a strategy for IS this morning and list the primary considerations for the big picture outcome – we will need to focus on something I wrote a long while back, in this war against this Islamist Ascendency – we need to make the numero uno concern with whom we ally ourselves – deciding if the leader of that group or state entity is a rational leader. Then we ascertain if he is non-Islamist-leaning type or if he is an abettor to the Islamist agenda. Due to the pall Islam casts over the political in the region some serious assessments and careful adjustments must be made and we’ll have to take a hard line toward some like the House of Saud and Erdogan in Turkey, but we must start putting the big picture, disintegrating world order, above partisan domestic political posturing. That’s a tall order as it’s the only sure thing known by this WH and the likes of GOP punditry circle magpies, McCain and Graham, who switch sides and offer contradictory statements as often as Obama – they are all clueless mountebanks, selling snake oil remedies to cure this metastasized cancer known as “the religion of Peace”.

  6. JK

    Odd now that you’ve brought up those particular two “Masters of Disaster” I had the sound down but on the scrolling banner on FOX a few minutes ago I read “McCain and Graham call for strikes inside Syria.”

    Don’t know if it was simply an oversight but I didn’t notice on the banner anything about Senators Strateguys demanding Obama call Congress into session as The War Powers Act only allows Obama thirty days free hand.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s