There just may be an interesting shift in paradigm in the manner with which we engage militant islamic jihadism. I’ve shared this before, but the term “global war on terrorism” is a horrific misnomer particularly in reference to the current conflagration in which we are embroiled.
Terrorism is a tactic, and from a strategic perspective, a nation does not fight a tactic. For example, World War II was not a “global war against blitzkrieg” or “global war against kamikazes.” The allied powers fought against German Naziism, Italian fascism, and Japanese Imperialism. And strategically, our nation developed its plan for two different combat theaters of operations: the European and Pacific. If we are to defeat Islamo-fascism, which is the modern day manifestation of Islamic jihadism, we must identify the ideological struggle, and stop with the national security policy based on obfuscation, denial, dismissal and political correctness — such as we witnessed with the “unhhelpful” comment of Trump administration National Security Advisor, LTG H.R. McMaster.
The recent comments of Syrian President Bashar Assad provide me the opportunity to discuss this important shift in modus operandi if we are to crush the cancer known as militant islamic terrorism. Check this out…
As reported by Reuters, “Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said U.S. forces in Syria were “invaders” and he had yet to see “anything concrete” emerge from U.S. President Donald Trump’s vow to prioritize the fight against Islamic State.
Assad has said he saw promise in Trump’s statements emphasizing the battle against Islamic State in Syria, where U.S. policy under President Barack Obama had backed some of the rebels fighting Assad and shunned him as an illegitimate leader.
Assad has said he saw promise in Trump’s statements emphasizing the battle against Islamic State in Syria, where U.S. policy under President Barack Obama had backed some of the rebels fighting Assad and shunned him as an illegitimate leader.“We haven’t seen anything concrete yet regarding this rhetoric,” Assad said in an interview with Chinese TV station Phoenix. “We have hopes that this administration in the United States is going to implement what we have heard,” he said. The United States is leading a coalition against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In Syria, it is working with an alliance of Kurdish and Arab militias. Their current focus is to encircle and ultimately capture Raqqa – Islamic State’s base of operations in Syria. This week, the U.S.-led coalition announced that around 400 additional U.S. forces had deployed to Syria to help with the Raqqa campaign and to prevent any clash between Turkey and Washington-allied Syrian militias that Ankara sees as a threat. Asked about a deployment of U.S. forces near the northern city of Manbij, Assad said: “Any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation … are invaders.”
First of all, I find it interesting that we have a Chinese TV station interviewing Assad. I suppose we can expect the UN Security Council to say nothing about human rights violations in Syria, since Russia and China are members. As we all know, Russian President Vladimir Putin…doggone almost typed Lenin…has paid lip service to taking the fight to ISIS. Putin, along with Iran, only have one concern: to prop up Assad and obliterate his opposition. And of course, much of this is a result of the foolish Obama policy of withdrawal from Iraq: President Trump must now clean up Obama’s mess while Obama is messing around with his deep state shadow government.
Obama allowed the reestablishment of Islamic jihadist sanctuaries, and in the case of Libya, he enabled the creation. We must come to comprehend that Islamic jihadism — militant Islamo-fascism, is centered on non-state, non-uniformed unlawful enemy combatants. They do not own territory, but seek to create bases of operations within the boundaries of declared nation-states. And there are two means by which they are allowed to establish their sanctuaries — permissive and non-permissive.
An example of a permissive invitation to establish an Islamic jihadist sanctuary was in Afghanistan where the Taliban invited in al Qaeda. The failure of the Clinton administration back then was to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate government, just as Barack Obama supported and recognized Mohammed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood as a legitimate government — and shunned the Egyptian people. Oh by the way, what genius has the idea of possibly bringing former Obama smbassador to Egypt, Anne Patterson, as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy?
An example of a non-permissive establishment would be in Nigeria with Boko Haram — I guess that hashtag diplomatic effort wasn’t successful. We need a strategy that contends with both of these means. When the Islamic jihadists are acting in a non-permissive manner, we must work with host nations to eradicate the threat, such as in Iraq.
This is where we can assist the host nation forces with the requisite resources in order to defeat the enemy and deny them establishing a sanctuary. And in those nations that permit the establishment of these sanctuaries, we must be resolute in focusing on the Islamic jihadist group, but also be prepared to isolate and engage the host nation support apparatus, such as we did early in Afghanistan to the Taliban in driving out al Qaeda. In Afghanistan we found willing allies in the Tajik Northern Alliance.
However, we will encounter other instances where there is no stable system of governance, where chaos allows Islamic jihadist groups to find sanctuary, such as Libya, Somalia and Yemen. In those instances, we must be careful in not being drawn into a greater civil war engagement, but send the clear message, we are here for one foe, but if you interfere, you will suffer collateral damage.
The situation in Syria is rather interesting in that the leader there, Assad, is more concerned with his regime’s survival — which is also the objective of Russia and Iran. ISIS realized the chaotic environment and established themselves in Raqqa outside the sphere of control of Assad. But Assad was not as concerned about what their goals, objectives and intentions were as opposed to those Sunni islamic opposition groups seeking to undermine his reign.
So ISIS had the perfect permissive environment, one where they weren’t aided and supported, but they also weren’t attacked and just ignored to an extent. Now however, Assad wants to castigate U.S. troops as invaders when he has allowed a cancer to plant and grow within his nation.
The new Trump administration policy towards Islamo-fascist non-state, non-uniform unlawful enemy combatants is that if they do not regard borders, and neither shall we. And that message must be conveyed to the world, that if you harbor, or the enemy has harbor within your territory, we’re not seeking to invade you, but we will deny this enemy sanctuary. To that extent, it would be a good idea to have the National Security Advisor make such a declaration and convey that understanding. As well, the message to states that support Islamo-fascism and Islamic jihadism is America will take the necessary actions to interdict your flow of resource and materiel support.
But there is another theater of operations where the Trump administration needs to deny the Islamo-fascist enemy sanctuary, and that is here in these United States. It is imperative that President Trump designates the Muslim Brotherhood an Islamic terrorist organization. We must not only fight the enemy in the sanctuaries they’re establishing across the globe, but also the sanctuaries they enjoy for their stealth jihad in our homeland.
President Trump must read the Muslim Brotherhood’s Strategic Goal and Explanatory Memorandum written in 1991 by Mohammed Akram and recovered in a 2004 FBI raid in northern Virginia. Every single group listed in that document MUST be expelled from operating in the United States. If there are Gulf Cooperation Council Nations who have declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, why can’t we? I just have to ask, does our new National Security Advisor share the same perspective as presented here? Is LTG McMaster making a recommendation to President Trump to sign an Executive Order designating the Muslim Brotherhood an Islamic terrorist organization…or does McMaster believe that’s just too offensive?
The bottom line is, who cares what Assad thinks? We need a national security strategy that has as its first objective to deny Islamic jihadist groups sanctuary. And that means in permissive or non-permissive environments — and if this isn’t being pondered in the National Security Council, then tell me, what are they considering? This isn’t rocket surgery, it’s common sense, and I pray common sense is not an uncommon virtue in the administration of President Trump.
Designate the Muslim Brotherhood an Islamic terrorist organization and eliminate the stealth jihadists from our nation, President Trump. As well, send a clear message that your national security strategy is one of denying Islamic terrorist groups sanctuary, wherever they are. Our goal is not about invading; it is about finding, isolating and killing these barbaric 7th century savages.