Tag: ISIS

Categories
Quick Analysis

ISIS Threat In the West, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its review of  key reports on ISIS’ growing ability to strike within the West.

A CNN study found that “Since declaring its caliphate in June 2014, the self-proclaimed Islamic State has conducted or inspired more than 140 terrorist attacks in 29 countries other than Iraq and Syria, where its carnage has taken a much deadlier toll. Those attacks have killed at least 2,043 people and injured thousands more.”

The Threat Knowledge Group provides  this data:

ISIS has already recruited supporters in the United States with the intent of executing domestic attacks here in America. Key evidence includes the following:

  • 82 individuals in the United States affiliating with ISIS have been interdicted by law enforcementsince March 2014 (including 7 unnamed minors and 4 killed in the course of attacks).  (For a full list of those individuals see chart below)
  • More than 250 individuals from the United States have joined or attempted to join ISISin Syria and Iraq according to the Final Report of the Task Force on Combating Terrorist and Foreign Fighter Travel published by the U.S. House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee in September 2015.
  • The FBI currently has nearly 1,000 ongoing ISIS probes in the United States, according to a recent report by Judicial Watch.
  • ISIS is recruiting within the U.S. at about three-times the rate of Al Qaeda.
  • Ali Shukri Amin, a 17 year-old Islamic State (IS) supporter from Manassas, Virginia, recently sentenced to 11 years in prison for conspiring to provide support to ISIS, had nearly 4,000 Twitter followers, under the alias, ‘Amreeki Witness.’
  • Ahmad Musa Jibril, an Arab-American Islamist preacher living in Dearborn, Michigan, had 38,000 Twitter followersbefore his site went silent. A report by the International Centre for the Study of Radicalisation (ICSR) found that 60% of surveyed foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria followed Jibril on Twitter.

Once an individual is addicted to cigarette smoking it is tablets viagra very difficult to stop it. Feedbacks soft tab cialis http://robertrobb.com/2017/05/ from past clients are a source of misery and judgement. Not using the nofollow format is commonly cialis tablets australia called joining the dofollow community. It is something that allows you to control your portions at each meal and resist the urge to snack in between meals. tadalafil tablets 20mg
What the numbers demonstrate is that ISIS has a significant base of support in the United States, including both those who have already traveled to Iraq and Syria to fight as jihadis, as well as terror suspects who have been interdicted for attempting to travel there, providing support to ISIS in other tangible ways, or attempting attacks.

Most importantly, nearly one third of the domestic ISIS cases in the past 18 months involved people who planned to carry out attacks against Americans on U.S. soil. In other words, one third of those interdicted calculated that the best way to serve the new Islamic State and its Caliph, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, is to wage jihad here on the soil of the infidel.

It is also essential to note the number of followers of ISIS propagandists Ali Shukri Amin and Ahmad Musa Jibril, which shows that domestic support for ISIS may reach well into the thousands. With Syrian refugees starting to arrive in the United States, these numbers may further increase.

Shannon Green, writing for The Center for Strategic and International Studies , outlines the ongoing challenge:

“Fifteen years after September 11, terrorism has spread, gained favor among a new generation, and now casts an ever-larger shadow over the globe…  in an era of social media, domestic radicalization, and lone wolf attacks, it is clear that military, intelligence, and law enforcement strategies alone are insufficient to eradicate the threat. Combating terrorism is both a “battle of arms and a battle of ideas—a fight against the terrorists and their murderous ideology,” as the 2006 National Security Strategy put it.

“We have undoubtedly failed when it comes to the battle of ideas. Both the Bush and Obama administrations made some attempts to confront extremist ideologies and narratives, but prevention has never received sustained attention and focus, nor has it had the desired effect. One only has to look at the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) and its unprecedented use of digital platforms to recruit fighters and inspire terrorist attacks all over the world. Instead of continuing to pursue complex 9/11-style attacks, these terrorists have adapted, transitioning to plots that can be executed by small groups or individuals, against soft targets, using less sophisticated and easy-to-acquire weapons. Such attacks do not require extensive training, planning, or coordination, making them harder to spot, but no less lethal. These groups have been better at adapting to our efforts than we have been at adapting to theirs. digital platforms serve as a powerful amplifier and accelerant, allowing terrorist groups to target a much broader audience…Wannabee terrorists can consume propaganda, get inspired, and learn how to execute an attack—without ever leaving their homes. The widespread use of social media has also made violent extremists’ plans more difficult to identify and disrupt. Security agencies now have the added challenge of isolating genuine threats from a sea of noise…

“Terrorism today is therefore more atomized, pervasive, and challenging to counter than it was at the turn of the century. Going forward, terrorists will likely seek to evade improved law enforcement and intelligence capabilities and border controls by calling on national citizens or green card holders—without a criminal record or known terrorist ties—to conduct attacks. As such, “homegrown extremism” presents a growing challenge in the United States and elsewhere. Violent extremist groups are also diversifying their recruitment pool, reaching out to women and older and younger generations who are not yet as closely watched by security agencies. Terrorists have already started recruiting children in their pre-teens—a trend that is likely to accelerate—and women are increasingly found in high-profile roles as supporters, mobilizers, and members of terrorist groups.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

ISIS Threat Grows in West

While ISIS has been losing territory in the Middle East, its ability to attack western nations, including the United States, has been escalating. The New York Analysis of Policy & Government has reviewed key examinations of the growing threat:

A study from George Washington University’s Program on Extremism notes that

“ISIS-related mobilization in the United States has been unprecedented. As of the fall of 2015, U.S. authorities speak of some 250 Americans who have traveled or attempted to travel to Syria/Iraq to join the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and 900 active investigations against ISIS sympathizers in all 50 states…Social media plays a crucial role in the radicalization and, at times, mobilization of U.S.-based ISIS sympathizers. The Program on Extremism has identified some 300 American and/or U.S.-based ISIS sympathizers active on social media, spreading propaganda, and interacting with like-minded individuals… ISIS-related radicalization is by no means limited to social media. While instances of purely web-driven, individual radicalization are numerous, in several cases U.S.-based individuals initially cultivated and later strengthened their interest in ISIS’s narrative through face-to-face relationships. In most cases online and offline dynamics complement one another. The spectrum of U.S.-based sympathizers’ actual involvement with ISIS varies significantly, ranging from those who are merely inspired by its message to those few who reached mid-level leadership positions within the group.”

Jean-Charles Brisard and Kevin Jackson at The Combatting Terrorism Center at the West Pont Military Academy  recently found that

“…by late 2013, the Islamic State had already started building the machinery to launch external attacks, as assessed, for instance, by Dutch intelligence. A returned French jihadi, Mourad Fares, recounted that a prominent figure involved in building up the group’s external attacks capability was Abu Usama al-Madani, a senior Saudi leader running the Islamic State’s foreign fighters affairs. As such, al-Madani handled the recruitment for a secret training program to dispatch volunteers back home for operational purposes.The account of Nils Donath, a German extremist who at one point joined the Islamic State’s security-intelligence apparatus (amniyat), further indicated that the organization envisioned striking the “far enemy” on its own soil, before declaring a caliphate. Donath told interrogators after his return to Germany that
It is find out over here generic sildenafil tablets very afraid for people to eat outside. It is said that erectile dysfunction mainly affects the health of intimacy of senior people for having long- lasting nights of copulation. viagra price see now If at any stage after consumption you discovered these symptoms then you should act immediately to avail the physician treatment to redeem these unwanted and buy levitra without prescription harmful developments. Clinically, male infertility has become a find out now levitra samples common health problem nowadays.
“Besides sharpening its anti-Western rhetoric and issuing operational advice to its sympathizers through its media outlets, the group also mobilized its core members for a campaign of attacks in Europe. In the spring of 2015, for instance, foreign recruits attended a Friday sermon in Raqqa delivered by Mohamed Mahmoud, a notorious German militant figure, during which he advocated attacks against Germany and portrayed jihad in Europe as a duty. Several accounts from Islamic State militants detained on their return by European security services indicated the Islamic State was intensifying its external attack planning, with onetime French recruit Reda Hame describing their efforts in and around Raqqa in June 2015 as a “real factory.”According to these accounts, willing candidates could sign up for external operations,

“In planning attacks, the Islamic State’s external operations wing underwent a vetting and approval process, based on its enlisted volunteers’ files, to identify suitable recruits for its terrorist plots. For instance, close attention was paid as to whether a candidate had a media profile or was wanted at home, even though numerous operatives eventually selected were already known by their home country’s security services. It appears that the amniyat (security service) led these efforts, with some of its operatives entrusted with facilitating and planning attacks overseas.”

Harleen Gambhir at The Institute for the Study of War  reports that

“ISIS is executing a sophisticated global strategy that involves simultaneous efforts in Iraq and Syria, the Middle East and North Africa, and the wider world. Homegrown terrorism is increasing in the U.S. and Europe…The anti-ISIS coalition is currently focused on ISIS only within Iraq and Syria. Therefore the U.S. is vulnerable to strategic surprise resulting from ISIS’s external activity. ISIS has the potential to pressure and divert allies that are critical to the U.S.-led coalition’s efforts, while continuing its own expansion program. Simulating the effects of ISIS’s endeavor in advance revealed insights that will assist in the creation of a coherent counter-ISIS strategy, rather than a piecemeal strategy formulated as crises occur…ISIS likely will expand regionally and project force globally in the medium term. Few countries are willing or able to counter ISIS as a global phenomenon…The U.S. must define the global counter-ISIS mission, and then determine the nested objectives for ISIS and each of its affiliates in support of that mission…ISIS’s global campaign likely will increase policymakers’ tolerance of frequent, high-level, and widespread violent events, creating opportunities for the United States’ adversaries.

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

How ISIS Became a Power

The U.S. House of Representatives Joint Task Force on U.S. Central Command Intelligence Analysis has released explosive initial findings. The committee is comprised of Congressman Pompeo (R-CA), Congressman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) and Congressman Ken Calvert (R-CA.)

A whistle blower alleged that intelligence produced by U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) had been manipulated to present an unduly positive outlook on efforts to train the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) and combat ISIS. The Task Force found that “though investigations into the whistleblower’s allegations continue, the Joint Task Force has conducted sufficient investigation to reach certain interim conclusions…Based on its own investigation, the Joint Task Force has substantiated that structural and management changes made at the CENTCOM Intelligence Directorate starting in mid-2014 resulted in the production and dissemination of intelligence products that were inconsistent with the judgments of many senior, career analysts at CENTCOM. These products were consistently more optimistic regarding the conduct of U.S. military action than that of the senior analysts. Based on specific case studies evaluated by the Joint Task Force, during the time period evaluated by the Joint Task Force, CENTCOM produced intelligence that was also significantly more optimistic than that of other parts of the Intelligence Community (IC) and typically more optimistic than actual events warranted. Additionally, many CENTCOM press releases, public statements, and congressional testimonies were also significantly more positive than actual events.”

According to Rep. Pompeo  “After months of investigation, this much is very clear: from the middle of 2014 to the middle of 2015, U.S. Central Command’s most senior intelligence leaders manipulated the command’s intelligence products to downplay the threat from ISIS in Iraq.  The result:  consumers of those intelligence products were provided a consistently ‘rosy’ view of U.S. operational success against ISIS.  That may well have resulted in putting American troops at risk as policymakers relied on this intelligence when formulating policy and allocating resources for the fight.“The cultural breakdown in Central Command’s intelligence process resulted from an administration-wide understanding that bad news from Iraq and Syria was not welcomed.  Claims that ISIS was the ‘JV team’ and that al-Qaeda was ‘on the run’ were both a result—and a cause—of the politicization of intelligence at CENTCOM.  This intelligence manipulation provided space for both ISIS and al-Qaeda to grow and it put America at risk. Intelligence products always contain some level of uncertainty.  But during this period, nearly every error was in one direction:  downplaying the threat from radical Islamic terror consistent with the administration’s narrative that this threat was not significant.  I urge the Department of Defense Inspector General to hold accountable the intelligence leaders that failed our service members fighting our wars on the ground.”

In March, CENTCOM chief General Lloyd J. Austin III testified “[D]espite the many challenges that exist in U.S. Central Command’s (USCENTCOM) area of responsibility (AOR), we do see progress being made in a number of areas. We are hurting our adversaries, while helping our partners assume a larger role in providing for the security of the region. Their conventional military capabilities far outreach those of any possible hostile adversary, and our core partnerships remain strong. At the same time, while weaker and under threat, political institutions throughout the region, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, are withstanding pressure from extremist groups and outside actors. Moreover, we have 84,000 U.S. troops in the AOR with an unmatched ability to provide rapid reinforcement in response to unforeseen contingencies. They are the best and most capable military forces in the world. Their presence and many contributions are making a significant difference in what is a very important part of the world.”

The progress of American actions against ISIS has become a significant issue in the 2016 presidential campaign. Republicans have accused President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of underestimating the danger from the terror group and engaging in actions which allowed ISIS to flourish, particularly the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq.
You sildenafil tablets find my page now can also speak to someone from the company over phone. Try to be as organized as possible because it could be cialis side effects a sign of a more serious problem. Avoid excessive viagra india viagra sexual intercourse and frequent masturbation, etc. They will hide the truth, shrug over shame and anguish, lie to one another and also the cost of viagra to other people and question their reality.
Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, retired U.S. Army chief of staff, maintains that had President Obama allowed American forces to remain in Iraq longer, ISIS would not have become the force it now is.  Other critics cite Obama moves such as ousting Libya’s former strongman as creating additional conditions that allowed ISIS to thrive. The critics’ position that Obama failed to realize that comprehend the danger from ISIS is substantiated by the President’s January 2014 comment calling ISIS a “JV team.”

GOP candidate Donald Trump openly blames Obama for ISIS’ existence, which Republicans describe as a “rhetorical flourish” meant to emphasize the President’s negligence in allowing the group to grow and thrive.  In a peculiar turn of events, many Democrats blame the Iraq war for opening up the opportunity for ISIS to gain power.  However, that position puts Democrats in a critical position against their own presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, who, as a Senator, supported the war.

ISIS was created by a Jordanian, al-Zarqawi, during the (Bill) Clinton Administration.  Initially attached to al-Qaeda, Al-Zarqawi pledged allegiance to Osama Bin Laden. Al-Zarqawi was killed by U.S. forces in 2006, during the Bush presidency.

In 2010, Bakr al-Baghdadi took over, ended the relationship with Iraq and adopted the new name in 2013.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Appeasement will not stop terror

The ruthless assault on a gay nightclub in Orlando illustrates a reality that those who have advocated reducing America’s activist role in the world fail to comprehend.  The bitter hatred against the United States is not the result of anything America or Europe has done, not in the Middle East, not in Afghanistan, and not anyplace else. It is not the result of the size or reach of our formerly dominant armed forces.  It is not the result of our economic system.

Indeed, if no U.S. or European soldier had ever set foot in the Middle East, if no oil had ever been drilled, if no interaction had ever taken place at all, the West would still be despised and targeted, not for what it does, but for what it is.

The Jihadist’s fury exists solely because of their extreme abhorrence of the essential nature of Western Civilization itself: the concept of individual freedom, of live and let live, of the triumph of reason over primitive instincts.

Yes, I did say primitive instincts, and that will probably infuriate most of the nation’s academics and the self-righteous chattering classes. For far too long, those in positions of influence in government, education, and the media have declined to emphasize the unique and wonderful accomplishments of Western Civilization. In the rush to be “multicultural,” they have relegated the achievements that have produced the greatest freedom, prosperity, health, and, yes, tolerance for all faiths that humanity has ever experienced to a par equal to that of other civilizations that are marked by substantial degrees of continued political repression, economic backwardness, and secular hatred that have been sharply diminished in the West.

No, the West is not perfect.  But (and I realize that this will also anger many) it has done much, much better than the rest of the planet, despite its faults. By “Western Civilization,” I do not limit the definition to just a geographical or ethnic description. Consider the difference between North and South Korea. Between Israel and many of its neighbors. Even within the New World, nations that have followed western patterns of government and tolerance, such as the U.S. and Canada, have advanced, while those that have adopted, some recently, (like Venezuela) the philosophy (even though it started with western thinkers) of socialist government, which more closely resembles that of the rest of the world,  have declined.

However, beware of the fact, choosing your therapist or counselor is not an http://respitecaresa.org/about-respite-care/dsc_7904/ canada tadalafil easy task. Fertility care once successful means conceiving again get viagra online will be easy. It doesn’t leave any serious side effects. it is clinically proven for safe use by men. best prices for cialis When you come across purchase levitra online any of unusual effect happening into your body, you can stop this medicine immediately consult with your doctor. The assault on women, Christians, Kurds, and gays in and by the Islamic world was not precipitated by any casus belli.  There has not been any attempted coup by women, gays, Kurds or Christian groups seeking to takeover current Moslem governments. Like clockwork, Jihadists and their apologists trot out litanies of alleged ancient wrongs. Of course, if we decided to refight ancient battles, the fighting would never stop.  America would still be fighting the British Monarchy, not to mention Germany and Japan.  More to the point, Europe would still have to be at war with the Islamic World; after all, the Islamic invasion of Europe predated the Crusades, that excuse which is trotted out by any terrorists looking to justify the latest incident of unjustified murder.

When terrible practices take place, such as the massive rape of females by ISIS, or the continued practice of slavery in certain parts of the world, it is not inappropriate for other nations, despite their own (far lesser) imperfections, to express horror at those heinous acts.

The typical response to Jihadi acts has been a study in self-delusion.  Responding, for example, to the terror assault in San Bernardino by criticizing gun ownership or falsely claiming there is a widespread bias against Moslems in America merely encourages and emboldens those who cling to any irrational justification for their actions. President Obama and Secretary Clinton inadvertently invited terror by their failure to respond to incidents such as Benghazi, and the ridiculous Oval Office comments following the San Bernardino shooting.

It is naïve to believe that all America has to do to avoid being targeted is to provide more diplomatic doubletalk. It is unrealistic to expect that Orlando-type attacks (or worse) can be avoided by appeasement.

The West is under relentless assault. Ignoring the crisis or blaming it on itself is a worthless and foolish response. If, indeed, the concepts of personal freedom are to survive, a far more viable and realistic response must be undertaken.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Fails to Explain Terror Strategy

Presidents are entitled to follow their conscience on the great issues of the day, regardless of public opinion polls.  They are not, however, entitled to obscure their vision from constituents, nor is it inappropriate for Americans to be concerned that their Commander in Chief may be incapable of comprehending a key threat, or express an unwillingness to do so.

Serious questions must be raised about Mr. Obama’s views on Islamic terrorism, a phrase he refuses to use. The White House has gone to significant lengths to limit the national conversation on this deadly issue.

Yet another bizarre incident has occurred which calls into question the President’s grip on reality in dealing with Islamic extremism. MRC  reports that the White House has censored a video of French President Francois Hollande using the phrase “Islamist Terrorism” while at the Nuclear Summit in Washington, removing the comment. It is part of a pattern by the current White House in which frank conversations about Muslim extremism are ignored, and appropriate responses to incidents and general threats are not provided:

Following the murder of 13 soldiers and the wounding of 30 more at Fort Hood by Nidal Hasan, an Islamic extremist, the President labelled the incident “workplace violence.”

Following the shooting in San Bernardino, Mr. Obama went on air and delivered an odd speech criticizing Americans (based on no evidence) for being anti-Muslim and for exercising Second Amendment rights.

He refused to consider ISIS a serious threat until it became all too obvious to even the most casual observer.

He broke long-standing U.S. precedent about not negotiating with terrorists when he opened discussions with Afghanistan’s Taliban, who were instrumental in the World Trade Center attack.

He utterly failed to respond, either at the time or subsequently, to the attack on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, and both he and Secretary Clinton intentionally lied to the American public about the cause of the incident.

He encouraged and aided in the deposing of two regional leaders, Muammar Gaddafi and Hosni Mubarak, who staunchly opposed al Qaeda and ISIS.

Low blood circulation damages order cheap levitra pdxcommercial.com the normal functioning of nerve cells which creates a negative impact on patient’s life. Normally signs which location for ladies with you could try this out buy cialis the help of various medications available for the purpose. Some of the best examples of such foods include female viagra uk oysters, red meat, dairy and poultry products etc., 3. So it doesn’t matter if you are dearly in love with the country cheapest cialis immediately. He has supported every “Arab Spring” movement that attempted to replace comparatively moderate Middle East regimes with ones beholden to Islamic Extremists, except for the Iran’s Green Revolution, which would have allowed more moderates in Tehran’s radical regime.

He has weakened U.S. relations with Israel, America’s staunchest ally in the region.

He has refused to adequately recognize the dire plight of Christians and Yazdis in the Middle East, but has advocated admitting far more Syrian Moslems into the U.S despite the clear evidence of the problems those refugees have caused in Europe.

He has failed to provide appropriate military equipment to the Kurds, the most effective combatants against ISIS.

He continues to release terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, and indeed advocates the complete closing of that facility, despite clear evidence that many of those released return to terrorist activities.

He chose to speak at a Baltimore Mosque said to have ties to extremists.

The President chose to prematurely withdraw American troops from Iraq, despite significant warnings from his own cabinet members that doing so would create the conditions for extremism to thrive.  Indeed, that action created the environment which brought ISIS to power. A similar action is taking place in Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama’s concept that admitting to the existence of “Islamic Extremism” is somehow a bigoted act cannot be supported by any evidence. The Muslim Issue  reports that over 90 percent of the 11 million Muslims who perished by violence since 1948 were killed by fellow Muslims. The Jewish Virtual Library  notes that Muslims  themselves were the chief victims of attacks by Islamic extremists. “In 2014, a total of 13,463 terrorist attacks occurred worldwide, resulting in more than 32,700 deaths and more than 34,700 injuries. In addition, more than 9,400 people were kidnapped or taken hostage…Although terrorist attacks took place in 95 countries in 2014, … 78% of all fatalities due to terrorist attacks took place in five countries (Iraq, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria).”

President Obama has not provided any evidence, nor in fact does any exist, that identifying Islamic Extremism as a key threat to the American people and taking forceful steps to respond is in any way biased or inappropriate. The steps the White House has taken are, for the most part, inadequate and obviously failing.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Why Obama Finally Decided ISIS is Genocidal

Long after it had become painfully obvious to even to the most casual observers, the Obama Administration has decided that ISIS is guilty of genocide.  It has, however, failed to admit that its own incompetence led to the conditions allowing ISIS to become a powerful force.

The timing of Secretary of State Kerry’s announcement, and the deployment of Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit to Iraq, reveals much about the mindset of the Administration’s attitude towards foreign affairs, not just in the deeply troubled Middle East but also in its perception of the American role in the world.

Since the end of World War 2, the United States and its NATO partners have been the most powerful alliance on Earth, both politically and diplomatically. That partnership was hugely successful. Another world war was averted, and the Soviet Union was stared down and collapsed without yet another global conflict. A period of extraordinary prosperity was ushered in.  Numerous nations gained independence.

This was not accomplished without major cost, both to the U.S. taxpayer and to those who served and sometimes gave life or limb in the armed forces.  But the results were extraordinary.

Mr. Obama and those who ideologically agree with him nevertheless have been uncomfortable with Washington’s leading role. They disagree with the commitment of many billions of dollars to defense purposes instead of social welfare programs. They are troubled by the American philosophies of capitalism and individual rights. They seek to reduce the influence of the United States.

Reducing America’s international role from one of leadership to just one of many, or in some cases a junior partner, just feels right to them.

The conflict in Iraq had already long lost popular support before Mr. Obama took the oath of office in 2009. However, the continuing post-war presence of American troops served an important purpose.  Iraq’s internal conflicts, never far from the surface, were kept somewhat at bay as the nation moved slowly but significantly towards democracy.  Who can forget the images of Iraqi voters proudly holding up purple thumbs, signifying that they had voted for the first time in a true election? Equally as important, the presence of U.S. troops kept a lid on the influence of the darkest forces in the region.

That salutary effect was eliminated when those troops were wholly withdrawn, the last leaving on December 18, 2011, against the advice of military leaders. In 2015, the Washington Times reported that many current and former  military believed that  the untimely and complete exit “left the door open for the Islamic State’s land grab…The assessment comes from the Army chief of staff, a former Marine commandant, a former U.S. Central Command chief, a former defense secretary and, privately, from the officer running the war in Iraq against…ISIS.”

However, when their patent expired a number of online viagra no prescription medications became available on the market. Here we enlighten fast generic cialis you with some useful and constructive medicines named anti-impotent drugs. canada cialis online robertrobb.com It is a significant part of a couple’s relationship to keep their bonding alive and happier for a longer period. levitra overnight shipping Also these funguses are known to regulate the blood pressure and body temperature, boosts immune system activity, and causes the body’s natural painkillers, such as endorphins, to be released. Not long after, in 2014, ISIS began to seize territory in Syria and Iraq. Since then, as Secretary Kerry noted on March 17,    ISIS (also known as Daesh) “is responsible for genocide against groups in areas under its control, including Yezidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims. Daesh is genocidal by self-proclamation, by ideology, and by actions … Daesh is also responsible for crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing directed at these same groups and in some cases also against Sunni Muslims, Kurds, and other minorities.…Daesh killed hundreds of Yezidi men and older women in the town of Kocho … Daesh captured and enslaved thousands of Yezidi women and girls – selling them at auction, raping them at will, and destroying the communities in which they had lived for countless generations. We know that in Mosul, Qaraqosh, and elsewhere, Daesh has executed Christians solely because of their faith; that it executed 49 Coptic and Ethiopian Christians in Libya; and that it has also forced Christian women and girls into sexual slavery. We know that Daesh massacred hundreds of Shia Turkmen and Shabaks at Tal Afar and Mosul; besieged and starved the Turkmen town of Amerli; and kidnapped hundreds of Shia Turkmen women, raping many in front of their own families. We know that in areas under its control, Daesh has made a systematic effort to destroy the cultural heritage of ancient communities – destroying Armenian, Syrian Orthodox, and Roman Catholic churches; blowing up monasteries and the tombs of prophets; desecrating cemeteries; and in Palmyra, even beheading the 83-year-old scholar who had spent a lifetime preserving antiquities there.”

The American military response—limited use of bombing runs– was little more than the armed equivalent of a pinprick.

The premature American withdrawal emboldened more than just ISIS. Moscow has long coveted a much larger role in the Middle East for several reasons.

Russia’s navy is handicapped by a geography that makes many of its ports ice-bound for a portion of the year, so warm water alternatives are a much desired commodity.  Hence, the importance of its naval base at the Syrian city of Tartus. This goal can also be seen in the recent agreement with Cuba to allow the Kremlin’s naval vessels to dock there.

Syria’s Bashir al-Assad has been a valuable ally for allowing the continuation of Russia’s armed presence in his nation, but the value of a powerful presence in the Middle East doesn’t end there.  Moscow’s economy is dependent on the export of energy.  The ability to influence the Middle Eastern energy economy is a major factor in Putin’s aggressive planning for the future.

Russia’s active use of military force in the Middle East was not aimed at stopping the depredations of ISIS, but on the twin goals of propping up a regime friendly to Moscow’s military goals and demonstrating the growing power of the Russian/Iranian alliance, which has now clearly replaced Western influence in the region. Israel, in particular, has been placed greatly at risk by the rise of Iranian influence in the region and Tehran’s increasingly powerful missile arsenal.

President Putin, however, has used the atrocities committed by ISIS as a justification for his commitment of Russian forces in the region. Secretary Kerry’s long overdue acknowledgement of ISIS’ depredations and the deployment of Marines follow in its wake.  What was unacceptable as an American initiative—particularly the commitment of ground troops—is now acceptable to the White House, so long as it is an act that dovetails with, and serves as a junior partner to, the actions of the Russian/Iranian axis.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Missing in Action in the War on Terror

Mr. Obama’s odd nonresponse to the latest terrorist attack, the bombing of the Brussels Airport and a metro station near the headquarters of the European Union, raises uncomfortable questions.

The President chose to go to a ball game with Raoul Castro, rather than return to the White House. Some will question whether he could have done anything substantive no matter where he was. However, when a key leader continues to display nonchalance on a level that indicates a lack of concern or attention about a major challenge, it sends a signal to the perpetrators that they will face no significant obstacle to their efforts.

That perception may be correct. It is difficult to imagine any other President (or Secretary of State) who would not have responded in some way to the Benghazi attack, to cite just one example. The primary duty of the federal government is to safeguard the American people. But in response to repeated terror attacks at home, and abroad in places frequented by U.S. visitors, President Obama has displayed little interest and less concern.

The day after the Benghazi attack, he flew to Las Vegas for a fund raiser.

He labels clear-cut cases of terrorism, such as the shooting at an American military base by an Islamic extremist, as “workplace violence.”

Following the terrorist assault in San Bernardino, he gave a speech saying that Americans have too many guns.

International authorities warned Washington about the danger from the individuals who bombed the Boston Marathon, but nothing was done.

He didn’t join other western leaders in the aftermath of the Paris attacks.

He continues to ignore Iran’s missile development.
How the sexual problems affect men?- Mostly men look for herbal remedies, which are safe and levitra sale continue reading description sure way to cure ED. Having a frequent cialis 5mg no prescription workout will not necessarily mean which you need to visit the gym everyday. They are available over the counter or they http://icks.org/n/data/conference/1482731615_report_file.pdf generic levitra online are also available at the online drug suppliers offer kamagra and its various versions at the a lot reasonable prices . Though the treating process by TCM viagra prescription buy may be longer, the result is better.
He negotiates with the Taliban, the organization that helped attack the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

He continues to advocate bringing more Syrian refugees to the United States, despite the clear example of the problems this has caused in Europe. Oddly enough, though, there is no priority given to Christians or Yazdis, who have been the chief targets of the terrorists. Almost none have been admitted.

The President visited and spoke at the Islamic Society of Baltimore Mosque, (ISB) known for its links to terrorism. The Investigative Project on Terrorism  notes that:

“ISB leaders have amassed a record of support for radical Islamic causes over the years, including endorsing the Chechen jihad and Palestinian suicide bombings. Its former imam was active in a charity later linked to terror financing including Hamas, the Taliban, and for providing “hundreds of thousands of dollars” to Osama bin Laden… It’s safe to assume the White House vetted the ISB and found it an acceptable venue for a presidential appearance despite this history. And that is not surprising. The Obama administration has repeatedly embraced contact with the Muslim Brotherhood, repeatedly meeting with its officials during and after the Arab Spring while ignoring secular democracy advocates. It praised the early tenure of Brotherhood member Mohamed Morsi when he briefly served as Egypt’s president. The administration also helped a Brotherhood delegation skip routine screening by U.S. Customs and Border Protection upon landing in America. And, as we reported in December, a White House meeting also aimed at standing by the Muslim-American community featured representatives of Islamist groups, including some with consistent records of opposing U.S. law enforcement counter-terrorism efforts. ISB officials have worked closely with one of those groups…”

He continues to advocate bringing more Syrian refugees to the United States, despite the clear example of the problems this has caused in Europe. Oddly enough, though, there is no priority given to Christians or Yazdis, who have been the chief targets of the terrorists. Almost none have been admitted.

James Carafano, writing for Fox News, uses this analogy: “Imagine if, in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, FDR had taken to the radio and declared everything was under control. The Nov. 13 terrorist attack on Paris, paired with [the] attacks in Brussels, is the European equivalent of back-to-back Pearl Harbors. Yet, the U.S. administration sits as sanguine as ever, arguing it has everything in hand.”

As ISIS rose to power in the Middle East, President Obama insisted that they were an insignificant threat, dismissing them as a “JV team.”  Against the advice of his own military advisors, he withdrew all U.S. troops from Iraq, creating the vacuum that gave ISIS the opportunity to thrive.  He is on the verge of repeating the mistake in Afghanistan.

President Obama won’t even use the term “Islamic terrorism.” In the drug-addled era of the 1960’s, there was a cliché that went, “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came.” Under President Obama, a war has been declared by radical Islam that the U.S. has barely shown up for. The answer to the question raised by ‘60’s cliché is, innocents will die.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s failed speech: his blindness endangers nation

Mr. Obama sought to reassure the nation of his concern for its safety last night.  He had to do this after reassuring Americans just last week that there was no credible threat.  He began his comments emphasizing that the attack was not coordinated from abroad.

He faced a difficult task in the speech, since almost all of his foreign affairs and national security actions since first taking office indicate that he doesn’t take the issue seriously. More worrisome, his administration has indicated on numerous occasions that it considers America to be the source, not the target, of international danger.

Far more than any of his Oval Office predecessors, this President is both blinded by and blindly devoted to preconceived notions. In Mr. Obama’s case, it is an extremist and strange ideology that has a firm disapproval of America’s global role as its centerpiece.  A strong set of beliefs is, for the most part, a very good thing for a leader to possess and rely on for guidance. However, if that prevents that leader from acknowledging facts or ideas that he may not have previously encountered, then it works against him.

This is precisely what has happened to Mr. Obama. A product of mentors that frankly disapproved of America, (Bill Ayers is a prime example. He was a key figure of the domestic terrorist group the “Weather Underground,” famous for its exhortations to “Kill all the rich people, Kill your parents.” Ayers assisted in the bombings of the Capitol Building, the Pentagon, and New York City’s Police Headquarters.)

Of course, the President sincerely wishes that the U.S. remains safe. His problem is that he has unilaterally tossed out thephysica l, moral and ideological tools, he needs to accomplish that, and shows no indication that he intends to reacquire them.  He has consorted with terrorists like Ayers, stripped the U.S. military of needed funds, prematurely withdrawn American forces from the Middle East, (and has set a date to do so from Afghanistan)  and estranged allies. He has legitimized terrorism by negotiating with the Taliban,  by approving a deal that released vast sums to Iran, (a prime international sponsor of terrorism) and reopened relations with Cuba, another sponsor of terror. His infamous “apology tour” of Moslem nations essentially conceded the terrorists’ complaints.

The President spent a good portion of his speech emphasizing the innocence of most Moslems. The response of a key member of the Obama Administration was similar. In the face of the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris and California, Attorney Lynch stated that her “greatest fear” was a backlash against Moslems. While assaults against innocents would be reprehensible, the reality is no such widespread problem exists. In the fourteen years after the 9/11 attacks, there has been no trace of significant bias against Moslem Americans.  Her comments, and the President’s,  precisely illustrates Mr. Obama’s worldview: the U.S., he believes, is an aggressive, racist, nation.
High toilet seats and grabs bars in bathrooms and halls of the subsidiary design characteristics generic cialis without prescription to prevent falling Skilled Nursing Chico. After this short span you become sexually able to get into the mood and get an erection during sexual stimulation. cialis canada generic does not protect you from getting sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. Pradeep Koneru has got a most valuable awards for his valuable business service. check content purchase generic levitra Kamagra Pills are a good alternative of viagra pharmacy prices, which also consists of sildenafil citrate, an ingredient which helps cure Erectile Dysfunction and have proper erections during an intimacy with your wife.
The President’s initial emphasis following the California massacre was to pursue more gun control. Again, his ideology trumps reality:  Americans are violent folks who need to be more tightly controlled. Whatever one’s views of gun control, discussing that issue in response to a terrorist assault was, at best, bizarre.

Mr. Obama’s response emphasized taking out ISIS leadership, as well as destroying its key facilities. He failed to outline a course of action that resembled a full destruction of ISIS.  Indeed, he ruled out major military moves. Consider how foolish would Franklin D. Roosevelt have been if his response to Pearl Harbor was to plot the assassination of Japanese Prime Minister Tojo, or Germany’s Adolph Hitler.

Despite Russia’s massive arms buildup, China’s new super-weapons and its aggression against its neighbors, and, of course, the growing ravages of terrorists, Mr. Obama and his appointees remain utterly blinded by their beliefs.  Because they are so blinded, this Administration is incapable of defending the nation.

Consider the White House’s incompetent response to various international crises.  Former Secretary of State Clinton blamed the terrorist attack in Benghazi on a video; Secretary of State Kerry’s response to Moscow’s Ukrainian invasion was to say it wasn’t “21st century behavior.” Obama has done nothing substantive, diplomatically, economically, or in terms of arms buildups, to counter Beijing’s aggressions.  The White House response to the attack on France’s Charlie Hebdo magazine was to send a pop singer to sing “You have a friend” to the beleaguered Parisians.

President Obama has, repeatedly and consistently, demonstrated his complete inability to respond to or even recognize the clear, present and imminent threats to the United States and its allies. He continues to demonstrate his blind allegiance to a philosophy that places America and Americans as the problem, not part of the solution, to worldwide aggression. Because of his blindness, the people of the United States are in extraordinary danger.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama rejects reality in dealing with terrorism

Pacifism and appeasement have repeatedly failed to deter aggression. However, that has not prevented the White House from employing those bankrupt concepts in response to the threats from ISIS and other radical groups.

The pacifist practice of ignoring the former Soviet Union’s actions, from its original alliance with Nazi Germany, its occupation of Eastern Europe, the oppression of its own citizenry and its nuclear threats was both immoral and useless in ending the Cold War. By the Late 1970’s, that policy error was dramatically evident. But the majority of voters in both the Democrat and Republican Parties did not subscribe to that concept. John F. Kennedy nobly stated during his brief Administration in the 1960’s that “America would pay any price, bear any burden in the defense of freedom.” Fortunately for the U.S., President Reagan had no qualms about standing up to tyranny. He rebuilt America’s armed forces and made it clear that Washington would actively oppose Moscow, and those actions were instrumental in bringing about about the end of the U.S.S.R.

Pacifists, led by the White House, engage in a senseless policy of appeasement with Islamic extremism. This time, however, they wholly dominate the leadership of the Democrat Party as well as academia.  Their supporters in the mass media have perfected a stranglehold on much of the news.  In fact, Mr. Obama has engaged in efforts, through the FCC, internet regulation, and the like, to limit any opposition to those views. The academic left attempts to do the same on campuses across the nation. Traditional left wing views, including anti-Semitism, (remember that Hitler was a “National Socialist”) the diversion of defense spending to welfare programs (a great way to buy votes) and selective amnesia about the lessons of history (especially in school textbooks) contrive to repeat the same mistakes (that allowed fascism to rise in the 1930’s and prolonged the Cold War) in dealing with Islamic extremists.

A series of historical falsehoods have been employed to explain away the fanatic hatred and actions of ISIS, al Qaeda and others, excuses which President Obama has continuously and wrongly given credence to.

The best player is one who has the best efficacy, while also considering other factors, such as time of onset, order cialis duration of action, window of opportunity and how side-effects affect them individually. Most of the components are price for levitra highly active against erectile dysfunction and effective in increasing blood circulation towards the sex organs. ED is a buy generic cialis larger curse than premature or quick ejaculation. This ensures a cialis no prescription complete satisfaction to the users. For the record: it was Islam that began the battle with the West, not vice-versa. The first Crusade was in 1096, but Islamic invasions in Europe took place long before that. Spain was invaded by Islamic forces in 711. In 732, Islamic forces advanced as far as Tours in France before being stopped. These conquests are not relegated to the distant past. In 1683, Islamic forces besieged Vienna.  But do not hesitate to cite ancient history: the historic imperialism of Middle Eastern nations (even pre-dating Islam itself) towards Western civilization dates at least as far back as the 5th Century B.C., when Persians sought to conquer Greece. Nor is the violence of the Jihads limited to the west.  Moslems with less militant beliefs have been greatly brutalized by the extremists. Buddhists, Israelis, adherents to African faiths and Hindus have been assaulted, as well.

In can be reasonably argued that the refusal to forcibly confront the Islamic extremist threat is even more irrational than the similar leftist (and isolationists in both parties) responses to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Those two entities posed direct threats of imminent but future war, which in the case of Germany did result in the Second World War.  Attacks by Jihadis have already begun. The assaults on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the Boston Marathon, the Beirut barracks, the U.S.S. Cole, the Benghazi facility, Fort Hood, the London subway, the synagogue in Rome, and most recently Paris, as well as others far too numerous to mention in one article, are all evidence of a determined, active, skillful and ongoing total war. The rise of ISIS to nation-state status, thanks to the pacifism of the Obama Administration and its disastrous mistake in prematurely withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq (an error that may be repeated in Afghanistan) compounds the danger.

The Jihadis themselves have not been reticent or modest about the ambitious extent of their violent intentions. Their acts of carnage and demolition, whether in murdering large numbers of innocents, destroying historical and world heritage sites in the Middle East and elsewhere, and enslaving women as sexual rewards for their troops all point to a complete dedication to gaining a total victory that not just dominates but completely eliminates all other beliefs and forms of government.

It is simply irrational to assume that anything other than a militarily forceful response to this threat is viable.  Mr. Obama’s ongoing refusal, echoed by Democrat presidential contenders and their supporters in the media and academia, to even utter the phrase “Islamic extremist” is not just a policy disagreement with the majority of Americans.  It is a rejection of reality itself.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Americans continue to join ISIS

The Homeland Security Committee Task Force Combatting Terrorist ad Foreign Fighter Travel has issued a chilling report detailing the failure of the Obama Administration to halt the flow of Americans joining the international jihadist movement—or to prevent those individuals from returning to the United States to engage in attacks on U.S. soil.

The bipartisan committee (consisting of Chairman Michael McCaul (Republican Lead), John Katko, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, Rep. John Ratclife , Rep. Will Hurd, Rep. Martha McSally, Ranking Member Bennie Thompson, Democratic Lead Loretta Sanchez, Rep. Filemon Vela, and Rep. Donald Payne) has found that the White House has not only failed to accomplish the goal of preventing Americans from joining extremist forces, it has not even developed a coordinated strategy to do so.

The Homeland Security Committee Task Force reports:

Today we are witnessing the largest global convergence of jihadists in history, as individuals from more than 100 countries have migrated to the conflict zone in Syria and Iraq since 2011.

Some initially flew to the region to join opposition groups seeking to oust Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, but most are now joining the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), inspired to become a part of the group’s “caliphate” and to expand its repressive society. Over 25,000 foreign fighters have traveled to the battlefield to enlist with Islamist terrorist groups, including at least 4,500 Westerners. More than 250 individuals from the United States have also joined or attempted to fight with extremists in the conflict zone.

These fighters pose a serious threat to the United States and its allies. Armed with combat experience and extremist connections, many of them are only a plane-flight away from our shores. Even if they do not return home to plot attacks, foreign fighters have taken the lead in recruiting a new generation of terrorists and are seeking to radicalize Westerners online to spread terror back home….

The Task Force makes 32 key findings and provides accompanying recommendations… Among other conclusions reached, the Task Force finds that:

  • Despite concerted efforts to stem the flow, we have largely failed to stop Americans from traveling overseas to join jihadists. Of the hundreds of Americans who have sought to travel to the conflict zone in Syria and Iraq, authorities have only interdicted a fraction of them. Several dozen have also managed to make it back into America.
  • The U.S. government lacks a national strategy for combating terrorist travel and has not produced one in nearly a decade.
  • The unprecedented speed at which Americans are being radicalized by violent extremists is straining federal law enforcement’s ability to monitor and intercept suspects.
  • Jihadist recruiters are increasingly using secure websites and apps to communicate with Americans, making it harder for law enforcement to disrupt plots and terrorist travel. • There is currently no comprehensive global database of foreign fighter names. Instead, countries including the United States rely on a patchwork system for swapping extremist identities, increasing the odds foreign fighters will slip through the cracks.
  • “Broken travel” and other evasive transit tactics are making it harder to track foreign fighters. • Few initiatives exist nationwide to raise awareness about foreign-fighter recruitment and to assist communities with spotting warning signs.
  • The federal government has failed to develop clear early-intervention strategies—or “of-ramps” to radicalization—to prevent suspects already on law enforcement’s radar from leaving to fight with extremists.
  • Gaping security weaknesses overseas—especially in Europe—are putting the U.S. homeland in danger by making it easier for aspiring foreign fighters to migrate to terrorist hotspots and for jihadists to return to the West.
  • Despite improvements since 9/11, foreign partners are still sharing information about terrorist suspects in a manner which is ad hoc, intermittent, and often incomplete.
  • Ultimately, severing today’s foreign-fighter flows depends on eliminating the problem at the source in Syria and Iraq and, in the long run, preventing the emergence of additional terrorist sanctuaries.

They are imposing the facts some times order cialis australia in so much as they almost killed it off completely. On the other hand, kamagara jelly is a formulation of vardenafil india numerous herbs and soothing ingredients and is not life threatening and is generally caused by diets low in fibre, a lack of excersice, lack of fluid or the effects of medicine. The most trusted herbal libido enhancement remedies is provided by medicines. soft cialis online is a perfect ED drug and it is available in the form of capsules, tablets, liquid or powder. Medicines are an important need in our life http://appalachianmagazine.com/2016/01/11/breaking-arch-coal-files-for-bankruptcy/ cialis generic overnight because they cure the diseases that one may get as part of living.
The Task Force makes 32 Key Findings and associated recommendations to improve America’s security posture—and to ensure foreign countries are doing the same. Below is an abbreviated summary

U.S. Government Strategy and Planning to Combat the Threat

KEY FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Key Finding 1: The U.S. lacks a comprehensive strategy for combating terrorist and foreign fighter travel.

Key Finding 2: Despite concerted efforts to stem the flow, we have largely failed to stop Americans from traveling overseas to join jihadists.

Key Finding 3: The growing complexity of the threat may be creating unseen gaps in our defenses, yet it has been years since any large-scale “stress test” has been conducted on U.S. defenses against terrorist travel.

Key Finding 4: ISIS operatives are urging followers to travel to the group’s other “provinces” in places like Libya, yet it is unclear whether agencies are keeping pace with changes in foreign-fighter destinations.

Key Finding 5: Ultimately, severing foreign fighter flows depends on eliminating the problem at the source.

Identifying Terrorists and Foreign Fighters—and Preventing Them from Traveling

Key Finding 6: Improvements have been made to the terrorist watchlisting process, yet no independent review has been done to assess them and whether more are needed in light of the evolving threat environment.

Key Finding 7: Individuals can now contest their status on the no-fly list; however, more should be done to ensure the new process will appropriately balance due process rights with national security concerns.

Key Finding 8: Despite improvements since 9/11, foreign partners are still sharing information about terrorist suspects in a manner which is ad hoc, intermittent, and often incomplete.

Key Finding 9: There is currently no comprehensive global database of foreign fighter names. Instead, countries including the U.S. rely on a weak, patchwork system for swapping individual extremist identities.

Key Finding 10: DHS should continue its efforts to quickly leverage unclassified data in classified environments to identify potential foreign fighters.

Key Finding 11: The DHS Counterterrorism Advisory Board has not been authorized by Congress nor does its charter reflect recent changes to the threat environment, including the rise of the foreign fighter threat.

Key Finding 12: More can be done to incorporate valuable “financial intelligence” into counterterrorism screening and vetting processes.

Key Finding 13: State and local fusion centers are underutilized by federal law enforcement nationwide when it comes to combating the immediate foreign fighter threat and terrorist travel generally.

Key Finding 14: State and local law enforcement personnel continue to express concern that they are not provided with the appropriate security clearances to assist with counterterrorism challenges.

Key Finding 15: The unprecedented speed at which Americans are being radicalized by violent extremists is straining federal law enforcement’s ability to monitor and intercept suspects before it’s too late.

Key Finding 16: Few initiatives exist nationwide to raise community awareness about foreign-fighter recruitment and to assist communities with spotting warning signs.

Key Finding 17: The federal government has failed to develop clear intervention strategies—or “of-ramps” to radicalization—to prevent suspects already on law enforcement’s radar from leaving to join extremists.

Key Finding 18: Jihadist recruiters are increasingly using secure websites and apps to communicate with Americans, making it harder for law enforcement to disrupt plots and terrorist travel.

Key Finding 19: The Administration has launched programs to counter-message terrorist propaganda abroad, but little is being done here at home.

Key Finding 20: The U.S. has not made adequate use of “jaded jihadists” to convince others not to join the fight.

Key Finding 21: Unlike many other governments, U.S. authorities have not relied heavily on passport revocation to stop extremists.

Key Finding 22: While substantial progress has been made since 9/11 to enhance visa security, there may be additional opportunities to expand screening to identify potential extremists earlier in the process.

Key Finding 23: The Administration has improved the security of the Visa Waiver Program, but continuous enhancements must be made in light of the changing threat.

Key Finding 24: U.S. authorities remain concerned about terrorists posing as refugees, yet it is unclear to what extent security improvements to the refugee screening process mitigate potential vulnerabilities.

Key Finding 25: “Broken travel” and other evasive tactics are making it harder to track foreign fighters.

Key Finding 26: More could be done to give frontline operators at borders and ports better intelligence reachback capabilities so DHS can “connect the dots” and uncover previously unidentified terrorists and foreign fighters.

Key Finding 27: U.S. authorities continue to “push the border outward” by deploying homeland security initiatives overseas. Expanding these eforts might help detect threats sooner.

Key Finding 28: Only a fraction of U.S. states have access to INTERPOL databases; wider access could help spot wanted foreign fighters who have slipped past border security.

Detecting and Disrupting Terrorists and Foreign Fighters

When They Travel Overseas Security Gaps Key

Finding 29: Gaping security weaknesses overseas—especially in Europe—are putting the U.S. homeland in danger by making it easier for aspiring foreign fighters to migrate to terrorist hotspots and for jihadists to return to the West.

Key Finding 30: Extremists are using fraudulent passports to travel discretely. However, a third of the international community—including major source countries of foreign fighters—still do not issue fraud-resistant “e-passports,” and most countries are still unable to validate the authenticity of “e-passports.”

Key Finding 31: Many countries do not consistently add information to INTERPOL’s databases, and the majority do not screen against INTERPOL databases in real-time at their borders and airports.

Key Finding 32: U.S. departments and agencies have spent billions of dollars to help foreign partners improve their terror-travel defenses, but the lack of a coordinated strategy for such assistance results in greater risk of overlap, waste, and duplication between programs

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, it was clear America needed to take urgent steps to keep terrorists from entering its borders. The 9/11 Commission, for instance, found it was so easy for the hijackers to operate within the United States that they traveled “into, out of, and around the country and complacently [used] their real names with little fear of capture.”

Since then, the U.S. government has taken extraordinary steps to disrupt terrorists at all stages of travel— from fusing real-time intelligence into the border screening process to enhancing travel-document security. These measures have made it harder for extremists to cross our borders. But the threat environment has evolved, which is why the Task Force conducted its review.

While post-9/11 reforms focused largely on preventing terrorists from infiltrating our country to attack, today we need to be equally concerned about keeping Americans from exiting our country to join terrorist groups. The latter challenge demands a different set of tools. This is why it is important for the government to be able to adjust its strategies and plans.

We must adapt to new threats and get resources where they are needed. Unfortunately, our country has a surplus of programs for combating terrorist travel but a deficit of strategic guidance to keep them aligned with the threat. Agencies must be able to make sense of new trends, take stock of existing counterterrorism efforts, and pivot to fix weaknesses.

Yet the Task Force found there is no clear, whole-of-government system for cataloging the proliferation of terror-travel programs, nor a strategy to “stitch the seams” between them. The Administration has undoubtedly stepped up security to cut of foreign fighter flows, as documented throughout this report, but more must be done to identify and close potential gaps in our defenses against terrorist travel writ large.

Key Finding 1: The U.S. government lacks a comprehensive strategy for combating terrorists and foreign fighter travel and has failed to maintain a system for identifying and plugging related gaps in America’s defenses. It has been nearly a decade since the Executive Branch produced a whole-of-government plan to constrain terrorist movements. In its 2004 final report, the 9/11 Commission recommended the United States develop “a strategy to intercept terrorists, find terrorist travel facilitators, and constrain terrorist mobility.” That year, Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevent Act, which mandated such a plan, required the Administration to explain how it would be implemented, and called for an assessment of vulnerabilities in U.S. and foreign travel systems that could be exploited by extremists.

The result was the 2006 National Strategy to Combat Terrorist Travel. It has not been updated since. The 2006 Strategy is woefully outdated. While it provided a thorough overview of U.S. efforts to keep extremists from crossing borders, some of those programs have changed or are now defunct, and new ones have been created. The evolving threat environment has also made the document obsolete.

For instance, the Strategy makes no mention of foreign fighters or the challenges associated with extremists’ social media recruiting. There appears to be no comprehensive accounting of terrorist-travel programs in the U.S. government or any systematic government-wide efforts to identify gaps between them.

The President’s 2011 National Strategy for Counterterrorism makes little mention of the subject aside from noting the United States will work with foreign partners to “identify terrorist operatives and prevent their travel…across national borders and within states.”

A full audit of America’s terror-travel preventative and protective measures should be produced, as the Administration has identified “disrupting the flow of foreign fighters” as one of its top priorities in the fight against ISIS.

We found that hundreds of programs, projects, and initiatives have sprouted up to combat terrorist travel since 9/11, but without an overarching strategy to coordinate them, the United States may be wasting taxpayer dollars and failing to allocate resources where they are needed most. Indeed, lack of a strategy not only increases the risk terrorists might exploit weaknesses in the U.S. travel system, but also raises the prospect of waste, overlap, and duplication between agencies.