ISIS in the West – USA Gov Policy

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.”

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

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.