Balkanisation of Syria: Starving the Population into Perpetual War

On 23 February, US Secretary of State John Kerry disclosed to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that separating Syria into multiple states is 'Plan B' if the ceasefire does not work. However it was evidently clear that the ceasefire was inconceivable, if not impossible to achieve due to there being more than 40+ factions on the ground fighting and vying for power. The fighting would rage on through the ceasefire. Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS were not even included in this, leaving the U.S. with plenty of fingers to point at the rebel factions with.

One must realise that Russia were aware of this 'Plan B' from the very moment they stepped into the arena. Russia's sudden withdrawal when the Syrian Regime were in the strongest position they've been in 5 years. They had the ability to take back vast swathes of land from the rebels. This was evident by the fact many of these factions surrendered to the ceasefire to get a break from the Russian onslaught that didn't discriminate between combatant and non-combatants.

This is in line with the U.S. Department of Intelligence document leaked in 2015 in regards to the Syrian campaign. The document mentions that Russia will be there to 'support' the regime. Yet reporters, politicians and neoliberals feigned shock when Russia declared their military intervention - and they had to, as Russia are still the bogeyman for the U.S. to push through foreign policies on the basis of "otherwise Russia will take it".

The withdrawal of Russia has left the Syrian regime in a position whereby if they do not accept the U.S. plan then the rebels will slowly gain back the territory that Russia had helped them recapture. It also left the opposition factions with a threat that air support will not be withdrawn and therefore it is a case of 'take it or leave'. A perfect position for the U.S. proposed plan of balkanising Syria.

Read the full article at: http://kamkashem.com/2016/03/30/balkanisation-of-syria-starving-the-population-into-perpetual-war/

Is this the end of the American Civilization?

Testing the waters

An interesting debate has developed over the past couple of years. This debate argues that we are moving from a unipolar world whereby America, the sole undisputed world superpower, are losing its dominance in various parts of the world. They argue that other nations with ambitions to compete on a global scale are now testing the waters and standing up to this cut-throat hegemonic power, that is the U.S.

"Will the coming world order be the American universal empire?... The coming world order will mark the last phase in a historical transition and cap the revolutionary epoch of this century. The mission of the American people is to bury the nation states, lead their beheaved [sic] peoples into larger unions, and overawe with its might the would-be saboteurs of the new order who have nothing to offer mankind but a putrefying ideology and brute force. It is likely that the accomplishment of this mission will exhaust the energies of America and that, then, the historical center of gravity will shift to another people. But  this will matter little, for the opening of new horizons which we now faintly glimpse will usher in a new stage in human history... For the next 50 years or so, the future belongs to America." - U.S. Diplomat and Political Scientist Robert Strausz-Hupé (1957) 

 This U.S. political scientist made an accurate estimate of how the power will slowly begin to wane for the Americans fifty years on from the 1950's which brings us where we are today, although we can safely say that the power has not shifted away from them yet.

What is a unipolar world?

Unipolarity is the distribution of power whereby one nation or state exercises its influence in a economic, cultural, militaristic and political way unattested by any other state. This type of independent influence is something mankind has never seen before. A state that has access to the entire globe through its tactical capability, economic dominance and cultural indoctrination has never existed in the realm of life to this scale. The Roman Empire, nor the Islamic State had ever reached this level of total domination across the entire globe in so many aspects of life. However, the age of conflicts that we see today are signs of declining influence through the decreasing rate of expansion, class conflicts within their own society, imperialist wars and irrationality. 

The discussion of multipolarity has arisen in recent times, especially after the Middle East and North African uprisings. The 'vassals' of the American empire have begun to rebel and are increasingly formulating their own foreign policy. These 'vassals', such as those that have been incumbent upon IMF or other American imposed sanctions have turned to rival centres of power such as Moscow and Beijing for economic and political assistance. The U.S. National Intelligence Council in a report titled Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World professes that by 2025, "the international system will be a global multipolar one with gaps in national power."

Martin Jacques wrote in his work When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order that although China's global pre-eminence are economic, eventually China's political and cultural influence will be even greater and Mearsheimer in 2005 concurs that the "United States and China are likely to engage in an intense security competition with considerable potential for war." It can be noted that America's pivot to Asia, the Department of Defence announced plans to move 60% of its naval forces to the Pacific, which is by far one of its biggest military and strategic escalation after the Cold War. It is clear the American's are fighting a battle on many fronts, with the resurgence of the Islamic ideology being at the forefront, and astoundingly the intellectuals fail to identify it or write about it.

Buck-passing Policy of the U.S.

Mearsheimer (2001) mentions in his book titled The Tragedy of Great Power Politics that "buck-passing is a threatened great power's main alternative to balancing... to get another state to bear the burden of deterring or possibly fighting an aggressor while it remains on the sidelines". Which has been the policy for the U.S. Administration under Barrack Obama. It is a real sign of weakness of ones ideology, that it cannot express its culture freely without it causing internal problems for its own society. A state that is killing itself from within.

The Seven Stages of a Civilizations Rise and Fall

Carrol Quigley in 1961 published a book that studied the stages that all civilizations go through before its final decay and invasion. He concluded that there are seven stages, namely; mixture, gestation, expansion, age of conflicts, universal empire, decay and invasion. We can study where the American Empire currently stands in terms of these stages. 

The first stage of "mixture" is where all civilizations begin with a mixture of two or more cultures. "Such mixture of cultures is very common; in fact, it occurs at the boundaries of all cultures to some extent. But such casual cultural mixture is of little significance unless there comes into existence in the zone of mixture a new culture, arising from the mixture but different from the constituent parts. The process is a little like the way in which a mixture of chemicals sometimes produces a new compound different from the mixing chemicals. In the case we are discussing, the new compound is a new society with a new culture. The contributing societies may be civilizations or merely producing societies Such mixture of cultures is very common; in fact, it occurs at the boundaries of all cultures to some extent. But such casual cultural mixture is of little significance unless there comes into existence in the zone of mixture a new culture, arising from the mixture but different from the constituent parts. In the case we are discussing, the new compound is a new society with a new culture. The contributing societies may be civilizations or merely producing societies (agricultural or pastoral) or merely parasitic societies (with hunting or fishing). Of the millions of cases of such cultural mixture that are occurring all the time, only rarely does there appear a new society. And even more rarely does this new society become organized in such a way that it is a producing society with an instrument of expansion. In the rare case where this occurs, we have the first stage of a new civilization. The fact that there have been no more than two dozen civilizations in almost ten thousand years of cultural mixture of producing societies will indicate how rare this occurrence is." It is clear that the American civilization began in the 17th century but was not at this stage, an empire at a global scale.

The second stage, called the "gestation" stage is, by definition, a period in which "nothing sensational happens, it is not an easy period to discern in the prehistoric evidence. If we assume that the first agriculturalists came into Mesopotamia about 6000 B.C., we might postulate a period of mixture for about a thousand years and a period of gestation about half as long." One can argue that during this period the society is growing and the relationships amongst them are becoming common, whether that be remnants from a previous culture or a brand new one. One can conclude this gestation period lasted at most 50-100 years but ended definitely before the 19th century.

The third stage being the Age of Expansion, and in this period "some of the most significant advances in human history were either made or adapted to large-scale. This is quite clearly the period America went through in the 19th century. The industrial production doubled and the economy grew rapidly. All due to the fact the Europeans economies were exhausted in World War I. The age of mass production had arrived allowing the Americans to make full effect of it sooner than others.

The fourth stage, namely the Age of Conflicts, has been defined by Quigley "as extending from the date when the rate of expansion begins to decline to the period when one political unit establishes a universal empire by conquering the entire area of the civilization. In the earlier part of this period the whole core of the civilization may be conquered by one or more preliminary empires." Quigley goes on to state certain characteristics of the Age of Conflicts to be "(1) decreasing rate of expansion, (2) imperialist wars, (3) class conflicts, and (4) irrationality." During this Age of Conflicts, which one can safely assume was between 1900 up until the 1980's at the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Communist ideology. The class conflicts had caused many internal issues for America and its peoples but they would argue that this was a form of evolution, leading up to a more pure form of liberalism.

The fifth stage is the Universal Empire and as a result of the imperialist wars in the Age of Conflicts, the number of political units in the civilization is reduced to one. This can be seen at both a local level and a national level. Internal feuds and civil wars are quelled while other civilizations that are existent in the world are dominated.

When a universal empire is established in a civilization, the society enters upon a “golden age.” At least this is what it seems to the periods that follow it. Such a golden age is a period of peace and of relative prosperity. Peace arises from the absence of any competing political unity within the area of the civilization itself, and from the remoteness or even absence of struggles with other societies outside. Prosperity arises from the ending of internal belligerent destruction, the reduction of internal trade barriers, the establishment of a common system of weights, measures, and coinage, and from the extensive government spending associated with the establishment of a universal empire. But this appearance of prosperity is deceptive. Little real economic expansion is possible because no real instrument of expansion exists. 

The golden age is really the glow of over ripeness, and soon decline begins. When it becomes evident, we pass from Stage 5 of the Universal Empire to Stage 6 of Decay. One finds it difficult to put a finger on when this golden age actually transpired for the Americans, but one could argue that the day George W. Bush announced the "Global World Order". However this Universal Empire we can quite clearly see is dwindling, is it entering the penultimate stage of decay?

The sixth stage as already mentioned is the Stage of Decay. Quigley's explanation of the Stage of Decay can explain the situation of America and its peoples clearly. 

The Stage of Decay is a period of acute economic depression, declining standards of living, civil wars between the various vested interests, and growing illiteracy. The society grows weaker and weaker. Vain efforts are made to stop the wastage by legislation. But the decline continues. The religious, intellectual, social, and political levels of the society begin to lose the allegiance of the masses of the people on a large scale. New religious movements begin to sweep over the society. There is a growing reluctance to fight for the society or even to support it by paying taxes.

It is possible to break down these factors and apply them to America and the American people. In terms of the acute economic depression, America has suffered an astonishing 47 recessions since the 1790's, but if we are to look at all the recent recessions after the "Great Depression of 1929", they were all but a few due to economic policies or financial crises. 

In terms of the declining standards of living, America was turning towards a "knowledge society", meaning that it wished to pursue a 'post-industrial' society that instead of capital investment in productive activity in plant and equipment, its main feature was the creation of a "knowledge society," with a focus on technical dynamics and menial industrial labour was better suited to developing countries. However the truth of the matter is the vast majority of Americans have worked harder and longer hours. Wal-Mart, America's largest employer, pays less than a third of the level of wages and benefits auto-workers received. Also, under 'Obamacare' the health care in America has suffered a great deal which further proves the decline in the standards of living. 

In terms of illiteracy in the United States, a recent study conducted in April 2015 by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy states that 32 million adults in the U.S. cannot read, and that is 14% of the population. It goes on to state that the illiteracy levels have not improved for the last ten years, showcasing that illiteracy is not improving. One can state that if the people of America are not progressing, they are declining. 

The final stage of the rise and fall of a civilization is the Stage of Invasion which we can safely say has not occurred up until now. 

The most important point that many authors, political scientists and politicians fail to mention is that the Islamic revival of the Muslims in the world today, do not have a state mechanism, yet they provide the biggest challenge for all the actors in the world today. It is not de-industrialisation that causes a civilization to dwindle and die but rather it is the idea of those people that must be destroyed. The Islamic Empire was abolished in 1924 however the ideology remained in the hearts of the 200 million that lived in the world at the time and to this very day. These authors and political scientists write books upon books of the swaying influence, and how India or China or Germany will take the reign as the global superpower, yet these nations they state are struggling against the rise of Islam. It is either naivety or academic ignorance or outright propaganda that they fail to point the finger on the Muslims to be the next civilization that will unseat the rest of them. The only civilization that does not fit into the seven stages is the Islamic civilization that has remained since the demise of its state mechanism. 

However I leave it to the reader to decide whether the American civilization has either cemented itself firmly to survive for many more decades or whether they are fighting a losing battle. 

Written by Kam Kashem

Robert Strausz-Hupé (1957) - "The Balance of Tomorrow" Obris: A Quarterly Journal of World Affairs Volume 1, Number 1.
Zbigniew Brzezinski and John J. Mearsheimer, "Clash of the Titans" Foreign Policy, Jan/Feb 2005, 146
Mearsheimer (2001) - "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics"
Carrol Quigley (1961) - "The Evolutions of Civilizations"
Christopher L. Brennan (2015) - "Fall of the Arab Spring from Revolution to Destruction"

Equilibrium Warfare in Syria - U.S. using ISIS as the sectarian spearhead and Russia as the equalizer

In 2015 a document by the U.S. Department of Intelligence (DIA) was leaked with some astonishing details that were not redacted. You don't want to go away without knowing this!

It starts off with the general situation in Iraq and Syria and explains that they are both heading in the sectarian direction, failing to mention this to be a negative aspect of the war. We will conclude at the end of this article whether or not the U.S. seek a sectarian war or not.



Interestingly, this report was drafted in 2012 and released in 2015, way before Russia's involvement in the Syrian crises. At the time of Russia's involvement we heard many American diplomats and opposition politicians bombarding the media with this narrative that Russia are stealing America's thunder and Obama is incapable in his policies in Syria. A lot of people saw this role of Russia in Syria contrary to what America wanted and this narrative is still played out today. The report actually documents that Russia will be involved in this conflict and will side with the Assad regime - they knew this from the very beginning it was planned, drafted and agreed upon.



You can clearly read from that, that the U.S. require an equilibrium in Syria and from the very onset they knew that the Russians were only there to kill off the opposition that the West, Gulf and Turkey have been supporting to maintain an equal playing ground. If the U.S. sought to resolve the Syrian crises then surely it would solve its issues with Russia, China and Iran to stop them from supporting the regime, right?

Who are the opposition you ask? Well from the media we know that the West are supporting the Free Syrian Army and anyone linked to the Syrian National Coalition however it clearly denotes in this document that without the work of AQI (now known as ISIS), they could not play a pivotal role in uniting the Sunni Muslims under the sectarian card to fight the dissenters who they call the Jibha al-Ruwafidh (Forefront of the Shiites)



It goes on to say that the flow of fighters and ammunition comes through the border between Iraq/Syria and it depends on AQI (now ISIS) as it has major pockets and bases on both sides. This spells out that without ISIS, the West could not support the opposition against Assad or keep the equilibrium going to destroy the infrastructure, people and livelihoods of Syria and Iraq.



It mentions that the future holds a safe haven for the Syrian regime, i.e. Assad and the Alawi's. This is reaffirmed by the recent plans drawn up by RAND and the Brookings Institute explaining the greater plan for a federalized Syria into three regions.



Now the key for the next point is in the wording. The U.S. have maintained that they want a peaceful solution to the Syrian crises and they'll take every opportunity to demean Russia's actions in Syria, but make a note of the wording on this next point in the document.



Did you spot it?

Try again....



That's right the development of a proxy war WITH SUPPORT from Russia, China and Iran. This proxy war is undoubtedly and undeniably a proxy war that doesn't see the Americans, Russians, Chinese or even Europeans losing their lives. It is the MUSLIMS who are being targeted and it is the Muslims who are losing their lives for a war that is not even their own.

The report finally goes onto 'prophesies' if I may use that term loosely, that the opposition which the West support will use Iraq as a launch pad and safe haven for the Salafists, i.e. ISIS - whom they fully support and whom without the equilibrium could not be sustained without marring their own faces and sending in their own troops as was the case in the Iraq war.

And just to top all of this off they kindly mention that 'if the situation unravels' in the West's favour there is a 'possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist principality' - and what is the form of interpretation of Islam ISIS are following? ... how convenient.. it's Salafist.



Finally it decides to redact the part about facilitating the terrorist organisations into entering the Iraqi arena.



If this section were to take the angle that other powers out of America's control were facilitating the terrorist elements to enter the Iraqi arena then it surely wouldn't have redacted this part out. It leads one to believe that this section was in fact talking about how the West can renew the facilitation of rounding up the Jihadi organisations from around the world and push them into Iraq. Exactly what ISIS are doing today with many groups pledging their allegiances to them and flocking to join their ranks.

Now if you still believe ISIS are not their to serve the agenda of the West, then you're truly and utterly naive. This is a sectarian war headed by the U.S with its allies Russia, Iran and China to bring the Muslims to their knees and destroy whatever they have left in their capability, i.e. nuclear, manpower or resources and ultimately their religion that binds them.

Thank you for reading this, share this widely with others.

Jazakamullah Khairan

U.S. think-tank CSIS spells out to policy-makers the battle between Islam and Kufr

A recent article published by Anthony H. Cordesman of CSIS emphasises the battle of hearts and minds between the West and the Muslims.

It suggests that the struggle will continue for decades and that "No responsible political figure in the United States or the West can deny these realities. It is also time that our political leaders were honest about the struggle against Islamic extremism and terrorism. It is an ideological battle..." 

We should not take the term 'ideological battle' lightly. In order to defeat an ideology you must ensure those holding the belief, concepts and values of that ideology to abandon it for another, as was the case with Communism. This term alone should stun the believer as it is a clear message that the West will not relent until we have abandoned all that we stand for - Allah and His Messenger, may the peace and blessings be upon him.

It may seem from the apparent that the battle against Islam is happening in the Muslim world alone however the battle cannot be won abroad if it is not expelled from within. The report mentions that:

The core battle will not be fought outside the Islamic world. The United States, Europe, Asian states, and Russia are all on the periphery of the core battle. Defeating terrorism and extremism requires reform and replacing frustration and failed governance with leadership and hope. Moderate Muslim clerics and Muslim governments must demonstrate their legitimacy and defeat extremism at the ideological level.

Using the excuse of terrorism and extremism they are attempting to replace the already corrupt governments in place in the Muslim world with leaders that can push democracy and secularism, something quite clearly planned since the Greater Middle East Initiative in 2004. A Muslim government only holds legitimacy in the West's eyes if She defeats extremism at the ideological level - a clear indication that there is no room for a truly Islamic government or system as the term extremism to the West are those who believe in the Sharia of Allah and the Caliphate.

But, unless the West recognizes the need to keep moderate Muslim states as critical partners in the fight against terrorism and extremism, it will remain a target and risks some extremist movement taking over a state or states that have a Muslim majority.

Does the writer not mean to say 'another' extremist movement to take over a state? It shows that they do not find ISIS to be a credible threat, just a pretext used to further their agenda and they worry that a real Caliphate may rise with a Muslim majority backing it.

The article highlights the fact that the Muslim population will increase rapidly by 2050, over 70%. Pew Research documented the growth over a 10 year period and found the trends to be quite alarming for the West.



The report goes on to state that:

The United States, the West, and other areas outside the Islamic world cannot approach Islam as if it was somehow going to become secular, separate church and state, or Islamic fundamentalism – as distinguished violent from Islamic extremism – was going to disappear.

They accept the fact that Islam itself would not become secular, but instead it is the Muslim rulers and governments ruling over the Muslims who shall be secular in their governing.

In conclusion, many signs of distress are appearing on the once smug face of Capitalism and those who head it. It is our duty not to succumb to their plots and plans and continue on the correct path.

Turkey swings to the West and the Muslims lose hope in Islam

Just a decade ago Turkey had met the set of democracy and governance-related requirements as a candidate for the European Union. Their economy was booming and their policy of keeping peace with neighbours allowed them to trade with ease and efficiency. They were setting themselves as a model democracy for the Middle East and the Muslims.

However, there has been a growing call by the Muslims across the globe for Islam to be implemented politically and not just spiritually. In order to preserve the progress Turkey had made, She had to listen to these wishes in a way that would not send liberal democracy a death sentence.

Thus began the brandishing of the Holy Qur'an by Erdogan in order to quell the thirst of the Muslims. It included the introduction of interest-free banking and tougher laws on religious marriages and adultery.

However this move to a more 'Islamic'-coated democracy, which is far from Islam, has introduced other domestic issues which were kept quiet a decade ago. The once quiet neighbour policy of the Turkish government to an aggressive stance that heavily includes themselves in the Syria and Iraq quagmire as well as the forerunner in the refugee crises, has brought about terrorist attacks and a struggling economy that has now broken ties with Russia that supplied 60% of its countries energy after the downing of the Russian jet.

What has this new turn in Turkish politics achieved?

1. When the Muslims lose their high standard of living, it'll bring doubts into many that Islam cannot play any role in politics, even though currently this form of picking and choosing from Islam does not make a secular state into an Islamic state. 
2. The Muslims have experienced gradualism under the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and now a democracy led by 'Islamists' - both which have failed them domestically, in order to make the Muslims lose hope in Islam as a political ideology.
3. Turkey will fall into the arms of both the EU and the U.S. which will force it to abandon the little Islam it has in governance in return for a booming economy and strong alliance once again. 

The longer the AKP use a heavy hand on the Kurds the faster its popularity will diminish, allowing for the opposition to ride the waves of secular democracy devoid of any religious laws to take the front seat and affirm that Islam cannot achieve the basic needs of the people. No wonder Erdogan had sought to take a higher role that will make him immune to the coming changes? 

This also leads one to believe that this U.S and Russia antipathy towards each other, is but a farcical to delude and deceive their own masses in order to effectuate change. 

The U.S. has achieved more than it has bargained for with this new direction by Turkey. The abandonment of the Chinese missile deal and the reconciliation with 'Israel', as well as the improved cooperation with NATO means there will be closely aligned agenda on Syria and Iraq with the U.S. 

It will be interesting to see how the AKP fare domestically after this huge swing to the West for Turkey. 

What does it mean to be a Revisionist State?

I've always struggled to explain the term revisionist or revisionism until I came across this publication by RAND. It's titled "Mastering the Gray Zone: Understanding a Changing Era of Conflict".

I'm not going to discuss this publication as I've not yet had a chance to fully read it, however it summarises for me the term revisionist quite accurately and therefore I'd like to share this with you also.

The author starts off  explaining China's gradual and revisionist approach towards dominating the regions near to them.

In the remote reaches of the South China Sea in the Spratly Island chain, China is creating land. In order to bolster its claims to the waters of the region, Beijing is pouring millions of metric tons of sand and concrete onto submerged reefs, creating artificial islands.1 Island-building is merely one of the most obvious of many actions, ranging from propaganda to economic coercion and swarming fleets of fishing vessels, that China has been taking to solidify its assertion of territorial and resource rights throughout the region. Step by forceful step, China is laying the groundwork for a new order in the region that recognizes Beijing’s unquestioned primacy, and for an international system whose norms and institutions reflect China’s interests and preferences.

“China is biding its time,” one report recently concluded, “slowly eroding American credibility in the region, changing facts on the ground where it believes it can and carefully calibrating the coercion of its rivals in the South China Sea.”

The example of China is fitting for a revisionist state extending its reach into places it really has no authority due to the hand of the superpower that has it's fingers clenched into the soil across the entire globe.

Here the author explains revisionism  

This series of actions is a powerful example of an approach being used by more and more states with partial, but still obvious, revisionist intent—that is to say, states dissatisfied with the status quo and determined to change important aspects of the global distribution of power and influence in their favor. Unwilling to risk major escalation with outright military adventurism, these actors are employing sequences of gradual steps to secure strategic leverage. The efforts remain below thresholds that would generate a powerful U.S. or international response, but nonetheless are forceful and deliberate, calculated to gain measurable traction over time. In one important sense, they are classic “salami-slicing” strategies, fortified with a range of emerging gray area or unconventional techniques—from cyberattacks to information campaigns to energy diplomacy. They maneuver in the ambiguous no-man’s-land between peace and war, reflecting the sort of aggressive, persistent, determined campaigns characteristic of warfare but without the overt use of military force.

The Key Policy Making Reports and Articles of the 21st Century

In this post I have amalgamated all the key policy making documents that I feel are game changing for the Ummah in 2015. These are all a must read for all Muslims, to be aware of the plots and plans of the West.

The Redirection by Seymour Hersh

An article cited by many freelance journalists to be bluntly true about America's redirection in the Middle East.

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection

From Pol Pot to ISIS: "Anything that flies on everything that moves"

Interesting article that is packed with quotes from previous officials within the U.S regarding the Iraq war.

http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything-that-flies-on-everything-that-moves

Burma Campaign UK

A 2006 36-page document out of the "Burma Campaign UK" explicitly details the enormous amount of money and resources both the US government and its corporate-funded foundations have poured into Suu Kyi's image and her "movement."

http://burmacampaign.org.uk/media/DFIDReview.pdf

Al Qaeda's Foreign Fighters in Iraq

In November 2007, the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point received nearly 700 records of foreign nationals that entered Iraq between August 2006 and August 2007. The data compiled and analyzed in this report is drawn from these personnel records, which was collected by al‐Qa’ida’s Iraqi affiliates, first the Mujahidin Shura Council (MSC) and then the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI). The records contain varying levels of information on each fighter, but often include the fighter’s country of origin, hometown, age, occupation, the name of the fighter’s recruiter, and even the route the fighter took to Iraq. The records were captured by coalition forces in October 2007 in a raid near Sinjar, along Iraq’s Syrian border. Although there is some ambiguity in the data, it is likely that all of the fighters listed in the Sinjar Records crossed into Iraq from Syria. The Sinjar Records’ existence was first reported by The New York Times’ Richard Oppel, who was provided a partial summary of the data. English translations of the Records can be accessed at

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/FF‐Bios‐Trans.pdf 

and the records in their original Arabic text at:

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/harmony/Foreign_Fighter_Bios‐Orig.pdf

However I think these original documents have now been removed, the summary is still available at:

http://tarpley.net/docs/CTCForeignFighter.19.Dec07.pdf

Choices for America in a Turbulent World by RAND

A magazine by RAND featuring many interesting articles which include counterterrorism, picking partners and identifying enemies, rebalancing civil liberties and security, the arab-israeli settlement, learning lessons from the past and US National Strategy.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1114/RAND_RR1114.pdf

Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change by Brookings Institute

This memo lays out six options for the United States to consider to achieve Asad’s overthrow, should it choose to do so:

1. Removing the regime via diplomacy; 
2. Coercing the regime via sanctions and diplomatic isolation;
3. Arming the Syrian opposition to overthrow the regime;
4. Engaging in a Libya-like air campaign to help an opposition army gain victory;
5. Invading Syria with U.S.-led forces and toppling the regime directly; and
6. Participating in a multilateral, NATO-led effort to oust Asad and rebuild Syria.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/3/15-syria-saban/0315_syria_saban.pdf

Deconstructing Syria: Towards a regionalized strategy for a confederal country by Brookings Institute

This paper makes a case for a new approach to Syria that attempts to bring ends and means more realistically into balance. It also seeks to end the Hobson’s choice currently confronting American policymakers, whereby they can neither attempt to unseat President Assad in any concerted way (because doing so would clear the path for ISIL), nor tolerate him as a future leader of the country (because of the abominations he has committed, and because any such policy would bring the United States into direct disagreement with almost all of its regional allies). The new approach would seek to break the problem down in a number of localized components of the country, pursuing regional stopgap solutions while envisioning ultimately a more confederal Syria made up of autonomous zones rather than being ruled by a strong central government. It also proposes a path to an intensified train and equip program. Once that program had generated a critical mass of fighters in training locations abroad, it would move to a next stage. Coupled with a U.S. willingness, in collaboration with regional partners, to help defend local safe areas using American airpower as well as special forces support once circumstances are conducive, the Syrian opposition fighters would then establish safe zones in Syria that they would seek to expand and solidify. The safe zones would also be used to accelerate recruiting and training of additional opposition fighters who could live in, and help protect, their communities while going through basic training. They would, in addition, be locations where humanitarian relief could be provided to needy populations, and local governance structures developed.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/06/23-syria-strategy-ohanlon/23syriastrategyohanlon.pdf

A Peace Plan for Syria by RAND

An important policy making document on advising America on which way to turn in Syria and which path to ultimately take. The two paths it discusses are:

1.  To concentrate on brokering a comprehensive political arrangement among the warring Syrian parties and their external sponsors, including the reform of state institutions, the formation of a new government, and a plan for elections, accompanied by a ceasefire and the beginning of a process of reconstruction.
2. To secure agreement to an immediate ceasefire, which would be followed by further negotiations on the shape of a reconstituted Syrian state and government.

It advises the White House to take the second path into regionalising Syria into three safe zones, i.e. Alawi/Assad region, Kurds Region, Opposition/Rebel region. The rest of Syria will then be deemed to be ISIS held and targeted for mass killings by all three regions cooperatively including the international arena.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE182/RAND_PE182.pdf

2016 Global Forecast by Centre for Strategic & International Studies 

An important lessons learned forecast by CSIS who are a liberal leaning Washington think tank. It gives an insight into the frustrations of America and forecasts the future.

http://csis.org/files/publication/151116_Cohen_GlobalForecast2016_Web.pdf

Rethinking Political Islam by Brookings Institute

Rethinking Political Islam is the first project of its kind to systematically assess the evolution of mainstream Islamist groups across 12 country cases—Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Pakistan, as well as Malaysia and Indonesia. The project engages scholars of political Islam through in-depth research and dialogue to consider how the Arab uprisings and their aftermath have shaped—and in some cases altered—the strategies, agendas, and self-conception of Islamist movements.

Series of PDF can be found here: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2015/08/rethinking-political-islam

RAND's peace plan for Syria

RAND Report: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/perspectives/PE100/PE182/RAND_PE182.pdf

It is important to know that the RAND corporation are no ordinary think-tank. They are one of the leading think-tanks in America that have shaped policy and decision making at the highest level. This is why any analysis that come out of RAND, you can be sure that it is the direction the politicians will take in America.

This recent report by RAND regarding the peace plan for Syria agrees with much of the Brooking's Institutions report on deconstructing Syria towards a regionalized strategy.

The report starts off by recognising the two paths that can be taken in Syria, them being:

1. Concentrate on brokering a comprehensive political arrangement among the warring Syrian parties and their external sponsors, including the reform of state institutions, the formation of a new government, and a plan for elections, accompanied by a ceasefire and the beginning of a process of reconstruction.
2. The second approach would be to secure agreement to an immediate ceasefire, which would be followed by further negotiations on the shape of a reconstituted Syrian state and government.

We can see that the West are currently aiming for the first path by gathering the opposition to come to an agreement. However whether or not Assad stays or leaves is the main sticking point for most of the warring factions - something that Russia also wish to have a say in. 

RAND suggest that path one is unrealistic now that sectarianism is as rife as ever. 

"pitting the regime against the opposition, Shi’a against Sunni, Arab against Kurd, and moderate against extremist. It has attracted tens of thousands of foreign fighters from Europe, North America, and Africa; exacerbated geopolitical rivalries among Saudi Arabia, Iran, Russia, the United States, and others; and drawn in the armed forces of nearly a dozen external states. There may have been a time, early on, when it could be argued that the benefits of overthrowing Assad would be worth the human, strategic, political, and economic costs of achieving that goal, but that time has long past. At this point, whether President Assad stays or goes in the near term should be regarded as a matter of pure expediency"

Whereas the second path seems to be more achievable according to both RAND and the Brooking's Institute. The most telling point of this report is the acknowledgement of three safe zones for Syria. RAND writes:

"Were the fighting to be halted on the basis of the territory currently held, Syria would find itself divided into roughly four zones—one controlled by the government; one controlled by the Kurds; one controlled by diverse elements of the Sunni opposition; and one controlled largely by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).1 As ISIS has no foreign sponsors, is largely immune to external influence, and is certain to reject any ceasefire, Syria would effectively be divided into three “safe” zones in which the parties agreed to stop fighting, and one zone in which all other parties would be free to wage war on ISIS."

 RAND's proposal acknowledges three difficult realities.

1. The first is that four years of fighting and more than a quarter million dead have left Syria intensely divided by sect and ethnicity. It should be a goal to mitigate those divisions in the long run, but they must be acknowledged in the short run.
2. Second, ousting the current regime by building up the military power of the opposition—the basic approach of the United States and its partners for the past four years—is unlikely to succeed. Russia and Iran have proven so committed to the regime’s preservation that escalation of the conflict has not led to Assad’s capitulation, but rather a significant counter-escalation, more killing and refugees, and radicalization of the opposition.
3. Third, the current battle lines on the ground, while hardly ideal, would have to be the fundamental basis of any armistice. Limited territorial swaps may be necessary to facilitate the disengagement of combatants and assist in ceasefire implementation.

It goes on to state that the war in Syria has ruined the intermixing of  ethnicities and sects within Syria, thus forming regions based on them or creating lines in the sand, what some would call Sykes-Picot Part 2.

 "Like most countries in the Middle East, Syria’s ethno-sectarian breakdown is far from clean. Syria’s communities have historically intermixed, so there is no such thing as a solid stretch of land inhabited by a single community. In addition, Sunni Arabs constitute more than 60 percent of the country’s total population. They are present throughout the country, comprise A ceasefire may not be a sufficient condition for an eventual political settlement, but it is likely to be a necessary one. 3 a majority even in regime-held areas, and in many cases remain loyal to the Assad regime.4 These important caveats aside, Syria’s longstanding ethnosectarian map does reflect regional groupings, which have been consolidated by internal displacement"

Without the war in Syria it would have never been possible to split Syria up on ethnic and sectarian lines. One could call this the sickest method of separating the Ummah of Muhammad (pbuh).

The map above shows the clear zones that RAND are suggesting in their proposal for Syria. In the full report you will find more maps relating to sects within Syria before and after the war. 

It is also interesting to note how RAND suggest each of these players are backed by international support to secure its own interests.

Thus, Russia and Iran would guarantee the regime’s adherence; the United States would guarantee Kurdish adherence; and Turkey and Jordan would guarantee the Sunni opposition’s adherence. All external parties would collaborate to dislodge ISIS. 

However I do believe that the final point about all external parties collaborating to defeat ISIS is only mentioned due to the fact ISIS have been used as a pretext for all this change in the Muslim world and also to contain the Muslims from seeking an alternative system. It will be interesting to see how long ISIS remain after the Syria end game is played out. They will either cease to exist or kept like Al Qaeda as a pretext into other parts of the Muslim world where the West require change. So far they have become the golden egg for the West and so easily allowed them to dictate the situation for the rest of the world under the guise of "terrorism".

It goes on to mention that it could become somewhat similar to Lebanon's sectarian power sharing model including the international oversight on the Bosnia model using U.N forces to implement ceasefire and support. If this is the case, the Muslims should look back at what happened to the Bosnian Muslims as the Serbs slaughtered them in U.N's presence. It would be a disaster to allow them to "protect" the Muslims.

"International oversight of the ceasefire and support for the political process would be undertaken by a Peace Implementation Council, on the Bosnia model, made up of the above-mentioned states plus others ready to contribute significantly. "

It clearly admits that support for Al Nusra and other groups currently receive support and will stop receiving it once the above actions have been taken.

"It would have to be clear to all groups that external support will be cut off for groups that violate the ceasefire."

 In conclusion it is clear to see that this second path is on its way already as Russia have now become a key player in the Syria end game, and was needed in order to support Assad in a alawi region and be their main guarantor.

Kam Kashem

Hossam Bahgat - The US-funded journalist to push for Human Rights and Democracy in Egypt

Hossam Bahgat, a name that has been mentioned quite a few times over the past month or so. The Egyptian journalist who has been detained by Egyptian authorities and claimed to have suffered detention and torture. Although it is horrendous for anyone to have suffered such, we need to look deeper into why the media is focusing on a single journalist in Egypt that has suffered when hundreds of Muslim Brotherhood members have not only been tortured but murdered.

It doesn't take long to find that Hossam Bahgat is funded by the terrorist sponsor George Soros Foundation, Open Society. He sits neatly on the advisory board under the Open Society Justice Initiative. Soros has built a global empire of networked nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) allegedly promoting "human rights," "freedom," "democracy," and "transparency." His Open Society Institute funds amongst many others, Amnesty International (page 10), Global Voices, and Human Rights Watch. In reality these NGOs constitute a modern day network of imperial administrators, undermining national governments around the world and replacing them with a homogeneous "civil society" that interlocks with "international institutions" run from and on behalf of Wall Street and London. And contrary to popular belief, Soros has built this empire, not against "conservative" ambitions, but with their full cooperation.

It is difficult to find a cause Soros' Open Society Institute supports that is not also funded, directed, and backed by the US State Department-funded, Neo-Conservative lined National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its various subsidiaries including Freedom House, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

It would be almost four months after the beginning of the so-called "Arab Spring" before the corporate-media would admit that the US had been behind the uprisings and that they were anything but "spontaneous," or "indigenous." In an April 2011 article published by the New York Times titled, "U.S. Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings," it was stated:

"A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House, a nonprofit human rights organization based in Washington."

The article would also add, regarding the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED):

"The Republican and Democratic institutes are loosely affiliated with the Republican and Democratic Parties. They were created by Congress and are financed through the National Endowment for Democracy, which was set up in 1983 to channel grants for promoting democracy in developing nations. The National Endowment receives about $100 million annually from Congress. Freedom House also gets the bulk of its money from the American government, mainly from the State Department. "

George Soros and his Open Society Institute also played a leading role in the unfolding unrest. Soros, in addition to fully supporting many of the NGOs in tandem with NED and the US State Department, also funded opposition groups working well in advance to produce new "constitutions" for collapsed nations.

In "George Soros & Egypt's New Constitution," it was reported:


"It turns out that the new Egyptian Constitution has already been drafted, not by the Egyptian people, but by the very US-backed protesters who brought about regime change in the first place. A Reuters report quoted an opposition judge, who had been hiding-out in Kuwait until Mubarak's ousting, as having said civil society groups had already produced several drafts and a new constitution could be ready in a month.

These "civil society" groups include the Arabic Network for Human Rights Information openly funded by George Soros' Open Society Institute and the Neo-Con lined NED fundedEgyptian Organization for Human Rights. It appears that while the International Crisis Group may be turning out the strategy, and their trustee ElBaradei leading the mobs into the streets, it is the vast array of NGOs their membership, including Soros, fund that are working out and implementing the details on the ground."

So why all this commotion regarding Hossam Bahgat's detention? It would seem as though the Americans are trying to gain Hossam some credibility amongst the public. Preparing him for a key role in further democratising Egypt in the future? He's certainly gaining credibility amongst the Muslim Brotherhood.

I'll let you join the dots... 

Sources:
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/africa/22217-what-happened-during-my-detention
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/surpise-soros-is-convicted-criminal.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/09/egyptian-journalist-hossam-bahgat-charged-military-prosecutor
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/people/hossam-bahgat

Putin’s aspirations lead Russia towards disaster

The Russian military operations in Syria still raise many questions regarding the objectives, limits, duration and chances of achieving their goal of reinstalling Moscow as a dominant world power.

Russia’s conflict with the West came about as a result of the deployment of a US missile shield in Europe, Washington’s update of its tactical nuclear weapons and NATO’s advancement towards its western border. After Putin’s enthusiastic efforts to achieve closer integration with Europe and the West in general during his first three years in power, he changed direction suddenly and worked towards building a strong state. His strategy was based on two axes: Russia’s near neighbours and those further away. He has sought to regain control of what he considers to be Russian territory annexed by neighbouring countries and to restore Moscow’s control in the former Soviet Union countries under the pretext of protecting ethnic Russians and Russian speakers. The goal behind the second axis is to limit America’s global role and influence and to allow Russia to play a prominent role in international decision-making.

These efforts include working towards Russia regaining its position in an international system based on bipolarity alongside the US. In order to achieve this, Putin launched economic and military programmes to regain balance within Russia and increase its ability to take regional and international action to impose its presence and boost its prestige.

Hence, he worked on strengthening Russia’s military presence in the former Soviet Union by means of military bases and strengthening the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. He also called for the formation of a customs union to include the former Soviet Union countries and for the adoption of a military doctrine based on reinforcing missile defences and the development of carrying systems for nuclear warheads, such as missiles, submarines and strategic bombs. Conventional weapons have also been modernised, with an operational command and naval fleet based permanently in the Mediterranean. In addition, a network of military bases has been built to house air defence forces, rapid reaction brigades and navy vessels deployed above the Arctic Circle.

Having adopted brinkmanship as a tactic, Putin is also doing a lot of muscle-flexing, and is hinting at the possibility of the outbreak of a world war. Russia’s spending on arms now exceeds 9 per cent of GDP as the president deploys aircraft and ships around the world.

The outbreak of the Arab Spring revolutions sparked additional disputes between Russia and the West, especially after the latter’s intervention in Libya, depriving Russia of its piece of the cake, as well as threatening its interests in Syria. This pushed Russia into engaging in an indirect confrontation with the West by supporting the Syrian regime in its fight against the revolution and protecting the regime politically by using its veto at the UN on four occasions. Moscow has supplied Damascus with weapons, money and military experts, and has coordinated with Iran to prevent the Assad regime from collapsing under too much political and military pressure.

The moves by the European Union and NATO to allow Ukraine to join them irked Russia, due to Moscow’s imagining of a Eurasian Union. This has escalated the tension in the region, with Russia pushing ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine to hold a referendum and declare the establishment of the “Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republic”.

Russia has exploited the cool relations between the US a number of its allies, such as the Arab Gulf states on the back of the Iranian nuclear deal, and Egypt on the back of Washington’s reservations over political oppression, the use of excessive force against the Muslim Brotherhood and the politicisation of the judiciary. Putin has used this to make trade, arms and investment deals as well as contracts to build nuclear power plants, all in the hope of forcing Washington to deal with Russia as another world power.

This was achieved and Russia is now living with inflation and deflation due to Western economic sanctions and the fall in oil and gas prices. Some Russian observers predict the fall of oil prices to $40 or even $20 per barrel. It is worth noting that for every $1 drop per barrel of oil, Russia loses $2.5 billion.

We must not forget that a fifth of the external debt of $700 billion and the debt accumulated by Russian companies, which amounts to $500 billion, must be repaid this year; nor that capital ranging from $100 and $200 billion was taken out of Russia in 2014. An increase in oil and gas supply after recent large discoveries will reform the market and impose a new balance in which Russia’s share will drop; gas and oil represent about 74 per cent of Russian exports and its revenues make up 50 per cent of the state’s resources, both of which are the main source of hard currency. Western business investments are likely to be withdrawn; indeed, 87 companies have already liquidated or reduced their presence in Russia. This has caused a fall in the value of the rouble; the exchange rate against the dollar has fallen by 20 per cent. It is worth noting that at the beginning of 2014, $1 was equal to around 33 roubles; it is now 66 roubles. This has led to a 30 per cent increase in the price of basic foodstuffs and the decline of growth to below zero per cent.

Despite the fact that Russia’s revenues from oil and its by-products, and natural gas, reached about $3.2 trillion between 2000 and 2013, it did not result in the modernisation of the Russian economy, its diversification or ending its dependence on the export of raw materials and the import of advanced technology. It was growth without development. This caused a contradiction in Russia’s structure between the military and economic forces; the label attached to the Soviet Union of being a giant with two legs, one powerful (military) and the other weak (economy), also applies to the Russian Federation.

Which brings us to American historian Paul Kennedy’s equation regarding the rise and fall of great powers: a strong economy that finances an army deployed abroad and a lack of financial ability to spend on overseas military operations both put great powers on the path towards failure. The continuation of the Russian-Western conflict and Moscow’s military involvement in Ukraine and Syria, as well as the possibility of its involvement in Iraq, will lead to the exhaustion of Russia's money supply and push it to the brink of bankruptcy.

This worries Russian citizens and has widened the gap between them and their leadership. The situation does not align with the doctrine and principles of the populist government and its sole hero Vladimir Putin, which depends on the enthusiasm of the Russian people and their ardent nationalism in order to mobilise behind him and protect him from their anger. He does so by promoting his description of the situation that the Russians have found themselves in as part of a Western conspiracy.

The Russian military intervention in Syria is based on opportunities and risks. Such opportunities include reinforcing Russia’s influence, limiting Washington’s ability to take unilateral action in the Middle East and other parts of the world, and forcing the US to negotiate with Moscow on regional and international issues, thus recognising Russia as an equal partner in global decision-making. However, it involves greater risks, as Washington does not accept Moscow as an equal or an influential player in the international arena. Indeed, it treats it like a junior partner there to serve the interests of the stronger party, according to the intersection theory spoken about by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US National Security Advisor in his book Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era.

Many analyses have predicted that domestic criticism will increase when soldiers start going home from Syria in body bags. Despite the fact that Russia is relying on air strikes to wear down the opposition in preparation for a ground attack by the Assad regime, its Iranian allies and the militias associated with Iran, in order to regain control of the territories lost in recent months and keep the opposition forces away from the coast, where the Russian naval base is located, this tactic is facing many obstacles. The first of these is the lack of effectiveness of the air strike in achieving decisive results in the asymmetric war. Another obstacle is the fact that Russia is linked to a weak ally — the regime — making it more difficult and placing a heavy burden on Moscow.

If the Syrian opposition forces succeed in avoiding Russia’s air strikes, and containing them, and then respond with powerful blows to the regime and its allies, they would have stopped the “tsar” from achieving quick results, such as reinforcing the regime’s position and pressuring the West to accept a trade-off. They would have a tactical victory in light of the unbalanced nature of the conflict and in accordance with the rule that, “The army is defeated when it is not victorious, while the resistance is victorious when it is not defeated.”

This could put the Russian leadership in a confrontation with public opinion at home, which is still suffering from Afghanistan syndrome; the people have a deep-seated fear of slipping in a foreign war.

Pushing Russia to withdraw from Syria without any positive results will reflect negatively on the “heroic” image of Putin and will lead to a decline in Moscow’s international role. That would push it back and force it to accept Washington’s conditions for a resolution of the crisis in Syria, the first of which is a new leadership in Damascus.

Russia’s involvement in such a war as Syria’s involves great risks for a country that is suffering from economic problems and is on the verge of bankruptcy, unable to pay its debts. Add to that the fact that it is suffering from social problems and existential concerns due to the demographic and religious structure of society, in order to achieve a near-impossible goal — a return to a world of bipolarity — and it is clear that Russia is reflecting a number of disparities in its strategic outlook.

Translated from Al Jazeera net, 4 November, 2015.

Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/22131-putins-aspirations-lead-russia-towards-disaster

Only the Islamic Shield can Withstand the Onslaught by the Kuffar

It is patent to every observer that the Islamic Ummah is enduring her darkest days and her most awkward conditions. All and sundry have ganged up on her. Plots and conspiracies have been concocted to keep the Ummah incapable of reversing her situation and assuming her own affairs. After they had engrossed her for decades with the issue of Palestine, they embroiled her again for decades with the issue of Iraq, the "war on terror" and the Greater Middle East Initiative. All these engrossments, or rather all these conspiracies, have been designed to alienate the Ummah from her central issue and keep her a hostage to the vicious circle of a struggle with the Kafir West. Yet, this struggle is unbalanced since the West looks upon us as one single Ummah but deals with us as divided segments and endeavours to corroborate the separation and the fragmentation by entrenching the animosity among us whenever the opportunity arises.

Our main issue is neither Palestine nor Iraq or Syria or Egypt. These are vital issues that emanate from the central issue, namely establishing Islam in the realm of life. Any other effort exhausted towards other than this issue would sidetrack the Muslims and perpetuate the dominion of the Kuffar over their lands.  

As for the vital issues that stem from the central issue, such as the issues of Syria, Iraq and Palestine, the only fruitful effort towards settling these issues is to work in a country in control of its own security and free from the military presence of the Kuffar. This country should possess the faculties of a state so that it may be the nucleus of the Islamic state, through assiduous and effective work to fuse the masses with Islam in its quality as a rational Aqeedah from which a system emanates to regulate all life's affairs. Work should be concentrated in this country to prepare its people and their forces to support Islam and establish the Islamic State which will in turn work towards bringing the rest of the Islamic lands under its wing and towards liberating the occupied lands from the occupiers by expelling their forces.

As for the stance of the Muslim in Syria in particular, they should perceive that the criminal regime is conducting a war in which the Muslims are killing each other, their country is being destroyed and their faculties depleted; this dirty war is overseen by a malicious enemy, namely the Kafir West aided by Russia. They keep plotting and planning against the Muslims to perpetuate the crisis and weaken the regime and its opponents further in order to impose their own agenda on them and initiate a roadmap for a secular state to replace the secular Baath regime that oppresses the Muslims in Syria. If the Muslim perceived this reality, he would perceive his stance vis-à-vis this war: he should neither lean towards a secular Kafir Baath regime that kills the Muslims and sows the seeds of strife amongst them, nor should he side with an opposition that blatantly admits its relationship with the devious enemies of this Ummah and urges them to intervene militarily and supply it with sophisticated weapons. This does not mean the Muslim should remain confused about what course of action to pursue; he should rather work towards ending the bloodshed to the best of his ability. He should defend himself, his family and his property should anyone or any group transgresses his inviolabilities. If he cannot defend them, he should seek a safe haven if he could. His raison d'être should remain Islam. He should work towards its return by establishing the Islamic State. This is what is required from a Shari'ah perspective.   

Sawt-ul-Ummah - Issue 16

The Drone Papers: The Assassination Complex for the U.S. by The Intercept: TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS INTERCEPTED

The Intercept has obtained a cache of secret documents detailing the inner workings of the U.S. military’s assassination program in Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The documents, provided by a whistleblower, offer an unprecedented glimpse into Obama’s drone wars.

Part 1 of the Drone Papers series is titled 'The Assassination Complex'. This article details the complex the U.S finds themselves in with their drone 'policy'. Explaining how the use of drones is not a policy but a tool, the policy is in fact assassination. A word that is rarely mentioned and masked by the term 'targeted killings' or 'legitimate targets'. 

Jeremy Scahill editor of The Intercept has written the first part of the series on the leaked/obtained papers on the U.S. military's assassination program using Drones. 

Here are the KEY points from the article:

The Intercept has obtained a cache of secret slides that provides a window into the inner workings of the U.S. military’s kill/capture operations at a key time in the evolution of the drone wars — between 2011 and 2013. The documents, which also outline the internal views of special operations forces on the shortcomings and flaws of the drone program, were provided by a source within the intelligence community who worked on the types of operations and programs described in the slides. The Intercept granted the source’s request for anonymity because the materials are classified and because the U.S. government has engaged in aggressive prosecution of whistleblowers. The stories in this series will refer to the source as “the source.”

“This outrageous explosion of watchlisting — of monitoring people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers, assigning them ‘baseball cards,’ assigning them death sentences without notice, on a worldwide battlefield — it was, from the very first instance, wrong,” the source said.

Additional documents on high-value kill/capture operations in Afghanistan buttress previous accounts of how the Obama administration masks the true number of civilians killed in drone strikes by categorizing unidentified people killed in a strike as enemies, even if they were not the intended targets. The slides also paint a picture of a campaign in Afghanistan aimed not only at eliminating al Qaeda and Taliban operatives, but also at taking out members of other local armed groups.

One top-secret document shows how the terror “watchlist” appears in the terminals of personnel conducting drone operations, linking unique codes associated with cellphone SIM cards and handsets to specific individuals in order to geolocate them.

Taken together, the secret documents lead to the conclusion that Washington’s 14-year high-value targeting campaign suffers from an overreliance on signals intelligence, an apparently incalculable civilian toll

The “find, fix, finish” doctrine that has fueled America’s post-9/11 borderless war is being refined and institutionalized. Whether through the use of drones, night raids, or new platforms yet to be unleashed, these documents lay bare the normalization of assassination as a central component of U.S. counterterrorism policy.

The source said. “But at this point, they have become so addicted to this machine (Drones), to this way of doing business, that it seems like it’s going to become harder and harder to pull them away from it the longer they’re allowed to continue operating in this way.”

Intercept has previously reported, drawn from government watchlists and the work of intelligence, military, and law enforcement agencies. At the time of the study, when someone was destined for the kill list, intelligence analysts created a portrait of a suspect and the threat that person posed, pulling it together “in a condensed format known as a ‘baseball card.’” That information was then bundled with operational information and packaged in a “target information folder” to be “staffed up to higher echelons” for action.

The system for creating baseball cards and targeting packages, according to the source, depends largely on intelligence intercepts and a multi-layered system of fallible, human interpretation. “It isn’t a surefire method,” he said. “You’re relying on the fact that you do have all these very powerful machines, capable of collecting extraordinary amounts of data and information,” which can lead personnel involved in targeted killings to believe they have “godlike powers.”

The source underscored the unreliability of metadata, most often from phone and computer communications intercepts. These sources of information, identified by so-called selectors such as a phone number or email address, are the primary tools used by the military to find, fix, and finish its targets. “It requires an enormous amount of faith in the technology that you’re using,” the source said. “There’s countless instances where I’ve come across intelligence that was faulty.” This, he said, is a primary factor in the killing of civilians. “It’s stunning the number of instances when selectors are misattributed to certain people. And it isn’t until several months or years later that you all of a sudden realize that the entire time you thought you were going after this really hot target, you wind up realizing it was his mother’s phone the whole time.”

Within the special operations community, the source said, the internal view of the people being hunted by the U.S. for possible death by drone strike is: “They have no rights. They have no dignity. They have no humanity to themselves. They’re just a ‘selector’ to an analyst. You eventually get to a point in the target’s life cycle that you are following them, you don’t even refer to them by their actual name.” This practice, he said, contributes to “dehumanizing the people before you’ve even encountered the moral question of ‘is this a legitimate kill or not?’”

The White House and Pentagon boast that the targeted killing program is precise and that civilian deaths are minimal. However, documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.

“Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association,” the source said. When “a drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.”

The documents show that the military designated people it killed in targeted strikes as EKIA — “enemy killed in action” — even if they were not the intended targets of the strike. Unless evidence posthumously emerged to prove the males killed were not terrorists or “unlawful enemy combatants,” EKIA remained their designation, according to the source. That process, he said, “is insane. But we’ve made ourselves comfortable with that. The intelligence community, JSOC, the CIA, and everybody that helps support and prop up these programs, they’re comfortable with that idea.”

The source described official U.S. government statements minimizing the number of civilian casualties inflicted by drone strikes as “exaggerating at best, if not outright lies.”

While many of the documents provided to The Intercept contain explicit internal recommendations for improving unconventional U.S. warfare, the source said that what’s implicit is even more significant. The mentality reflected in the documents on the assassination programs is: “This process can work. We can work out the kinks. We can excuse the mistakes. And eventually we will get it down to the point where we don’t have to continuously come back … and explain why a bunch of innocent people got killed.”

source: https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/

Leaked documents: 

https://theintercept.com/document/2015/10/14/small-footprint-operations-2-13

https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/

https://theintercept.com/document/2015/10/14/operation-haymaker

https://theintercept.com/document/2015/10/14/geolocation-watchlist