Judicial Watch reports that the Obama administration has granted asylum or residency to 1,519 foreigners with terrorist ties. This information comes from an annual report to Congress by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
More than half of the terror supporters granted asylum or residency by Team Obama provided material support to terrorist organizations, according to the USCIS report. Other received military-type training from a terrorist organization (nine fall into this category), voluntarily provided medical care to members of a terrorist group, or solicited funds or recruited individuals for membership in a terrorist organization.
Nearly 200 of the terror supporters provided material support to “designated terrorist groups.” As Chuck Ross of the Daily Caller explains, designated terrorist groups are the most dangerous. They include groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Why did the administration allow 1,519 people tied to terrorism to remain in the U.S. with all the rights and benefits enjoyed by legal residents? It did so because Obama’s DHS Secretary, Jeh Johnson, determined that the individuals in question participated in pro-terrorist activities “while under duress.”
But how can Johnson be sure of this? He wasn’t there, and neither was anyone from DHS. Naturally, the individuals seeking asylum and residency claim to have supported terrorism only under duress. But it’s unlikely that such claims are corroborated by trustworthy witnesses.
DHS says it compares applicants’ names and fingerprints against terrorist watch lists. But the absence of an applicant’s name from these lists doesn’t prove that his past support for terrorists was the result of duress.
Do you trust the government to make consistently accurate findings about what motivated these people to assist terrorists? I don’t. And keep in mind that if Johnson is wrong in only 10 percent of his determinations, that’s 152 true terrorists we have admitted into the country with resident status (with more to follow).
Until last year, all of these individuals would have had their applications denied. But in early 2014, the Obama administration unilaterally decided that DHS would, using its “discretion,” allow individuals who provided “limited material support” to terror groups to be considered for entry to and status in the U.S.
But why? Why grant asylum and residency to any “limited” supporters of terrorism?
I don’t know. But the decision is consistent with Judicial Watch’s claim that the Obama administration “seems to have a soft spot for terrorists.”
A few months after the INS change was exposed, a frustrated U.S. senator [Charles Grassley] revealed that the administration appears to have a terrorist “hands off” list that permits individuals with extremist ties to enter the country. The lawmaker obtained the information from internal DHS documents that include communication between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) asking whether to admit an individual with ties to various terrorist groups.
In any event, it is Obama administration policy to grant U.S. residency to “limited” terrorists with a plausible sounding sob story. More than 1,500 of them have now been admitted with many more, I assume, to follow.
(The views expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Warsclerotic or its other editors. — DM)
“Islamophobia” is a mental disorder evidenced by an insufficient understanding of Islam as the religion of peace. In the Age of Obama, Congress decreed that Islamophobia is a federal crime.
A few Republican extremists fought against the decree, but bipartisan majorities of both houses passed the bill. Obama signed it into law. The courts have thus far been lenient, merely sending offenders for psychiatric treatment. When certified as cured, they can be freed. Those who decline treatment are to be jailed indefinitely, as are those who can’t be cured.
Sally Snookums, a cute teenage girl, went for a stroll down Mainstreet. She wore her customary miniskirt and a modest blouse but neglected to wear the now mandatory burka with dark robe.
She was obviously “asking for it” and got raped by a Muslim man who had yet to realize that raping remains an unfortunate anti-Islamic cultural taboo in the town. It was, therefore, her own fault and not his. Besides, when she needs a husband her father or other male relative will find one or her. It’s none of her business.
Despite the incident having been Sally’s fault — she was willfully unfamiliar with Islamic culture — she had the gall to complain to the police. Pursuant to our wonderful new multicultural law, Sally was taken before a Federal Magistrate. He offered her two choices: (1) medical attention plus psychiatric help while confined to an insane asylum to cure her of Islamophobia, or (2) confinement in a Federal prison until she relented. What was Sally to do?
Initially, Sally selected option two. However, within hours she was raped by two prison guards and relented. Her next stop was the insane asylum. There, she learned all about peaceful Islamic culture and its requirement that girls dress like ugly old women to avoid exciting excessive lust in healthy and devout young Muslim males.
After apologizing to the young Muslim gentleman had quite properly raped her and vowing to go and sin no more, she was freed. Now Sally devotes her copious spare time to studying the Koran, the Hadith and Sharia law. Finally, she is happy just like most Muslim women.
A growing number of women and young girls housed in refugee shelters in Germany are being raped, sexually assaulted and even forced into prostitution by male asylum seekers, according to German social work organizations with first-hand knowledge of the situation.
Many of the rapes are occurring in mixed-gender shelters, where, due to a lack of space, German authorities are forcing thousands of male and female migrants to share the same sleeping areas and restroom facilities.
Conditions for women and girls at some shelters are so perilous that females are being described as “wild game” fighting off Muslim male predators. But many victims, fearing reprisals, are keeping silent, social workers say. [Emphasis added.]
At the same time, growing numbers of German women in towns and cities across the country are being raped by asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Many of the crimes are being downplayed by German authorities and the national media, apparently to avoid fueling anti-immigration sentiments. [Emphasis added.]
. . . .
In Bavaria, women and girls housed at a refugee shelter in Bayernkaserne, a former military base in Munich, are subject to rape and forced prostitution on a daily basis, according to women’s rights groups. Although the facility has separate dorm rooms for women, the doors cannot be locked and men control access to the sanitary facilities.
Approximately 80% of the refugees/migrants at the shelter are male, according to Bavarian Broadcasting (Bayerischer Rundfunk), which reports that the price for sex with female asylum seekers is ten euros. A social worker described the facility this way: “We are the biggest brothel in Munich.” [Emphasis added.]
Police insist they have no proof that the rapes are taking place, although a police raid on the facility found that guards hired to provide security at the site were trafficking drugs and weapons and were turning a blind eye to the prostitution.
On August 28, a 22-year-old Eritrean asylum seeker was sentenced to one year and eight months in prison for attempting to rape a 30-year-old Iraqi-Kurdish woman at a refugee shelter in the Bavarian town of Höchstädt. The reduced sentence was thanks to the efforts of the defense attorney, who persuaded the judge that the defendant’s situation at the shelter was hopeless: “For a year now he sits around and thinks about — about nothingness.”
On August 26, a 34-year-old asylum seeker attempted to rape a 34-year-old woman in the laundry room of a refugee facility in Stralsund, a city near the Baltic Sea.
On August 6, police revealed that a 13-year-old Muslim girl was raped by another asylum seeker at a refugee facility in Detmold, a city in west-central Germany. The girl and her mother reportedly fled their homeland to escape a culture of sexual violence; as it turns out, the man who raped the girl is from their country.
Although the rape took place in June, police kept silent about it for nearly three months, until local media published a story about the crime. According to an editorial comment in the newspaper Westfalen-Blatt, police are refusing to go public about crimes involving refugees and migrants because they do not want to give legitimacy to critics of mass migration. [Emphasis added.]
After Muslim terrorist attacks, we’re told that the killers just “misunderstood” their religion. They misunderstood the peaceful nature of Koranic verses such as “Kill them wherever you find them”, “They should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides” and “Strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”. [Emphasis added.]
But the misunderstandings of Islam are just getting started.
Not only are Americans and Europeans being murdered by Muslim terrorists due to these unfortunate misunderstandings, but European girls are being raped because of more misunderstandings.
The principal of Wilhelm-Diess-Gymnasium was concerned about his female students. So he sent a letter warning their parents that the Muslim refugees who had been put up next to the school gym “are marked by their own culture”. And now Germans were being “marked” by their culture. [Emphasis added.]
Girls were told to wear “modest clothing” to avoid “misunderstandings.” But rape isn’t a “misunderstanding.” The only misunderstanding is the politically correct leftist idea that the rapist should be excused on account of his culture and religion. [Emphasis added.]
The Koran states, “O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks all over their bodies that they may thus be distinguished and not molested.”
The obvious implication is that women who aren’t dressed in a Burka may be “molested”.
Or as the commentary states, “It is more likely that this way they may be recognized (as pious, free women), and may not be hurt (considered by mistake as roving slave girls.)”
The Muslim migrants who have invaded Germany just might “misunderstand” and mistake the teen girls going to the gym as “roving slave girls”. And under Islamic law, that’s what they are. Islamic law permits Muslim men to rape even married infidel women in the Dar al-Harb. Let alone unaccompanied girls.
It’s just a cultural thing, so don’t worry.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what you can do for our poor, downtrodden and misunderstood Muslim asylum seekers, yearning to be free to do as their peaceful religion instructs them.
The situation in the Middle East is very complicated these days, particularly when it comes to the ongoing strife in Syria. On Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani both gave speeches at the U.N. General Assembly in New York that in normal times could have been dismissed as amusing. But in the era of Islamic State, everyone is suddenly trying to appear to be righteous, including Putin and Rouhani.
Putin, for example, believes that Syria’s future must include Bashar Assad, the tyrant who is responsible for the deaths of 250,000 of his own people. As Putin said, “Only Assad is fighting against Islamic State.” Meanwhile, Rouhani declared, “No country should use terrorism to interfere in another country’s affairs.” Let us remember that these were addresses delivered to the world, rather than jokes uttered on a satire program. What a farce.
The sad reality that exists in the Middle East these days is what allowed these two leaders to make such “comical” statements. The growth of Islamic State and the failure of the U.S.-led coalition against it have given Russia and Iran a great opportunity to bolster their international status.
For the Russians, this is a chance to erase memories of their actions in Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula. For the Iranians, this provides an opening to deflect attention away from 35 years of exporting terrorism around the globe. Russia and Iran are both fortunate that Islamic State exists.
Putin met with U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday to tell him that the purpose of Russia’s increased military presence in Syria was to fight Islamic State. He also told Obama that the rebuilding of Syria would require the rebuilding of the Assad regime.
Obama was right on Monday when, in his own address to the U.N. General Assembly, he said that Assad must have no political future in Syria. Unfortunately, there are two small things that contradict Obama’s view of the situation. First, the pre-civil war Syria no longer exists. And second, all reconstruction proposals for Syria include a transition period during which a role for Assad would be necessary. And who knows how many years this transition would take?
Obama may not want Assad in power, but in reality, an Assad regime backed by Russia and Iran is what there is in Syria. Since Obama reiterated on Monday that the U.S. cannot solve global problems by itself, perhaps he should have added how wonderful it is to have Russia and Iran to help him. This is the woeful state of our world today.
Obama’s General Assembly address was his second-last before he leaves the White House in January 2017. In Monday’s speech, he tried to outline what his legacy will be. One must give Obama credit for adhering to his outlook, even after all of the mishaps he has been personally responsible for.
Russia and Iran were the big winners in New York on Monday. Putin, who was ostracized after Russia’s annexation of Crimea last year, is now the world’s great hope in the fight against Islamic State. And Iran is already talking about a “new world order,” thanks to the nuclear deal it signed with world powers in July.
And what does this all mean for Israel? “The Zionist regime is the root of all terrorism,” Rouhani said in his speech on Monday. How hopeful!
What is the solution for all this? Who knows? Perhaps we will get the answer at the U.N. General Assembly in 2016.
It was the cover the New York Daily News that condensed President Ford’s denial of federal aid to New York City in the classic headline: FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD. Somewhat more fairly, but equally concisely, today’s Daily News cover condenses the action at the United Nations yesterday between Presidents Obama and Putin.
It’s a sort of PUTIN TO OBAMA moment. Cameron Joseph’s cover story is here. Like everyone else in world politics — everyone outside the White House, that is — Putin has Obama’s number.
President Obama’s address to the U.N. General Assembly on Monday morning was a rambling journey through a fantasy world where his foreign policy hasn’t been an unmitigated disaster.
Perhaps the most bizarre moment came when he tried to tout his Libyan adventure as a success.
There was plenty of tough-guy posturing that intimidated absolutely no one. The Russian and Iranian delegations were especially good at looking bored and unimpressed when he called upon them to do this-or-that because The World supposedly demanded it. Obama hasn’t figured out he’s the only leader at the U.N. eager to sacrifice his nation’s interests to please The World.
Obama made the weird decision to vaguely threaten Russia over its invasion of Ukraine by claiming that The World would not stand idly by and allow it… when that’s exactly what The World, and especially First Citizen of the World Barack Obama, has been doing. He essentially pleaded with Iran to stop supporting terrorist proxies and pursuing its aggressive regional ambitions, and focus on their economy instead. (Of course, in Obama’s vigorous imagination, the U.S. has been enjoying an economic boom under his stewardship, instead of an endless grinding non-recovery and limp, sporadic growth, after Obama’s spending doubled the national debt in a single presidency.)
It was bad enough that the President talked about American troops coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan as the triumphant conclusion of an effective policy, rather than the hideous blunder that allowed ISIS to create a terror state, al-Qaeda to rise from the ashes, and the Taliban to begin planning its return to power. At the same moment Obama was speaking, the Taliban was conducting a major offensive in Afghanistan, on par with the importance of ISIS taking Mosul in Iraq. Obama’s pitifully small “New Syrian Force” of U.S.-backed rebels just handed a good deal of its American equipment over to al-Qaeda, and no one really knows what became of the unit itself. Their predecessors were destroyed by al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria, with less than half a dozen survivors still on the field.
When Obama boasted of the Libyan operation as the successful removal of a tyrant, jaws must have hit the floor around the room. Libya is an unholy disaster, a wasteland of warlords fighting to keep ISIS off their turf. It’s a key gateway for the incredible migratory tide blasting out of Africa and the Middle East and now surging across Europe. And yet, Obama portrays it as [a] laudable example of tyrant removal… while modestly admitting that “our coalition could have, and should have, done more to fill a vacuum left behind.”
Of course he blamed everyone else in the “coalition” for the disaster in Libya. He’s Barack Obama. The day may come when he takes responsibility for something, but today is not that day, and tomorrow isn’t looking good either.
The scary thing about Obama is that he believes so completely in the power of his own rhetoric.
He thinks he can reshape reality with his words. When he scolds the Iranians for their “Death to America!” rhetoric by saying bloodthirsty chants don’t create jobs, he’s asking Iran to live up to the silly talking points he foisted off on the American people to cover the Iranian nuclear deal. He’s commanding Iran to act like the enlightened, responsible nation-state he gambled the future of Israel, America, and much of the Western world on.
The Iranians, on the other hand, see no reason to knock off the “Death to America!” chants, disband their theocracy, and begin spending their days arguing about stimulus bills. Belligerence has gotten them everything so far. They’ve been rewarded for it… by Barack Obama. They’ve got $150 billion in sanctions relief coming their way. They can afford to send a few guys to sit in the U.N. General Assembly with pissy expressions on their faces while Obama rambles on about how geo-political crime does not pay. They know for a fact it pays, quite handsomely. The Iranians are already using their Obama loot to reinforce terror proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, and secure Bashar Assad in power.
Ah, yes, Bashar Assad… the dictator Obama still blathers on about removing from power, even as his own diplomatic apparatus gets used to the idea Assad is not going anywhere. The only really good part of Obama’s speech was when he spent five seconds glaring at the Syrian ambassador before launching into his denunciation of barrel bombs and chemical weapons. But you know what? That Syrian ambassador gets paid enough to take a few seconds of hairy eyeball from the ineffectual American president. The Russians are smoothly replacing American influence across the Middle East, in partnership with Iran. The new order is taking shape. Obama isn’t going to reverse that process by telling aggressive, bare-knuckle conquerors they should be ashamed of themselves.
The other dangerous thing about this delusional President is his belief in the “judgment of history.”
He’s constantly hitting on the idea that all of the world’s villains are on the wrong side of history, and will find themselves buried in the sands of time any day now. It’s a dodge, a way of Obama evading responsibility. Bashar Assad is going to remerge from the Wrong Side of History in pretty good shape. ISIS is very comfortable there, as is Iran. Qaddafi didn’t assume room temperature because History caught up with him. Vladimir Putin has a lovely view of Crimea from the wrong side of history. The history of Europe is being reshaped by the tramping of a million “refugee” feet.
In every example, Obama clings to the idea that he can change the world by talking and scoring debate points, while his adversaries seize territory and control the course of events. It’s not as though Obama has some deep-seated reluctance to use deadly force – there have been a lot of deaths by drone strike since he won that Nobel Peace Prize. What Obama lacks is commitment. His foreign policy is all about gestures and distractions. He cooks up half-baked plans that will blow up a terrorist here and there, so he can’t be accused of doing “nothing,” but he won’t do anything that could cost him political capital at home. Even Libya was half-hearted and calculated for minimum risk, which is why the place went to an even deeper Hell after Qaddafi was overthrown.
Obama talks as if he’s taken action against numerous crises, but all he ever did was talk about them. The men of action are stacking up bodies, and raising flags over conquered cities, while this President is writing speeches and trying to win applause from editorial boards. The men of action know that Obama’s promises all have expiration dates, his vows of action always have escape clauses, and no matter how he loves to boast that he heads up the most powerful military the world has ever seen, he’s done everything he can to make it weaker.
President Obama is still clinging to a romantic vision of the “Arab Spring” as a flourishing of democracy, despite all evidence to the contrary. He’s giving the same foreign policy speeches he gave in 2009 because he can’t bear to live in the world he made. He talks about filling vacuums and voids… but those voids are already filled, by hard characters with plans to make the most of the extraordinary opportunity Barack Obama afforded them.
(Obama would need the approvals of Putin, Xi, Rouhani, Assad, Erdogan and “our” other “peace partners” as well as his trained seals at the Department of Defense. Then, and only then, could General Bowie Bergdahl lead his march to victory. Or something. — DM)
What if there was an actual strategy to defeat ISIS and stop their reign of terror? The state of affairs and the very existence of IS as a governing entity is intolerable so we developed a strategy called Cut Down the Black Flag – A Plan to Defeat the Islamic State, the second book in the Secure Freedom Strategy series.
President Obama has failed to articulate or implement anything resembling a strategy during his time in office. This fact is even more painful when considering the rise of the Islamic State (IS) occurred on his watch and was largely due to his shortsighted and foolish decision to cut and run from Iraq. He lost the peace after our troops won the war.
Unlike the President, we’re not interested in token gestures doomed to failure as IS kills, rapes, and tortures on ground won for freedom just a few short years ago. We will not stand on the sidelines as an Inter-Continental Caliphate calls for “Death to all Infidels.” We have a plan to win and cut down their blood-soaked, Black Flag of Jihad.
It will not be easy but it is an essential part of the war for the free world. If we do not make a full faith effort to destroy IS, we will have done a disservice to all who gave their lives and limbs to free Iraq from tyranny. We will also be leaving millions to suffer the chaos and killing fields created when the inevitable vacuum of our withdrawal was filled by IS and Iran.
This book details a strategy focused on victory, aimed for stability in the region with the possibility of actual peace. It recognizes this action must be part of a greater “long war” against the whole of the Global Jihad Movement (GJM). They are the collection of groups who, while not officially associated, share a belief in Islamic Supremacy and are working actively to achieve it.
The Violent Jihadists like the Islamic State, Al Qaeda and others are easily identifiable as our enemies. The Civilization Jihadists of the Muslim Brotherhood and the groups it has spawned such as Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) are less overt but perhaps even more dangerous. Our overall strategy to defeat the Global Jihad Movement with a whole of government and culture approach is detailed in the Secure Freedom Strategy.
Our plan to defeat the Islamic State is a complete departure from the dismal failures of the current Commander in Chief leading from behind. The military might and will to win of the United States are vital to any chance of success. This does not mean we propose rolling tanks in a thunder run from Baghdad to Damascus. But we must take the handcuffs off the forces we already have deployed by allowing them to participate in combat missions with the forces they have trained to provide command and control and direct fire support. We must remove the cumbersome and overly risk-averse process for airstrikes that leave most of our aircraft returning to base with all munitions unused.
We must also work with the Sunni tribes who helped us defeat the precursor to IS; and, arm the Kurds who are our best friend and truest ally in the region. Both of these groups were left to the mercy of a central Iraqi government when U.S. forces withdrew and Iranian influence became dominant. We must look to a future where they govern by self-determination rather than remain forced into artificial borders established nearly 100 years ago; and, that have been largely erased over the recent war-torn years.
Our strategy is ambitious, but it does not require large deployments of U.S. troops or the expectation we will be the sole guarantor of security going forward. We aim to cut off the head of the jihadist snake by empowering the indigenous people who have suffered the most from its actions and then let them govern themselves. This strategy vigorously executed can do what the current half-hearted efforts never will: Defeat the Islamic State.
The Munich moment is upon us. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif at U.N. headquarters on Saturday | Photo credit: AP
Washington is reaching out to Russia, which is openly helping Syrian President Bashar Assad, who is working in conjunction with Iran, which in turn supports Hezbollah. Now Europe is prepared to talk to Assad, but what about us, for heaven’s sake?
Two years ago to the day, in September 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry compared Bashar Assad to Adolf Hitler, after the Syrian dictator once again used chemical weapons against his own people. “This is our Munich moment,” Kerry said at the time.
As far as the Americans were concerned, Assad had crossed a line. In those days (more like in those hours, actually), Washington briefly believed that a failure to respond to Assad’s actions would send a dangerous message to Iran regarding its nuclear ambitions.
“Will [Iran] remember that the Assad regime was stopped from those weapons’ current or future use, or will they remember that the world stood aside and created impunity?” Kerry asked at the time. History and retrospect have turned what may have been Kerry’s greatest speech into remarks entirely detached from reality.
The United States did not attack, Assad is still in power, and an ominous nuclear deal has been signed with Iran. It is no wonder that there is a new kind of atmosphere in the region, under American auspices. There are no more good guys and bad guys; everyone is a partner. And thanks to this new reality, Assad now has a renewed license to rule, after having received a license to kill.
Washington is reaching out to Russia, which is openly helping Assad in Syria, who is working in conjunction with Iran, which in turn supports Hezbollah. Europe (Angela Merkel), in the meantime, startled by its refugee crisis, is already prepared to talk with Assad; the same Assad who was compared to Hitler only two years ago. But what about us, for heaven’s sake?
Regretfully, Israel’s biggest fears are now materializing. Instead of being the architects and shaping a new reality in the Middle East, Washington is falling into line with the existing reality. Russia, Syria and Iran are enjoying the consequent vacuum. When the cat is away, the mice will play. Now, all of a sudden, even Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah is letting himself go on television, beaming with joy. Aside from the 75 tanks Damascus is giving him, he now sees his two patrons (Damascus and Tehran) become partners with the West, without having to change one bit.
There is no diplomatic vacuum
The latest developments in Syria are not encouraging: Assad’s first target, with Russia’s help, is expected to be the Nusra Front rebel group, which not only threatens Assad but is also a bitter enemy of the Islamic State group. In other words, somewhat paradoxically, Islamic State could initially benefit from the Russian intervention in Syria.
And one final word about Iran’s rapprochement with the international community: We have been told repeatedly that this was only about the nuclear deal, but in reality we can see cooperation between the U.S. and Iran in Iraq and in the war against Islamic State. We can also see American-Iranian dialogue regarding Syria’s future, and on Saturday night we learned of a gigantic deal worth upwards of $21 billion between Iran and Russia. This time I am forced to agree with Secretary Kerry: This really does look like a Munich moment.
[T]he Jaysh al Fateh alliance, which is led by Al Nusrah and its closest jihadist allies, has captured more territory from Assad’s regime this year than the Islamic State has.
Not only has al Qaeda thwarted America’s first efforts under the overt $500 million train and equip program, which is managed by the US military, it has also taken out rebels who received unofficial support from the US intelligence community.
*****************************
US-backed rebels in the so-called “New Syrian Forces” (NSF) have turned over at least some of their equipment and ammunition to a “suspected” intermediary for Al Nusrah Front, US Central Command (CENTCOM) conceded in a statement released late yesterday. The coalition-provided supplies were given by the rebels to Al Nusrah, an official branch of al Qaeda, in exchange for “safe passage within their operating area.”
The “NSF unit contacted Coalition representatives and informed us that on Sept. 21-22 they gave six pick-up trucks and a portion of their ammunition to a suspected Al Nusrah Front intermediary, which equates to roughly 25 percent of their issued equipment,” CENTCOM spokesperson Col. Patrick Ryder said. “If accurate, the report of NSF members providing equipment to Al Nusrah Front is very concerning and a violation of Syria train and equip program guidelines.”
While Ryder left open the possibility that the report is not accurate, he did not offer any explanation for why the NSF unit would lie about giving the equipment to Al Nusrah. The admission further jeopardizes the unit’s ability to receive American arms in the future.
Rebels belonging to Division 30, a group supported by the US, suffered losses immediately upon entering the Syrian fray earlier this year.
More than 50 members of Division 30 were sent into Syria in July. But Al Nusrah quickly thwarted their plans, even though the US-backed rebels intended to fight the Islamic State, Al Nusrah’s bitter rival. A number of Division 30 fighters were captured or killed within days of embarking on their mission.
Al Nusrah released a statement at the time saying that Division 30 is part of an American scheme that is opposed to the interests of the Syrian people. Al Qaeda’s branch accused the group of trying to form “the nucleus” of a “national army” and blasted the attempt to bolster the “moderate opposition.”
Al Nusrah also attacked Division 30’s headquarters in Azaz, a city north of Aleppo. The US responded with airstrikes, killing a number of jihadists, but the damage to the limited US effort was done. US officials said earlier this month that only four or five rebels were left in the fight. Dozens of additional US-supported rebels have entered the war in recent weeks, according to US military officials.
Not only has al Qaeda thwarted America’s first efforts under the overt $500 million train and equip program, which is managed by the US military, it has also taken out rebels who received unofficial support from the US intelligence community.
Al Nusrah Front has consistently resisted the West’s meager attempts to build a reliable opposition force. Late last year, al Qaeda’s branch pushed the Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SRF), which had reportedly received some support from the West, out of its strongholds in the Idlib province. The SRF’s demise helped pave the way for Al Nusrah and its allies in the Jaysh al Fateh (“Army of Conquest”) coalition to capture much of Idlib beginning in late March.
After being vanquished, SRF head Jamaal Maarouf accused Al Nusrah’s emir, Abu Muhammad al Julani, of being a “Kharijite” (or extremist). This was an about-face in the relationship, as the SRF and Al Nusrah had previously fought side-by-side. Maarouf also publicly lamented the limited support he had received from the West.
Earlier this year, Al Nusrah also took the fight to Harakat Hazm (the Hazm Movement) outside of Aleppo. Despite receiving Western support, including US weaponry, Hazm had fought alongside the jihadists in the past and its leaders had praised Al Nusrah. Regardless, it was eventually forced to disband under Al Nusrah’s relentless pressure. Hazm’s remaining members were folded into other rebel groups.
It is suspected that American-made anti-tank TOW missiles fell into al Qaeda’s hands as a result of the battle against Hazm. The weapons were used during the jihadists’ successful assault on Idlib in March, as well as during other key confrontations with the Assad regime.
Recent events demonstrate that the US is consistently underestimating al Qaeda’s presence and capabilities in Syria, and does not have a true strategy for the multi-sided conflict. The rebels who have gone through the train and equip program are supposed to fight the Islamic State and not, according to public accounts, Al Nusrah. But it is Al Nusrah, which has been seeded with al Qaeda veterans in its upper ranks and is openly loyal to al Qaeda emir Ayman al Zawahiri, that has interfered with the US effort.
The US apparently did not anticipate Al Nusrah blocking Division 30’s first foray into northern Syria in July. The al Qaeda branch did so not to support Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s men, but because it is opposed to any US presence in the country. The US has targeted individual al Qaeda commanders in Syria, especially those believed to pose an immediate threat to the West, but has not sought to degrade the Al Nusrah-led wing of the anti-Assad insurgency. However, the Jaysh al Fateh alliance, which is led by Al Nusrah and its closest jihadist allies, has captured more territory from Assad’s regime this year than the Islamic State has.
anneinpt
artaxes
danmillerinpanama
davidking1530
Peter Hofman
Joseph Wouk
Peter
Louisiana Steve
WarSclerotic 
Recent Comments