"I have not yet begun to fight!"

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976?Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. Unless you are in this field of investigative journalism, especially covering extremely sensitive subjects and potentially dangerous subjects as well, you simply cannot understand the complexities and difficulties involved with this work that I face every day.

Saturday, September 20, 2014

etired Head Of Marine Corps: Obama’s ISIS Strategy Doesn’t Have ‘A Snowball’s Chance In Hell Of Succeeding’

By Jamie Weinstein, Daily Caller
The man who was the top Marine general from 2006 until his retirement in 2010 says President Barack Obama’s strategy to defeat the terrorist group the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria is doomed to fail.

“I don’t think the president’s plan has a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding,” retired Marine General James Conway, who served as the 34th Commandant of the Marine Corps during the end of the Bush administration and the beginning of the Obama administration, said at the Maverick PAC Conference in Washington, D.C. Friday, according to a source in attendance.

Maverick PAC has described itself as a super PAC ”dedicated to inspiring the next-generation of conservatives, electing a new generation of conservative leaders, and sharing common goals and interests that will help shape the future of America.”

Islamic State Raping Men and Blackmailing Them to Join Fight

Posted on September 20, 2014 by Pamela Geller

Savages.

ISIS/ISIL’s Male On Male Gang Rape “Marriage” Jihad Blackmail, September 6, 2014, AINA, (thanks to Ironic Surrealism)

(AINA) –In a documentary broadcast August 27th on the Kurdish station STERK TV, captured “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant” (ISIL) [aka ISIL "Islamic State of Iraq and Syria" --VH] elements say the group has been raping men in a ceremony it describes as “marriage” and recording this to use as blackmail and force them to join.
ISIL uses rape, including gang rape, as a tactic of fear to intimidate populations it seeks to control, according to an August 28th report by the Firat News Agency, a Kurdish agency based in Amsterdam.
The STERK TV documentary records the confessions of more than 20 ISIL elements who were captured by Kurdish fighters in Syria and includes horrific footage of ISIL’s crimes, Firat said.
“The ISIL elements admitted that what they called ‘marriage’ was in fact rape. They said that every new member of the group was raped. The footage of the rape would be used as blackmail in the event of the new recruit refusing to participate in actions,” it said.
In the documentary, ISIL fighter Abdul Kareem Ibrahim Bazo said he had been blindfolded and raped.
“About a fortnight later they came and said I had to join. I did not want to. But they had the footage. They threatened to show it to my family,” Firat reported him as saying.
Ferhan Salim Unuf Safen, 20, described how he had been abducted and raped by “six or seven” ISIL elements and was ashamed to explain the things they had done to him.
“I fainted. When I came round they told me: ‘you are now with ISIL’,” he said.
Ahmed Hussain also described on camera how he had been abducted, drugged, tortured and gang raped by ISIL elements.
“They ‘married’ me 15 times. Then they washed my head and put cologne on me. They told me no one could join ISIL without being married,” Hussain said.

Courtesy of Pamela Geller.

BENGHAZI BOMBSHELL! Ex Military and CIA Committee: Obama and Hillary Did It

by Voice of Reason

Just when you think the “Professional Politicians” cannot sink any lower, they go WAY lower. I remember thinking they MAY have hit ROCK BOTTOM when they were caught STAGING DEAD SOLDIERS COMING BACK FROM WAR and making a bid deal about it.

They don’t make a big deal about REAL dead soldiers, certainly not ones THEY are responsible for killing, so I thought that was the LOW point.

The Obama administration continues to stoop lower. If the American people elect this murdering bitch it might be TIME TO EXPATRIATE. Period.

1024px-Obama_and_Clinton_at_Transfer_of_Remains_Ceremony_for_Benghazi_attack_victims_Sep_14_2012-498x250

A citizen’s committee made up of former high military brass, CIA and intelligence agents and think tank members have finished their report on Benghazi. Their conclusion is Obama’s policies made the Benghazi attack by Al Qaeda possible by switching sides in the war on terror. The committee spent 7 months investigating the Benghazi attack and it’s causes. Their conclusion was that Obama allowed weapons to enter Libya and into Al Qaeda’s hands. Without those weapons, the attack in Benghazi would not be possible.

One former CIA agent, Clare Lopez was quoted as saying:

“The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures.”

She blamed the Obama administration for allowing $500 million dollars worth of weapons to enter the country and into Al Qaeda’s hands:

“Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea. They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..”

“The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.”

The weapons were supposed to be for Gaddafi, but were allowed to flow to the Islamists fighting him.

Here is an excerpt from their report:

“The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.”

Another commission member, Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, said those weapons are now in Syria as Al Qaeda is trying to expand it’s sphere of influence throughout the Middle East.

“Gaddafi wasn’t a good guy, but he was being marginalized. “Gaddafi actually offered to abdicate’ shortly after the beginning of a 2011 rebellion.”

“But the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce.”

Kubic said that the effort at truce talks fell apart when the White House declined to let the Pentagon pursue it seriously.

“We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize, but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours.”

Gaddafi only asked for two conditions in return for stepping down. First, he wanted to be able to continue fighting against Al Qaeda and having the sanctions lifted against himself, his family and his supporters. Very modest requests but ones that were rejected outright by Obama and his henchpersons.

The White House and the National Security staff have not commented on the report.

Admiral James Lyons believes that the Benghazi attack was a kidnap plan gone wrong and that the Islamic extremists planned to trade Christopher Stevens for Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman. Abdel-Rahman was the mastermind of the first World Trade Center bombing. Lyons also accused the Obama administration of lying when they said they did not have any assets ready to relieve Benghazi:

“I’‘m going to tell you that’s not true. We had a 130-man unit of forces at Sigonella [AFB in Italy]. They were ready to go.”

“The flight time from Sigonella to Benghazi is roughly an hour.”

The committee requested 87 documents from the government, but relied on their contacts within the intelligence community for much of their information.

Former CIA officer Wayne Simmons was harshly critical of Hillary and her actions before, during and after the Benghazi attack:

“They believed they were going to be saved, that they were going to be rescued, but they weren’t.”

“I know who made the decision, in my heart of hearts, to leave our war fighters there and be blown up. And then to have one of the most powerful politicians in our country sit there and say, “What difference does it make?” – should be an alarm bell for all Americans.

“It haunts me. I play that line over, and over, and over, and over in my mind.’

Lopez suggested that the fact that John Boehner blocked appointing a select committee may mean high ranking congressional leaders had been briefed on the WH plans.

Read the article here at Buzzpo:

Senate votes in favor of Pres. Obama's executive amnesty

Updated:

Fri, Sep 19^th 2014 @ 9:01 am EDT

In a procedural vote in the Senate on Thursday, a motion offered by Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) to allow a vote on Pres. Obama's executive amnesty fell one vote short of passing, allowing the President to move forward with his reported plan to grant amnesty to work permits to an estimated 5-6 million illegal aliens after November's mid-term elections. Five Democrats -- four of which face difficult re-election bids -- joined the 45 Republican Senators in supporting the motion to move forward with a vote.
With the Senate and House poised to adjourn until after the mid-term elections, the motion was likely the last opportunity for Congress to stop Pres. Obama from moving forward.
"You (the American people) have been right from the beginning. You have justly demanded that our borders be controlled, our laws enforced and that, at long last, immigration policy serves the needs of our own people first," Sen. Sessions said just before the vote. "For this virtuous and legitimate demand, you have been demeaned, even scorned by the governing class."
In early-August, the House of Representatives passed a bill offered by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), H.R.5272, that would have prevented any congressionally-authorized spending to be used by Pres. Obama to grant work permits to illegal aliens. The bill would essentially block the President's plans to issue a large-scale amnesty and prevent renewals of work permits for illegal aliens who benefited through his earlier executive amnesties. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote in an effort to protect both Pres. Obama and Senate Democrats. A recent poll by "The Polling Company" found that nearly two-thirds of voters oppose Pres. Obama taking executive action on immigration. Senate Democrats would be forced to support an unpopular move by Pres. Obama or rebuke him.
With Sen. Reid's reluctance to bring the Blackburn bill to the floor, Sens. Sessions and Cruz joined together to offer it as an amendment to the must-pass Continuing Resolution that would fund the federal government through mid-December. Sen. Reid, however, used a procedural move called "filling the amendment tree" that prevents Senators from offering amendments to the bill.
Sens. Sessions and Cruz offered a motion to table the "amendment tree" while making it clear to other Senators that the purpose of the motion was to allow a vote on the Blackburn bill. All 45 Republican Senators and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) cast their votes in favor of the motion and 49 of the 54 remaining Democrats and Independents cast their votes against the motion. With 46 votes in favor, Sen. Reid knew he could allow 4 other Democrats to support the motion and still defeat it since it needed 51 votes to pass. He ultimately allowed Senators Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) to vote in favor of the motion, while Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska), who also faces a tough re-election, was forced to cast the deciding vote to kill the motion. The motion failed because of a 50-50 tie.
This is the second time Sen. Manchin has broken with the Democrats on the issue of Pres. Obama's executive amnesties. In early-August, Sen. Sessions offered a similar procedural motion to get a vote on the Blackburn bill, and Manchin was the lone Democrat to support the motion.
Reports over the summer said the Obama Administration was considering an expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which granted amnesty and work permits to more than 500,000 illegal aliens who met certain qualifications. The President had first promised to take action before the end of the summer, but coming under pressure from several Democrats in tight re-election races, he announced earlier this month that we would delay the action until after the mid-term elections.
For more on this story, see The Daily Caller.
Read Sen. Sessions' extended floor remarks here.

Illegal Immigration

executive amnesty

congress

SURPRISE! Two more Palestinian IslamoNazis arrested for attempted arson of synagogue in Germany

Five weeks following the arson of a synagogue in Wuppertal, Germany, German police have placed two more German Muslims under arrest for the crime. Security cameras managed to film three suspects, one of whom was arrested at the scene. All three suspects were described as Palestinian Muslims, according to Germany’s Die Welt.

INN At the height of Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, amid a major surge in anti-Semitic attacks in Europe, Molotov cocktails were thrown at the synagogue, seriously damaging the building’s facade.

The day before the attack, a masked thug was caught on camera spraying anti-Semitic graffiti on the walls of the synagogue. Police are still investigating whether there was any connection between the two incidents.

Wuppertal hit the news recently when it was revealed that extremist Muslim vigilantes were mounting “Sharia patrols“ to enforce Islamic law (Sharia) on local residents. The men were allegedly members of Germany’s growing Salafi movement, a puritanical version of Sunni Islam adhered to by radicals from Al Qaeda to the Saudi Arabian government.

Police reportedly stopped 11 men aged between 19 and 33, and launched a criminal investigation to see if charges of illegal assembly could be brought against the perpetrators. Muslim extremists played a key role in both stoking anti-Semitic sentiment and carrying out attacks against Jews in Europe over the summer.

Jewish leaders and political officials have recently warned of a dramatic rise in anti-Semitic slogans and chants in Germany at pro-Palestinian rallies organised against Israel’s military operation in Gaza. Local Jewish leaders and German politicians have spoken out against the alarming rise in anti-Semitism in the country, including Chancellor Angela Merkel.

davids_propalaestinaalex8_1405939649-768x432

During one rally a Jewish man only narrowly escaped after being chased by a Muslim mob shouting to “slit the Jews’ throats“, while in Berlin a leading imam called on Muslims to “kill Zionist Jews.”

In a video taken at a the rally and posted on the website of the Tablet Magazine, hundreds of protesters can be seen chanting in German, “Jew, Jew, cowardly pig, come on out and fight on your own”.

An imam in the German capital, Berlin, recently gave a sermon in which he expressed support for Gaza and called for “the annihilation of Jews”.

“Oh Allah, destroy the Zionist Jews. They are no challenge for you,” he continued. “Count them and kill them to the very last one. Don’t spare a single one of them. Shake the ground beneath their feet. Make them suffer terribly. Deflect their bullets. Disperse them. They behave tyranically all over the world and spread corruption.”

By BareNakedIslam • Posted in Islamization of the West

How Qatar is funding the rise of Islamist extremists DONT FORGET OBAMA GAVE 11 BILLION OF OUR TAX DOLLARS

How Qatar is funding the rise of Islamist extremists

The fabulously wealthy Gulf state, which owns an array of London landmarks and claims to be one of our best friends in the Middle East, is a prime sponsor of violent Islamists

Sun reflects off the glass and steel buildings on the Doha skyline

Qatar's promotion of extremism has infuriated its neighbours Photo: REUTERS/Jacky Naegelen

By David Blair and Richard Spencer

10:00PM BST 20 Sep 2014

Few outsiders have noticed, but radical Islamists now control Libya's capital. These militias stormed Tripoli last month, forcing the official government to flee and hastening the country's collapse into a failed state.

Moreover, the new overlords of Tripoli are allies of Ansar al-Sharia, a brutal jihadist movement suspected of killing America's then ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, and of trying to murder his British counterpart, Sir Dominic Asquith.

Barely three years after Britain helped to free Libya from Col Gaddafi's tyranny, anti-Western radicals hold sway. How could Britain's goal of a stable and friendly Libya have been thwarted so completely?

Step forward a fabulously wealthy Gulf state that owns an array of London landmarks and claims to be one of our best friends in the Middle East.

Qatar, the owner of Harrods, has dispatched cargo planes laden with weapons to the victorious Islamist coalition, styling itself "Libya Dawn".

Western officials have tracked the Qatari arms flights as they land in the city of Misrata, about 100 miles east of Tripoli, where the Islamist militias have their stronghold. Even after the fall of the capital and the removal of Libya's government, Qatar is "still flying in weapons straight to Misrata airport", said a senior Western official.
So it is that Qatar buys London property while working against British interests in Libya and arming friends of the jihadists who tried to kill one of our ambassadors. A state that partly owns 1 Hyde Park, London's most expensive apartment block, and the Shard, the city's tallest building, is working with people who would gladly destroy Western society.

^{A view of the Shard and the city}
The remarkable truth is that few in the Middle East would be shocked. From Hamas in the Gaza Strip to radical armed movements in Syria, Qatar's status as a prime sponsor of violent Islamists, including groups linked to al-Qaeda, is clear to diplomats and experts.
Qatar's promotion of extremism has so infuriated its neighbours that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all chose to withdraw their ambassadors from the country in March.
Take Syria, where Qatar has been sponsoring the rebellion against Bashar al-Assad's regime. In itself, that policy places Qatar alongside the leading Western powers and much of the Arab world.
But Qatar has deliberately channelled guns and cash towards Islamist rebels, notably a group styling itself Ahrar al-Sham, or "Free Men of Syria". Only last week, Khalid al-Attiyah, the Qatari foreign minister, praised this movement as "purely" Syrian.
He added that its fighters had suffered heavy losses while combating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), the group behind the murder of David Haines, the British aid worker, and which is holding John Cantlie and Alan Henning hostage.
Far from being a force for moderation, Ahrar al-Sham played a key role in transforming the anti-Assad revolt into an Islamist uprising. Its men fought alongside Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate, during the battle for Aleppo and they were accused of at least one sectarian massacre.
Instead of fighting Isil, Ahrar al-Sham helped the jihadists to run Raqqa, the town in eastern Syria that is now the capital of the self-proclaimed "Caliphate". This cooperation with Isil happened for some months until the two groups fell out last year.
Last December, the US Treasury designated a Qatari academic and businessman, Abdul Rahman al-Nuaimi, as a "global terrorist". The US accused him of sending nearly £366,000 to "al-Qaeda's representative in Syria", named as Abu Khalid al-Suri.
Suri has also been a senior commander of Ahrar al-Sham. If America was right to describe him as "al-Qaeda's representative", then there was an overlap between the leadership of the two groups.
Mr Nuaimi is also accused by the US treasury of transferring as much as $2 million per month to "al-Qaeda in Iraq" and $250,000 to al-Shabaab, the movement's affiliate in Somalia. Mr Nuaimi denies the allegations, saying they are motivated by his own criticism of US policy.

^{Abdul Rahman al-Nuaimi}
But critics question why Qatar has failed to act against him. "It's deeply concerning that these individuals, where sufficient evidence is in place to justify their inclusion on the US sanctions list, continue to be free to undertake their business dealings," said Stephen Barclay, the Conservative MP for North East Cambridgeshire.
Qatar's investment in Britain is so extensive, and the Foreign Office is so anxious to win its favour, that some question whether UK diplomats will have the resolve to ask robust questions. "If diplomats are focused on winning commercial contracts, there is a danger they will be reluctant to ask tough questions on the funding of unsavoury groups," said Mr Barclay.
A Foreign Office spokesman insisted there was no such risk, saying: "We encourage further progress to prevent terrorist financing from individuals in the [Gulf] region. We have honest and robust conversations with all our Gulf partners on these issues, including Qatar."
One diplomat from a country in the Middle East said Jabhat al-Nusra had been a beneficiary of Qatar's help for a period last year. "They are partly responsible for Jabhat al-Nusra having money and weapons and everything they need," said the diplomat.
There was no evidence of Qatar's largesse going directly to Isil, he added, but this could have taken place by accident rather than design. "I don't think they have any intention to support Isil, but it's a fact they did support Jabhat al-Nusra. And some people moved from Jabhat al-Nusra and went over to Isil and they took their weaponry with them," added the diplomat.
Four branches of the Qatari government handle relations with armed groups in Syria and Libya: the foreign ministry, the defence ministry, the country's intelligence agency, and the personal office of the ruler, Emir Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani.
In the case of Syria, Qatar's chosen method for supporting its favoured insurgents is to pass large sums to middlemen in Turkey. These figures then use the money to buy weapons from third countries, notably Croatia, and arrange for their onward transfer to rebels in Syria.
Experts question how much control Qatar has over this process and whether the middlemen might be pursuing their own aims and pocketing much of the money.
"Qatar was handling weapons and supplies for Syria, but they were never really keeping a full grip on the nature of the conflict," said Michael Stephens, the deputy director of the Royal United Services Institute's office in Qatar. Others believe that Qatar was acting very deliberately.
Last month, Gerd Müller, the German international development minister, implicated Qatar in the rise of Isil. "You have to ask who is arming, who is financing Isil troops. The keyword there is Qatar," he said.
Yet a state endowed with large reserves of gas and oil and one of the world's biggest sovereign wealth funds can wield immense influence, even over Berlin. Qatar was duly able to secure a formal withdrawal of this charge from the German government.
On Wednesday, the 34-year-old Emir of Qatar, who was educated at Harrow and Sandhurst, took pains to deny the accusation while standing alongside Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor. "What is happening in Iraq and Syria is extremism and such organisations are partly financed from abroad, but Qatar has never supported and will never support terrorist organisations," he said.
The credibility of that denial depends partly on how you define a "terrorist organisation". Qatar has let Hamas, the armed Palestinian movement, base its political leadership in Doha since 2012. Qatar's government has funded Hamas and the previous Emir paid an official visit to the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip in 2012.
As a small country with relatively weak armed forces and 250,000 citizens, Qatar is trying to guarantee its security by reaching in every direction. As well as providing an office for Hamas, Qatar also hosts the forward headquarters of US Central Command and the al-Udeid military airbase, serving as the hub for all American air operations in the region.
Qatar has not completely ignored the concerns of its Western allies. When it transferred surplus arms from Libya to rebels in Syria, Qatari officials weeded out any surface-to-air missiles, in obedience to America's demand to prevent the supply of this particular category of weapon.
But Qatar's willingness to support extremists has caused private dismay. "It's a puzzle ande_SLps it's a distasteful one," said a former Western official who has dealt with Qatar.
"There are people around the Gulf who are supporting people who are grotesque in their values and seem incapable of translating it into their minds how grotesque it is."

Egypt Kills 7 Jihadists in Sinai

Details: Category: News; Created on Saturday, 20 September 2014 17:52; Written by Ben Ariel - Arutz Sheva

egypt jihadistsSeven jihadists were killed in a shootout in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula during a joint operation by police and the army, Interior Minister Mohamed Ibrahim said Sunday, according to AFP.

The seven men were among "the most dangerous elements of Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis" and had taken part in a July attack on a border post with Libya that killed 22 soldiers, he was quoted as having told a news conference.

The minister did not give a date for the operation.

Based in the northern Sinai, the Al-Qaeda-inspired Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis has spearheaded attacks that have killed scores of policemen and soldiers since the army overthrew Islamist president Mohammed Morsi in July 2013.

It says the attacks are to avenge the killing of pro-Morsi protesters by the army and police, a crackdown which has left at least 1,400 dead.

The group has also claimed responsibility for several rocket attacks that targeted the Israeli resort city of Eilat.

Egypt's military-backed interim government has blamed Morsi's Muslim Brotherhood group for the violence, outlawing it and calling it a terrorist organization. The Brotherhood denies being involved in the violence.

Cruz: Nuclear Iran is a Bigger Threat than ISIL

Posted on September 20, 2014

Washington Free Beacon, By Alana Goodman:
Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Texas) said the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) could lead to a “massive loss of life” in the United States if it is not stopped, but added that he still believes Iran’s nuclear ambitions pose a greater threat to the U.S. than the Islamic State, in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon last week.
The senator also tied Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the Obama administration’s Iran policy, and warned the White House against using a military campaign against ISIL as an excuse to appease Tehran.
“As grave as the threat from ISIS is, in my view the most significant threat to U.S. national security remains the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability,” said Cruz. “The incoherence of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy will come to full flower if the peril of ISIS is used as an excuse to further appease Iran and facilitate their acquiring nuclear weapon capability.”
He added that “everything President Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Kerry have done have increased the chances of Iran acquiring nuclear weapon capability, and have perversely increased the chances of future military conflict.”
While Cruz has not said whether he will run for president in 2016, his response to one question suggested that the possibility is on his mind.
“What should a strong president do [to prevent a nuclear Iran]? Well number one, I’ve introduced legislation in the Senate, comprehensive Iran sanctions legislation that demonstrates the direction I believe we should be taking,” said Cruz.
Although he noted that he remains supportive of a new sanctions legislation introduced by Sens. Mark Kirk and Robert Menendez, he called the proposals “weak sauce.”
“Kirk-Menendez on its face is pretty weak sauce. It lays out future contingencies in which ultimately sanctions will be re-imposed. That’s not a rational way to negotiate with religious extremists like [Iranian Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei,” said Cruz.
“The legislation I’ve introduced would immediately re-impose sanctions on Iran, would strengthen those sanctions to make them as crippling as humanly possible, and then it lays out a clear path to how Iran can lift those sanctions.”
Cruz said both ISIL and the Iranian regime are “radical Islamic terrorists who want to kill us. The one thing on which they agree is killing Americans.”
His comments echoed former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who said earlier this month that Tehran posed a more significant geo-strategic threat than ISIL.
Still, the senator warned that failing to confront ISIL could lead to massive U.S. casualties.
“If we don’t act now and if they are able to consolidate power and control of a nation state with massive oil revenues, the inevitable consequence of that will be a significant and perhaps even massive loss of life here in the United States,” said Cruz.
He criticized the idea of arming Syria’s anti-Assad rebels, saying that many of them were allied with ISIL, and the Obama administration had not provided a clear plan on how to keep the weapons from falling into the hands of terrorist groups.
Cruz also defended his opposition to U.S. military action against the Syrian regime last summer.
“Had the administration gotten what it wanted last summer, there’s a very real chance ISIS would be stronger today than it is right now,” said Cruz.
The potential 2016 presidential hopeful sought to strike a middle ground between the non-interventionist wing of the Republican Party and those who supported President Bush’s “freedom agenda.”
“We have a job to do, and it’s not transform distant countries into democratic utopias,” said Cruz. “It’s not turn Iraq into Switzerland. It’s to prevent people who want to kill Americans from killing Americans.”
“I think it is unquestionably right that we are tired of sending our sons and daughters to distant lands to engage with nation-building,” he added. “But I think it is a profound misreading of the American spirit to confuse that with Americans being unwilling to defend themselves, being unwilling to stand up to serious and real national security threats, and to stand up with overwhelming force.”

Iran Has Obama Cornered on Nuclear Issue

\

Contentions

Iran Has Obama Cornered on Nuclear Issue

Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary

09.19.2014 - 5:05 PM

They good news out of the White House is that President Obama has no plans at present to meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani next week at the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. If such a meeting were being touted, it might signal an impeding agreement between the two nations that would likely do little to avert the Iranian nuclear threat. The bad news is that Iran’s open display of defiance heading into the talks that began this week in New York is a sign that American economic and military leverage over the Islamist regime is now so slight that the most likely outcome of this latest round of diplomatic futility is for the negotiations to continue to be strung out indefinitely, something that will lead inevitably to the Iranian bomb Obama has vowed to stop.

As I wrote earlier this week, the European Union has already signaled that it is preparing for yet another extension of the talks past November by appointing current foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton to continue to represent the EU in negotiations with Tehran. These are, of course, the talks that were supposed to have a six-month time limit so as to prevent Iran from continuing its delaying tactics that have worked so well over the past decade. But that time limit — an integral part of the interim nuclear accord signed last November by the United States and its allies with Iran — was already extended once over the summer.
That ought to mean the current talks being held in New York ought to be make or break time for an administration that spiked Congress’s attempt to strengthen economic sanctions on Iran last winter by promising that diplomacy could work without the extra leverage tougher restrictions on doing business with Tehran would give it. But in the last year the administration’s diplomatic efforts have gone nowhere on the nuclear issue. The loosening of the sanctions in the interim accord removed the West’s ace in the hole against the ayatollahs and signaled the world that Iran would soon be open for business again.
Combined with the tension between Russia and the West after the invasion of Ukraine that provided Iran with a crucial friend and you have a formula that left Tehran feeling strong enough to resist President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry’s entreaties to make a deal and inaugurate a new era of U.S.-Iran détente. Throw in the fact that the U.S. and Iran are allegedly now on the same side in the struggle against ISIS in Iraq and Syria (where Tehran’s ally Bashar Assad has survived and also, as Kerry said, “played footsie with ISIS”) and Iran has zero incentive to give an inch on nuclear issues.
With little hope of progress this week, Rouhani can go to New York and thumb his nose on the nuclear issue at the U.S. with impunity. That leaves President Obama’s promises about stopping Iran and letting diplomacy work without Congressional interference look hollow if not mendacious. The Iranians feel they have Obama right where they want him, knowing he has even less appetite for a confrontation with them than he does with ISIS. The terrorist group presents a clear and present danger to the nation that the administration is right to begin to address. But by neglecting the even more deadly peril from an Iranian nuke and allowing Tehran to think they have nothing to lose by stiffing the West in the talks, Obama is endangering U.S. security and setting himself up for a legacy of foreign policy catastrophe.

Israel Warns of Iranian Sweet Talk; Says Nothing’s Changed

Posted on September 20, 2014

by Paul Alster
Special to IPT News
September 19, 2014
The international community is allowing the rise of ISIS to distract it from the far more dangerous prospect of a nuclear Iran, Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz warned Wednesday. The comments followed his visit last week to the United States, where he met with senior State Department figures William Burns and Wendy Sherman.
“The Iranians are getting almost everything but giving almost nothing,” Steinitz told a Jerusalem news conference in which he expressed his belief that Iran is being far from truthful in its ongoing P5+1 nuclear talks. “Although it is important to defeat ISIS [Islamic State], if Iran gets nuclear weapons, it’s a different world for decades. This is the main threat to global security and should be the priority… I went [to Washington] concerned and I came back concerned,” Steinitz added. “I didn’t hear anything… that gave me hope.”
Senior Israeli military and intelligence figures have issued similar warnings in recent months, indicating that while Iran under President Hassan Rouhani offers the veneer of a more moderate regime, little has changed in Tehran. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s firebrand supreme leader, still calls all the shots.
A recently published 80-point International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s compliance – or non-compliance – indicates that Steinitz has genuine grounds for concern. Among its key findings:

19. “Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Board of Governors and the Security Council, Iran has not suspended all of its enrichment related activities in the declared facilities…”
49. “Iran is conducting a number of activities at UCF, EUPP, FMP and the Fuel Plate Fabrication Plant (FPFP) at Esfahan … which are in contravention of its obligations to suspend all enrichment related activities and heavy water related projects…”
62. “The Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”
67. “[A]t a particular location at the Parchin site, the Agency has observed through satellite imagery ongoing construction activity that appears to show the removal/replacement or refurbishment of the site’s two main buildings’ external wall structures … These activities are likely to have further undermined the Agency’s ability to conduct effective verification. It remains important for Iran to provide answers to the Agency’s questions and access to the particular location in question.”

Of the main points in the report’s summary, the following is undoubtedly of significant concern:

75. “While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, the Agency is not in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.”

Iranian failure to comply with the interim P5+1 deal struck last year by the U.S. and other leading nations should mark the end of negotiations, said Steinitz, one of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s closest allies. Allowing the talks to stumble along gives Iran the benefit of continued relief from international sanctions that dealt a crippling blow to the Iranian economy.
“From our point of view, President Obama’s very important principle and statement that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal,’ is by no means a failure,” Steinitz said. “In a sense, it’s a kind of success… It means standing up for your principles and not sacrificing global security.”
Israeli military officials share concern that Iran is threatens that security through its astonishing subterfuge and double-dealing – presenting a benign face to the world while continuing to support terror organizations such as Hamas in Gaza and Hizballah in southern Lebanon.
In a recent exclusive interview, a senior Israeli naval officer (speaking to the IPT on condition of anonymity), outlined the extent to which Iran continues to try evading international efforts to stem its attempts to arm its proxy armies.
“It is a war against this axis [Iran, Hamas, and Hizballah], and this war on the seas is continuing at the same time as these [P5+1] talks are going on,” the navy official said. “I’m happy that these talks are going on because maybe, maybe, it’s a channel to stop this madness. But at the same time, I know that I will not go back home and rest because of the talks. I will keep working.”
“[Iran] not only uses every possible way to pass on weapons, but they are also passing on information and instructions on how to produce weapons in Gaza. We know for sure that even if rockets and weapons reached Gaza tunnels via the Sinai deserts, they weren’t produced in the Sinai desert. They probably arrived by the sea and came from Iran via the Red Sea ports, or Egypt – of course without the knowledge of Egypt itself.”
In recent years, the Israeli navy has intercepted huge Iranian arms shipments on vessels such as the Frankop (2009), the Victoria (2011), and earlier this year the Klos-C, whose cache of M-302 missiles, mortars, and masses of ammunition were hidden under its legitimate cement cargo.
“We know for sure that … weapons have passed through ports on ships that had no knowledge they were carrying this lethal cargo,” the officer explained. “We know they are using containers that are transported from one ship to another, some of which sometimes stand for days or weeks out in the blazing sun waiting for a ship to take it. If one of these [unstable] containers blows up a lot of innocent people will get hurt. All the time Iran uses innocent people and they don’t care how many of those innocent people get hurt, as long as they achieve their mission.”
“My men and ships are out there and we have been kept busy, not only with Iran, but with a lot of people who are not willing to accept the State of Israel. [Syrian dictator Bashar al-]Assad is a little more occupied now than in the past and I don’t believe he has aspirations about war with Israel, but he will do whatever he can by using proxies such as Hizballah that will keep Israel and its army occupied.”
Continuing concerns over Iranian deception, together with the new threat posed to Middle Eastern stability posed by the swift rise of ISIS, have brought about an apparent change – if not in public, then seemingly in private – in alliances of convenience between states which formerly would have balked at the thought of working together, the senior officer said.
“If someone in your neighborhood is slaughtering and torturing – like what happened to the American reporters – you understand that you will do everything for him not to be your neighbor,” he said. “You will join hands with a neighbor with whom you may never have been friendly before to make sure the crazy neighbor won’t do you any harm.”
“I won’t go into specific details on cooperation” he adds, “but I will say for sure that every sane human being that is living around here just wants to have a family, a peaceful life, and a place of work. I hope that one day we will see this happen and … I will go out with my flotilla and join hands with the Egyptian navy, Saudi Arabian navy, everyone around us, to make sure we will keep those people out of the Middle East.”
Paul Alster is an Israel-based contributor to FoxNews.com and The Jerusalem Report and blogs at paulalster.com. He can be followed on Twitter: @paul_alster

Qatar Expels Senior Muslim Brotherhood Leaders

Details: Category: News; Created on Saturday, 20 September 2014 17:26; Written by Ben Ariel - Arutz Sheva

Senior Muslim Brotherhood LeadersQatar, which has been blamed for stirring up much of the violence in the Middle East and is a well-known backer of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, reportedly expelled some members of the Muslim Brotherhood from its territory.

The Associated Press (AP) reported on Saturday that leaders of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and allied clerics said they are departing Qatar, where they had sought refuge following the ouster of Egypt's Islamist President Mohammed Morsi and the crackdown on his supporters.

Their presence in Qatar had severely strained Doha's relations with Egypt as well as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, all of which view the more than 85-year-old Islamist movement as a threat.

The governments of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates withdrew their ambassadors from Qatar in June, in protest over Qatar's support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

The expulsion of the Brotherhood’s senior officials, threatens to further isolate the group, which rose to power in Egypt through a string of post-Arab Spring elections but suffered a dramatic fall from grace during Morsi's divisive year in office.

Former minister Amr Darrag, who was also the top foreign affairs official in the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, and cleric Wagdi Ghoneim said they are leaving Qatar following a request to do so by the Gulf monarchy, according to AP.

"I decided to move outside of the beloved Qatar ... so as not to cause any annoyance, embarrassment or problems for our brothers in Qatar," Ghoneim said in a video message posted on his official Facebook page.

Darrag, in a statement posted on his page, said, "We value the role of Qatar in supporting the Egyptian people in its revolution against the coup. We understand well the conditions it is facing in the region."

The highest ranking member of the group residing in Qatar is Mahmoud Hussein, the secretary general of the Muslim Brotherhood. According to Rassd, a news agency affiliated with the group, Hussein is among those who will be leaving the country. The agency said they will be searching for another base in exile, possibly Turkey.

There have been several high-profile calls to stop Qatar from hosting the World Cup in 2022 until it ceases its funding of terrorism, including by Israeli Economy Minister Naftali Bennett.

Qatar's change of heart was predicted in early August by Arutz Sheva columnist and expert, Dr. Mordecai Kedar.

Last week, Egypt charged Morsi and several other people with endangering national security by leaking state secrets and sensitive documents to Qatar.

The Cairo public prosecutor's office said its secret investigation had unearthed enough evidence of espionage to charge Morsi in a criminal court.

Donetsk Chemical Plant Is Under Attack Despite The Declared Ceasefire In...

Kiev’s bloody eastern Ukraine campaign LIVE UPDATES

Published time: April 15, 2014 14:19
Edited time: September 18, 2014 11:19

Get short URL

Black smoke ascends around the Donetsk's International Airport as shelling continues between pro-Russian forces and the Ukrainian army on September 14, 2014.(AFP Photo / Philippe Desmazes )

Trends
Ukraine turmoil Tags
Air Force, Arms, Army, Breakaway regions, Clashes, Conflict, Human rights, Military, Opposition, Politics, Protest, Shooting, Ukraine, Vehicles, Violence

Kiev and rebel troops in eastern Ukraine on September 5 agreed a ceasefire, “all to all” prisoner of war exchange and humanitarian aid access to the area hit by months-long fierce fighting that has claimed the lives of over 2,500 people.

Saturday, September 20

19:54 GMT:

According to the UN, the number of Ukrainian refugees fleeing to foreign states – including Russia – to avoid the fighting is on the decrease.

A UN source told RIA Novosti that as of September 18, the number of Ukrainian refugees abroad was estimated at 341,000.

Over 800,000 Ukrainians have crossed into Russia in recent months, but people have started returning to their homes following a ceasefire announced between the militia and Kiev.

16:02 GMT:

Representatives of the self-defense forces in the Donetsk and Ukrainian security services have exchanged prisoners, in accordance with the '40 for 40' formula, the Prisoner Exchange Committee of the People's Republic of Donetsk said in a statement.

The previous exchange of prisoners between the sides in the eastern Ukrainian conflict followed a '73 for 73' formula.

08:26 GMT:

Detonations continue at the burning plant in Donetsk, where a powerful explosion occurred earlier on Saturday, reports RIA Novosti. Local residents said stored shells detonating from the heat are the most likely cause.
The initial explosion was so strong that the blast wave shattered windows in a house about 1 kilometer from the plant.

08:14 GMT:

08:09 GMT:

A powerful explosion was reported in Donetsk. City residents and correspondents on the ground tell of a huge cloud of smoke rising from the location of an explosives and ammunition factory.
Militia sources said the factory was hit by two missiles. No casualty report was immediately available.

04:49 GMT:

The third convoy of Russian humanitarian aid for eastern Ukraine has arrived in the war-torn city of Donetsk, reported Itar Tass. The convoy of around 200 vehicles is carrying some 2,000 tons of cereals, canned food, generators, medicine, warm clothes, and bottled water. Russia said it offered the Ukrainian border guards to check the vehicles on the border on several occasions, but they declined without citing any particular reason. On September 13 and on August 22 Russia delivered humanitarian aid to the city of Lugansk in eastern Ukraine. On both occasions Kiev refused to clear the cargoes and accused Russia of invading Ukraine.

00:10 GMT:

The signed memorandum consists of nine points, former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma told journalists following peace talks in Minsk, Belarus.

“The first one is stopping the use of weapons by both sides, the second is terminating new formations of units on military bases as of September 19. The third is banning the use of all types of weapons and offensive action,” Kuchma said.

Friday, September 19

23:41 GMT:

All foreign mercenaries must be withdrawn from eastern Ukraine by both sides of the conflict, the signed Minsk memorandum states, according to former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma.

“We have agreed on the withdrawal of all foreign mercenaries from both sides,” Kuchma told RIA Novosti following talks in the Belarusian capital.

23:25 GMT:

Ukraine troops must pull back all heavy artillery by 15 kilometers from the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine, RIA Novosti cited former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma as saying.

Both sides also vowed to continue the exchange of prisoners.

23:01 GMT:

Kiev authorities and representatives of the self-proclaimed eastern Ukrainian republics have signed a final memorandum on a ceasefire and conflict resolution, RIA Novosti reports citing Lugansk People’s Republic representative Aleksey Karyakin.
The sides have signed a memorandum following peace talks in Minsk, Belarus. The agreement outlines a buffer zone of 30 km (18.6 miles) and bans all military aircraft from flying over part of eastern Ukrainian territory, except for the OSCE's aerial vehicles, former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma told RIA Novosti following the meeting.

The negotiations were also attended by Russia’s OSCE representatives.

Chemical threat': Disaster looms as Kiev shells fall near Donetsk plant

Published time: August 11, 2014 01:28

Get short URL

Photo from www.stirol.net

Trends
Ukraine turmoil Tags
Accident, Army, Blast, Conflict, Ecology, Health, Military, Security, Ukraine, Violence

Ukraine is at risk of an environmental disaster as Kiev’s army continues to bomb the Donestk region, nearly hitting its largest chemical plant that stores lethal agents, the plant’s spokesperson warned. The minimum impact zone would be at least 300 km.
READ MORE: ‘Spreading the truth’: Spanish volunteers join fight against Kiev in E. Ukraine (VIDEO)
For the past three weeks, the Ukrainian army has been intensely shelling Gorlovka, located in Ukraine’s Donetsk region — home to the nation’s largest chemical plant, Stirol.
“Due to the irresponsible actions of the Ukrainian army, citizens of Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus are exposed to a deadly threat from an ecological disaster on a daily basis, the size of which cannot be predicted,” Pavel Brykov, a spokesman for the plant, said in a YouTube message on Sunday.

A still from YouTube video by SputnikTV allegedly showing remains of a shell at the territory of Gorlovka chemical plant in eastern Ukraine

According to Brykov, an accident at the plant could cause a toxic leak of nitrochlorobenzene – a lethal substance which, if it enters the human body, affects the liver, heart, and bone marrow, causing death.
The minimum impact of the accident would be at least 300 kilometers, Brykov said, adding that the risks of the accident are being silenced in the Ukrainian media.
Stirol is part of the OSTCHEM holding company that belongs to Ukrainian businessman Dmitry Firtash.
Earlier, Firtash claimed there is no risk of a catastrophe since there are no lethal agents stored at the plant. He added that back in May, when the shelling of the region began to intensify, the plant stopped the synthesis and processing of the colorless gas ammonia and evacuated all of its workers.

A still from YouTube video by SputnikTV allegedly shows remains of a shell near the facilities of Gorlovka chemical plant in eastern Ukraine

READ MORE: Ukraine’s violent escalation: From Molotov cocktails to ballistic missiles
In their offensive against the eastern Ukrainian militia, Kiev troops have been using multiple-rocket launchers, such as Grad and Uragan – highly indiscriminate weapons designed for destroying enemy forces in the field. If fired at a city, their lack of precision would likely lead to multiple civilian casualties, increasing the risk of a chemical catastrophe.
Just on Thursday, a unique wooden Orthodox church burned to the ground after being hit by an artillery shell in Gorlovka.

STIROL chemical plant in the town of Gorlovka in the Donetsk region (Reuters / Valery Belokryl)

READ MORE: Unique church shelled, burnt to ashes in E. Ukraine (VIDEO)
The ongoing fighting in eastern Ukraine has already led to more than 1,300 people – both civilians and military troops – being killed in the conflict, and over 4,000 others being wounded. At the same time, around 118,000 people have been internally displaced and 740,000 others have fled to Russia.
The Stirol plant was involved in an accident that killed six people and injured 26 others a year ago, when a colorless gas ammonia was released into the air during repair work. The incident was one of the biggest in the country’s recent history.
Ukraine is also the site of the world’s worst nuclear power plant accident in history. The catastrophic nuclear disaster happened on April 26, 1986 at reactor number four of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, which was then one of the USSR republics. The plant is located near the city of Pripyat, some 100 km north of the capital Kiev.
As a result of the explosion and fire, a huge radioactive cloud was spread into the atmosphere, covering thousands of miles of Soviet and European territories. Approximately 100,000 square kilometers of land were significantly contaminated.
Thirty-one out of the 237 people diagnosed with acute radiation sickness died within the first three months of the accident. Overall, up to 985,000 people have died as a result of the incident, mainly from cancer due caused by the radiation, according to Global Research.
READ MORE: Chernobyl then and now: 28 haunting images from nuclear disaster

177 comments

Multiple Explosions at Ukraine 'Chemical Plant' Sends Massive 'Cloud of ...

Pentagon Official: The Facts Are In, And Obama’s Policy Is A Direct Danger To The United States

10:42 PM 08/01/2014

Joseph Miller

Contributor

Joseph Miller is the pen name for a ranking Department of Defense official with a background in U.S. special operations and combat experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has worked in strategic planning.
The report is in, and the review of the president’s foreign policy is clear: If there is not an immediate course-reversal, the United States is in serious danger.
In 2013, the United States Institute for Peace, “a congressionally-created, independent, nonpartisan institution whose mission is to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflicts around the world,” was asked to assist the National Defense Panel with reviewing the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The National Defense Panel is a congressional-mandated bipartisan commission that’s co-chairs were appointed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.
On July 31, the National Defense Panel released its long-awaited report on the effects of the QDR and delivered its findings to Congress. The panel pulled no punches — its findings were a scathing indictment of Obama’s foreign policy, national security policy, and defense policy. The panel found that president Barack Obama’s QDR, military force reductions, and trillion-dollar defense budget cuts are dangerous — and will leave the country in a position where it is unable to respond to threats to our nation’s security. This, the panel concluded, must be reversed as soon as possible.
In particular, the report addresses the need for the administration to return to the flexible response doctrine — a policy where the military was tasked with being capable of fighting two wars at the same time. Given the current state of affairs and the threats posed to our nation, the panel felt that the two-war doctrine was still required to meet our nation’s national security challenges. The man-power reductions and budget cuts are both reflections of this change in policy, so it must be altered before that is possible.
So what is the flexible response doctrine, and why is it so important?
In 1961, the Kennedy administration sought to remake U.S. defense doctrine after concluding that former President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “New Look” doctrine, which focused on mutually-assured destruction, was inappropriate for the Cold War. Kennedy decided that the United States would adopt a “Flexible Response Doctrine,” in which we would hold adversaries at bay through strategic deterrence and the ability to fight two wars — plus a smaller conflict — at the same time. That doctrine carried the United States through the Cold War and all of the other so-called shooting wars that followed, despite numerous challenges from nation states and non-state actors alike.
In 2012, the Obama administration decided to change the two-and-a-half war policy of the Flexible Response doctrine, in part due to the nation’s war fatigue, after having been at war for over a decade, and also in response to budgetary constraints exacerbated by a sluggish economy. The administration announced its intentions to significantly reduce the defense budget and re-examine the acquisition of major defense systems and hardware, shaping the future size and scope of the U.S. military. Given that Obama was first elected on an antiwar platform, this decision seems reasonable.
Here’s the problem: At the time the Obama administration announced the change in our defense doctrine, the president was also in front of the cameras threatening to use military force in Iran and Syria, announcing a “strategic pivot” toward Asia to counter a rising China, and swearing to uphold our defense treaties with Israel, Taiwan, South Korea, NATO, etc, all while we were still at war in Afghanistan. How can you threaten to take military action that could start a war when you are already fighting one in Afghanistan if you have changed your military doctrine to only fight one war at a time?
Some detractors may argue that this is a good thing, because it will prevent the president from starting another war. It’s worth pointing out that not all wars are of our choosing. The U.S. went to war twice in the last 50 years because our homeland was attacked by enemy forces. And unlike World War II, the enemy has not been defeated — even though the president plans to withdraw our forces from Afghanistan and has chosen to not take decisive action against these enemies in Iraq, Syria, Africa, etc. — an enemy that still seeks to do us harm. The next war may not be of our choosing. And the enemy has pledged to do just that.
What is even more distressing is that this doctrine will trickle down into military acquisition strategy. The U.S. Navy purchases ships that will be in service for 50 years. That means that the ships we buy today will make up the Navy’s fleet in 2065. The change in military doctrine that Obama directed will have a negative effect on the size and shape of our armed forces for decades to come. With a rising China, a re-emerging Russia, and a continued threat of global terrorism, who knows if at that time, the U.S. will be able to meet the challenges that lie ahead.
Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.” He was criticized for that remark, but it reflected the reality that he had to go to war with — an Army that had been hollowed out after the Gulf War by the Clinton administration. War is not a video game. You cannot hit the pause button on a crisis and ask the defense industrial base and the armed services to give you what you need to fight a war. That only comes from long-term acquisition strategy driven by doctrine that accurately reflects future threats.
If the administration does not reverse course on its defense strategy and ask congressional Democrats to reverse defense spending cuts, then our nation will find itself in a position where it is unable to defend itself and could become the victim of terrorism on U.S. soil once again.

Tags: Foreign policy, Obama, Pentagon