CNAS2016: ISIS Study Group - Presentation and Discussion

A truly excellent discussion of fighting ISIS from the Center for a New Anerican Security 2016 conference

Orlando Terrorist 911 Transcripts Now Released in an Unredacted Form

Apparently there was a sudden outbreak of common sense in the administration and FBI, DOJ release new, full transcript of Orlando shooter's 911 call

An earlier version of the transcript had deleted the word “Islamic State” and the name of ISIS leader “Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.” Omar Mateen made the 50-second 911 call in which he claimed responsibility for the assault and pledged allegiance to the terror organization's chief at 2:35 a.m., more than a half hour into the June 12 slaughter at gay nightclub Pulse.

“I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State,” Mateen says on the new transcript.

The old version had several words scrubbed and read: "I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted]."

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., called the earlier decision by DOJ and the FBI to release only a partial transcript "preposterous."

"We know the shooter was a radical Islamist extremist inspired by ISIS," Ryan said in a statement. "We also know he intentionally targeted the LGBT community. The administration should release the full, unredacted transcript so the public is clear-eyed about who did this, and why."

Before the Redaction: Early Reports on the Orlando Terrorist's Content of Phone Calls to the 911 Operator

Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen mentioned Boston bombers in 911 call:

Statement from Mass. State Police:

"During a conference call with federal law enforcement officials a short time ago, Massachusetts State Police and other local law enforcement authorities learned that the Orlando nightclub gunman, during his rampage, pledged allegiance to ISIS and referenced the Tsarnaev brothers, the terrorists who exploded bombs at the 2013 Boston Marathon. In light of that information, the Commonwealth Fusion Center continues to share information and intelligence with federal authorities investigating the Orlando terrorist act as well as with police assigned to the Boston Regional Intelligence Center.

"As previously stated, the names of the gunman and his wife did not appear in any databases of potential terrorist suspects maintained by local authorities; however, law enforcement agencies in Massachusetts continue to work with federal authorities to learn more about the nature of the statement about the Tsarnaev brothers attributed to the Orlando terrorist.

"No further information is available at this time."

Orlando Gunman Omar Mateen Called 911 From Bathroom, Says House Intelligence Panel's Rep. Schiff : NPR

SCHIFF: Well, we had a number of briefings from the FBI over the last couple days. He was interviewed both, I guess, in 2013 and 2014 on the basis of concerning statements he made to co-workers. The FBI evidently ran down those statements and those leads - was not able to develop the evidence to bring some kind of a charge of material support for terrorism or any conspiracy case. And this is the reality, the FBI fans out across the country when people do see something and say something. But it doesn't always result in the bringing of charges. And it's simply not enough when people express even very offensive views, very radical views if there's no evidence that they're acting to effectuate them to bring about the violence.

I think the FBI director will address this probably later today. And certainly we're going to be scouring over those files again to see were there some things that were missed, some steps that could've been taken. But there's often going to be the case where people known to us...

INSKEEP: Right.

SCHIFF: ...That are a matter of concern are not apprehended - can't be apprehended and go on to commit acts of violence.

INSKEEP: OK. Two questions based on the briefings you received. This is a man who during the incident we're told - our justice correspondent Carrie Johnson who's with us in the studios confirms to us that he made a 911 call. He in some manner pledged allegiance to ISIS, we're told, during the attack. First, based on your briefings, do you know that that's actually what he did? Do you have any idea of how he worded it on that 911 call?

SCHIFF: Well, what my understanding is that he did call 911. It sounds from the press conference as well today that was during the period where he was holed up in the bathroom with hostages. And during that call, my understanding is that he pledged allegiance to Baghdadi and to ISIS.

INSKEEP: Oh, the caliph. OK.

Significance of Orlando gunman calling 911 during standoff:

The FBI said investigators are following up on about 100 leads in the Orlando attack that killed 50 people, including the gunman, Omar Mateen. It is the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.

The 29-year-old shooter opened fire around 2 a.m. ET at Pulse, a nightclub that's described itself as Orlando's hottest gay bar. He called 911 during his nearly three-hour standoff with the police, holding several hostages and pledging allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Orlando shooting survivor: I can still hear everybody yelling, gunshots firing
"I think that's very significant because ISIS tells its followers that they must pledge bayat, they must pledge allegiance to ISIS before they die. We saw that in San Bernardino, and now we've seen it here," former CIA deputy director and CBS News senior security contributor Michael Morell said Monday on "CBS This Morning." "So I think it's very important because it shows that he was in touch with that ISIS messaging."

Orlando Nightclub Attack: What We Know:

President Obama says it appears Omar Mateen was radicalized by extremist propaganda disseminated on the Internet. Here’s an excerpt from his remarks at the White House made after he received a security briefing:

We’re still at the preliminary stages of the investigation, and there’s a lot more that we have to learn. The one thing that we can say is that this is being treated as a terrorist investigation. It appears that the shooter was inspired by various extremist information that was disseminated on the Internet. All those materials are currently being searched, exploited so we can have a better sense of the pathway that the killer took in making a decision to launch this attack. … At this stage, we see no clear evidence that he was directed externally. It does appear that at the last minute he pronounced allegiance to ISIL, but there’s no evidence so far that he was, in fact, directed by ISIL, and there are also, at this stage, no direct evidence that he was part of a larger plot. In that sense, it appears to be similar to what we saw in San Bernardino, but we don’t yet know. (emphasis added to President Obama's own words)

I don't know why the FBI decided to close the corral gate after the cattle have left by redacting the comments of this terrorist, but if it's to prevent word getting out that this was an act by an ISIS devotee, I think it's just a little late.

The ISIS Media Front

Every ISIS inspired rampage reminds me that it we are waging, in addition to the kinetic war, a "hearts and minds" campaign against the appeal of jihadist rhetoric and imagery. We discussed this on Midrats Episode 322: Radical Extremism, Visual Propaganda, and The Long War with Professor Cori Dauber and Mark Robinson:


Well, here's some further analysis How to Beat Back ISIS Propaganda from Dr. Haror J. Ingram:

Messaging that exploits the disparity between what one’s adversary says and does, while promoting the close alignment of one’s own words and actions, is a timeless propaganda strategy. As Professor Doug Borer said during discussions at the Naval Postgraduate School: “it’s the say-do gap, stupid.” As a messaging strategy, it does more than merely expose hypocrisy or incompetence; it goes to the heart of an actor’s perceived credibility. Forget slick production or social media—this is Al Qaeda and ISIS’s propaganda trademark. From bin Laden’s frequent assertion that the perpetrators of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings have no right to label him a “terrorist,” to Inspire and Dabiq magazines’ regular claims that Western governments do not afford Muslim citizens the same rights as other citizens, this messaging is designed to expose the West’s say-do gap.

The “information theater” is where perception becomes reality, and Western messaging has tended to be comparatively less adept at leveraging this approach. This has not been helped by events such as the Abu Ghraib revelations and, more recently, an unwillingness to back up “red lines” drawn in Syria. Western counterterrorism messaging would benefit from focusing on tying extremists to the crises experienced by their potential supporter base, highlighting that say-do gap and avoiding futile counter-proselytizing.

Strategic communications campaigns must be devised within the context of strategic policy decisions. Even the best messaging cannot replace “real” policy or action; nor can one assume that action will “speak for itself.” Over three decades ago, President Ronald Reagan’s National Security Decision Directive 75 integrated military, economic and information elements into a wide-ranging strategy designed to catalyze the Soviet Union’s downfall. NSDD 75 and subsequent directives show that the Reagan administration understood the compounding benefits of synchronizing message and action, its force-multiplying effect on the overall campaign and its decisive impact on perceptions of credibility. Current strategies could learn much from this history.

As is the case with most of the struggle against terrorists, the fight is all uphill - the jihadist propaganda machine needs to find only one mind to infiltrate with its call to action while we have to try to counter all such influence.

Like all good guerrilla forces, the jihadists use our strengths (free press, free speech, freedom of religion, freedom in general) as weapons against us in a form of media jujitsu.

The excesses of our society, which we put on full display in print and over the air and in movies, come to dominate the imagery of our country abroad - despite the vast gap between that imagery and the daily reality of our lives.

This lesson is brought home when talking to visitors from overseas who have come to take a look at us. Having seen us through the lens of news ("if it bleeds, it leads"), movies and television (oh, take your pick of the latest "real life" crime films that shows on-going gang warfare and thugs holding their pistols sideways as they blaze away) and the language of our would-be social elites who know exactly what is best for those of us in the "bitter clinger" group, these visitors often are stunned by the far different reality of a genuinely peaceful country with helpful citizens.

Our country is bigger, cleaner, and far more peaceful that they could have known from the sources they have seen.

We have social welfare programs for our poor. We offer free medical care. Our charities are better, bigger and quicker to respond that any massive government program could ever be.

We welcome immigrants who arrive legally (and lots who don't), especially those who seek a better life by learning about those freedoms that make us a great country.

Perhaps it is not odd that those who seem to be most drawn to ISIS-like propaganda appear to be those who cannot learn the tolerance the vast majority of the rest of us are willing to extend to others. Once in that mode, all the negative media they absorb along with the ISIS claptrap sets them up.

ISIS in the Pacific - Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives

Described as:

With ISIS’ continued push to recruit and radicalize around the globe, this hearing will examine the current threat ISIS affiliates and supporters pose to U.S. interests and allies in Southeast Asia. Multiple recent terrorist attacks and public declarations of allegiance by local militant groups, and a growing number of ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria from the region, demonstrate the potential danger this poses.

Just When You Thought It Couldn't Get Worse: "ISIS' Chemical Weapons"

Well, as if having proxy war with Russia, Iran and having an immigrant crisis that threatens to overwhelm Europe weren't enough, Foreign Affairs posts Arabinda Acharya's ISIS' Chemical Weapons:
Where They Came From, How They are Used, and What Will Come Next

Terrorists, and in particular jihadists, have long been interested in the acquisition and use of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons. And a number of extremist groups and individuals have either used or experimented with components of CBRN. In this context, and given the fact that ISIS could be in possession of some form of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and has threatened to use them against the West, Western governments should take notice.

You bet they should, and the more desperate ISIS gets, the more likely they are to do something irretrievably stupid.

You can count on there being a whole bunch of hand-wringing about a potential or actual violation of International Humanitarian Law:

International humanitarian law is a set of rules that seek to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects people who are not or are no longer participating in hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare.

Of course, any group of outlaws like ISIS that views any law but Sharia law as illegitimate is presumably not going to pay a whole lot of attention to an attempt to apply international humanitarian law (IHL) to their actions. It is doubtful that IHL is the barrier to them attempting to apply chemical or radiological to their enemies, including the "Great Satan" itself. Or perhaps even to some lesser devils.

Swell.

In the meantime, while looking at that threat, we have Reuters reporting Syria government, IS commit crimes against humanity: U.N.-backed inquiry:

War crimes in Syria's five-year-old conflict are widespread and Syrian government forces and Islamic State militants continue to commit crimes against humanity in the face of inaction by the international community, a U.N.-backed panel said on Monday.

"Flagrant violations of human rights and international humanitarian law continue unabated, aggravated by blatant impunity," the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry said in its latest report.

"The stipulations of relevant Security Council resolutions ... remain largely unheeded and unimplemented," it said. "Crimes against humanity continue to be committed by government forces and by ISIS (Islamic State). War crimes are rampant."

The U.N. inquiry, composed of independent experts, has long denounced the use of starvation by both sides in the Syrian conflict as a weapon of war, and has a confidential list of suspected war criminals and military units from all sides which is kept in a U.N. safe in Geneva.

The report said that Russian-Syrian aerial bombardments had caused the displacement of tens of thousands of men, women and children.

Do tell.

And the solution is? I don't see a real one proposed in the report, just more mush.

You can find the aforementioned UN Panel's report here.

No report on how many of the crimes against humanity were committed after various "red lines" were crossed with no serious consequence.

But you can bet that dithering only made things worse.

Expensive Lessons in Governing Captured in NYTimes "More Is Needed to Beat ISIS, Pentagon Officials Concludes"

First, you have to read this Joshua Foust's Staff: The Forgotten Metric of Presidential Success (hat tip to Brett Friedman):

Obama did not rely on his functional experts to do this work, the people who would have to mobilize the enormous apparatus of government to accommodate any big change in policy; he went to personal, trusted associates whom he knew would always defer to his judgment. His staffing decisions had the effect of cutting the State Department out of statecraft (at a speech last year in Cuba, John Kerry made it a point not to acknowledge Rhodes’ work while praising Obama’s other adviser, a subtle but unmistakable snub).

More prosaically, Obama has made choice after choice that belie a worrying ignorance of the power that good staff can have.
***

That provides a context for this NYTimes piece by Michael S. Schmidt and Helene Cooper More Is Needed to Beat ISIS, Pentagon Officials Conclude

In the past, the Pentagon’s requests for additional troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan have been met with skepticism by Mr. Obama, and his aides have said he has resented what he has regarded as efforts to pressure him. But the rise of the Islamic State has alarmed the White House, and a senior administration official said Thursday that the president is willing to consider raising the stakes in both Iraq and Syria.

I suppose we will be debating whether the final withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011 under President Obama was precipitous and whether that allowed ISIS to "pop up" for the rest our natural lives. The debate will include whether Mr. Obama was responsible for the withdrawal or was merely playing out the hand dealt to him by his predecessor. See this NPR "fact check" which contains an interesting assessment of Mr. Obama's inaction:

Thousands of American troops had died, and by the time Obama announced the withdrawal, fully three-quarters of Americans supported the withdrawal (though a majority of Republicans did not).

Still, many had real concerns al Qaeda wasn't done for. And there were some, including U.S. senators, saying the troops should stay just in case things went downhill. They say Obama should have sold the idea, hard, to Maliki.

Iraq analyst Kirk Sowell said Obama never really tried.

"This is one of the criticisms of Obama — that he sort of wanted the negotiations to fail," Sowell said, "and, so, he didn't even talk to Maliki until it was basically all over."

You can sort out your own issues of "sins of omission" vs. "sins of commission," but in my world the person who relieves the previous officer of the deck (OOD) and then does not change course to avoid a collision that was not apparent to the previous OOD cannot then blame the prior watch for "putting the ship on a course to a collision." As the saying goes, "That dog won't hunt."

Worst of all is the apparent lack of a strategy in the U.S. effort in the Middle East. As the NYTimes reporters have it:

The Pentagon’s desire to expand the military presence on the ground comes as the American public remains skeptical of the United States’ getting more deeply involved in another conflict in the Middle East. Polls have shown that Americans are not convinced the Obama administration has a plan to defeat the Islamic State, which has maintained control of nearly all the large cities it took over in 2014.

How can you have plan to defeat ISIS unless you have an idea of what the Middle East should look like when ISIS is defeated? Mr. Obama has already called for Syria's Assad to "go away" though he seems lately to have been more wishy-washy on that view. Russia and Iran are involved in Syria now and had we decisively acted earlier they might not have been so.

Perhaps Mr. Obama feels strongly diffident and, taking the easy path, has simply voted "present" again. Those deferred decisions tend to catch up with you, though. So, now, more U.S. boots on the ground.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda done this earlier and squashed ISIS at the gitgo.

See also here, here and here.

Ha Ha Ha! Huh? "US military drafting 'new narrative' for ISIS war"

From the "We Really Do Have a Strategy and We'll Tell You What It Is As Soon As We Figure It Out Department," The Hill reports US military drafting 'new narrative' for ISIS war:

The U.S. military is seeking to craft a “new narrative” for the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), in part to push back on the growing perception that President Obama does not have a strategy.

Military officials on the Operation Inherent Resolve task force have recently formed a working group to formulate a "new narrative," defense officials told The Hill. Separately, the Joint Staff has drafted its own messaging document.

The steps are preliminary, and are part of a larger effort to better communicate the U.S.'s military strategy amid heavy criticism from Republican presidential candidates who say Obama is losing the battle against the terrorist group.

"To say there's no strategy is just flat out wrong," said Army Col. Christopher Garver, public affairs officer for the Combined Joint Task Force -- Operation Inherent Resolve. "If you want to have a debate about it, that's good, let's talk about it. But there is a strategy," he added.

The new working group will look at "how best to articulate what it is we're trying to do ... and do it in a concise easy to understand way," Garver said.

Ususally you have a "concise easy to understand" articulation of what you are trying to do before - you know - before you start committing forces and that sort of thing.

Something like "smashing ISIS and its fellow travelers into paste" might be a good start. Perhaps that lacks the proper "strategic vision."

Not like announcing fictional "red lines" or opening the door to the Russians to support the guy who you previously asserted needed to "go."

One place to start would be to have some idea how you want things to look when we are done with our mission. See here.

I can't believe that is really so hard to "articulate" without sounding like a Facebook breakup mantra - "It's complicated."

Graphic borrowed from here.

In case you missed it: Combating Terrorism Center at West Point "ISIL, Syria and Iraq Resources"

Good stuff on the mess in the Middle East at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point's "ISIL, Syria and Iraq Resources"

This is the gateway to resources, research, and analysis the Combating Terrorism Center has produced over the last decade about the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), also referred to as the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS), the Islamic State (IS) or Da`ish, and its predecessors (al-Tawhid wa-al-Jihad, al-Qa`ida in Mesopotamia (AQI), Majlis Shura al-Mujahidin, Hilf al-Muttayibin and the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI)).

Probably more answers there than you have questions.

Of particular interest is their pdf The Group That Calls Itself a State: Understanding the Evolution and Challenges of the Islamic State which is about a year old, but has good insight:

The evolution of the IS through accident and design led to an organization with the ability to carry out a large number of attacks. From November 2011 to May 2014 (before the IS’s advance into Mosul), the IS self-reported over 19,000 military operations in Iraq alone. The large majority of its attacks were concentrated in Sunni-dominated areas in Iraq, while Shi’a-dominated areas saw comparatively less violence over time. In the short-term, this divide suggests the existence of a natural demographic buffer against expansion by the IS. Over the long-term, the efficacy of this buffer depends on intervening events and actions by other states and groups.

Supporting the activities of the IS is a diverse financial portfolio that includes (among other things) oil, donations, and war loot. This diversity provides some insulation against the loss of any individual component. Oil is important to the IS, but certainly not the only source of revenue. This is not to suggest that the group is financially impregnable, but it does mean that a comprehensive strategy that addresses the group’s varied revenue streams is necessary to effectively minimize the IS’s ability to function over the long term. Another area in which the IS has had some measure of success is in its propaganda campaign. This success comes in part because of the fact that the IS’s messages to recruits differs in important respects from that of an organization like AQ. For example, videos put forward by the IS tend to be filled with rank-and-file members whom potential recruits find much more relatable than AQ’s videos full of leadership figures giving speeches. This “relatability,” paired with slick production techniques and military successes on the ground, appeals to a new generation of recruits for the IS.

Finally, key to the long-term trajectory of the IS is its ability to provide satisfactory levels of governance to people living under its control. In the short-term, the IS has had some success at providing social services to locals that the Syrian and Iraqi governments failed to provide. This success has resulted in some boost to its overall appeal. However, there is no lack of shortcomings in the area of the IS’s governance. Barring adaptation by the group and a reduction in pressure applied by third-party actors, these failures will only increase with time. Highlighting these failures, together with the negative aspects of the IS’s governance, may undercut support for the group.

Turkey v. Russia: Turks Defend Their Airspace

Reuters report "Turkey downs Russian warplane near Syria border, Moscow denies airspace violation". Hurryiet report:

Turkish F-16

Two Turkish F-16's shot down a Russian-made SU-24 jet on Nov. 24 near the Syrian border after it violated Turkish airspace, presidential sources said.

Turkey shot down the jet after it failed to heed the warnings within the rules of engagement.

Initial reports said the jet belonged to Russia, but presidential sources later clarified that the jet's nationality was unknown.

SU-24

The Turkish Armed Force also stated that the jet of “unknown nationality” had been warned 10 times in five minutes about its violation of the airspace.

Hmmm.

Fighting ISIS: "War on IS needs 'boots on ground': US air force secretary"

Channeling Fehrenbach?

"War on IS needs 'boots on ground': US air force secretary":

"Air power is extremely important. It can do a lot but it can't do everything," James said.

"Ultimately it cannot occupy territory and very importantly it cannot govern territory," she told reporters at the Dubai Airshow.

"This is where we need to have boots on the ground. We do need to have ground forces in this campaign."

James cited the "Iraqi army, the Free Syrians and the Kurds" as forces to support in the fight against IS.

And, maybe the French, the U.S., the Germans, etc?

As quoted and commented on here, T.R. Fehrenbach wrote :

Americans in 1950 rediscovered something that since Hiroshima they had forgotten: you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud. ”
Yep, our young men with their ideals against their young men with theirs.

For most, if not all, the marbles.

Be careful in your choice of allies, Madam Secretary, though, as was discussed in Fighting ISIS and al Qaeda: Choosing Poor Allies Is Not Helpful after some of our early "allies" cut and ran or defected:

Given the long history of rapidly changing alliances in the region this result probably shouldn't be exactly - you know - shocking. However, it does point out - once again - the problem of first world thinking meeting third world tribal and cultural standards head on.

These "allies" are fighting for what, exactly?

It certainly isn't for the glory of Syria or mom and apple pie.

Motivation being what it is and given that Mao's precept that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," applies to tribal and religious struggles in the Middle East as well as to communist insurgencies, these former and current allies basically are fighting for power and profit, while the other side seeks to replace the status quo ante with themselves, asserting that "God is on our side!" as they gather up power, profit and young maidens to debauch or sell into slavery. Seems to be a pretty good recruiting tool when coupled with the chance to fight the "Great Satan" and its minions.

In the long run, our side offers . . . what exactly again?

An end to the strife between the Muslim sects? Given that war has been going for 1300+ years, that seems somewhat unrealistic.

No, we need to kill the ISIS guys on the ground n Syria, Iraq, or wherever and then whack the ones who try to bring the fight to us at home.

Whether that home is the U.S., France, Belgium, Canada, Australia, Germany, Britain or . . .

Long war? Yep.

Good read "The Real Power of ISIS"

From Scott Atran at The Daily Beast, a good read, on "The Real Power of ISIS"

This is, fundamentally, a war of ideas that the West has virtually no idea how to wage, and that is a major reason anti-ISIS policies have been such abysmal failures.

Inspiring young men to causes bigger than themselves is an old, old story. With lots of unhappy endings.

And, to quote T.R. Fehrenbach again, from his writing about the Korean War in This Kind of War:

“In July, 1950, one news commentator rather plaintively remarked that warfare had not changed so much, after all. For some reason, ground troops still seemed to be necessary, in spite of the atom bomb. And oddly and unfortunately, to this gentleman, man still seemed to be an important ingredient in battle. Troops were still getting killed, in pain and fury and dust and filth. What happened to the widely-heralded pushbutton warfare where skilled, immaculate technicians who never suffered the misery and ignominy of basic training blew each other to kingdom come like gentlemen?
In this unconsciously plaintive cry lies the buried a great deal of the truth why the United States was almost defeated.
Nothing had happened to pushbutton warfare; its emergence was at hand. Horrible weapons that could destroy every city on Earth were at hand—at too many hands. But, pushbutton warfare meant Armageddon, and Armageddon, hopefully, will never be an end of national policy.
Americans in 1950 rediscovered something that since Hiroshima they had forgotten: you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud. ”

Yep, our young men with their ideals against their young men with theirs.

For most, if not all, the marbles.

Blowing the Middle East Scenario

Small Wars Journal has it in a headline: Obama Claims His Critics Forced Him to Make a Mess of Syria, quoting Jennifer Rubin at the WaPo:

In what surely is the most cringe-worthy excuse offered by a commander-in-chief, President Obama last week complained that his critics — whom he routinely ignored and scorned — forced him to make a mess of Syria. To say it is unbecoming of a president to whine that he was only following what critics told him to do, understates just how dishonest the president is and how morally repugnant is his approach to a war that has claimed more than 200,000 lives, created millions of refugees and provided the Islamic State with a base of operations.

Well, Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.

Air war alone? Not so much, as noted here a year ago:

"Pretty adaptive" ain't going to cut it - the OODA loop is getting away from us because of self-imposed limitations on engagement. Being a "one trick pony" makes it easier on the enemy who gets a vote on how to respond to your threat.

If we are going to "beat" these guys, we need to hear the sound of boots on the ground and see the ISIS logistics flow of people, money and weapons disrupted big time.

Oh, yes, and "cooked intel" designed to give the "boss" what he wants to hear rather than what he needs to hear:

The situation is serious. The term “mass uprising” has been heard in espionage circles and we now know that more than fifty analysts in Tampa, a high percentage of those assessing the Islamic State, have blown the whistle on politically skewed analysis.

Recent reports paint a disturbing picture of a badly distorted intelligence process at CENTCOM headquarters, with senior officers directly pressuring analysts to change their assessments to fit the administration’s optimistic take on the war against the Islamic State. Senior military officers like to toe the official line—you get promoted for “speaking truth to power” in the movies, not in the U.S. military—and clashes with intelligence analysts, especially when they are civilians, are commonplace.

Hmm. I wonder if anyone warned the Boss that the Russians might make a move into Syria? Or was it another "Surprise?"

Take a look at that map above. How many reasons can you see that Russia/Putin might see the advantage of a Russian "friend" in Syria? Warm water port on the Mediterranean? Another border with old rival Turkey?

UPDATE: See Government Report Is Compelling Indictment of Obama’s ISIS Strategy.

That "JV" Team? Well, "FBI chief calls ISIS bigger threat to U.S. than al Qaeda"

CBS News has a video: FBI chief calls ISIS bigger threat to U.S. than al Qaeda

FBI Director James Comey credits social media with helping ISIS grow and influence others. He said Twitter accounts associated with the group have more than 21,000 English-language followers around the world.

FoxNews has Army chief Odierno, in exit interview, says US could have ‘prevented’ ISIS rise:

The Army’s top officer told Fox News Tuesday it’s “frustrating” to watch the gains he helped achieve in Iraq disintegrate at the hands of the Islamic State, saying in an exit interview that the chaos now unfolding “might have been prevented” had the U.S. stayed more engaged.
***
“It's frustrating to watch it,” Odierno said. “I go back to the work we did in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 and we got it to a place that was really good. Violence was low, the economy was growing, politics looked like it was heading in the right direction.”
***
Odierno said the fall of large parts of Iraq was not inevitable, reiterating concerns about the pace of the U.S. troop withdrawal there.

“If we had stayed a little more engaged, I think maybe it might have been prevented,” he said. “I've always believed the United States played the role of honest broker between all the groups and when we pulled ourselves out, we lost that role.”

In 2009, while still the top commander in Iraq, Odierno recommended keeping 30,000-35,000 U.S. troops after the end of 2011, when the U.S. was scheduled to pull out. The recommendation was not followed.

Hmmm. Someone made the decision to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq despite the advice of military commanders. Now, let's see, who was it?

Oh, yes - President Obama took credit in 2012 for withdrawing all troops from Iraq. Today he said something different.. Yep, trying to do the memory wipe. Obama adjusts Iraq narrative, now blames Bush for troop withdrawal: U.S. military airstrikes against Islamic State prompt revisionist history:

The president who spent years touting the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq suddenly has had to distance himself from that action.

At the White House on Saturday morning — less than 48 hours after authorizing airstrikes against Islamist militants and humanitarian air drops to save the lives of trapped Iraqi civilians — President Obama blamed his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the absence of American troops in Iraq and rejected the assertion that he could have left a small peacekeeping force in the war-torn nation.

"Could have?"

But didn't.

Now US citizens are looking at protecting themselves and others from the "JV."

Well, there's a nice retirement package for an ex-president, so he's got that going for him.

Isis in the Sinai claims Egypt's vessel 'rocket attack and destruction'

ISIS in the Sinai claims to have takena missile shot at an Egyptian "frigate" and destroyed the ship, as reported by the International Business Times in Isis in the Sinai claims Egypt's vessel 'rocket attack and destruction'

The Islamic State (Isis)'s offshoot in Egypt – the Sinai Province – claims it launched a rocket and destroyed an Egyptian Navy frigate in the Mediterranean sea. The IS affiliate released pictures of what it said was a guided anti-tank rocket attack on the vessel off the coast of northern Sinai, in Rafah, an area bordering Israel and the Gaza strip. The Egyptian military said it exchanged fire with militants off the coast and the boat caught fire, but there were no casualties as result of the incident. It did not mention that the boat was destroyed.
***
An official IS statement boasted online that the naval attack was the first of its kind and the start of maritme operations in the Mediterranean.
***
The vessel was tasked with patrolling Egyptian territorial waters and has been used to move army and police personnel to Egypt. According to terror expert Charles Lister, IS probably used an anti-tank guided missile for the attack similar to the ones used in the Sinai.

If true, the price of inshore patrolling in certain parts of the world has increased.

Seems about time to really go after these "JV" players.

You might recall about 9 years ago when an Israeli naval vessel was hit by a missile fired by Hezbollah, that time with Iranian support.

Fighting ISIS: Bubbling Up in the Homeland

Northcom takes proactive stance as the background noise increases Force Protection Level Boosted at DoD Facilities Nationwide

The commander of U.S. Northern Command has elevated the force protection level for all Defense Department facilities in the continental United States, but not because of a specific threat, Pentagon spokesman Army Col. Steve Warren said here today.

Force protection condition levels, or FPCON levels, range from Alpha, which applies when an increased general and unpredictable terrorist threat exists against personnel or facilities, to Delta, which applies in an immediate area where a terrorist attack has occurred or is imminent.

Today, Northcom raised the force protection level at all DoD facilities nationwide from Alpha to Bravo. Bravo applies when an increased or more predictable threat of terrorist activity exists.

“I won't go into the specifics of what that means because it is information that a potential adversary could use against us,” Warren said.
***
This is an acknowledgement, Warren added, that “right now we believe the threat level nationwide has increased.”

According to Northcom, the potential for another attack is always possible and implementing random force protection measures is one way to minimize the likelihood of an attack on an installation or service members.

“Some of you can see for yourselves -- you can look at Twitter or at other social media sites and see threats,” Warren said.

“We have a little bit more capability than you do so we see a little bit more than you do. Some of [the threats] are international, some are domestic … but it’s an overall increase in the environment,” he said.

Warren added, “It's as if the temperature of the water has gone up a degree or two.”

How much heat? Secretary of Homeland Security says:

The effective use of social media by the terror group ISIS has thrust the United States into a “new environment” when it comes to the threat against the homeland, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said today on "This Week."

“We’re definitely in a new phase in the global terrorist threat where the so-called lone wolf could strike at any moment," Johnson told ABC's Martha Raddatz. "It is a new environment, but we are not discouraging Americans from doing the things they do on a daily basis.”

And then there is Purported ISIS warning claims terror cells in place in 15 states:

A grim online warning from a self-described American jihadist said Sunday's terror attack in Texas was the work of ISIS and that the terrorist group has scores of "trained soldiers" positioned in 15 states, awaiting orders to carry out more operations.

The warning, which was posted on a file-sharing site, could not be verified, but was signed by Abu Ibrahim Al Ameriki. That name matches the moniker of a shadowy American known to have joined a terrorist group in Pakistan several years ago and who has appeared in propaganda videos before. The chilling threat named five of the states where it is claimed that ISIS has terror cells in place.

Well, some of that may be pure baloney, but the same Fox News report notes

In February, FBI Director James Comey said the FBI is investigating suspects with ties to ISIS in 49 states, but that number is believed to include self-radicalized Americans who have followed jihadist websites but don't have direct links to the group.

Of course, any terror group wants to make people nervous. As noted here:

Terrorism . . . involves the weaponization of fear itself. Through the targeting of civilian noncombatants, terrorists hope to use fear to achieve their objective.

How to fight terrorism? Freakonomics asked that question
Select excerpts:

***
BLOOM: I asked, for example, a close friend of mine, Mubin Shaikh, about his experiences because he ended up in an Al-Qaeda training camp and in fact, came back to North America with the intent to perpetrate a terrorist attack. And he eventually changed his mind and he began to work as an undercover agent for the Canadian security services. But I asked him what appealed to him. You know, this was a middle-class kid who had grown up, you know, he didn’t personally experience Islamophobia or hatred. He was well-integrated. And I asked Mubin how he was able to be convinced of the value of Jihad, and he said, “Well one of the things that they did was they distorted the Koran.” So perhaps we need to make sure that people have a good Islamic education. It’s not a secular education that is the solution, but it’s to make sure that people have an education that is grounded in the Koran and doesn’t skip chapters or verses, doesn’t look at Surat At-Tawbah and go from verse five and chapter nine to verse seven, skipping six, which you know talks about the Prophet provided free access or free exit for people who wanted to leave the battlefield, and he protected them. So it’s really important that you know, perhaps when young people are studying the great books, one of the great books should be the Koran. Perhaps children in middle America, in the middle of Nebraska, should know what the Koran is about, and demystify it, not just for Muslim communities so that they integrate and they don’t feel isolated, but also just to educate, you know, the country in general.
***
DUBNER: *** As Mia Bloom and Robert Pape told us, the root causes of terrorism are often not what we assume—and this, obviously, affects how you think about prevention. Jack Jacobs and Nathan Myhrvold warned us not to spend so many resources preventing old-fashioned, physical terrorism when the threats of bioterrorism and cyberterrorism may be much greater. Steve Levitt, meanwhile, my economist friend—he too thinks that Americans worry more than they should about the threat of physical terrorism:

LEVITT: I think you just want to start with the basic idea that it is almost at zero. That whether it’s a little bit bigger now or a little less now, terrorism for essentially forever has been just a drop in the bucket of the ways that people can die. And, if you compare it to any sort of health risk, like diabetes or heart attacks or cancer, or any sort of socially constructed risk, like dying in a car crash or even accidents like falling down stairs, in general terrorism in America is not something to worry about. Very different if you live in Syria or Iraq or someplace like that, terrorism matters there because terrorism is like a way of life. It’s really terrorism and, you know, the fight for control of government or whatnot that are all kind of mixed together. But, you know, if you’re American and you don’t want to be a victim of terror, if you basically stay in the United States or anywhere other than places that are actively fighting for control of government, you’re incredibly safe.
***
LEVITT: To be honest, I think if someone wanted to use my services more effectively, I think I would be much less effective in an Obama Administration get together trying to fight terrorism than actually working on the other side. I think it’s much easier for economists to come up with good ideas about how to be terrorists rather than how to fight terrorists, because how to be a good terrorist is about thinking what are the things you can do to a society, which is most disruptive and most affects either the psychology or the commerce of a country. And it’s almost the economic question in reverse. And economists spend a lot of time thinking about how most efficiently to make economies run, so I think we’re actually pretty good at thinking about how to destroy economies, too. And so, not that I think any of us are actively engaged in that endeavor, but I do think that we would be more useful on that side of the table.

If you know that a "good terrorist" is looking for those acts which would be "most disruptive and most affects either the psychology or the commerce of a country," you do have a leg up on countering those moves.

In the case of ISIS, if the Garland, Texas, attack on the cartoon show was really one its ideas(update - see here), it show they are not interested in the "big ideas" but are more inclined to pursue low level attacks using relatively unsophisticated tactics. Even the attack on the Charley Hebdo attack was not very sophisticated - and might only have worked because of a largely unarmed civilian population.

What's the lesson? Don't panic. Maintain situational awareness. Be prepared. And, as the saying goes, "An armed society is a polite society."

Why is it hard to fight the "lone wolf" terrorists? Another excerpt from the Freakonomics interview:

LEVITT: If you turn to economics and what economics has to say about fighting terrorism, it’s a hard problem because economics really centers around incentives. And the kind of incentives we tend to use are things like prices or punishment in prison or whatnot. But when people are willing to pay the ultimate price in the form of suicide to reach a goal, they’re not the kind of folks that we’re used to incentivizing and motivating.

Nope, you just can give them that "ultimate price" before they have the chance to take others with them.

Interesting article from Foreign Affairs from 2014, Audrey Kurth Cronin's ISIS Is Not a Terrorist Group:

As ISIS has grown, its goals and intentions have become clearer. Al Qaeda conceived of itself as the vanguard of a global insurgency mobilizing Muslim communities against secular rule. ISIS, in contrast, seeks to control territory and create a “pure” Sunni Islamist state governed by a brutal interpretation of sharia; to immediately obliterate the political borders of the Middle East that were created by Western powers in the twentieth century; and to position itself as the sole political, religious, and military authority over all of the world’s Muslims.
***
ISIS *** offers a very different message for young men, and sometimes women. The group attracts followers yearning for not only religious righteousness but also adventure, personal power, and a sense of self and community. And, of course, some people just want to kill—and ISIS welcomes them, too. The group’s brutal violence attracts attention, demonstrates dominance, and draws people to the action.

The first part is mostly correct, which is why we really need to fight a semi-conventional war in the ISIS territorial claims. The second part is also correct and allows ISIS to attract "foreign fighters" to it fight. More than that, it explains the attraction to the disaffected in Western societies - and how they may have a group of such young men and women lying in wait in the West - not as a main front in the ISIS battle, but as a diversionary, asymmetric threat.

Fighting ISIS: The French Send an Aircraft Carrier

As reported here:

France has deployed its Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier against the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) in Iraq, as part of the US-led military campaign, French media report, citing government officials.

"The integration of the Charles de Gaulle in the operation... (in Iraq) begins this morning," a member of Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian's staff told AFP.

The agency reports that the first Rafale fighter jet took off from the aircraft carrier on Monday morning. The warship was sailing about 200 kilometres (120 miles) off the coast north of Bahrain in the direction of Iraq.

Jets sent from the carrier reach Iraq twice as fast as those, flying from their base in the United Arab Emirates.

In apparently unrelated news, France's Dassault Aviation has made an export sales of Rafale fighters to Egypt, as noted by Aviation Week here:

Egypt will take delivery of 3-5 Rafales in the next few months after recently signing a contract for 24 aircraft—marking an unusually rapid sequence of events. Egypt has long been considered a potential customer but such haste between signing and delivery is unheard of, even considering the hostile geopolitical tensions in the region. However, Cairo’s military wants to flex muscles by putting up-to-date combat aircraft into service as soon as possible.
***
. . .(Rafale is more biased to air-to-ground versus air-to-air combat, and may therefore be better suited to most of today’s confrontations). . .

In the fight against ISIS, have additional competent air-to-ground fighters is a good thing.

France seems very interested in taking it to the would-be califatians for some reason. C'est bon!

It should be noted that France and the U.S. have occasionally demonstrated the interoperability of their carrier-based aircraft by landing and taking off from each other's deck. See here.

A Sailor guides an F-1 Rafale, assigned to the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, to a catapult for launch on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) during carrier qualification integration. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Tyler Caswell/Released)

An F-1 Rafale, assigned to the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, launches from the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) during carrier qualification integration.  (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Tyler Caswell/Released)

Fighting ISIS and al Qaeda: Choosing Poor Allies Is Not Helpful

Warfare is never pretty, but it gets downright ugly when you have poor allies who cannot be relied on to fulfill the roles assigned to them. Case in point is this report from the WAPO, which actually has a misleading headline, U.S.-backed Syria rebels routed by fighters linked to al-Qaeda, because, in addition to being "routed," many of them shifted allegiance:

The Obama administration’s Syria strategy suffered a major setback Sunday after fighters linked to al-Qaeda routed U.S.-backed rebels from their main northern strongholds, capturing significant quantities of weaponry, triggering widespread defections and ending hopes that Washington will readily find Syrian partners in its war against the Islamic State.

Moderate rebels who had been armed and trained by the United States either surrendered or defected to the extremists as the Jabhat al-Nusra group, affiliated with al-Qaeda, swept through the towns and villages the moderates controlled in the northern province of Idlib, in what appeared to be a concerted push to vanquish the moderate Free Syrian Army, according to rebel commanders, activists and analysts.
(emphasis added)

Given the long history of rapidly changing alliances in the region this result probably shouldn't be exactly - you know - shocking. However, it does point out - once again - the problem of first world thinking meeting third world tribal and cultural standards head on.

These "allies" are fighting for what, exactly?

It certainly isn't for the glory of Syria or mom and apple pie.

Motivation being what it is and given that Mao's precept that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," applies to tribal and religious struggles in the Middle East as well as to communist insurgencies, these former and current allies basically are fighting for power and profit, while the other side seeks to replace the status quo ante with themselves, asserting that "God is on our side!" as they gather up power, profit and young maidens to debauch or sell into slavery. Seems to be a pretty good recruiting tool when coupled with the chance to fight the "Great Satan" and its minions.

In the long run, our side offers  . . . what exactly again?

Why would any rational player in this "game" choose to align with the force holding the weak hand and with a reputation for abandoning the field when the going gets tough?

If the U.S. and its allies are serious about doing something about Syria and ISIS, AQ and its ally the "Al Nusrah Front," then they had better gear up for the game and quit pussy-footing around trying to bend other people into doing the hard work.

They also better develop a plan that tells putative allies what the mess will look like (as in what's in it for them) when the fighting is over. Without that clear vision to sell, well, you are pushing vapor and pipe dreams of  "kumbaya" singing around the campfire holding hands and sharing flower petals.

Lesson #1 out of our involvement in the Middle East in the last 30+ years ought to be that you have to earn respect and then you have to work hard to keep it. Playing around at the margins probably isn't the path that leads to that result.

Keep up with lots more in the "long war" by reading The Long War Journal.

Oh, yeah, those guys in the video are not Crusaders. In case you were wondering.

Fighting ISIS: "The enemy of my enemy . . ."

The "unifying" factor of getting pounded from the air

If politics makes for strange bedfellows, getting pounded in a war can unite entities with those fighting their common enemies.

This point is made again in this Long War Journal article Pro-al Qaeda ideologues propose truce between Islamic State, rivals:

The Islamic State, headed by Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, has been warring with the Al Nusrah Front, al Qaeda's official branch in Syria, and other jihadist organizations since last year. Some of the signatories were involved in previous efforts to reconcile the Islamic State with its rivals. Those efforts failed, but the jihadist ideologues are trying once again.

"We call on all factions in Syria and Iraq to cease fighting among themselves no later than the evening of [Oct 3, 2014], for perhaps Allah most high will descend his mercies upon Syria and its people in the prayer of Muslim crowds on that great day," the proposal reads.

The document continues: "And we request from all the factions that they announce their position regarding this initiative in their manner in three days from the date of the publication of this statement, so that it can be made known and clear who rejects this blessed initiative."

The authors argue that "forty countries have united and gathered together to wage war against" Islam itself. They ask: "[S]o does our loyalty to Islam and its people not require of us to stop the infighting under the bombardment of this Crusader campaign at the very least if a permanent [final] end to it is not possible?"

Sort of like "united we stand, divided we fall," isn't it?

It would simplify the problems of all the factions if they could focus on their common enemy without having worry about each other.

Probably doesn't matter all that much to the forces fighting these jihadists. I suppose, if their organizations matter so much, it is truly appropriate to use the alleged old Crusader phrase (reportedly spoken during a Christian -um- sect battle): "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

You might note that this phrase has been suggested as being the official White House strategy in Syria:

The new plan seems to be: “Kill’em all and let God sort them out,” a Vietnam-era slogan echoing the original from the Middle Ages.

The real problem is that the White House’s strategy looks like it’s being run by two angry women, Susan Rice and UN ambassador Samantha Power. Neither they nor President Barack Obama seems to have any grasp of military or geopolitical strategy. It’s amateur hour driven by a frenzy of alarmist hysteria from politicians and the media.

Well, I wouldn't exactly call it a strategy, but united or not, there are reasons to not wish any of these jihadists groups well.

Another leg of the attack on ISIS is to cut their funding, and at least one source suggests that the bombing is helping in that effort:

U.S. airstrikes in Syria targeting oil refineries controlled by the Islamic State group are cutting heavily into the group’s profits, which at one point were, on average, between $2 million and $3 million a day, analysts say.

“It is crippling for ISIS,” Luay al-Khatteeb, director of the Iraq Energy Institute, said of the destruction of oil refineries. After more than a week of U.S. and coalition bombings targeting the Sunni militant group in Syria, “profits [for ISIS] are out of the equation." The group’s profits are now in the thousands rather than millions of dollars per day . . .

Yes, but you only bomb the refineries once. It is the other behind the back funding that needed to be totally quashed. More on this funding issue here:

Learning from their previous incarnation as the Islamic State of Iraq, when they received money from foreign fighters, Islamic State has almost weaned itself off private funds from sympathetic individual donors in the Gulf. Such money flows have come under increased scrutiny from the U.S. Treasury.

Instead the group has formalized a system of internal financing that includes an Islamic form of taxation, looting and most significantly, oil sales, to run their 'state' effectively.

This suggests it will be harder to cut the group's access to the local funding that is fuelling its control of territory and strengthening its threat to the Middle East and the West.
***
Nevertheless, financing from Gulf donors may prove more critical in months to come, if U.S. President Barack Obama's mission to "degrade and destroy" the group succeeds and the group loses territory and finds itself looking abroad for funds.
***
In the end, squeezing the group's finances will involve a mixture of intelligence and force. Ending the group's control of a given area using military might would remove its ability to raise local taxes, for example. Tracking smuggling routes or Gulf donors, in contrast, would involve local informants.

The article references kidnapping and ransom and other criminal activity . . . but an "Islamic form of taxation?" This site discusses the concept of "zakat" - a tax structure allowed by Islam:

As far as the various rates of zakat are concerned, three distinct categories can be classified:

1. Wealth: After deducting the nisaab and taking into consideration other exemptions mentioned above, the wealth of a person, shall be taxed annually at the rate of 2%. Tax on trade capital shall also be levied at the same rate by considering this capital to be the sum of cash in hand and cash in trade.

2. Produce: Zakat on produce is deducted at the time of produce and depending upon the various items has three rates: 5%; 10%; 20%

i) 5%: On items which are produced by the interaction of both labour and capital: eg. produce from irrigated lands and industrial produce from factories7.

ii) 10%: On items which are produced such that the major factor in producing them is either labour or capital, but not both. Examples of the former include an artist’s creation like paintings and the works of scholars and intellectuals, while examples of the latter include rented houses, and produce from rainy lands.

iii) 20%: On items which are produced neither as a result of labour nor capital but are actually a gift of God, eg treasure etc.

3. Animals: Only those animals which are bred and reared for the purpose of trade and business are subject to zakat. The details of the rates of zakat on animals can be consulted from any book of fiqh.

At some point even turnips run dry, so "local" taxes seem to be a short-term solution.

Fighting ISIS: The Enemy Gets a Vote

USAF Photo by Staff Sgt. Vernon Young Jr.

Gonna fight a war solely from the air? Well, the enemy you fight will adapt to your limitations, as noted in this Bloomberg article, "Islamic State Dispersing Makes U.S Adapt Targets" by which "adapt targets" means it's harder to find and kill them:

Islamic State terrorists are dispersing and changing tactics to make it harder for U.S. airstrikes to target them, the Pentagon’s spokesman said.

“Yes, they’re blending in more” with the population and “yes, they’re dispersing, and yes, they aren’t communicating quite as openly or as boldly as they once were,” Rear Admiral John Kirby told reporters yesterday at the Pentagon. “That’s a good thing, because if they aren’t operating as freely, then they aren’t as free to achieve their goals.”

The U.S. is “pretty adaptive,” too, and will be patient in choosing targets, in part to minimize civilian casualties, he said. ***

"Pretty adaptive" ain't going to cut it - the OODA loop is getting away from us because of self-imposed limitations on engagement. Being a "one trick pony" makes it easier on the enemy who gets a vote on how to respond to your threat.

If we are going to "beat" these guys, we need to hear the sound of boots on the ground and see the ISIS logistics flow of people, money and weapons disrupted big time.