Investigating U.S. Based Islamic Charities

Posted on December 29, 2014December 29, 2014 by Denise Simon

The most famous case was the Holyland Foundation Trial where millions of dollars from the United States found the pockets of global terrorists. Not much came of this in total due in part to Eric Holder. It is imperative that readers trace money and people domestically as it still goes on. Here is a link to use as a launch pad for continues whistleblowing.

Meanwhile, it appears that the UK is beginning to do some good work in investigating charities and it is likely the same thing occurs in America. These people and charities in America have tax exempt status from the IRS.

Charity Commission: British charities investigated for terror risks

William Shawcross, the chair of the Charity Commission, warns that money donated by the British public may already have been sent to Islamic State fighters, as the watchdog opens cases on 86 aid groups at risk from extremists

By Tim Ross, Robert Mendick, and Andrew Gilligan

The government’s charity watchdog has launched a series of formal investigations into British aid organisations, amid concerns that they are at risk of being hijacked by terrorists in Syria and Iraq.

The head of the Charity Commission told The Telegraph he fears that groups distributing money and supplies donated by the public in Britain could be exploited by Islamists to smuggle cash, equipment and fighters to terrorists on the front line.

The regulator has begun scrutinising 86 British charities which it believes could be at risk from extremism, including 37 working to help victims of the Syria crisis, according to new figures released today.

It has launched full-scale investigations into four charities operating in the region, including the group that employed the murdered hostage Alan Henning when he was kidnapped, and another organisation allegedly infiltrated by a suicide bomber.

The number of terrorism-related cases that the regulator is examining has almost doubled since February, amid growing concerns that charities working in the region are potential targets for the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil, also known as Islamic State, and Isis).

William Shawcross, the chair of the Commission, said there was “a risk” that money donated by the British public had already been sent to Isil fighters, who have beheaded two British hostages, among many other victims, and are holding a third.

“It is absolutely terrifying to see these young British men going out to be trained in Syria and coming back here,” Mr Shawcross said.

“Most of them are not going out under the auspices of charities but, when that happens, it is absolutely our duty to come down on it.

“Even if extremist and terrorist abuse is rare, which it is, when it happens it does huge damage to public trust in charities. That’s why I take it very seriously.”

The warning comes at a critical time for global efforts to stem the flow of money to terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

The Telegraph’s Stop the Funding of Terror campaign, which has won wide support in Parliament, the military and overseas, is calling for action to cut off terrorist finance.

The Commission, which regulates charities in England and Wales, has worked with the government of Qatar as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, among others, to strengthen their systems for regulating charitable groups.

However, despite these efforts, funded by British taxpayers, America warned earlier this month that Qatar and Kuwait remain “permissive” regimes in which terrorist financiers are able to operate.

Analysts fear that millions of dollars in so-called charitable donations raised inside Qatar and Kuwait have been used to buy weapons and supplies for jihadists in Iraq and Syria. In other developments this weekend:

:: The brother of David Haines, the British hostage executed by his captors, has made an impassioned plea to Gulf States to strangle the funding to terror groups operating in Syria and Iraq. Michael Haines told The Telegraph: “We have to attack their finances. We need to fight them on every front that we can find. We have to destroy them.”

:: It has emerged that the cousin of Qatar’s foreign minister has been convicted of funding international terrorism. Abdulaziz bin Khalifa al-Attiyah was found guilty in absentia by a Lebanese court for channelling financial support to al-Qaeda.

:: Lord Lamont, the former chancellor, praised the Telegraph in Parliament for “highlighting the movement of funds to terrorist groups in the Middle East” as he pressed ministers to raise the issue with Gulf rulers.

:: Foreign Office Minister Baroness Anelay promised that Britain was having “robust” talks with Qatar and other Gulf states as she called for “much greater progress” to stop terror financing. The minister revealed that Isil gets most of its money from selling oil, extortion, and hostage ransoms, as well as from foreign donations.

:: The government is facing new questions over the “extraordinary” inconsistencies in British action against terrorist financiers, after it emerged that terrorists whose assets have been frozen under Treasury sanctions may not be banned from travelling to the UK. Stephen Barclay, a Conservative MP, called on his own party leadership to “spell out” why Britain has a different sanctions regime against Qatari terror financiers from America, the UK’s closest intelligence ally.

Last Wednesday, David Cameron raised concerns that the wealthy Gulf state of Qatar had failed to act against rich Qatar-based fundraisers and “charities” that have sent millions of dollars to jihadists fighting in Iraq and Syria.

During a private, one-to-one discussion with Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the Emir of Qatar, the Prime Minister urged the Gulf ruler to accelerate efforts to tackle terrorist financiers operating within the country.

Sources said the issue was also raised during a formal lunch in Number 10, which was also attended by Mr Cameron’s chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, his national security adviser Sir Kim Darroch, and the Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond.

In Britain, the Charity Commission had already taken action against charities linked to extremists, with the most serious cases going to court as part of terrorism prosecutions.

Speaking to The Telegraph, Mr Shawcross said the regulator was stepping up its assault on the abuse of charitable funds by terrorists, as well as other kinds of malpractice including fraud, mismanagement, and mistreatment of vulnerable adults and children.

An extra £8 million has been given to the watchdog, along with planned new powers, to enhance its ability to tackle abuse of charities by Islamists and others, he said.

However, he warned that it was “often very difficult” to ensure that aid and money sent to war zones to help the victims of violence does not end up in the wrong hands.

“Of course there is a risk [that funds raised here in Britain have been transported to Isil jihadists in Iraq and Syria].

“If we find any evidence of it happening through charities we will pursue it robustly in conjunction with the police and other law enforcement agencies.”

He said he was particularly concerned about the large number of small, new charities that have been set up to raise money to help victims of the Syrian crisis, while “aid convoys” delivering supplies to the region were especially vulnerable.

“I think there are 500 British charities that say they operate in Syria in one form or another and 200 of them have been registered since the conflict there began. Some of them are inexperienced and obviously more vulnerable to exploitation than bigger more established charities, the household names.”

Mr Shawcross said the regulator was concerned that “there may not be adequate controls as to where the goods and supplies were being delivered” from the aid convoys. He insisted that “most Muslim charities are run by good people”, many of whom are “more horrified than anybody else by abuse of charities by Islamists”.

Mr Shawcross insisted that “most Muslim charities are run by good people”, many of whom are “more horrified than anybody else by abuse of charities by Islamists”.

“Charities can be abused, people working along the Syrian border can be abused, for Islamist or extremist purposes, there is no question about that – sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly,” he said.

New figures from the Commission show there are 86 case files currently open in which officials are reviewing the operations of charities, at least in part because there are fears that they operate in countries – or for particular causes – which could be targeted by extremists or terrorists.

The regulator’s figures showed that 37 of these 86 charities under scrutiny were working in Syria, by raising money in Britain, sending humanitarian supplies, or participating directly in aid convoys to the worst hit areas.

This workload has increased significantly since February, when the Commission was working on 48 extremism-related cases, about 10 of which involved charities that focused on Syria.

Full “statutory inquiries“ – the Commission’s most serious kind of formal investigation – have begun into four British charities operating in Syria, including the Al-Fatiha Global organisation, which the beheaded hostage Alan Henning was working with when he was kidnapped.

The others are Children in Deen, Aid Convoy and Syria Aid. All four investigations are still “live”, while dozens of other charities are being monitored or scrutinised by the Commission because they are operating in Syria or raising funds for the region in Britain.

Mr Henning was driving an ambulance on behalf of Rochdale Aid 4 Syria, which raised money on behalf of Al-Fatiha Global. He was part of a convoy of 20 vehicles making the 4,000-mile journey to Idlib in north-west Syria when he was kidnapped on Boxing Day last year.

The Charity Commission launched its investigation after one of Al-Fatiha’s leaders was photographed with his arms around two hooded fighters carrying machine guns. A trustee of the charity has challenged the commission’s decision to launch the inquiry.

The investigation into Children in Deen began in April after it emerged that a participant in the Birmingham charity’s aid convoy last year, Abdul Waheed Majeed, had allegedly become Britain’s first suicide bomber in Syria.

Majeed, 41, killed dozens of civilians when he drove a truck full of explosives into the wall of Aleppo prison, enabling hundreds of prisoners to escape.

Last year, the Commission began formal inquiries into Aid Convoy, and Syria Aid, over concerns about the way their funds were being used once inside Syria.

The watchdog issued a formal warning against aid convoys to Syria and urged members of the public to donate to the larger aid agencies and major international charities to minimise the risk that their money will be stolen by extremists.

Masood Ajaib, a trustee of Children in Deen, condemned the actions of Majeed and completely dissociated himself and the charity from any links to violence. He said the commission’s investigation had already hit fundraising and made its operations more difficult.

“We had nothing to do with this and do not support violence,” he said. “All we want to do is help the women and children affected by the biggest humanitarian disaster we have seen for generations.”

Sequestration of the IRS

Posted on December 18, 2014December 18, 2014 by Denise Simon

Conservatives are angry that the more than $1 trillion CRomnibus legislation recently passed. There are many good reasons for that, however, there are some tactical methods underway as a result of the legislation most of all the Internal Revenue Service.

Since the IRS targeting program broke, certain measures have been taken most of which includes lawsuits to gain access to the no longer missing emails and communications of those colluding against conservative organizations.

Inside the CRomnibus was a deep cut to the IRS budget. Yippee, or not so fast. These conditions may delay income tax returns processing and the same applies to refunds.

The War On The IRS: Congress Cuts Its Funding To Lowest Level Since 1998

House GOP Appropriators bragged that this year’s IRS budget is the lowest since 2008. But it is actually worse than that. In inflation adjusted dollars, the agency’s funding is lower than it has been since 1998, when Buffy was still slaying vampires and people were listening to Aerosmith before it was nostalgic.

For context, in 1998, taxpayers filed about 125 million individual returns. Last year, the agency had to process 145 million.

Technology has made some of that work easier—more than 90 percent of individual returns are now filed electronically, vastly reducing the amount of work for IRS staffers. But technology has also forced the agency to respond to growing numbers of hackers and identity thieves.

And while processing returns may be easier, taxpayers must sort through increasingly complex rules—most as result of laws passed by the same Congress that cuts the IRS budget. The agency ought to be providing more assistance and education to help them but, thanks to those budget reductions, it is providing less.

According to the Government Accountability Office, IRS has cut staff by 9 percent since 2009. Examinations of business returns dropped from 50 percent to one-third. In 2014, callers waited twice as long for an IRS response than they did in 2009, and fewer said they received service. The IRS has cut training costs by more than 80 percent. The agency estimates its audit rate for partnerships and other pass-through business–where fraud and error are rampant– was 0.5 percent in 2011.

Now the IRS faces the unenviable task of trying to track who has health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and calculate penalties for those who do not. Worse, it must sort out whether people received the right subsidies, and, if they did not, it must correct them.

Many tax administration experts have long feared the agency will be unable to get this right. And lower funding will make the task even more difficult. That, of course, is exactly what many anti-ACA lawmakers have in mind.

The IRS Commissioner is telegraphing a warning about the IRS. A possible shutdown is forecasted. Then a hiring freeze has been invoked.

“Our hiring — already limited at a ratio of one hire for every five people who leave — will be frozen with only a few mission-critical exceptions,” he wrote in an email to employees. “We will stop overtime except in critical situations.”

But there’s potentially more to come, as IRS leadership decides what else to cut over the next nine months of the fiscal 2015 budget, he warned. Koskinen also said IRS leadership is “consulting with the leadership of the NTEU” — referring to the National Treasury Employees Union, meaning the cuts in some way could affect employees.

CyberWar on America Costs Close to a $Trillion

Posted on December 18, 2014December 18, 2014 by Denise Simon

It is not just North Korea, the cyber warriors are also in Ukraine, China, Syria, Russian and Iran. America has some defenses, but normal users and the business industry has few robust and intolerant choices against cyber attacks.

We need to challenge Congress to declare cyber attacks as an act of war given the heavy costs to theft, risk and attacks on harden targets including the power grid systems, transportation, food, banks, water, yet most of all intelligence and military secrets.

The most recent attack on Sony intranet system is pointing to North Korea as having the cyber-soldiers and that brigade is called Unit 121.

Defense News: Military planners and security experts have intensified their shouts of concern about the development of cyber weapons and the distinct possibility of a cyber war. Cyber warfare is not new. It has been in modern military doctrine for the past decade not to mention the number of terrorist groups who have threatened the use of cyber weapons against the west. However, what has changed is the number of countries that posess these capabilities today.
The North Korean military created a new unit that focuses solely on cyber warfare. The unit, dubbed Unit 121, was first created in 1998 and has steadily grown in size and capability since then. Interest in establishing cyber war forces shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, but North Koreas intense effort stands out among the top ten nations developing cyber weapons.
Unit 121 Capabilities Assessment:
Force Size: Originally 1,000 — Current Estimate:17,000
Budget: Total military budget $6 billion USD. Cyber Budget $70+ million. North Koreas military budget is estimated to be the 25th largest in the world.
Goal: To increase their military standing by advancing their asymmetric and cyber warfare.
Ambition: To dominate their enemys information infrastructure, create social unrest and inflict monetary damage.
Strategy: Integrate their cyber forces into an overall battle strategy as part of a combined arms campaign. Additionally they wish to use cyber weapons as a limited non-war time method to project their power and influence.
Experience: Hacked into the South Korea and caused substantial damage; hacked into the U.S. Defense Department Systems.
Threat Rating: North Korea is ranked 8th on the Spy-Ops cyber capabilities threat matrix developed in August of 2007.
Capabilities
Cyber Intelligence/Espionage: Basic to moderately advanced
weapons with significant ongoing development into cyber intelligence.
Offensive Cyber Weapons: Moderately advanced distributed
denial of service (DDoS) capabilities with moderate virus and malicious code capabilities.
North Korea now has the technical capability to construct and deploy an array of cyber weapons as well as battery-driven EMP (electro magnetic pulse) devices that could disrupt electronics and computers at a limited range.
In the late spring of 2007, North Korea conducted another test of one of the cyber weapons in their current arsenal. In October, the North Koreans tested its first logic bomb. A logic bomb is a computer program that contains a piece of malicious code that is designed to execute or be triggered should certain events occur or at a predetermined point of time. Once triggered, the logic bomb can take the computer down, delete data of trigger a denial of service attack by generating bogus transactions.
For example, a programmer might write some software for his employer that includes a logic bomb to disable the software if his contract is terminated.
The N Korean test led to a UN Security Council resolution banning sales of mainframe computers and laptop PCs to the East Asian nation. The action of the United Nations has had little impact and has not deterred the North Korean military for continuing their cyber weapons development program.
Keeping dangerous cyber weapons out of the hands of terrorists or outlaw regimes is next to impossible. As far back as 2002, White House technology adviser Richard Clarke told a congressional panel that North Korea, Iraq and Iran were training people for internet warfare. Most information security experts believe that it is just a matter of time before the world sees a significant cyber attack targeted at one specific country. Many suggest the danger posed by cyber weapons rank along side of nuclear weapons, but without the physical damage. The signs are there. We need to take action and prepare for the impact of a cyber war.

North Korea’s Elite Hackers Who Live Like Stars In Luxury Hotel

Unit 121 is known to have two distinct functions: to carry out disruptive attacks against systems primarily in the United States and South Korea, both for purposes of sabotage and intelligence gathering, and to defend North Korea from incoming cyber attacks.

North Korea, however, has very little internet infrastructure, which analysts say actually gives the country an advantage. While North Korea can launch massive attacks against the West — the Sony attack being just the latest — outside nations can do little to damage North Korea’s own internal digital systems because they largely don’t exist.

Inside North Korea, use of the internet is strictly limited to government approved personnel. Ordinary citizens may utilize only an intranet run by Kim Jong Un regime, which allows access to government approved sites and state-operated media, but no access to what the rest of the world knows as the internet and the World Wide Web.

Instead, according to a report prepared in 2009 by a U.S. military intelligence analyst, Steve Sin, the Unit 121 hackers operate mostly from the luxurious Chilbosan in Shenyang, China, pictured below, a facility with amenities that would be unknown to all but the top level government elites inside North Korea, an impoverished country racked by famine.

The hotel is located in a military-controlled region of China just three hours from the border with North Korea. The central headquarters of Unit 121 is located in Pyongyang, in a district called Moonshin-dong, near the Taedong River

In fact, by North Korean standards, the cyber hackers of Unit 121 (also referred to as “Bureau 121″) are treated like superstars, afforded high-class lifestyles inconceivable to the vast majority of North Korean citizens.

In addition to Sin’s report, the Hewlett-Packard corporation conducted its own investigation into the threat posed by Unit 121 — which was created in 1998 and operates with a budget of more than $6 billion. Much of the information known about the highly-secretive unit comes from those reports, and from North Korean defectors who have passed information to U.S. and South Korean intelligence.

According to those accounts, the hackers who comprise the unit are the cream of North Korea’s academic crop in math and computer science, hand-picked from high schools around the country, who are then sent to study at Keumseong, the top high school in the North Korea capital of Pyongyang.

From there, the candidates who pass a rigorous series of tests and trials are sent to study at top universities — and then sent to Russia and China for an additional year of specialized training in computer hacking and cyberwar techniques.

Unit 121 is believed responsible for an attack on 30,000 computers inside South Korean banks and media companies in 2013, an attack that security experts say bore strong similarities to the Sony hack.

Against South Korea, North Korea allegedly has already carried out a series of disruptive and destructive operations in the past few years. Discounting previous distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks on websites, the first major cyber-attack attributed to North Korea was on April 12, 2011, which paralyzed online banking and credit card services of Nonghyup Agricultural Bank for its 30 million customers. This is the first instance where North Korea used a disc wiping tool. While its ATMs were fixed within a couple days, some of the online services had taken more than two weeks to return to normal operating status, with 273 out of 587 servers destroyed. The second incident occurred in March 20, 2013, which used similar but improved tactics from April 2011. It was timed to simultaneously target multiple banks and broadcasting agencies with disc wiping tools and was preceded by an extensive advanced persistent threat campaign. The scale of the March 20 attack demonstrated that North Korea has at least one dedicated, permanent cyber unit directed against carefully selected targets and that they have the means to penetrate, exploit, and disrupt target systems and networks with sufficient secrecy.

Taliban vs. Taliban or Not

Posted on December 17, 2014December 17, 2014 by Denise Simon

The War on Terror is left to the home countries to fight for themselves as the White House has ordered the footprint lifted from the region, leaving behind residual forces for training and oversight. So, in desperation, Pakistan is collaborating with Afghanistan on what to do now after the devastating bloody and deadly attack on a school.

Why does Afghanistan and Pakistan matter to the West? Be reminded that the attack on America on 9/11 was planned and funded in Afghanistan and the Taliban gave safe haven to al Qaeda on both sides of the border.

The WSJ writes: Pakistan’s army chief, Gen. Raheel Sharif, flew to Kabul on a surprise visit Wednesday to discuss ways to combat the Taliban, reaching out a day after the massacre of schoolchildren in the Pakistani city of Peshawar.

Gen. Sharif, who was accompanied by the head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence, is expected to discuss Islamabad’s security concerns with Afghan and U.S. officials in the aftermath of the attack that killed at least 148 people, including 132 children.

The Pakistani Taliban, some of whose leaders are based on Afghan soil, claimed responsibility for Tuesday’s attack, saying it was in retaliation against the Pakistani military’s operation against militants in the border area of North Waziristan.

The Pakistani Taliban use sanctuaries on both sides of the porous Afghan-Pakistan border, with the group’s leader, Mullah Fazlullah, operating out of Afghanistan’s Kunar and Nuristan provinces, according to Pakistani and Western diplomats.

Islamabad has previously accused elements of Afghanistan’s security establishment of using the Pakistani Taliban as proxies. Kabul has denied this allegation, and in turn has long accused Pakistan of harboring the separate Afghan Taliban insurgents and the Haqqani network. The U.S. has also criticized Pakistan and the ISI spy agency for their ties to the Afghan insurgents.

According to the Pakistani military, Gen. Sharif and ISI chief Lt. Gen. Rizwan Akhtar plan to meet Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and the head of the U.S.-led coalition forces in Afghanistan, U.S. Army Gen. John Campbell.

In these meetings, Gen. Sharif is expected to press Afghanistan to hand over Mullah Fazlullah, a long-standing Pakistani demand.

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, speaking at a meeting of political leaders in Peshawar on Wednesday, said that Pakistan and Afghanistan had agreed that their soils wouldn’t be used for actions against each other.

“This resolve should be acted upon,” said Prime Minister Sharif. “An operation is needed against those terrorist elements on that [Afghan] side. We are already doing an operation here.”

Since he came to office in September, President Ghani has sought to improve Afghanistan’s ties with Pakistan. During the Afghan leader’s visit to Islamabad last month, Prime Minister Sharif said he would support Afghanistan’s efforts to reach out to the Afghan Taliban, raising hope that Afghanistan’s stalled peace process could be revived.

The Afghan Taliban use Pakistan’s border regions as staging areas for attacks in Afghanistan, and U.S. and Afghan officials say the insurgent movement receives material support from Pakistan’s military establishment. Islamabad has repeatedly rejected these accusations.

In the aftermath of Tuesday’s attack, however, the alleged connections between Afghanistan and the Pakistani Taliban risk reigniting tensions between the two neighbors, and set back Mr. Ghani’s efforts to start peace talks.

Shoes lie in blood on the auditorium floor on Wednesday at the Army Public School in Peshawar, which was attacked by Taliban gunmen a day earlier. Fayaz Aziz/Reuters

The Pakistani military’s spokesman, Maj. Gen. Asim Bajwa, said that after the North Waziristan operation was launched by Pakistan in June, “hardly any action” was taken in response on the Afghan side of the border.

However, the situation has changed since the new Afghan government took over, he said. “We are hoping that there will be a very strong action, a corresponding action from Afghanistan’s side, from across the border in the coming days,” he said.

Earlier this month, U.S. forces handed over the Pakistani Taliban’s former No. 2, Latif Mehsud, to Pakistani authorities, a move that indicated improved cooperation between Washington and Islamabad.

U.S. forces captured Mr. Mehsud last year while he was with Afghan officials, an episode Islamabad saw as evidence that Afghanistan was supporting the Pakistani Taliban.

The U.S. military had kept Mr. Mehsud in custody in the sprawling base of Bagram Air Field, where the coalition recently ceased operating its detention center.

***

So one must also understand that both Taliban factions are highly connected.

Textbook terrorism in Peshawar

Pakistan’s darkest hour as Taliban kill more than 100 students in school attack

ISLAMABAD – As of this article’s publication, at least 100 children have been killed in an attack on the Army Public School in Peshawar, Pakistan. Five hundred students were held hostage before the army broke the siege. In total, 135 people have been killed so far. The Pakistani Taliban have taken responsibility for the massacre.

It truly is a Black Day for Pakistan, and it comes just days after Malala Yousafzai’s crowning as the youngest ever Nobel Prize winner.

The timing is not a coincidence. The Taliban’s abhorrence for education, especially girls’ education, is well known.

The attack on the school has a dual purpose. It should be understood as a message to those who value education and hold Malala as an icon. Secondly, and more importantly, the attack is retaliation against the Pakistani army. The Taliban have killed two birds with one stone.

The attack should be condemned for what it is: textbook terrorism. The word textbook is not used as a pun, for it is far more serious than that. The Taliban are targeting innocent civilians and, in this case, the most vulnerable members of society, in order to get back at the Pakistani state for its increasingly, albeit still limited, anti-Taliban policies. Holding civilians hostage for political ends is the very definition of terrorism — and the Taliban have shown over the last 10 years how adept they are in using this strategy, with thousands of Pakistanis dead in the wake of their relentless bloodletting.

Holding civilians hostage for political ends is the very definition of terrorism

The message for Pakistani society is ominous, and it has been since the Taliban insurgency inside Pakistan began, right after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. Many ignored the danger despite the overwhelming evidence. With one intellectual stunt or another, the blame was shifted to some kind of outside conspiracy.

However, even the Pakistani army, the mother of all the Jihadi groups inside the country, realized a few years ago that the Taliban now pose a mortal threat to the country. The army’s doctrine has, somewhat, shifted from its hyper-focus on India to the internal challenge of the Taliban.

The Taliban have gained this much strength thanks to the army’s policy of allowing them to gather and recuperate in North and South Waziristan

The Taliban have gained this much strength thanks to the army’s policy of allowing them to gather and recuperate in North and South Waziristan, with the goal of eventually using them as a bargaining chip not only against the U.S. but also to do Pakistan’s bidding in the Afghan endgame. Now out of hand, battling the Taliban was always going to be a bloody affair. They are a dedicated force, capable of challenging the country’s army. Certainly, they are more than capable of making the people of Pakistan bleed.

What has also not helped is the army’s policy of ‘good vs. bad Taliban.’ The good Taliban are those who do the dirty work for Pakistan in Afghanistan (and in the rest of the Pakistani provinces for the dominant Punjab province) without ever turning the guns against the Pakistani state. The bad Taliban, on the other hand, are those who have gone rogue. Until this day, the Pakistani army maintains this dual policy. Only a few years ago, General Hamid Gul, former head of the Pakistani intelligence, defended this policy and said that the Taliban are the future in Afghanistan. Due to this, it is impossible to dismantle the entire ideological and material infrastructure of Jihad in Pakistan. Under such conditions, both the good and the bad Taliban continue to flourish since, at the end of the day, the difference between the two is minimal.

Added to this is the civil government’s policy of appeasing the militants with so-called peace talks. The government always approached these talks from a position of weakness, and after each and every round of negotiations the Taliban only gained further strength. Inviting the Taliban to the negotiating table also meant validating their demands and treating them as a legitimate stakeholder in the affairs of the country.

We have arrived at this day due to the myopic and self-serving policies of the civilian government and the Pakistani army. To even begin to right the wrongs of the past, Pakistan has to come to a consensus that the Taliban, whether ‘friendly’ or otherwise, are an existential threat to the very fabric of this society. Jihadism inside Pakistan cannot be blamed on any outside forces. Doing so would be at Pakistan’s own peril.

Inertia and inaction aside, even when the state does try to combat the Taliban, it does so in ways that unnecessarily backfire. For example, the army uses scorched-earth tactics of warfare and inflicts collective punishment on entire tribes in its operations in Waziristan. When millions of refugees are created in the aftermath of military operations, their rehabilitation is not done by the state but by the charity wings of different Jihadi organizations, who find recruits in the refugee ranks.

The Taliban have claimed that the Peshawar school attack was meant as a lesson for Pakistan: “We targeted school because army targets our families. We want them to feel our pain.” But the Taliban claim should be taken with a pinch of salt since their barbarism knows no principles. Certainly, their mission had an ideological bent to it since they asked the students to recite the Kalma (the Muslim declaration of allegiance to the faith) before shooting them.

Who is to say that a less heavy-handed method of dealing with the Taliban could have prevented this heinous act of revenge? When dealt with using peaceful methods, the Taliban have acted no different. Pakistan should not bow to the threats of terrorists.

Pakistan should not bow to the threats of terrorists.

The best hope is that this attack will finally convince the country’s leadership that meaningful, concentrated, and long-term action needs to be taken across the board.

One thing is evident: the Taliban have a coherent policy for dealing with Pakistan and its people. Pakistan should form one for dealing with the Taliban before it is too late.

Jahanzeb Hussain is Ricochet’s South Asian Bureau Chief, based in Islamabad, Pakistan.

The Last General(s) who Wanted to Win a War?

Posted on December 15, 2014December 15, 2014 by Denise Simon

Were General(s) Patton and McArthur the last two generals that wanted to win a war? Patton wanted to move forward and take out the Soviets, his command was taken away. Then McArthur wanted to win in the Pacific and Truman refused to listen, so McArthur wrote a letter to a congressman who read it on the House floor, he was fired…Old soldiers never die, they just fade away…

Does the West want to win a war or just the hearts and mind of the enemy?

A skyward look at the world and macro view of the enemy tells global leaders the enemy has prevailed and is in fact emboldened. As 2014 was to close military operation in Afghanistan, such is not the case, as more U.S. troops are being deployed and their operations have expanded until the end of 2015.

When there is no will to win even after thirteen plus years, the costs grow such they cannot be fully measured. Barack Obama pulled U.S. troops out of Iraq before the mission was complete and now a rather secret troop expansion is going on there as well. Then there is Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Nigeria and Sudan. The questions are, will the rules of engagement change and what is has been the cost so far and the cost in the future?

WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 (UPI) — The U.S. war in Afghanistan has cost nearly $1 trillion with several hundred billion yet to be spent after the U.S. presence officially ends.

The calculations by the British newspaper Financial Times, citing independent researchers, indicate over 80 percent of the spending came after 2009, when the Obama Administration increased U.S. military presence in Afghanistan.

The cost of the 13-year war, the longest in U.S. history, has never been quantified by the U.S. government. It is officially scheduled to end Dec. 31 with the final withdrawal of NATO combat troops.

Special inspector-general John Sopko, whose agency monitors spending on reconstruction projects in Afghanistan, noted billions of dollars have been wasted on, or stolen from, projects that made little sense.

“We simply cannot lose this amount of money again,” he said. “The American people will not put up with it, noting that, adjusting for inflation, the Afghan war cost the United States more than the Marshall Plan to rebuild Western Europe after World War II.

The funding for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was entirely borrowed, and the United States has paid $260 million in interest, the Financial Times said, citing calculations by Ryan Edwards of the City University of New York. Yet to be paid are the costs of maintaining 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan in non-combat roles, estimated at $56.4 billion, and $836 billion in estimated care for veterans of the two wars.

President Barack Obama will travel to Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J., Monday for a ceremonial thanking of returning troops. “Our war in Afghanistan is coming to a responsible end,” he said in his weekly radio address.

We can always add in the fraud and corruption in war, most recently in Afghanistan. This is reported by Inspector Generals but few in Congress take a pro-active posture to stop it all. Meanwhile, food service is a problem and the most recent sample of fraud, costing us taxpayers.

Two companies — one from Switzerland and the other from the United Arab Emirates — have paid a massive fine to the U.S. government for overcharging for food and water supplied to U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

Supreme Foodservice GmbH, a privately held Swiss company, and Supreme Foodservice FZE, a United Arab Emirates company, entered the plea in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania and paid a fine of $288.6 million, the Justice Department reported.

Supreme Group B.V. and a number of its subsidiaries also agreed to pay an additional $146 million to settle civil lawsuits – including a whistleblower lawsuit in Virginia — involving alleged “false billings to the Department of Defense for fuel and transporting cargo to American soldiers in Afghanistan.”

“These companies chose to commit their fraud in connection with a contract to supply food and water to our nation’s fighting men and women serving in Afghanistan,” said U.S. Attorney Zane David Memeger for the eastern district of Pennsylvania. “That kind of conduct is repugnant, and we will use every available resource to punish such illegal war profiteering.”