The 3.7 Billion Request Tells a Bigger Story

The smartest people are those that have their hands dirty in government and time their respective departures when corruption goes to DEFCON levels. Such was the case with Lois Lerner at the IRS, such was the case with White House spokesperson, Robert Gibbs and such was the case with David Axelrod, a White House advisor. Now such is the case with Kathleen Sebelius.

Either these people and others do have a threshold they wont cross when it comes to fraud, lies and collusion or such fraud, lies and collusion in emerging events was just too big to endure. Either way, it is time to focus on Kathlees Sebilius for the matter of the $3.7 billion supplemental for the alien surge at the our southern border.

She timed her departure knowing full well what was ahead, while it was during her tenure at Heath and Human Services that all tracks leading up to the immigrant incursion was about to break wide open.

Now let’s look deeper. On July 8, 2014, the White House wrote a rather comprehensive letter and support document to John Boehner, Speaker of the House asking for $3.7 in funding a solution to an insurgency of the White House’s own making. The emergence of this issue involving costs under the cover of illegal immigration and covering the costs of shortfalls in other agencies originated back in June. The timing of this is no mistake as it does take time to estimate and coordinate conditions, agencies involvement and the ubiquitous bundling of dollars to pay for other items of which is always detailed for the White House Office of Management and Budget. Enter Sylvia Burwell. She was the Director of the White House OMB from 2012-2013 and now she has officially replaced Sebilius.

Now only does Burwell have a handle on financial and economic needs of major programs but she is well aware that the Congressional Budget Office can no longer predict the financial status of Obamacare due mostly in part to the alterations made by edict and Executive Order by Barack Obama himself. However, it is in fact clear that the numbers of enrollees into Obamacare as well as countless other factors prove that Obamacare is not financially stable now or in the future. This is where the $3.7 billion supplemental of the over $4 billion earmarks billions to Health and Human Services to cover short-falls and not for the medical care of illegals flooding into America.

Here is the White House letter and annexed support documents where the clues reveal themselves. Of note is the money to be allocated to fighting fires.

Further, Barack Obama asked Congress Tuesday and the White House opted not to include legislative language calling on the unaccompanied children to be deported more quickly to their home countries. But officials made clear that their intent is to speed the current turnaround process by increasing money for the immigration courts and putting a priority on recent arrivals.

What is behind this border surge is explained here. Going back as far as 1996, the immigration surge has been discussed where those in Congress have chosen to ignore real solutions for at least 18 years, yet the American taxpayer has been footing the bill for refugee resettlement and private organizations have been receiving grant money to play a large role including the Catholic church, such as we are seeing the same today. For a complete study completed in 2008 on the costs, results and effectiveness of the Refugee Resettlement office under HHS go here. The Government Accountability Office performed an intense summary of 2012 and no one is watching, much less interviewing the local stakeholders on the financial and demographic implications at the local level.

In summary, this new supplemental requested by the White House is not only hiding financial shortfalls of other government agencies, this making this a planned and well executed event, favoritism is also at hand here, so America, don’t be fooled with the rhetoric including those that will be deported and that laws are being enforced.

This is madness of epic proportions, while the larger matter is we are in a national security condition that is reaching the red level of the DEFCON alarm system.

If you don’t think we are at DEFCON and this has been a mission by the Obama administration then consider this.

Asylum Claims under the Obama regime.

Leaked Data Shows 10-Fold Increase In Obama’s Asylum Approvals

By: Neil Munroe

The number of foreigners who successfully filed asylum claims in the United States almost tripled from 2012 to 2013, up to 30,393.

That’s 10 times the number from 2008, when President Barack Obama was elected, and it is evidence his immigration officials are agreeing that many people in the growing wave of Central American migrants face a “credible fear” of harm if they are returned. Official approval allows the migrants to file for asylum in immigration court, where judges will approve or reject the asylum request.

If you came illegally to the U.S. seeking asylum in 2013, you had better than a four-in-five chance of successfully filing an asylum claim. That’s up from a three-in-five chance in 2008.

The migrants include mothers with children, and youths who have been brought north by their parents who are living illegally in the United States. Roughly 240,000 migrants — parents, youths and children — are expected to cross the border by the end of September.

The total includes 57,525 unaccompanied youths and children, from October 2013 to June 30, 2014, according to DHS. Because of a 2008 law, unaccompanied youths from countries other than Mexico and Canada don’t have to pass the “credible fear” hurdle, but can directly file asylum cases in immigration courts.

Legislators urged more care in granting asylum after the media reported that the father of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, successfully applied for asylum in 2002.

The internal federal data from the Department of Homeland Security was provided to The Daily Caller by a source.

It shows that officials endorsed 3,097 asylum requests in the year up to Sept. 30, 2008 — dubbed fiscal year 2008 — to people who said they faced a “credible fear” of persecution if they were repatriated.

Obama took office in January 2009, and officials approved 3,411 “credible fear” approvals in the next 12 months, up to the end of September in 2009.

Officials approved another 6,293 in the next 12 months, and another 9,423 in the next 12 months, ending September 2011.



Blow the Whistle on Qatar

C’mon people it is Qatar, a terrorist financing state and our U.S. Treasury and State Department has confirmed this status.

Several months ago, many members in the Gulf States have declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terror organization, but Qatar is a devout host and supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, the acme of global Islamic factions.

Then there is Hamas which holds the same stellar standing in Qatar as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Taliban.

Israel is the only Middle East ally and it is time for the West to come together and challenge the Qatar, the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas such that this collective opposition would stop the constant conflict between Gaza and Israel.

The United States is complicit in funding Hamas and the Palestinian Authority and some of the facts are presented below.

Only this week did Politco publish a piece that Barack Obama enjoys almost complete favoritism from the Muslim world, while his ratings among Americans is in the 30% range.

Hamas has been at war with Israel for countless years, lobbing rockets from their arsenal of 10,000 into Israel without provocation. The recent kidnapping and deaths of three teens has nothing to do with the latest barrage of aggression, it was only a catalyst laying the false blame on the death of the Palestinian teenager at the hands of Israeli police. One has nothing to do with the other, it is Hamas as directed by Iran and the al Thani dynasty of Qatar.

  • Qatar is a rogue regime without dispute.
  • Israel was forced to release prisoners at the demands of the United States, Israel complied in order to get a seat at the table for the peace talks with the Palestinian Authority. Since the release, Israel has re-arrested at least 600 in part due to their return to Jihad, but it cannot be overlooked that many of those released sought and found a safe-haven in Doha.
  • The terror financing in Qatar is well known as CENTCOM Part 2 is located in Qatar.
  • Qatar has been the host of the Taliban leadership for years as well as Hamas.
  • The release of the Taliban 5 from Gitmo are living large in a Qatari resort.
  • A sample of the al Thani global interests and corruption, the United States and Britain
  • Most disturbing of all is the Qatari investment into Western real estate, universities and into top government officials.
  • Just a few months ago, Barack Obama gave his foreign policy speech at West Point, where curiously a few days later the Taliban 5 were released. While at West Point, a son of the Al Thani regime, happened to graduate West Point that very same weekend, the first Qatari ever to be at West Point.
  • Then there is al Jazeera fully financed by al Thani who supports Hamas. A Democrat Congressman from California even says every Hamas rocket into Israel is a war-crime.
  • Now enter the Clinton clan and their Clinton Foundation, receiving millions upon millions from Qatar while at the same time Qatar funds Hamas.
  • Barack Obama has hosted al Thani at the White House to establish all kinds of interesting agreements.
  • Qatar has been funding the wrong, repeat wrong anti-Assad Syrian factions and Barack Obama has relied on the agenda and funds to handle Syria so Barack Obama does not have to adhere to his ‘red-line threat’.
  • Qatar funding terror factions in video form.
  • Qatar funds mosques globally that enforces Sharia Law.
  • An insight into the fake Qatari Constitution relating to religious freedom.

Finally and in summary…

Treasury official says Qatar sponsors terrorism

March 14, 2014

In the bluntest comments yet by U.S. officials about Qatar’s role in financing international terrorism, Treasury undersecretary David Cohen cited Qatar while speaking about state sponsors of terrorism during remarks to the Center for a New American Security on March 4.

Cohen referred to Qatar immediately after stating that “Iran is not the only state that provides financial support for terrorist organizations.”  Cohen pointed to Qatar’s funding of Hamas and terrorists in Syria as problematic areas.

Previously, Treasury officials have stopped just short of suggesting official state sponsorship by the Qatari monarchy, focusing rather on private fundraisers and donor networks based in Qatar.

Excerpts from Cohen’s speech follow.  Kuwait doesn’t come off too in his remarks either:

…But, distressingly, Iran is not the only state that provides financial support for terrorist organizations.

Most notably, Qatar, a longtime U.S. ally, has for many years openly financed Hamas, a group that continues to undermine regional stability.  Press reports indicate that the Qatari government is also supporting extremist groups operating in Syria.  To say the least, this threatens to aggravate an already volatile situation in a particularly dangerous and unwelcome manner.

With new leadership in Doha, we remain hopeful that Qatar – a country that in other respects has been a constructive partner in countering terrorism – will continue to work closely with us to oppose and combat those who adhere to the warped and murderous ideology of Hamas and al-Qa’ida…

[A] number of fundraisers operating in more permissive jurisdictions – particularly in Kuwait and Qatar – are soliciting donations to fund extremist insurgents, not to meet legitimate humanitarian needs.  The recipients of these funds are often terrorist groups, including al-Qa’ida’s Syrian affiliate, al-Nusrah Front, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), the group formerly known as al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI)…

Constraining this flow of funds is particularly challenging in an era when social media allows anyone with an Internet connection to set himself up as an international terrorist financier.  We see this activity most prominently in Kuwait and Qatar, where fundraisers aggressively solicit donations online from supporters in other countries, notably Saudi Arabia, which have banned unauthorized fundraising campaigns for Syria.

Private fundraising networks in Qatar, for instance, increasingly rely upon social media to solicit donations for terrorists and to communicate with both donors and recipient radicals on the battlefield.  This method has become so lucrative, and Qatar has become such a permissive terrorist financing environment, that several major Qatar-based fundraisers act as local representatives for larger terrorist fundraising networks that are based in Kuwait…

Enter TSA into the Alien Incursion

EXCLUSIVE: TSA Allowing Illegals to Fly Without Verifiable ID, Says Border Patrol Union

By: Brandon Darby

MCALLEN, Texas—Illegal aliens are being allowed to fly on commercial airliners without valid identification, according to the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC). “The aliens who are getting released on their own recognizance are being allowed to board and travel commercial airliners by simply showing their Notice to Appear forms,” NBPC’s Local 2455 Spokesman, Hector Garza, told Breitbart Texas.

“This is not the CBP [Customs and Border Protection] or another federal agency renting or leasing an aircraft, these are the same planes that the American public uses for domestic travel,” said Garza. “This just adds insult to injury. Not only are we releasing unknown illegal aliens onto American streets, but we are allowing them to travel commercially using paperwork that could easily be reproduced or manipulated on any home computer. The Notice to Appear form has no photo, anyone can make one and manipulate one. They do not have any security features, no watermark, nothing. They are simply printed on standard copy paper based on the information the illegal alien says is the truth.”

Spokesman Garza continued, “We do not know who these people are, we often have to solely rely on who they say they are, where they say they came from, and the history they say they have. We know nothing about most of them, ICE releases them into the American public, and now they are boarding aircraft at will with a simple paper document that anyone can easily alter or reproduce themselves.”  Read more here.

Who the hell is in authority and calling the shots? Who should be in authority? There is no end in sight of this alien incursion, we have crossed the threshold into terror, violation of law and the alarms need to be sounded on the threats of national security.

American is in a full blown crisis and Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal spells it out here.

Then it gets worse, this is an asylum refugee agenda so amnesty will not be part of the White House lexicon, but don’t be fooled.

Flood of lawsuits to follow wave of illegal immigrants?

Slow asylum hearing dockets — like those that have already prompted a class action suit on behalf of 40,000 illegal immigrants — are certain to get much worse, experts say. But every interaction between the government and the illegal immigrants pouring in could potentially trigger a cause of action if lawyers can prove the letter of the law was not followed.

Jessica Vaughn, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, said there’s little the White House can do now that the children — most of whom are from Central America —are already here. Under U.S. law, kids from non-contiguous countries cannot be turned back at the border and must be granted deportation hearings.

“If we start sending these kids back to their home countries, there will be lawsuits galore,” said Vaughn. “We’re already seeing suits for conditions and denial of privileges. The sky’s the limit, it could be a nightmare.”

President Obama has asked Congress for $3.7 billion to deal with the border crisis, money that would include tending to the care and legal needs of the illegal aliens. But the courts are already clogged with suits like one from a woman who claims the Border Patrol kept her in a car for eight hours without feeding her and another filed in March by Americans for Immigrant Justice claiming illegal immigrants in the Texas Rio Grande Valley facility were held in brightly lit, cold, cot-less cells.

And earlier this month the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that a Mexican teenager killed on Mexican soil by a Border Patrol agent who claims he was being pelted with rocks had rights under the U.S. constitution. His family is suing for $325 million.

Spooling, the Post America World

It is happening, the world leaders are posturing for a post American influenced globe. Allies and adversaries alike are quite busy expanding ties, agreements and business deals with each other that leave the United States virtually out of the mix and with purpose, world leaders no longer trust or can rely on America. Sad but true.

There is the matter of the Muslim Brotherhood getting huge support from a turn-coat previous president, Jimmy Carter.

China is partnering with Sudan offering weapons. Vladimir Putin is back in Cuba expanding his global reach again. Angela Merkel is angry with the United States over the NSA spying on her cell phone and on German citizens. But additionally in the past two weeks, German intelligence nabbed two Germans working for the CIA and Merkel terminated our CIA station in Berlin. But why were we spying on Germany? Seems, Germany too has deep ties with Iran and Russia.

France is selling warships to Russia against the position of the United States. Because the White House, previously Hillary Clinton and now John Kerry have failed in halting the nuclear weapons program of Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia have teamed up with a strategy.

Italy has recently signed deals with Russia.  Russia has an arms deal with Greece and a gas pipeline deal with Russia.

After the United States exit from Iraq, Maliki turned to Russia and Iran for protection from ISIS. After all the blood and treasure spent by the American forces in Iraq, Maliki no longer wants the United States due to Barack Obama shunning all requests by Maliki.

Russia is working again the Latin America component where the United States has ignored Brazil and hidden deals in Nicaragua among others.

Even the rather neutral country of Switzerland has suspended sanctions against Iran.

Qatar, Kuwait and many others have taken a late, very late position in Syria, where the United States dropped any mission four years ago in dealing with Assad.

VP, Joe Biden showed up in Ukraine to show support against Russian aggression but that has fallen short with any real evidence of solutions.  All reliance has fallen to NATO to solve the matter of Russia occupying Crimea and Ukraine and the threat moves towards several Baltic States, so again, America is absent except for token gestures of training small military units.

Under Barack Obama, the influence and diplomacy agenda worldwide has been shrinking. Take Afghanistan and Iraq. Then there is Europe.

Why U.S. Bases in Europe Remain Vital  by Luke Coffey

Executive Summary

As part of a policy that is shrinking America’s military presence in the world, the Obama Administration’s recent defense cuts heavily impact the U.S. military footprint in Europe. These cuts are sending the wrong signal on America’s commitment to transatlantic security and will embolden U.S. adversaries in the Euro–Atlantic region. Most importantly, the cuts will reduce the ability and flexibility of the U.S. to react to the unexpected in Eurasia and the Middle East.

A Shrinking Force Posture. On January 26, 2012 the Pentagon announced reductions of U.S. military forces in Europe as part of the latest round of defense cuts:

  • Inactivation of one A-10 squadron at Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany, in 2013.
  • Inactivation of the 603rd Air Control Squadron at Aviano Air Base, Italy, in 2013.
  • Reduction of V Corps headquarters structure after deployment to Afghanistan later this year. It will not return to Europe.
  • Inactivation of the 170th Brigade Combat Team (BCT) in 2013 and the 172nd BCT in 2014—a reduction of more than 8,000 soldiers.
  • An additional reduction of approximately 2,500 soldiers in enabling units of the U.S. Army in Europe over the next five years.

U.S. Forces in Europe. Today, the U.S. has approximately 80,000 military personnel in 28 main operating bases in Europe, primarily in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Spain. These forces include four BCTs, which form the backbone of U.S. ground capability in Europe.

Some believe that basing U.S. troops in Europe is a Cold War anachronism, but forward basing U.S. troops in Europe is just as important today as it was during the Cold War, albeit for different reasons. The U.S. military presence in Europe helps to achieve American policy aims in the broader Eurasia and Middle East regions. From the Arctic to the Levant, from the Maghreb to the Caucasus, Europe is at one of the most important crossroads of the world. U.S. military bases in Europe provide American leaders with increased flexibility, resilience, and options in a dangerous world. The garrisons of American service personnel in Europe are no longer the fortresses of the Cold War, but the forward operating bases of the 21st century.

America’s Interests. A safe and secure Europe is in America’s financial interest. Regional security means economic viability. The economies of the 27 member states of the European Union, along with the U.S. economy, account for approximately half of the global economy.

A relevant and strong NATO is also in America’s interest. U.S. forces play a major role in the capacity building of key European allies. This has huge benefits for the United States. In 2010, the U.S. carried out 33 major multinational training exercises involving 50,000 troops from 40 countries in Europe. U.S. forces also help European allies to prepare for missions such as the one in Afghanistan. For example, a Georgian infantry battalion is fighting alongside U.S. Marines in Helmand Province, one of the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan. The more America trains its allies to carry out challenging missions, the more they can share the burden.

Cost-Driven Reductions. Perceived financial savings, not an empirical or strategic review of U.S. force requirements, appear to have driven the decision to reduce the U.S. military footprint in Europe. On April 8, 2011, the Obama Administration announced that it was modifying a 2004 decision to remove two of the four BCTs from Europe and would bring only one BCT back to the United States. In January 2012, the Administration reversed itself, stating that two BCTs would return from Europe. However, the Administration did not explain what had changed in the geostrategic picture of Europe or in the advice from U.S. allies since last April to prompt this reversal. This indicates that defense cuts, not strategy, are driving the decision.

The Red Herring of Perceived Financial Savings. Proponents cite savings as the main reason to reduce U.S. bases in Europe. This is clearly the rationale behind the Obama Administration’s recent decision. This is dangerous, shortsighted, and based on the false assumption that the U.S. can project the same degree of power with rotational forces as it currently does with troops permanently based in Europe. Under current plans, more than 10,000 soldiers will leave Europe and be replaced by a maximum of one battalion rotating through Europe for training. Furthermore, most savings estimates exclude the cost of building new infrastructure in the U.S. for any returning units, the up-front cost of closing down facilities in Europe, the cost of rotating units between the U.S. and Europe, and the strain this would exert on the smaller army that the Obama Administration is proposing.

Time for U.S. Leadership. Instead, the White House should:

  • Put America’s national security interests ahead of defense cuts. Important decisions, such as the number of bases and the troop strength, should follow from a strategic review of U.S. interests in Europe, not the desire to slash the defense budget to find savings.
  • Show U.S. commitment to NATO and Euro–Atlantic security. The U.S. troop presence in Europe is the most visible sign of U.S. support to NATO. As NATO transforms for the 21st century, it needs American leadership and commitment.
  • Be honest and open with European allies. The Obama Administration needs to consult with key European allies and with the broader NATO alliance before making decisions on U.S. troop reductions in Europe.
  • Reward key U.S. allies with closer defense cooperation. Instead of reducing the numbers of U.S. military bases in Europe, the U.S. should consider establishing new bases in Europe, especially on the periphery and with allies who have demonstrated a strong commitment to Euro–Atlantic security, such as Georgia.

Conclusion. The U.S. military presence in Europe deters American adversaries, strengthens allies, and protects U.S. interests. Whether preparing U.S. and allied troops for Afghanistan or responding to a humanitarian crisis in the region, the U.S. can project power and react to the unexpected because of its forward-based military capabilities in Europe. Reducing these capabilities will only weaken America on the world stage.

Abbasid Khalif, What you Should Know

Abbasid Caliphate-850

The history and map tells a story and is a useful tool for a prediction of the future of Iraq, Iran, the Middle East and even Europe.  It should be noted that many other factions are joining in solidarity with ISIS that includes some in the Taliban, causing a potential vacuum in Afghanistan once the United States completes the troop withdraw. North Africa is especially vulnerable but what is worse is Europe with the particular being Spain.

Abbasid Empire history has been forgotten yet is appears it is part in parcel to al Baghdadi’s quest.

The history of the Abbasid Empire must be recognized along with all the other historical events that includes Sykes-Picot.

The Abbasid caliphate or, more simply, the Abbasids (Arabic: العبّاسيّون‎ / ISO 233: al-‘abbāsīyūn), was the third of the Islamic caliphates. It was ruled by the Abbasid dynasty of caliphs, who built their capital in Baghdad after overthrowing the Umayyad caliphs from all but the Al Andalus region.

The Abbasid caliphate was founded by the descendants of the Islamic prophet Muhammad‘s youngest uncle, Abbas ibn Abd al-Muttalib, in Harran in 750 CE and shifted its capital in 762 to Baghdad. It flourished for two centuries, but slowly went into decline with the rise to power of the Turkish army it had created, the Mamluks. Within 150 years of gaining control of Persia, the caliphs were forced to cede power to local dynastic emirs who only nominally acknowledged their authority. The caliphate also lost the Western provinces of Al Andalus, Maghreb and Ifriqiya to an Umayyad prince, the Aghlabids and the Fatimids, respectively.

George Bush was quite right, this is going to be a very long slog of war one, that could in fact lead to a global conflict and must be addressed now such that there is time for some control and while it is manageable. The terrifying component in this is the feeble position of NATO and especially the leadership of the United States to get out in front of this looming doom.

The End of Al Qaeda — and the Emergence of a More Dangerous Jihad?

By: Dr. Dave Sloggett

The announcement of the creation of a new Caliphate is a tipping point for the fortunes of Al Qaeda. But it’s been clear for some time that Dr. Ayman Al Zawahiri, the de facto leader of Al Qaeda since Osama Bin Laden’s death at the hands of US Special Forces, has cut a lonely and distant figure.

The much-maligned but highly effective program of drone strikes by the United States against the jihdist group in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan has had a material impact on Zawahiri’s ability to affect control over his increasingly geographically diverse organization. His failure to lead a major attack on the west replicating the impact of 9/11 has also undermined his position.

Now, recent events such as the rapid emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) have crucially weakened his position.

The question is if Zawahiri is isolated does that mean Al Qaeda has reached a tipping point from which it cannot recover? Does it place even greater pressure on Al Qaeda to stage a spectacular attack to regain its lost power base? The current increase in alert levels at airports may be an indicator that intelligence agencies have serious indicators of some attempt by Al Qaeda to regain some semblance of authority over the international Salafist movement.

Whereas Osama Bin Laden — as a former graduate of business studies — would have hoped for a smooth transition of the leadership of Al Qaeda and its network of franchises around the world, the exact opposite has taken place. As a student of business studies, Bin Laden would have been well aware of the contemporary line of thinking encapsulated in the concept of “power to the edge” – a view that organizations should move away from being centralized to empowering their operational edges.

It was the concept Bin Laden followed in creating the network of international franchises that span the globe. Business schools may teach the benefits of such an approach in a globalized world, but what impact does such thinking have on an international terrorist organization?

As Zawahiri has gradually lost control of Al Qaeda’s various franchises, their independently minded leaders have sought to develop their own overall strategic direction. As a result, Zawahiri’s loss of control for decision making has devolved. Almost unintentionally Al Qaeda had already ceded power from the center to the “edges” of the organization.

When this happens in an international terrorist organization, it is possible for the outcome to not follow conventional business thinking. And that is what happened to create the conditions that’s given the rise to the Islamic State (IS), or ISIL as it was recently known.

Declaration of a Caliphate 

The declaration of the creation of a new Caliphate on the first day of Ramadan by ISIL leader Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi and the news he’d been appointed its new Caliph was totally unexpected. It was a bold move that ultimately may see ISIL take control of the international Salafist movement. The timing reflects a man who has given some deep thought on the theological impact of the decision.

The pronouncement to call the new Caliphate the Islamic State is very significant, however. It implies a single body rather than a network of loosely tied affiliates that so far have had little material impact on the global stage. The declaration of the new Caliphate makes it easier for other groups across the Muslim world to say they will join the new social movement. It will also make it much easier for future attacks to be linked to Al Baghdadi’s organization.

The impact on the worldwide Salafist movement that Al Qaeda had purported to lead has been dramatic. Already, one group in Egypt announced on July 3 that it is changing its name from Ansar Bayt Al Maqdis (Supporters of Jerusalem) to the Islamic State.

Other groups have also been quick to respond to the news of the formation of a new Caliphate. In Morocco, a number of individual Internet users were also quick to welcome the declaration from Baghdadi. In Indonesia, Internet users quickly followed suite and exchanged congratulations. One described it as an historic event. One of Al Qaeda’s highest profile franchises, Al Qaeda in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb, quickly issued a video recording offering its “support” to the leadership of IS. It also called upon Zawahiri to explain his stance on the creation of the new Caliphate.

Let’s wait and see 

Al Qaeda franchises operating in West Africa, including El Mourabitoune in Mali and Ansar Al Shari’ah in Tunisia and Libya have given a more sanguine response to the news. They are reported to be planning a meeting to discuss the latest developments somewhere in south-eastern or western Libya.

Other groups have provided more definitive responses. In Syria, some of the rebel groups involved in fighting President Bashar Al Assad’s regime have rejected the announcement. Nine groups, backed by a number of high profile religious scholars, dismissed the statement issued by IS. In a statement, they challenged whether the conditions for creating a Caliphate had been met as defined in religious texts. “The terms of the Caliphate have not been realized at present, especially in terms of state organizations,” the statement read. It ended with a call for all Muslims to avoid siding with IS.

In the Caucasus, the reaction of Jihadist groups was similarly muted. Their remarks focused on the need to await the outcome of considerations by Islamic Scholars over the news. Only then would the situation become clear. Given the inability of many Islamic scholars to agree on many contemporary issues, such as the theological validity of suicide bombing, the period of time some Jihadist groups have to wait for a clear sense of direction from scholars may be a long one.

The rise of ISIL and the formation of the Caliphate sent shock waves through social media sites frequented by Muslims across the world. If groups are quickly turning to IS, what then is the future of Al Qaeda? Is this a tipping point at which it becomes increasingly irrelevant?


The degree to which Zawahiri has become detached from the day-to-day operations of the Al Qaeda network of franchises became clear when he tried to intervene in the move of Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) into Syria. This was primarily signaled by a re-branding of the AQI name to the interim name of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Even this relatively short-lived name signaled the ambitions of the leadership of ISIL — specifically Baghdadi.

Because AQI argued its support to the Al Nusra Front in their struggle against the Assad regime, the members assumed that they could subsume them into the wider ISIL. To Baghdadi, a reclusive and shadowy figure, it was obvious he should be in command of the entire Salafist effort to bring down the Assad regime. After all, it was the exploits of ISIL which had proven emblematic to impressionable young western Europeans travelling to Syria to join the fight.

It was clear at this point that Baghdadi was enacting an audacious plan to take over all Al Qaeda activities in Iraq and Syria. The move did not please Zawahiri, and he attempted to use his failing authority to order ISIL to re-focus their efforts on Iraq and leave Syria to the Al Nusra front. When that initial approach was rejected out of hand by the leadership of ISIL, Zawahiri’s attempts to admonish and berate the ISIL leadership and give his support to what he declared to be the legitimate franchise in Syria backfired spectacularly.

Having fallen out with what is often called the Al Qaeda “core,” Baghdadi saw an opportunity. He embarked upon a far reaching attempt to widen the sphere of influence crossing the border from Syria into Iraq. Using established social networks along the Euphrates River Valley, ISIL was able to move quickly to join up the towns and cities from Fallujah to the Syrian Border.

For many Iraqis, it seemed that it was only a matter of time before ISIL moved on Baghdad. Given its religious and historical significance, any foothold in the Iraqi capital would allow Baghdadi to claim that he — no doubt with the support of Allah — had re-created the conditions for the creation of a new Caliphate, replacing the Abbasid Dynasty that had survived from 750-1258 when Baghdad was sacked by the Mongols. This was a bold move by Baghdadi that signaled his intent to underpin the creation of IS and create greater opportunities for traction with those that formerly supported Al Qaeda.

For the moment, Baghdadi must be pleased with the reaction his announcement has had across social media domains. He made a move to take control of the international Salafist movement at a point when its previous leadership had been at its weakest position for many years.

In reacting to the moves made by Baghdadi, Zawahiri is reported on Al Qaeda’s own Twitter account to have laughed. Clearly, Zawahiri is not enamored by the idea. If, however, IS continues to gain ground, Zawahiri may end up laughing on the other side of his face as the global movement he has led since Bin Laden’s killing disintegrates.

For the West, this is a stark turn of events. Any estimates of the number of Europeans travelling to Syria and Iraq to join the fight are way off. In the Netherlands, a senior political leader admitted it only takes 48 hours for a person to get into Syria from the Netherlands. Other political leaders are saying much the same — that the numbers of Westerners estimated to have traveled to fight in the new Caliphate is much too low.

Dr. Dave Sloggett has more than 40 years’ experience analyzing international security issues. His most recent books are, Focus on the Taliban, and, Drone Warfare. Watch for his article, “Kenyan Fault Lines: An Unstable Divide Ideal for Terrorist Exploitation,” in the upcoming issue of Homeland Security Today.