State Dept Briefing, No Boots, 250 Boots, But But But

Posted on April 25, 2016April 25, 2016 by Denise Simon

WASHINGTON, April 25, 2016 — Up to 250 additional U.S. personnel are being deployed to Syria to support local forces on the ground and build on successes of U.S. forces already deployed there in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, the Pentagon’s press secretary said today.

The additional personnel include special operations forces and medical and logistics personnel, Peter Cook told reporters at the Pentagon. The forces are to build on the gains of 50 previously deployed special operators in Syria, he said.

During a speech in Germany today, President Barack Obama announced the deployment of the additional forces. He said the expertise of the special operations forces already on the ground in Syria has been critical as local forces drive ISIL out of key areas.

Okay, so you now there is a major divide in the message, hence words matter, check out this exchange today between the media and the State Department spokesperson, John Kirby. Advance the video to the 25:00 minute mark and it ends about the 28:00 minute mark.

In 2015, when Obama deployed 50 special forces to Syria, the War Powers Act and authority began yet another huge debate in Congress.

Let us go back to 2015 shall we?

16 times Obama said there would be no boots on the ground in Syria

WASHINGTON — Since 2013, President Obama has repeatedly vowed that there would be no “boots on the ground” in Syria.

But White House press secretary Josh Earnest said the president’s decision Friday to send up to 50 special forces troops to Syria doesn’t change the fundamental strategy: “This is an important thing for the American people to understand. These forces do not have a combat mission.”

Earnest said the promises of “no boots on the ground” first came in the context of removing Syrian President Bashar Assad because of his use of chemical weapons. Since then, Syria has become a haven for Islamic State fighters.

Here’s a recap of Obama’s no-boots pledge:

Remarks before meeting with Baltic State leaders, Aug. 30, 2013

“In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign. But we are looking at the possibility of a limited, narrow act that would help make sure that not only Syria, but others around the world, understand that the international community cares about maintaining this chemical weapons ban and norm. So again, I repeat, we’re not considering any open-ended commitment. We’re not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach.”

Remarks in the Rose Garden, Aug. 31, 2013

“After careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope.”

Statement before meeting with congressional leaders, Sept. 3, 2013

“So the key point that I want to emphasize to the American people: The military plan that has been developed by our Joint Chiefs — and that I believe is appropriate — is proportional. It is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq, and this is not Afghanistan.”

News conference in Stockholm, Sweden, Sept. 4, 2013

“I think America recognizes that, as difficult as it is to take any military action — even one as limited as we’re talking about, even one without boots on the ground — that’s a sober decision.”

News conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sept. 6, 2013

“The question for the American people is, is that responsibility that we’ll be willing to bear? And I believe that when you have a limited, proportional strike like this — not Iraq, not putting boots on the ground; not some long, drawn-out affair; not without any risks, but with manageable risks — that we should be willing to bear that responsibility.”

Heck read the rest from USAToday.

In 2013, the White House sent a letter to the Congress on his power with regard to Syria, but it did not mention boots on the ground but rather strikes, meaning by manned and or unmanned aircraft.

Letter from the President — War Powers Resolution Regarding Syria

TEXT OF A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND THE PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE

September 23, 2014

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

As I have repeatedly reported to the Congress, U.S. Armed Forces continue to conduct operations in a variety of locations against al-Qa’ida and associated forces. In furtherance of these U.S. counterterrorism efforts, on September 22, 2014, at my direction, U.S. military forces began a series of strikes in Syria against elements of al-Qa’ida known as the Khorasan Group. These strikes are necessary to defend the United States and our partners and allies against the threat posed by these elements.

I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional and statutory authority as Commander in Chief (including the authority to carry out Public Law 107-40) and as Chief Executive, as well as my constitutional and statutory authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States. I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148). I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

Sincerely,

BARACK OBAMA

Need to Know Facts on EB-5 Visa Program

Posted on April 25, 2016April 25, 2016 by Denise Simon

In 1999, yes under President Bill Clinton and selling out sovereignty under a globalist agenda:

FAS: The immigrant investor visa was created in 1990 to benefit the U.S. economy through employment creation and an influx of foreign capital into the United States. The visa is also referred to as the EB-5 visa because it is the fifth employment preference immigrant visa category. The EB-5 visa provides lawful permanent residence (i.e., LPR status) to foreign nationals who invest a specified amount of capital in a new commercial enterprise in the United States and create at least 10 jobs. The foreign nationals must invest $1,000,000, or $500,000 if they invest in a rural area or an area with high unemployment (referred to as targeted employment areas or TEAs).

There are approximately 10,000 visas available annually for foreign national investors and their family members (7.1% of the worldwide employment-based visas are allotted to immigrant investors and their derivatives). In FY2015, there were 9,764 EB-5 visas used, with 93% going to investors from Asia. More specifically, 84% were granted to investors from China and 3% were granted to those from Vietnam.

In general, an individual receiving an EB-5 visa is granted conditional residence status. After approximately two years the foreign national must apply to remove the conditionality (i.e., convert to full-LPR status). If the foreign national has met the visa requirements (i.e., invested and sustained the required money and created the required jobs), the foreign national receives full LPR status. If the foreign national investor has not met the requirements or does not apply to have the conditional status removed, his or her conditional LPR status is terminated, and, generally, the foreign national is required to leave the United States, or will be placed in removal proceedings.

In 1992, Congress established the Regional Center (Pilot) Program, which created an additional pathway to LPR status through the EB-5 visa category. Regional centers are “any economic unit, public or private, which [are] involved with the promotion of economic growth, including increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, and increased domestic capital investment.” The program allows foreign national investors to pool their investment in a regional center to fund a broad range of projects within a specific geographic area. The investment requirement for regional center investors is the same as for standard EB-5 investors. As the use of EB-5 visas has grown, so has the use of the Regional Center Program. In FY2014, 97% of all EB-5 visas were issued based on investments in regional centers. Unlike the standard EB-5 visa category, which does not expire, the Regional Center Program is set to expire on September 30, 2016.

Different policy issues surrounding the EB-5 visa have been debated. Proponents of the EB-5 visa contend that providing visas to foreign investors benefits the U.S. economy, in light of the potential economic growth and job creation it can create. Others argue that the EB-5 visa allows wealthy individuals to buy their way into the United States.

In addition, some EB-5 stakeholders have voiced concerns over the delays in processing EB-5 applications and possible effects on investors and time sensitive projects. Furthermore, some have questioned whether U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services (USCIS) has the expertise to administer the EB-5 program, given its embedded business components. The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of the Inspector General (DHS OIG) has recommended that USCIS work with other federal agencies that do have such expertise, while USCIS has reported that it has taken steps internally to address this issue. USCIS has also struggled to measure the efficacy of the EB-5 category (e.g., its economic impact). USCIS methodology for reporting investments and jobs created has been called into question by both the DHS OIG and the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Furthermore, some have highlighted possible fraud and threats to national security that the visa category presents. In comparison to other immigrant visas, the EB-5 visa faces additional risks of fraud that stem from its investment components. Such risks are associated with the difficulty in verifying that investors’ funds are obtained lawfully and the visa’s potential for large monetary gains, which could motivate individuals to take advantage of investors and can make the visa susceptible to the appearance of favoritism. USCIS has reported improvements in its fraud detection but also feels certain statutory limitations have restricted what it can do. Additionally, GAO believes that improved data collection by USCIS could assist in detecting fraud and keeping visa holders and regional centers accountable.

Lastly, the authority of states to designate TEAs has raised concerns. Some have pointed to the inconsistency in TEA designation practices across states and how it could allow for possible gerrymandering (i.e., all development occurs in an area that by itself would not be considered a TEA). Others contend that the current regulations allow states to determine what area fits their economic needs and allow for the accommodation of commuting patterns.

In addition to the issues discussed above, Congress may consider whether the Regional Center Program should be allowed to expire, be reauthorized, or made permanent, given its expiration on September 30, 2016. In addition, Congress may consider whether any modifications should be made to the EB-5 visa category or the Regional Center Program. Legislation has been introduced in the 114th Congress that would, among other provisions, amend the program to try to address concerns about fraud, and change the manner in which TEAs are determined. Other bills would create an EB-5-like visa category for foreign national entrepreneurs who do not have their own capital but have received capital from qualified sources, such as venture capitalists. Read more here.

Cyber: New Strategic Operation v. ISIS

Posted on April 25, 2016April 25, 2016 by Denise Simon

The US Cyber Command started the attacks on the Islamic State

The US Government has announced to have launched a series of cyber attacks against the Islamic State coordinated by the Cyber Command.

SecurityAffairs: The US Government has launched its cyber offensive against the coordinated by the Cyber Command. The strategy is clear, the use of hacking operations and cyber weapons will aim to destroy computer systems used by the ISIL and to track its cyber hubs.

In March, Senior Pentagon officials revealed the military’s first use of cyber warfare operations against the ISIL terrorist group.

The US military has started launching cyber attacks against members of the terrorist organization ISIS as part of the operation conducted to take back the Iraqi city of Mosul.

The US military is using cyber tools to contrast the ISIS troops in the area, interfering members’ operation and communication.

Now the US Government wants to use all the hacking tools in its cyber arsenal against the Islamic State. The New Your Times revealed that until now the Cyber Command operations were more focused on cyber disputes against Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea.

“The National Security Agency, which specializes in electronic surveillance, has for years listened intensely to the militants of the Islamic State, and those reports are often part of the president’s daily intelligence briefing.” states the NYT. “But the N.S.A.’s military counterpart, Cyber Command, was focused largely on Russia, China, Iran and North Korea — where cyberattacks on the United States most frequently originate — and had run virtually no operations against what has become the most dangerous terrorist organization in the world.”

The goal of the new campaign is to disrupt the propaganda activities managed by the Islamic State, but also interfere with IS daily functions, like paying its fighters.

“Our cyberoperations are disrupting their command-and-control and communications,” Mr. Obama saidat the C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va., on countering the Islamic State.

The deputy secretary of defense, Robert O. Work, confirmed the goals of the cyber operations that were conducted by a small number of “national mission teams.”

“We are dropping cyberbombs,” Mr. Work said. “We have never done that before.”

The NYT, citing interviews withs senior and midlevel officials, confirmed that the US cyber army has begun to deploy a series of “implants” in the networks of the Islamic State to spy on its commanders.

“Now, the plan is to imitate them or to alter their messages, with the aim of redirecting militants to areas more vulnerable to attack by American drones or local ground forces.” continues the NYT. “In other cases, officials said, the United States may complement operations to bomb warehouses full of cash by using cyberattacks to interrupt electronic transfers and misdirect payments.”

The fact that the US Government is admitting the use of cyber weapons that would have unpredictable effects over vast areas of the planet raising major questions over an invasion of sovereignty.

Of course, now we are speaking to contrast the Islamic State and everything seems to be admitted to destroying the threat.

“We’re trying to both physically and virtually isolate ISIL, limit their ability to conduct command and control, limit their ability to communicate with each other, limit their ability to conduct operations locally and tactically,” said Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

“But I’ll be one of the first ones arguing that that’s about all we should talk about,” General Dunford said. “We want them to be surprised when we conduct cyberoperations. And, frankly, they’re going to experience some friction that’s associated with us and some friction that’s just associated with the normal course of events in dealing in the information age.”

Of course, part of the intelligence consider very dangerous the use of the implants against the Islamic State. The same implants are used to infiltrate the networks of foreign government and there is the concrete risk that these operations allow foreign intelligence agencies to detect them and neutralize their effects. Another side effect is that the Islamic State militants would stop the use of a communications channel starting one that was harder to monitor.

“N.S.A. officials complained that once the implants were used to attack, the Islamic State militants would stop the use of a communications channel and perhaps start one that was harder to find, penetrate or de-encrypt.” states the NYT.

“It’s a delicate balance,” said Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Susan E. Rice. “We still have to keep our eye on the Russia-China state-sponsored activity, but this was a new mission, one where we have to balance the collection equities against the disruption equities.”

Lisa O. Monaco, a deputy national security adviser and Mr. Obama’s top adviser met technology executives at IT giants calling for action against the online activities of the Islamic State.

****

In part from the DailyBeast: The American military’s campaign of cyber attacks against ISIS is far more serious than what the president laid out in his bland description. Three U.S. officials told The Daily Beast that those operations have moved beyond mere disruption and are entering a new, more aggressive phase that is targeted at individuals and is gleaning intelligence that could help capture and kill more ISIS fighters.

As the U.S. ratchets up its online offensive against the terror group, U.S. military hackers are now breaking into the computers of individual ISIS fighters. Once inside the machines, these hackers are implanting viruses and malicious software that allow them to mine their devices for intelligence, such as names of members and their contacts, as well as insights into the group’s plans, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to describe sensitive operations.

In remarks at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, this week, Obama confirmed that cyber operations were underway and noted that recently the U.S. has either captured or killed several key ISIS figures, including Sulayman Dawud al-Bakkar, a leader of its chemical weapons program, and “Haji Iman,” the man purported to be ISIS’s second in command.

The military has also used cyber operations to block ISIS’s use of encrypted communications, in order to force members to use less secure channels where they can be more easily monitored, officials said. That tactic appears to be a response to ISIS’s effective use of encrypted text applications in particular, which officials had said previously made it harder for the military and intelligence community to track individual fighters.

Iran Forces Them to Fight for Assad

Posted on April 25, 2016April 25, 2016 by Denise Simon

Fatimiyoun Brigade

A comprehensive summary is here.

The Islamic Republic of Iran now controls part–though not all–of Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, while Turkey is another contender.

***

The creation of an Afghan Shia division in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards structure is not new, and dates back to the Iran-Iraq war during the 1980s when an Afghan Shia force, the Abouzar Brigade, was formed to help fight Iraq.

So….while the White House, the National Security Council and the State Department want Assad removed from power and while the Obama regime is pro-Iran, how do they square this conundrum exactly? It should also be mentioned that those ‘Syrian’ refugees flooding into Europe are hardly all Syrian, in fact few are.

In part from BBC: Fatemioun Brigade, an all-Afghan unit commanded by Revolutionary Guards officers.

“The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps decided that the Syrian military could not succeed on their own,” he told the BBC. “The frontlines were too depleted and men were trying to avoid conscription.”

The Iranians decided to set up a 50,000-strong National Defence Force to fight alongside the Syrian army.

With a shortage of willing fighters inside Syria, they began looking elsewhere – signing up Iranian Afghans, Lebanese, Iraqi and Pakistani Shia recruits.

As the five-year conflict in Syria grinds on, BBC Persian has found evidence that Iran is sending thousands of Afghan men to fight alongside Syrian government forces.

The men, who are mainly ethnic Hazaras, are recruited from impoverished and vulnerable migrant communities in Iran, and sent to join a multi-national Shia Muslim militia – in effect a “Foreign Legion” – that Iran has mobilised to support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Many have since fled the battlefield and joined the refugee trail to Europe.

In a small town in Germany, we meet “Amir”, an Afghan man in his early twenties.

He was born to refugee parents in Isfahan, Iran, and is now himself an asylum seeker in Europe.

Like most of the almost three million Afghans in Iran, he lived as a second-class citizen.

Without legal residency or identity documents, he found it hard to get an education or a job. Fear of arrest and deportation was a daily reality.

Human Rights Watch recently estimated as many as 10,000 Afghans may have been recruited by the Revolutionary Guards.

Iran’s foreign ministry has denied any Afghans are being sent in an official capacity. The official narrative from Tehran is that they are all volunteers, off to defend holy sites of their own volition.

But every week in Iran there are more military-style funerals for fallen Fatemioun fighters.

And with a major government spring offensive around Aleppo in the offing, it seems Iran’s Foreign Legion will be fighting – and dying – for President Assad for some time to come. Full article here.

****

AJ: “Iran is recruiting fighters from Shia communities across the world to fight in Syria,” continued al-Abdah, who is based in Turkey.

“Iran considers itself the one and only reference point for all Shia people in the whole world. It organises them into political, social, and military organisations, both in their local communities and abroad.

“This is part of the main mission of the Iranian regime in terms of exporting the revolution. Iran recruits, motivates, organises, finances, and trains Shias from all over the world to help support Bashar al-Assad’s regime from collapsing.” More here.

As for Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, go here for the plotted objectives and study titled:

The Rise of the Pasdaran

Assessing the Domestic Roles of Iran’s

Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps

250 SpecOps Deployed to Syria

Posted on April 25, 2016April 25, 2016 by Denise Simon

The United States deployed 50 special operations members last year, some assigned to train. To begin to consolidate some advances against Islamic State, another 250 received their orders. Obama made the announcement officially during his visit in Germany. The concern of record is Aleppo falling to Islamic State and it is argued now, how will the coordination work with the ground operations of Russia.

Obama announces an additional 250 special operations forces to Syria

(CNN) U.S. President Barack Obama has announced an additional 250 special operations forces will be sent to Syria in the coming weeks in a speech in Hannover, Germany in an effort to stem the influence and spread of ISIS.

“Just as I approved additional support for Iraqi forces against ISIL I’ve decided to increase US support for local forces fighting ISIL in Syria, a small number of special operations forces are already on the ground in Syria and their expertise has been critical as local forces have driven ISIL out of key areas,” Obama said, using another acronym for the jihadist group.

“So given their success I’ve approved the deployment of up to 250 additional US personnel in Syria including special forces to keep up this momentum.”

He stressed that U.S. troops will not be leading the fight on the ground but they will be essential in training and assisting local forces.

“So make no mistake these terrorists will learn the same lesson as others before them have, which is ‘your hatred is no match for our nations united in the defense of our way of life,'” he said.

He said the increase would bring the number of U.S. special forces in the country to as many as 300 troops, including special forces.

Obama added that his administration would continue to pursue diplomatic solutions to ending the Syrian civil war.

“Just as we remain relentless on the military front we’re not going to give up on diplomacy to end the civil war in Syria because the suffering of the people in Syria has to end and that requires an effective political transition,” he said.

Supporting Syrian allies

The troops will be expanding the ongoing U.S. effort to bring more Syrian Arab fighters into units the U.S. supports in northern Syria that have largely been manned by the Kurds, an official told CNN earlier.

The plan calls for the additional U.S. forces to “advise and assist” forces in the area whom the U.S. hopes may eventually grow strong enough to take back territory around Raqqa, Syria, where ISIS is based.

These troops are not expected to engage in combat operations or to participate in target-to-kill teams but will be armed to defend themselves, one official said.

“As we have noted in recent days, the President has authorized a series of steps to increase support for our partners in the region, including Iraqi security forces as well as local Syrian forces who are taking the fight to ISIL,” a senior administration official CNN, using a different acronym for ISIS.

“The President during his remarks at the Hannover Messe fairgrounds on Monday will speak to this additional step.”

The official said the president was persuaded to take this additional step because of recent successes against ISIS.

*****

FNC: Islamic State oil man Abu Sayyaf was riding high a year ago. With little industry experience, he had built a network of traders and wholesalers of Syrian oil that at one point helped triple energy revenues for his terrorist bosses.

His days carried challenges familiar to all oil executives—increasing production, improving client relations and dodging directives from headquarters. He also had duties unique to the extremist group, including approving expenses to cover the upkeep of slaves, rebuilding oil facilities damaged by U.S. airstrikes and counting towers of cash.

Last May, U.S. Special Forces killed Abu Sayyaf, a nom de guerre, at his compound in Syria’s Deir Ezzour province. The raid also captured a trove of proprietary data that explains how Islamic State became the world’s wealthiest terror group.

Documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal describe the terror group’s construction of a multinational oil operation with help from officious terror-group executives obsessed with maximizing profits. They show how the organization deals with the Syrian regime, handles corruption allegations among top officials, and, most critically, how international coalition strikes have dented but not destroyed Islamic State’s income.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter called the May 16, 2015, raid a “significant blow” against Islamic State and heralded the death of Abu Sayyaf, the terror group’s No. 2 oil executive.