NBC: The content was the usual anti-Saudi Arabian screed, sprinkled with threats against America — but the news was Asiri’s sudden willingness to join the terror group’s PR campaign. For years, the man who tried to take down planes with underwear and parcel bombs had laid low, as al Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate tried to protect him from U.S. drone strikes.
In 2016, however, a resurgent al Qaeda is emerging from the shadows. While ISIS has been soaking up headlines, its older sibling has been launching attacks and grabbing territory too, and U.S. intelligence officials tell NBC News they are increasingly concerned the older terror group is poised to build on its achievements.
“Al Qaeda affiliates are positioned to make gains in 2016,” James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, warned the House Intelligence Committee Thursday.
Because of those far-flung affiliates, al Qaeda “remains a serious threat to U.S. interests worldwide,” Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress recently.
After seizing a large segment of Iraq and Syria, beheading Western hostages on camera and slaughtering civilians in the heart of Paris, ISIS has eclipsed its extremist rival as the biggest brand in global jihad.
But U.S. officials tell NBC News that al Qaeda — though its core in Pakistan has been degraded by years of CIA drone strikes — is now experiencing renewed strength through its affiliates, led by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen and the Nusra Front in Syria. Clapper called the two groups al Qaeda’s “most capable” affiliates in his House testimony Thursday.
Both branches have expanded their territorial holdings over the last year amid civil wars. Russian air strikes against the Nusra Front, and CIA drone attacks on AQAP leaders, have set them back, but have not come close to destroying them.
Al Qaeda has not managed to attack a Western target recently, but it continues to inspire plots. There is no evidence December’s mass shooting in San Bernardino, California was directed by al Qaeda, but Syed Rizwan Farook, who carried out the attack with his wife Tashfeen Malik, appears to have been radicalized by al Qaeda long before the rise of ISIS. He was a consumer of videos by al Qaeda’s Somalia affiliate and the AQAP preacher Anwar al Awlaki, court records show.Al Qaeda attacks on hotels in Burkina Faso in January and Mali in November, which together killed dozens of people, appeared to affirm the threat posed by the terror group’s Saharan branch, al Qaeda in the Islamic Magreb, or AQIM.
Stewart added that intelligence officials are also “concerned al Qaeda could reestablish a significant presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan, if regional counterterrorism pressure deceases.”
In Yemen, AQAP has benefitted from the power vacuum created by the Houthi rebels’ uprising, and the air war on the Houthis by Saudi Arabia.
AQAP last April seized the city of Mukalla, the capital of Hadramout province and a port city with a population of some 300,000. It looted a bank of more than $1 million in cash, U.S. officials said, and released 300 inmates from jail.
Since then, the group has expanded its territory in the provinces of Abyan and Shabwa, its traditional strongholds.
“AQAP’s expansion is unchecked because there is no one on the ground to put any pressure on the organization,” noted Geoffrey Johnsen, a Yemen expert. “What is left of Yemen’s military is too busy fighting other enemies to engage AQAP, and the Saudis are focused on rolling back the Houthis. In the midst of Yemen’s civil war, AQAP is able to pursue more territory and to plot, plan, and launch attacks.”
The CIA is watching closely. Jalal Bala’idi, a prominent AQAP field commander, was killed in an agency drone strike in February.
AQAP’s seizures of territory have “allowed them to operate more openly, have access to a port, and have access to other kinds of infrastructure that has certainly benefitted them,” a U.S. intelligence official told NBC News. At the same time, he said, the U.S. has “managed to remove many significant figures from the battlefield and keep AQAP somewhat at bay.”
Al Qaida’s Syrian affiliate gets less public attention than others. Western media reporting sometimes refers to the Nusra front as a Syrian rebel group, without mentioning that it’s part of the global terrorism organization.
But Nusra is as well-organized and disciplined as any al Qaeda affiliate, U.S. intelligence officials say. Although it is now focused on defeating Assad, its battle tested fighters could pose a risk to the West in the years ahead.
“Jabhat al Nusra is a core component of the al Qaeda network and probably poses the most dangerous threat to the U.S. from al Qaeda in the coming years,” the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank, said in a recent report. “Al Qaeda is pursuing phased, gradual, and sophisticated strategies that favor letting ISIS attract the attention — and attacks — of the West while it builds the human infrastructure to support and sustain major gains in the future and for the long term.”
U.S. air strikes have set back a group of al Qaeda operatives in Syria known as the Khorasan Group, which embedded with Nusra while plotting attacks against the West, intelligence officials say.
But Nusra has trained a core of elite fighters, the ISW says. Georgetown terrorism expert Bruce Hoffman says Nusra has achieved Osama bin Laden’s goal of rebranding al Qaeda and moving away from a name that had lost its luster.
The group’s leader, Abu Mohammad al Julani, is hardly a household name in the West, but he is respected by his adversaries in American intelligence. He is believed to have been detained by the U.S. military in Iraq and released in 2008.
Hoffman, who served as the CIA’s Scholar-in-Residence for Counterterrorism, calls Nusra “even more dangerous and capable than ISIS.”
Al Qaeda is watching ISIS “take all the heat and absorb all the blows while al Qaeda quietly re-builds its military strength,” he said.
Category Archives: ISIS ISIL Islamic State Caliphate
SecDef on Gitmo and Detainees Too Dangerous
A partial closing? An Executive Order to overrule the law and Congress? There are no more enemy combatants anywhere in the world? Where would a new president send enemy combatants? What about the next Secretary of Defense?
Thoughts?
Ash Carter: There Are Gitmo Detainees so Dangerous That it Is Not Safe to Transfer Them
FreeBeacon: Defense Secretary Ash Carter told reporters on Monday there are detainees at the Guantanamo Bay military prison who are so dangerous that it would not be safe to transfer them outside the care of the United States.
Carter and President Obama have drawn up a plan to move many of the remaining 91 detainees into the custody of foreign governments. Detainees not cleared for transfer overseas—those who Carter describes as too dangerous to go elsewhere—would be moved stateside in an effort to close the detention facility.
Moving Detainees From Gitmo To U.S. Is Reckless and Dangerous
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) issued the following statement on the President’s plan to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and relocate some of the most dangerous detainees into the United States:
“President Obama is once again proving his willingness to set aside the rule of law to pursue his own reckless agenda no matter the consequences for the American people. The plan announced today would take detainees deemed too dangerous to transfer to other countries and bring them right into our own backyards. It risks the lives and safety of American citizens and it’s not what the people expect of our commander-in-chief.”
“The administration has already let nearly 150 detainees go free, only to see many of them return to terrorist groups and rejoin the fight against us. Instead of focusing on finding new homes for terrorists, the President should refocus his efforts on winning the War on Terror and bringing an end to the extremist groups seeking to do us harm.”
Carter made his comment while holding a press briefing at the Pentagon along with Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
A reporter asked Carter if the United States is thinking of transferring the Guantanamo Bay naval base back to the Cuban government, which he denied while drawing a distinction between the naval base and the detention facility.
“The base is separate from the detention facility,” Carter said in response. “The base is in a strategic location. We’ve had it for a long time. It’s important to us, and we intend to hold onto it.”
Carter then turned his attention to the detention center within the naval base, which he said is the specific focus of the Obama administration’ closure plan.
“With respect to the detention facility at [Guantanamo], which is what the president was speaking about last week … there are people in the Guantanamo Bay detention facility whom it is not safe to transfer to any other—they have to stay in U.S. detention,” Carter said. “Safety is the top priority for me, the chairman, and for the president.”
Carter then said that because some detainees are too dangerous to release, there needs to be an alternate facility in the U.S. for these individuals to go if Guantanamo is closed, which is at the heart of Obama’s proposal.
The Pentagon is reportedly looking at send prisoners to either the federal Supermax prison in Florence, Colo., the military prison in Leavenworth, Kansas, or the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C.
One problem for the administration, however, is that it is currently illegal to move Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil. Carter said at Monday’s briefing that Congress must change the law for the closure plan to go into effect.
“[Obama’s Guantanamo plan] can’t be done unless Congress acts, which means Congress has to support the idea that it would be good to move this facility and the detainees to the United States … it’s good if it can be done, but it can’t be done under current law. The law would have to be changed. That’s the reason we would put the proposal in front of Congress,” Carter said.
This may prove difficult for the administration, as a bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress disapprove of closing Guantanamo and transferring detainees to the U.S.
Carter reaffirmed his support for the president’s plan, citing its fiscal benefits—U.S. officials say it would save the government between $65 million and $85 million per year—and benefits for U.S. military personnel charged with duty at Guantanamo. He said the plan is good “on balance” and that he does not want to pass the Guantanamo issue to the next president and Defense Secretary if possible.
The president has long maintained that Guantanamo should be closed because the detention facility is not in keeping with American values and serves as a recruiting tool for terrorists.
Those who want Guantanamo to remain open argue that the facility is necessary to hold enemy combatants who are members of jihadist groups like al Qaeda to keep them off the battlefield and gather intelligence. They cite the reportedly exceptional treatment detainees receive at the facility, which military leaders have detailed to reporters, as well as experts who say that Guantanamo plays a minimal role in jihadist propaganda.
The recidivism rate for Guantanamo detainees who are released and return to terrorist activity is about 30 percent, according to experts.
A recent example that garnered attention was Ibrahim al Qosi, a former aide to Osama bin Laden who was sent to Guantanamo in 2002 and released 10 years later. Al Qosi resurfaced this month as a senior member of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the terror group’s most dangerous branch.
When asked about al Qosi’s return to jihadist activity at a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing last week, Secretary of State John Kerry lamented that “he’s not supposed to be doing that.”
It is important to understand the term enemy combatant, lawful and unlawful as defined the Geneva Convention. You can read the 10 items here.
CAIR -1 FBI-0
Go to the FBI website and see for yourself. Violent extremism is a politically correct phrase…..a dangerous one.
New FBI Counter Extremism Site Fails to Mention Islamism
Israel Seeing Future with Bigger Weapons
IDF: On Monday, Joe Biden will land at Ben Gurion Airport, for his last visit as Vice President of the United States. Ostensibly, this is one of the more boring visits: current Democratic administration is in his last year, and Biden himself had decided not to run for the Democratic presidential nomination, as many vice presidents have done before him.
Still, the visit arouses huge interest, especially in the Israeli defense establishment. The reason: the discussions with the United States regarding a new framework agreement for defense aid entered the final straight, and Biden might bring about some news on the matter, or at least a hint. Anyway, shortly after Biden’s visit, the defense minister will visit Washington, after which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will also visit the United States. Therefore, the aid agreement is expected to be signed by the end of March, at the latest. Israel is counting on the American administration to be generous towards Israel’s defense needs at this time, in order to win the support of the Jewish vote (and mostly the Jewish donors) prior to the presidential elections.
Aid or “Compensation”?
To understand how the coming month will be crucial in terms of the Israeli defense ministry, we need to understand the context: the US elections will be held in November 2016, whereas the previous defense aid agreement between Israel and the United States will expire in 2017. The 10-years-long agreement set the extent of the defense aid back in 2007. According to the soon to be expired agreement, Israel received each year $ 3.1 billion. This is a huge sum, which constitutes more than 20 percent of Israel’s defense budget. Under the terms of the aid, the Ministry of Defense has received permission to convert half a billion dollars each year into NIS, to use the money for local acquisitions. The remainder is used as the primary budget source, to finance IDF equipment of central combat platforms such as fighter jets and helicopters.
Beyond the generous annual aid, Israel receives additional aid from the United States for special projects. For example, the US has funded the equipping of seven of the nine Iron Dome batteries. In addition, the US DoD had collaborated with the Israeli defense establishments in the development and funding of other major missile defense projects – “Arrow 3” and “David’s Sling”.
It was recently reported that the Americans will also deliver funds for projects that will assist the fight against underground tunnels built by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, the IDF and the US military has an agreement in which Israel could use American military equipment, kept in storages in Israel, in emergencies. To top that, the US Army also operates an innovative and classified radar system in the Har-keren mountaintop in the Negev region. Israelis are not allowed to see it firsthand (the closed US area on Israeli soil generates considerable resentment in the defense establishments).
Harming the Israeli national honor or not, the new aid agreement on the agenda is also considered as compensation for the nuclear deal with Iran in summer 2015. The truth is that the compensation is not for the nuclear deal, but for the massive arms sales of American companies in the Persian Gulf.
Not many are aware, but the entire region is in an intense arms race, as Iran plans to spend no less than $ 20 billion of its funds, which were frozen during the economic sanctions, in order to finance the procurement of advanced weapons systems, primarily from Russia. Iran’s neighboring countries fear its massive procurement and its transformation to a nuclear power, sooner or later (no leader in the Persian Gulf believes that the agreement will prevent Iran from attaining a nuclear bomb). For this reason, they also acquire weapons, mainly from France and the United States (including many squadrons of modern fighter aircraft, made by the two countries).
This massive equipping is a great celebration for the US defense companies, but these weapons may one day be directed against Israel. Because the United States is committed to maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge (under a law passed years ago in Congress) – Israel is expected to receive increased aid, to allegedly ensure this advantage.
Aid Talks
Sources very involved in the defense and diplomatic relations between Israel and the United States, are confident that Israel had already missed an excellent opportunity to boost the “compensation”. It was near the time the agreement with Iran was signed. “Before signing the agreement, the American government was willing to give Israel almost everything it had wanted, to “silence” the criticism of the agreement. But because the Prime Minister has decided to fight Obama, the Americans have taught him a lesson and did not promise any compensation,” said a source close the subject.
Now, as mentioned, Israel hopes that the Democrats’ electoral considerations prevail over the US administration’s hostility towards the current Israeli government. But what Israel really wants and what would be the extent of the new aid? Talks over the subject between Israeli and American teams began last fall, as part of negotiations between the Israeli Defense Ministry and the Pentagon. During those conversations, Head of the IDF Planning Directorate, Maj. Gen. Amikam Norkin, presented the IDF’s needs to his US colleagues.
During the past few weeks, the aid negotiations was intensified and the reins were passed to PM Netanyahu’s hands, who deals with the issue closely.
The person who coordinates for the subject is the acting Head of the National Security Council, Ya’akov Nagel, who works regularly with the head of the US National Security Council, Dr. Susan Rice. Originally, Nagel started in the Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure (MAFAT) in IMOD, and is currently a candidate for Heading MAFAT. Other major candidates mentioned, were Brig. Gen. (Res.) Dr. Danny Gold, who is considered as the father of “Iron Dome”; Maj. Gen.
(Res.) Ami Shafran; and Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Eytan Eshel and Brig. Gen. (Res.) Shmuel Yachin. The four of them served as Heads of the IDF’s R&D department.
Meanwhile, a new Head of the National Security Council was appointed this week, instead of Yossi Cohen, who has been appointed as Head of Mossad in early January: Brig. Gen. (Ret.) Avriel Bar-Yosef, originally a Navy officer, received the prestigious appointment.
Back to the US aid: the two main questions on the agenda are concerning the sum of the annual aid, in the decade between 2017 and 2027, and the quality of weapons that Israel will receive. Israel expects a significant boost in the annual aid, as part of “compensation” for the nuclear deal. Sums of even
4 and 5 billion dollars were heard. The second question, which depends on the actual sum of the defense aid, is what weapons systems Israel could purchase with that money.
Israel is already planning on at least two squadrons of the future F-35 fighter (the first aircraft of this model will land on Israeli soil this December), but in the Air Force they fantasize about no less than four squadrons by the end of the next decade. In addition, they desire an additional F-15 squadron, a modern array of transport helicopters and refueling aircraft, as well as an aircraft which is half helicopter and half fighter, the V-22.
In addition to aircraft, Israel-US talks involve advanced air-to-ground missiles and much-needed weapons, should it turn out that Iran has been fooling the world and continues to strive for a nuclear bomb. These weapons include, mainly, bunker-busting bombs, more advanced and heavier than the “Lite” version of bunker-busting bombs that the air force received five years ago.
Some of the systems discussed between Israel and the United States are highly classified. In many cases, it is expected that the Americans would agree to include such systems in the weapons arsenal supplied to Israel, only if they know that Israeli defense industries are already developing similar systems in parallel.
Not all interests of Israel and the US are overlapping, but from Israel’s perspective, the aid agreement shall determine Israel’s military power for many decades. Thus, this month will bring about crucial decisions, and all negotiation tricks will come into play, by both sides.
***
The curious relationship between Israel and Saudi Arabia and why
IRGC Forms Base Near Saudi Border
LONDON [MENL] — Iran has established a military base in Iraq near the border with Saudi Arabia.
An Iraqi military source said Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was operating a base in Naqib, along the Saudi border. The unidentified source said IRGC was storing weapons as well as training Hizbullah.
“They want to create a foothold for IRGC’s Quds Force along the Saudi border,” the source said.
The source, identified as an Iraq Army colonel, told the Saudi-owned A-Sharq Al Awsat that IRGC was working with its Shi’ite proxy, Abbas Brigade. The brigade was said to have expelled the residents of Naqib, also off-limits to the Iraq Army.
“They also want to secure a safe land route to transport IRGC fighters and weapons into Syria and Lebanon,” the Iraqi officer said.
In 2015, Saudi Arabia came under mortar attack from alleged Iranian-sponsored militias in southern Iraq. As a result, Saudi Arabia has bolstered its military presence along the Iraqi border.
Other Iraqi sources confirmed that IRGC held large areas of southern Iraq, particularly around Basra. They said Teheran was controlling much of the south through such proxies as Hizbullah-Iraq and Shi’ite militias funded by the Quds Force.
“When armed militias seized control of the town [Naqib], Sunni and Shi’ite Arabs were expelled under the pretext that they want to protect Karbala from Islamic State of Iraq and Levant fighters,” the Iraqi colonel said.
U.S. 133 Cyber Teams Under Construction
Is this a change and an approval by Obama from 2012? (Note this is only a defensive strategy)
Presidential Cyberwar Authority
In October 2012, President Obama signed the top-secret Presidential Policy Directive 20, which enabled the military to aggressively initiate and thwart cyberattacks related our nation’s security. While most of the cyber attack targets are network systems or infrastructure-based, an elite Psychological Operations (PsyOps) team has focused its efforts on secretly defacing the public websites of our adversaries. Due to the high visibility and sensitive nature of this activity, only President Obama has the authority to target and launch these types of attacks.
The President authorizes these attacks using the global Cyber Warfare Command and Control System (CWCCS), which is accessible from this web page only from the President’s authorized computer.
****
WASHINGTON (AP) — Not long after Defense Secretary Ash Carter prodded his cyber commanders to be more aggressive in the fight against Islamic State, the U.S. ramped up its offensive cyberattacks on the militant group.
According to several U.S. officials, the attacks are targeting the group’s abilities to use social media and the Internet to recruit fighters and inspire followers, U.S. officials told The Associated Press.
U.S. officials confirmed that operations launched out of Fort Meade, Maryland, where the U.S. Cyber Command is based, have focused on disrupting the group’s online activities. The officials said the effort is getting underway as operators try a range of attacks to see what works and what doesn’t. They declined to discuss details, other than to say that the attacks include efforts to prevent the group from distributing propaganda, videos or other types of recruiting and messaging on social media sites such as Twitter, and across the Internet in general.
Other attacks could include attempts to stop insurgents from conducting financial or logistical transactions online.
The surge of computer-based military operations by U.S. Cyber Command began shortly after Carter met with commanders at Fort Meade last month.
Several U.S. officials spoke about the cyber campaign on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. Much of the effort is classified.
Carter mentioned the operations briefly Thursday, telling a House Appropriations subcommittee only that Cyber Command is beginning to conduct operations against the Islamic State group. He declined to say more in a public setting.
The more aggressive attacks come after months of pressure from Carter, who has been frustrated with the belief that the Pentagon — and particularly Cyber Command — was losing the war in the cyber domain.
Late last year Carter told cyber commanders they had 30 days to bring him options for how the military could use its cyberwarfare capabilities against the group’s deadly insurgency across Iraq and Syria, and spreading to Libya and Afghanistan. Officials said he told commanders that beefing up cyberwarfare against the Islamic State group was a test for them, and that they should have both the capability and the will to wage the online war.
But the military cyber fight is limited by concerns within the intelligence agencies that blocking the group’s Internet access could hurt intelligence gathering.
Officials said Carter told commanders that he the U.S. to be able to impact Islamic State operations without diminishing the indications or warnings U.S. intelligence officers can glean about what the group is doing. On Jan. 27, Carter and Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went to Fort Meade for an update.
Officials familiar with Carter’s meetings said the secretary was frustrated that as Cyber Command has grown and developed over the past several years, it was still focused on the cyberthreats from nations, such as Iran, Russia and China, rather than building a force to block the communications and propaganda campaigns of Internet-savvy insurgents.
“He was right to say they could be more forward leaning about what they could possibly do against ISIS,” said James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “You could disrupt their support networks, their business networks, their propaganda and recruitment networks.” However, Lewis added, the U.S. needs to be careful about disrupting the Internet to insure that attacks don’t also affect civilian networks or systems needed for critical infrastructure and other public necessities. U.S. officials have long been stymied by militants’ ability to use the Internet as a vehicle for inspiring so-called lone wolf attackers in Western nations, radicalized after reading propaganda easily available online.
“Why should they be able to communicate? Why should they be using the Internet?” Carter said during testimony before the defense appropriations subcommittee. “The Internet shouldn’t be used for that purpose.” He added that the U.S. can conduct cyber operations under the legal authorities associated with the ongoing war against the Islamic State group. The U.S. has also struggled to defeat high-tech encryption techniques used by Islamic State and other groups to communicate. Experts have been working to find ways to defeat those programs.
Cyber Command is relatively new. Created in 2009, it did not begin operating until October 2010.
Early on, its key focus was on defending military networks, which are probed and attacked millions of times a day. But defense leaders also argued at length over the emerging issues surrounding cyberwarfare and how it should be incorporated.
The Pentagon is building 133 cyber teams by 2018, including 27 that are designed for combat and will work with regional commands to support warfighting operations. There will be 68 teams assigned to defend Defense Department networks and systems, 13 that would respond to major cyberattacks against the U.S. and 25 support teams.