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.

DC, Target Rich for Lawsuits

Whistleblowers abound, they include the EPA, the Veterans Administration and the White House. It is about time that those in government finally sound the alarm while there should be thousands more doing the same thing.

The one target rich agency that needs the most whistleblowers is in fact the Department of Justice, but that is a fool’s errand to hope for that to happen. So, there are two lawsuits brewing that are notable and it is a start in the process.

The House Speaker, John Boehner introduced his resolution for a lawsuit against Barack Obama and here is the resolution.


While Barack Obama is mocking this pending lawsuit with his ‘so sue me’ there is one Congressman that is taking on Lois Lerner. His resolution is here.

The full text of Stockman’s resolution:


Providing for the arrest of Lois G. Lerner to answer the charge of contempt of Congress

Whereas Lois G. Lerner, former Director, Exempt Organizations, Internal Revenue Service, has been found to be in contempt of Congress for willfully and intentionally refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena duly issued by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, thereby obstructing the Congress in the lawful exercise of its constitutionally mandated legislative powers; and,

Whereas such behavior is an insult to the dignity of the House of Representatives, an attack upon the integrity of its proceedings, works violence upon the rights of the House collectively, and therefore implicates the long-recognized inherent power of the House to punish and commit for contempt, privileged under the Constitution; and,

Whereas recent history with similarly contumacious and insolent witnesses such as Eric Himpton Holder, Junior, strongly suggests that the present statutory judicial rubric set up to punish and reform such insubordinate and obstructionist witnesses would be ineffective in this case, as it is likely that the US Attorney for the District of Columbia would refuse to perform his lawful duty to bring the offending contemnor Lerner before a Grand Jury and prosecute the same for her misconduct pursuant to section 104 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 194) and section 102 of the Revised Statutes of the United States (2 U.S.C. 192); and,

Whereas the executive and judicial branches’ prolonged and dawdling failure to prosecute Attorney General Holder’s insolent contempt of the 112th Congress strongly suggests that a like proceeding against contemnor Lerner would be similarly futile, and the threat of such prosecution has clearly been insufficient to encourage contemnor Lerner to be honest and candid with the Congress regarding the heinous actions of the Internal Revenue Service;

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Speaker issue his warrant, directed to the Sergeant-at-Arms, or his deputy, commanding him to arrest and take into custody forthwith, wherever to be found, the body of Lois G. Lerner, and bring her to the bar of the House without delay to answer to the charge of contempt of its authority, breach of its privileges, and gross and wanton insult to the integrity of its proceedings, and in the meantime keep the body of Lerner in his custody in the common jail of the District of Columbia, subject to the further order of the House. While in custody, Lerner shall enjoy no special privileges beyond those extended to her fellow inmates, shall not access any computer or telephone, and shall not be visited by anyone other than her counsel, clergy, physician, or family.

We need a method at the Congressional level that allows the House to hires its own special prosecutor such that reliance on the Department of Justice is not required as Eric Holder simply refuses to be a law-enforcer.


Obama Prepares to Adopt 90,000

While the insurgency at the Southern Border continues, it is important to know even more outside the scope of the obvious aired on TV.

We have at least two retired Generals that have vocally said in the last few weeks that this incursion is a national security threat, their names are General Hayden and General Kelly. So what is really going on with a solution?

 Real Photo

90,000 migrants could cross border

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Thursday that as many as 90,000 unaccompanied child migrants could cross the southwest border before the end of this fiscal year in September.

That will place a huge strain on immigration agencies which will badly need new money to get through the summer, Johnson says. The 90,000 number—the highest yet given by the administration—is spelled out in written Senate testimony by Johnson as well as Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell, who must also deal with the border crisis.

“We are preparing for a scenario in which the number of unaccompanied children apprehended at the border could reach up to 90,000 by the end of fiscal 2014,” Johnson’s testimony reads, and he bluntly warns that without an infusion of new funds, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will run out of money in August.

Johnson appeared Thursday afternoon before the Senate Appropriations Committee, which is considering President Barack Obama’s request this week for $3.7 billion in emergency funds, chiefly for Homeland Security and HHS.

Of the 90,000, it is estimated that about 20,000 will be from Mexico and can be quickly returned. But about 70,000 would have come from Central American countries like Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and processing these cases requires much more time under current law and has provoked debate now in Congress.

In fiscal 2013, Johnson said 24,000 unaccompanied children were apprehended by border officers in his department. That number had already doubled to 57,000 by the end of June, he said, and “it continues to climb.”

But what about the Department of Justice?

Here is the DoJ’s new priority. By: lsmoynih

Along the southern border of the United States, migrants make the dangerous journey from Central America and Mexico to our homeland on a daily, consistent basis. Throughout the process of this journey, individuals, children, and entire families are faced with varying degrees of violence, criminal activity, abusive treatment, and extortive practices. Once on United States soil, detained migrants are faced with detention and become active cases within the immigration courts of the United States. As such, these detained migrants and their human rights are the concern of the U.S. Department of Justice. Concerns of the Department of Justice range from humane treatment and proper care of migrants during detainment to the proficient completion of migrant court cases.

This week, Deputy Attorney General James Cole announced, “… that the Justice Department will implement a series of steps to help address the influx of migrants crossing the southern border of the United States.” This announcement was accompanied by a Fact Sheet titled, “Department of Justice Actions to Address the Influx of Migrants Crossing the Southwest Border in the United States.” The steps included in the announcement contain the following points of focus:

  • “Refocusing immigration court resources to adjudicate the cases of recent immigrants”
  • “Providing support and training to help address violence in Central America”
  • “Redoubling efforts to work with other federal agencies and the Mexican government to investigate and prosecute those who smuggle migrants to the United States”

To address the first point, the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has been refocused, “… to prioritize cases involving migrants who have recently crossed the southwest border and whom DHS has placed into removal proceedings…” The purpose of this adjustment in case prioritization is to ensure that recent cases are processed proficiently, especially those cases concerning unaccompanied minors and families who crossed the border with children. Proficient case completion safeguards those migrants seeking asylum as well as returning migrants whose case proceedings deem removal as fitting. In order to achieve this level of timely case completion, the EOIR plans to reassign immigration judges, implement technology-supported proceedings by means of video teleconference, and allow for the appointment of temporary immigration judges.

In order to achieve the second point of focus, the Department of Justice is seeking a means to fund the delegation of, “… legal and law enforcement advisors at U.S. embassies…” in designated Central American Countries. In addition, to provide foreign governments with the necessary support and training to combat criminal violence, the Department of Justice, “…is seeking new funding…to assist Central American countries in combatting [sic] transnational crime and the threat posed by criminal gangs.” The purpose of supporting Central American countries in this manner is to provide potential migrants with safer home countries, and thus decreasing the number of migrants who seek protection in the U.S. from crime violence in their home of origin.

For the purposes of prosecuting migrant smugglers, the Department has announced plans to increase its attempts at “…identify[ing] and apprehend[ing] smugglers who are aiding unaccompanied children in crossing the U.S. border.” In tandem with these increased attempts, the importance of strategizing a means to “…disrupt and dismantle…” smuggling networks is addressed as a key area of focus to achieve the final focal point of the announcement.

In conclusion, the Department announcement discloses two initial steps being made this week by key officials. On July 9, 2010, Deputy Attorney General Cole made a visit to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s McAllen Station and processing facility in order to view the pressing concerns regarding the influx of migrants at the border. Apart from this, EOIR Director Juan P. Osuna plans on testifying before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to emphasize the Department of Justice’s strategies towards addressing the influx of migrants onto U.S. soil.

Flash Gordon at the White House

Do you ever wonder where the Barack Obama anti-Israel attitude comes from? Do you ever wonder why Hillary Clinton kept her distance from standing at the side of Israel? Do you ever wonder how John Kerry has been even more assertive in his aggression on Israel? Do you ever wonder why the New York Times maintains their journalists that write pro-Hamas and pr0-Palestinian news items? There are many in the Obama circle that maintain visual and highly vocal opposition to Israel but one you should come to know and meet in Philip Gordon. Gordon was a senior policy advisor to Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign. He was later named as the Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs, responsible for 50 countries. NSC top advisor Tom Donilon completely endorses Philip Gordon. All involved completely ignore Hamas, the PLO and the fact that 20 years of peace negotiations have never advanced, so Israel is to blame according to Gordon. Why you ask? Top Obama Official Blasts Israel Over West Bank Military Occupation Amid Heightening Conflict  by: RAPHAEL AHREN, The Times Of Israel Israel’s ongoing occupation of the West Bank is wrong and leads to regional instability and dehumanization of Palestinians, a top American government official said Tuesday in Tel Aviv, hinting that the current Israeli government is not committed to peace.   In an unusually harsh major foreign policy address, Philip Gordon, a special assistant to US President Barack Obama and the White House coordinator for the Middle East, appealed to Israeli and Palestinian leaders to make the compromises needed to reach a permanent peace agreement. Jerusalem “should not take for granted the opportunity to negotiate” such a treaty with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who has proven to be a reliable partner, Gordon said. “Israel confronts an undeniable reality: It cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely. Doing so is not only wrong but a recipe for resentment and recurring instability,” Gordon said. “It will embolden extremists on both sides, tear at Israel’s democratic fabric and feed mutual dehumanization.” Delivering the keynote address at the Haaretz newspaper’s Israel Conference on Peace, Gordon reiterated Obama’s position that a final-status agreement should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps. The administration is aware that Israel is facing threats on several fronts and Obama remains committed to Israel’s security, he said, speaking on the day that Israel launched Operation Protective Edge to counter rocket fire from the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. Indeed, mere hours before Gordon addressed the conference, hundreds of participants were forced to quickly evacuate the event hall and enter a safe room after an alert signaled a missile approaching Tel Aviv. After about 10 minutes, participants returned to the hall and the conference resumed. “The United States will always have Israel’s back. That’s why we fight for it every day at the United Nations,” Gordon said. But as Israel’s greatest friend and strongest defender, Washington should be allowed to ask some fundamental questions, he added. Specifically, Gordon went on: “How will Israel remain democratic and Jewish if it attempts to govern the millions of Palestinian Arabs who live in the West Bank? How will it have peace if it’s unwilling to delineate a border, end the occupation and allow for Palestinian sovereignty, security and dignity? How will we prevent other states from supporting Palestinian efforts in international bodies, if Israel is not seen as committed to peace?” The administration was disappointed that the last round of US-brokered peace negotiations failed and that currently “we find ourselves in an uneasy pause,” Gordon said. “At the same time we have no interest in a blame game. The unfortunate reality is that neither side prepared their publics or proved ready to make the difficult decisions required for an agreement. And trust has been eroded on both sides. Until it is restored, neither side will likely be ready to takes risk for peace, even if they live with the dire consequences that resolve from its absence.” The “past few weeks” show that the inability to resolve the Israeli-Palestinians conflict “inevitable means more tension, more resentment, more injustice, more insecurity, more tragedy and more grief,” he said. “And the sight of grieving families, Israeli and Palestinian alike, reminds us that the cost of this conflict remains unbearably high.” In his 25-minute speech – which marked the first time a senior White House official had directly addressed the Israeli people since Obama’s March 2013 speech in Jerusalem — Gordon rejected any alternatives to the two-state solution. He called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to resume peace talks with the PA, suggesting that Abbas is the best Palestinian leader Jerusalem could hope for. “Israel should not take for granted the opportunity to negotiate such a peace with Abbas, who has shown time and again that he’s committed to non-violence and co-existence and cooperation with Israel.” At one point in his speech, Gordon appeared to directly contradict an assessment Netanyahu made last week regarding Israel’s security needs vis-à-vis its eastern border. Referring to deliberations retired US General John Allen held with IDF officers regarding ways to secure Israel’s border with Jordan, Gordon said that Allen’s plans include “a full range of contingencies, including rising threats that we see around the Middle East.” Allen was likely referring to the territorial gains made in recent weeks by the radical terror group Islamic State (formerly known as ISIL or ISIS). “The approaches that are being discussed would create one of the most secure borders in the world along both sides of the Jordan River,” Gordon said. “By developing a layered defense that includes significantly strengthening the fences on both sides of the border, ensuring the right level of boots on the ground, deploying state of the art technology, the comprehensive program of rigorous testing, we can make the border safe against any type of conventional or unconventional threat – from individual terrorists or a conventional armored forces.” On June 29, Netanyahu declared that one of Israel’s central security challenges was to “stabilize the area west of the Jordan River security line.” In this part of the West Bank, the prime minister said, “no force can guarantee Israel’s security other than the IDF and our security services… Who knows what the future holds? The ISIS wave could very quickly be directed against Jordan,” he said at a conference in Tel Aviv. Israel would thus have to maintain long-term security control of the territory along the Jordan River in any future accord with the Palestinians, the prime minister said. “The evacuation of Israel’s forces would most likely lead to the collapse the PA and the rise of radical Islamic forces, just as it did in Gaza. It would also severely endanger the State of Israel.” In his speech at the David Intercontinental Hotel in Tel Aviv, Gordon also referred to the hail of rockets that rained down on Israel throughout the day from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip. “The US strongly condemns these attacks. No country should have to live under the constant threat of indiscriminate violence against innocent civilians,” said Gordon, whose administration was heavily criticized by the Israeli government for quickly agreeing to work with the new Hamas-backed Palestinian unity government when it was established last month. The administration supported Israel’s right to defend itself against these attacks, he added. “At the same time, we appreciate Prime Minister Netanyahu’s calls for acting responsibly and we in turn call on all sides to do all they can to restore calm and to protect civilians.”