An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation
Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.
Congress demands answers after surprise Clinton investigation immunity
WashingtonExaminer: Many observers were surprised to learn, in a New York Times report, that the contractor who destroyed Hillary Clinton’s emails while they were under a congressional subpoena received immunity from the Justice Department — and then still refused to answer some questions from the FBI. The surprised included the top two Clinton email investigators in Congress, Reps. Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz, who have both pored over the Clinton materials the FBI handed over to lawmakers.
It was news to them. Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, had no idea until the Times learned it. Same for Gowdy, head of the Benghazi committee.
“If there is a reason to withhold the immunity agreement from Congress — and by extension, the people we represent — I cannot think of what it would be,” Gowdy said in a statement. “I look forward to asking the Bureau about any witnesses who were granted immunity or claimed a privilege preventing them from answering questions.”
Chaffetz will start asking those questions tonight — in a rare Monday evening hearing before the Oversight Committee. Among the witnesses called are top officials who deal with Congress for the FBI and the Justice Department.
Perhaps the key question Chaffetz and his fellow Republicans — Democrats won’t be interested — will pose is: What more have you not told us? Committee members appreciated the FBI handing over Clinton email investigative materials, but they have since learned that the FBI was selective in what it gave to Congress. There are documents that weren’t handed over, and there are significant blackouts in the documents that were given to lawmakers.
The most fundamental questions concern the extent of the classified information that Clinton mishandled. In his July 5 public statement, FBI Director James Comey revealed that 110 of Clinton’s emails had material that was classified at the time they were sent, and more than 2,000 additional emails had material that was later determined to be classified. But what was the classified information that Clinton mishandled? Of course the FBI cannot release it, but it could give Congress, and by extension the American people, a more precise characterization of the secrets Clinton handled in what Comey called an “extremely careless” way.
And then there is the process of the FBI’s investigation itself. It’s not just the fact of the email deleter’s immunity that Congress didn’t know. Anyone who has had a chance to look over the only two documents that have been released to the public — a heavily-redacted copy of the FBI’s summary report plus the so-called “302” writeup of the agents’ interview with Clinton — has come away with some very important questions unanswered.
Like: Who actually gave the order to delete Clinton’s emails? And: Did that order come after — not before — that material was under a subpoena from Congress? And: Who decided to give the deleter immunity? And: What questions did the deleter refuse to answer? And: What does immunity mean if the witness granted immunity still refuses to answer questions? And more.
That’s what the Oversight Committee’s second hearing, to be held Tuesday morning, will address. Called to testify — actually subpoenaed to testify — will be Paul Combetta, the technician for Platte River Networks, the Colorado contractor hired by Clinton to handle her email system. Combetta is the man who had the infamous “oh s—t” moment described in the FBI report in which he allegedly realized he had forgotten to carry out a December 2014 order to destroy emails and instead carried it out sometime in March 2015, after the material was under congressional subpoena.
Combetta is also the one who was given immunity and then, according to the FBI, refused to answer questions about a conference call he had around the time of the deletions with Clinton lawyer David Kendall and top Clinton operative Cheryl Mills.
Republican investigators have a lot of questions for Combetta. The first is whether he will show up. Right now, that’s not clear.
Also called to testify is Bryan Pagliano, the former State Department tech worker who set up Clinton’s private email system — and who has also received immunity from the Justice Department. Along with them will be another worker for Platte River Networks and a longtime employee of former President Bill Clinton.
Pagliano’s immunity has been known for a while. But the revelation of immunity given to Combetta, who the FBI report says destroyed Clinton’s emails and backups after the subpoena, deeply troubles Gowdy, a former prosecutor.
“They gave immunity to the trigger man,” Gowdy told Fox News on Friday. “I mean, that’s why those of us who used to do it for a living didn’t like to give immunity … They immunized the one person you most want to prosecute for the destruction of government records.”
*****
DailyCaller: The Denver-based tech firm that worked on Hillary Clinton’s email server billed the candidate $250 an hour for interviews its employee gave to the FBI.
According to an invoice that the tech company, Platte River Networks (PRN), submitted last September to Clinton’s accounting firm, Marcum LLC., the payment was sought for interviews that PRN employee Paul Combetta gave to the FBI.
Politico reported last November that federal investigators interviewed PRN employees in September. The employees were not identified in the article.
The charges were for “federal interviews” and “travel back east.”
Other charges on the invoice suggest that PRN — which charged an hourly rate of $250 — billed Clinton for seven hours of Combetta’s interviews. The date of the entry is Sept. 15. Three other entries on the invoice add up to $1,750 in charges for seven hours of work. One entry is a $1,250 charge for Combetta’s five hour flight to Denver.
Combetta entered the ongoing Clinton email scandal last week after The New York Times reported that he was granted immunity by the Justice Department in exchange for his cooperation with the federal investigation into Clinton’s email server. The report angered South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy, who noted that the FBI’s recent report on the Clinton email investigation showed that Combetta lied to investigators about his decision to delete backups of Clinton’s emails.
Combetta used a software program called BleachBit to delete the backups. The decision came after a conference call with Clinton staffers. Clinton’s campaign said that nobody affiliated with the candidate knew about Combetta’s actions.
It is still unclear whether Clinton paid the PRN invoice which lists Combetta, but the fact that the firm billed for the interview is raising questions about whether it and Combetta were in effect working for Clinton during the investigation.
If the Clintons were paying for Mr. Combetta’s time and travel, and especially if they were paying for any legal assistance he received through his employer, Denver-based Platte River Networks, it raises the question of how independent Mr. Combetta’s cooperation with the FBI was. Alternately, it could show he remained tethered, and therefore loyal to some degree, to Hillary Clinton and her team.
Platte River’s spokesman, Andy Boian, did not respond to a request for comment. Combetta did not answer phone calls and a voice mail seeking comment.
It was thought that declassifying and releasing those 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report would produce the smoking gun that Saudi Arabia was exclusively behind the attacks. While there were some interesting facts and connections, the real proof was not there. In the first order of business since the return from summer break, the House voted along with the Senate approving legislation where victims’ families could sue Saudi Arabia. This puts, Barack Obama in a precarious position with regard to his veto pen. Does he stand with the families or with Saudi Arabia?
We have the answer according to Josh Earnest, the White House spokesperson:
“That is still the plan. The president does plan to veto this legislation,” press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters. “I do anticipate the president will veto the legislation when it is presented to him. It hasn’t been presented to him yet.”
The Press Secretary reiterated the White House’s concerns with passing the bill saying, “It’s not hard to imagine other countries using this law as an excuse to haul U.S. diplomats or U.S. service members or even U.S. companies into courts all around the world.”
“The president believes that it’s important to look out for our country, to look out for our service members, to look out for these diplomats and allowing this bill to come into law would increase the risk that it would face,” he continued. More here.
It was al Qaeda that struck America 15 years ago for sure, but Iran and Saudi Arabia had is some measure a hand in training, financial support and harboring key al Qaeda operatives. Meanwhile, the al Qaeda operation is still quite functional and not to be dismissed or under-estimated.
In part from the LWJ: Some US officials argue that al Qaeda has been “decimated” because of the drone campaign and counterterrorism raids. They narrowly focus on the leadership layer of al Qaeda, while ignoring the bigger picture. But even their analysis of al Qaeda’s managers is misleading.
Al Qaeda has lost dozens of key men, but there is no telling how many veterans remain active to this day. Experienced operatives continue to serve in key positions, often returning to the fight after being detained or only revealing their hidden hand when it becomes necessary. Moreover, al Qaeda knew it was going to lose personnel and took steps to groom a new generation of jihadists capable of filling in.
From left to right: Saif al Adel, Abu Mohammed al Masri and Abu Khayr al Masri. These photos, first published by the FBI and US intelligence officials, show the al Qaeda leaders when they were younger.
Last year, several veterans were reportedly released from Iran, where they were held under murky circumstances. One of them was Abu Khayr al Masri, who paved the way for Al Nusrah’s rebranding in July. Another is Saif al Adel, who has long been wanted for his role in the 1998 US Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. At least two others freed by Iran, Abu Mohammed al Masri and Khalid al Aruri, returned to al Qaeda as well.
Masri, Al Adel, and Aruri may all be based inside Syria, or move back and forth to the country from Turkey, where other senior members are based. Mohammed Islambouli is an important leader within al Qaeda. After leaving Iran several years ago, Islambouli returned to Egypt and eventually made his way to Turkey, where he lives today.
Sitting to Julani’s right during his much ballyhooed announcement was one of Islambouli’s longtime compatriots, Ahmed Salama Mabrouk. The diminutive Mabrouk is another Zawahiri subordinate. He was freed from an Egyptian prison in the wake of the 2011 uprisings.
Al Qaeda moved some of its senior leadership to Syria and several others from this cadre are easy to identify. But al Qaeda has also relied on personnel in Yemen to guide its global network. One of Zawahiri’s lieutenants, Hossam Abdul Raouf, confirmed this in an audio message last October. Raouf explained that the “weight” of al Qaeda has been shifted to Syria and Yemen, because that is where its efforts are most needed.
The American drone campaign took out several key AQAP leaders in 2015, but they were quickly replaced. Qasim al Raymi, who was trained by al Qaeda in Afghanistan in the 1990s, succeeded Nasir al Wuhayshi as AQAP’s emir last summer. Raymi quickly renewed his allegiance to Zawahiri, whom Raymi described as the “the eminent sheikh” and “the beloved father.” Another al Qaeda lifer, Ibrahim Abu Salih, emerged from the shadows last year. Salih was not a public figure beforehand, but he has been working towards al Qaeda’s goals in Yemen since the early 1990s. Ibrahim al Qosi (an ex-Guantanamo detainee) and Khalid al Batarfi have stepped forward to lead AQAP and are probably also part of al Qaeda’s management team.
This old school talent has helped buttress al Qaeda’s leadership cadre. They’ve been joined by men who signed up for al Qaeda’s cause after the 9/11 attacks as well. In July, the US Treasury Department designated three jihadists who are based in Iran. One of them, known as Abu Hamza al Khalidi, was listed in bin Laden’s files as part of a “new generation” of al Qaeda leaders. Today, he plays a crucial role as the head of al Qaeda’s military commission, meaning he is the equivalent of al Qaeda’s defense minister. Treasury has repeatedly identified other al Qaeda members based in Iran, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Some members of the “new generation” are more famous than others. Such is the case with Osama’s son, Hamzah bin Laden, who is now regularly featured in propaganda.
This brief survey of al Qaeda is not intended to be exhaustive, yet it is still sufficient to demonstrate that the organization’s bench is far from empty. Moreover, many of the men who lead al Qaeda today are probably unknown to the public.
The threat to the West
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned that al Qaeda “nodes in Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Turkey” are “dedicating resources to planning attacks.” His statement underscored how the threats have become more geographically dispersed over time. With great success, the US worked for years to limit al Qaeda’s ability to strike the West from northern Pakistan. But today, al Qaeda’s “external operations” work is carried out across several countries.
During the past fifteen years, Al Qaeda has failed to execute another mass casualty attack in the US on the scale of the 9/11 hijackings. Its most recent attack in Europe came in January 2015, when a pair of brothers backed by AQAP conducted a military-style assault on the Charlie Hebdo office in Paris. AQAP made it clear that the Charlie Hebdo massacre was carried out according to Zawahiri’s orders.
Thanks to vigilance and luck, al Qaeda hasn’t been able to replicate a 9/11-style assault inside the US. Part of the reason is that America’s defenses, as well as those of its partner nations, have improved. Operations such as the 9/11 hijackings are also difficult to carry out in the first place. Even the 9/11 plan experienced interruptions despite a relatively lax security environment. (Most famously, for example, the would-be 20th hijacker was denied entry into the US at an Orlando airport in the summer of 2001.)
But there is another aspect to evaluating the al Qaeda threat that is seldom appreciated. It is widely assumed that al Qaeda is only interested in attacking the West. This is flat false. Most of the organization’s resources are devoted to waging insurgencies in Muslim majority countries.
The story in Syria has been telling. Although al Qaeda may have more resources in Syria than anywhere else, Zawahiri did not order his men to carry out a strike in the West. Al Qaeda’s so-called “Khorasan Group” laid the groundwork for such operations, but Zawahiri did not give this cadre the green light to actually carry them out. Zawahiri’s stand down order is well known. In an interview that aired in May 2015, for instance, Julani explained that the “directives that come to us from Dr. Ayman [al Zawahiri], may Allah protect him, are that Al Nusrah Front’s mission in Syria is to topple [Bashar al Assad’s] regime” and defeat its allies. “We have received guidance to not use Syria as a base for attacks against the West or Europe so that the real battle is not confused,” Julani said. However, he conceded that “maybe” the mother al Qaeda organization is plotting against the West, just “not from Syria.” Julani emphasized that this “directive” came from Zawahiri himself.
To date, al Qaeda has not lashed out at the West from inside Syria, even though it is certainly capable of doing so. Al Qaeda’s calculation has been that such an attack would be too costly for its strategic interests. It might get in the way of al Qaeda’s top priority in Syria, which is toppling the Assad regime. This calculation could easily change overnight and al Qaeda could use Syria as a launching pad against the West soon. But they haven’t thus far. It helps explain why there hasn’t been another 9/11-style plot by al Qaeda against the US in recent years. It also partially explains why al Qaeda hasn’t launched another large-scale operation in Europe for some time. Al Qaeda has more resources at its disposal today than ever, so the group doesn’t lack the capability. If Zawahiri and his advisors decided to make anti-Western attack planning more of a priority, then the probability of another 9/11-style event would go up. Even in that scenario, al Qaeda would have to successfully evade the West’s defenses. But the point is that al Qaeda hasn’t been attempting to hit the West nearly as much as some in the West assume.
In the meantime, it is easy to see how the al Qaeda threat has become more diverse, just as Clapper testified. AQAP has launched several thwarted plots aimed at the US, including the failed Christmas Day 2009 bombing. In 2009, al Qaeda also plotted to strike trains in the New York City area. In 2010, a Mumbai-style assault in Europe was unraveled by security services. It is not hard to imagine al Qaeda trying something along those lines once again. Other organizations tied to al Qaeda, such as the Pakistani Taliban, have plotted against the US as well.
Fifteen years after the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda lives. Fortunately, Zawahiri’s men have not replicated the hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 Americans. But the al Qaeda threat looms. It would be a mistake to assume that al Qaeda won’t try a large-scale operation again. Comprehensive story here.
Several months before Hillary declared her candidacy, I was of the notion she was not going to run at all given how long it took for her to announce. There was thought that Hillary did not want the White House at all, she just wanted the pomp and circumstance and the money that comes with it. After she made her official announcement, I thought my conclusion was wrong and dismissed my conspiracy.
After this weekend, where Hillary had a serious health ‘episode’, the declaration that she was diagnosed last Friday with pneumonia and has been forced to cancel early campaign stops this week, my conspiracy is back on the table. Does she really want this or is her candidacy a ploy for the Foundation and her health condition is her ticket out?
Hillary and Bill have made several global secretive promises and pledges. They are hardly in any position to fulfill them, especially when under countless investigations, much less when Julian Assange of WikiLeaks is soon to publish his trove of documents.
For comprehensive information on the Foundation and facts to the Clinton’s money system, go here.
And new facts has also surfaced and that is yet another immunity condition for the person who did have a conference call with Hillary’s lawyers to delete her emails. This is coupled with the fact that the FBI did not turn over all the documents as previously promised to the Oversight Committee.
Cokie Roberts: Dems ‘Nervously Beginning to Whisper’ About Hillary Replacement; Floats Biden as Possibility
Monday on NPR’s “Morning Edition,” ABC political commentator Cokie Roberts offered her thoughts on the apparent health issues regarding Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the how the party could be looking to handle things if a replacement is needed for Clinton.
According to Roberts, there was already conversation within the party about such a possibility.
“The fact that it comes now when the polls are tightening and Democrats are already saying that Hillary was the only candidate who could not beat Trump and it is taking her off of the campaign trail, canceling her trip to California – it has them very nervously beginning to whisper about having her step aside and finding another candidate.”
When asked if that really could happen, Roberts called it “unlikely to be a real thing,” but floated the name of Vice President Joe Biden as a possible replacement.
“I think it is unlikely to be a real thing,” she added. “And I’m sure it is an overreaction of an already skittish party. But you know, they have looked at what happens in that circumstance. The Democratic National Committee chair convenes the committee and they vote. Now ironically, the candidate who everybody looks at is Joe Biden, who is older than Hillary Clinton. But then again, so is Donald Trump and by the way we know nothing about his health.”
Where is this social justice movement coming from? Do you ever go keyboarding on the internet looking for one specific thing and uncover something related and much bigger? When it comes to this festering growth movement of ‘social justice’ as we are witnessing throughout the country, one must ask what is the genesis. We saw some demands surface after Ferguson and Baltimore. Between those two protests and legal investigations, the White House launched a 21st Century Policing Mandate. But how was this mandate conceived? Ah, seems we need to hop over to New York and that interesting building called the United Nations.
So, it is reasonable to consider the BLM movement is well funded and not only has made it’s way onto Elm Street, it is also taking a place onto network television, where we are forced to see it where the largest TV audiences merge, NFL football.
Are there some connections or collaboration going on here? It cant be proven, however this is a time you can be the judge as this appears to have history and will be with us for years to come.
There is a training program. There are countless issues that do need to be addressed and this movement does have valid reasons that deserve attention. The question is are all components being addressed including the true root causes?
Iran, a known and proven state sponsor of terror has a history of stealing worldwide peace.
Below is the Congressional hearing of the money transfer transaction(s) to Iran, and the testimony reveals there are more coming and others not previously known.
There is an extensive al-Qaeda network feeding global branches based in the Islamic Republic.
Fifteen years on from the 11 September 2001 terror attacks on the US, al-Qaeda is better-positioned than ever before. Its leadership held, and it has rebuilt a presence in Afghanistan. More importantly, al-Qaeda has built powerful regional branches in India, North Africa, Somalia, Yemen and Syria.
Rebranding itself away from the savagery of Iraq, al-Qaeda has sought to embed itself in local populations by gaining popular legitimacy to shield itself from retribution if, or when, it launches terrorist strikes in the West. This is proceeding apace, above all because of a failure to assist the mainstream opposition in Syria, sections of which were forced into interdependency with al-Qaeda to resist the strategy of massacre and expulsion conducted by the Assad regime.
The 9/11 massacre had not come from nowhere. In February 1998, Osama bin Laden, then-leader of al-Qaeda, plus Ayman al-Zawahiri and three others signed a document that said “kill the Americans and their allies – civilians and military – is an individual duty for every Muslim”.
Al-Qaeda attempted to blow up US troops in Yemen in December 1992. Three months later, al-Qaeda attacked New York’s World Trade Center, murdering six people. In November 1995, a car bomb in Riyadh targeted the American training mission for the Saudi National Guard, killing six people. In June 1996, Iran blew up the US military living quarters at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, murdering 19 people.
Al-Qaeda played “some role, as yet unknown” in the attack, according to the 9/11 Commission. The US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were levelled in August 1998, slaughtering 224 people and wounding 5,000, mostly Africans. And in October 2000, a skiff containing two suicide bombers struck an American Naval vessel, the USS Cole, in the port of Aden, killing seventeen sailors.
The conspiracy theories about 9/11 are now a feature of life today. Often proponents will hide behind the façade of “asking questions”. Instead of queries about jet fuel melting steel beams and nano-thermite, however, this inquisitiveness would be much better directed at the actual unanswered questions surrounding 9/11, which centre on the role of Iran.
In 1992, in Sudan, al-Qaeda and Iran came to an agreement to collaborate against the West “even if only training”, the 9/11 Commission records. Al-Qaeda members went to the Bekaa valley to be trained by Hezbollah, Iran’s Lebanese proxy. Hezbollah’s military leader at that time, Imad Mughniyeh, personally met Bin Laden in Sudan to work out the details of this arrangement.
There is no doubt that training provided by Iran made the 1998 East African Embassy bombings possible, and after the bombing numerous al-Qaeda operatives fled unhindered through Iran to Afghanistan. The 9/11 Commission documented that over-half of the death pilots “travelled into or out of Iran” and many were tracked into Lebanon.
Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al-Qaeda
Senior Hezbollah operatives were certainly tracking some of the hijackers, in at least one case travelling on the same plane. The operational planner of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, lived in Iran for long stretches of the 1990s. To this day there is an extensive al-Qaeda network that feeds the global branches based in Iran, sheltered from US counter-terrorism efforts.
“Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al-Qaeda,” the 9/11 Commission noted. But the connections were there, and “this topic requires further investigation”. Sadly, such investigation has never occurred. Instead, the Islamic Republic has been brought into the fold, with billions of dollars released to it through the nuclear deal and a curious belief that Tehran can, or will, help stabilise the Middle East has taken hold.
Bin Laden had intended to drive the US out of the region with the 9/11 attack. “Hit them and they will run,” he told his followers. This was a theme of his 1996 fatwa first declaring war on America. In this, he miscalculated.
The Taliban regime had sheltered Jihadi-Salafists from all over the Arab world. Some left over from the fight against the Soviet occupation; others on the run from the security services of their native lands or just wanting to live in a land of “pure Islam”. Though the training and planning for global terrorism occurred in Afghanistan, most of al-Qaeda’s resources were directed more locally, toward irregular wars, notably in Algeria, Bosnia, and Chechnya. Al-Qaeda trained up to 20,000 jihadist insurgents before 9/11. This sanctuary was lost in the aftermath of 9/11, something lamented by jihadi strategist Mustafa Setmariam Nasar (Abu Musab al-Suri).
Bin Laden had worked with Ahmad al-Khalayleh (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), the Jordanian founder of what we now know as the Islamic State (Isis), to carve out a jihadi statelet in northern Iraq in the late 1990s led by a group called Ansar al-Islam.
Rice is thrown as Hezbollah members carry the coffin of top their commander Mustafa Badreddine on 13 May 2016Reuters/Aziz Taher
After the Taliban’s fall, al-Khalayleh moved into this area and into Baghdad in early 2002. After making preparations through Syria for the influx of foreign fighters, al-Khalayleh moved to the Ansar-held territory and waited for the US.led Coalition.
IS’s predecessor planned – with al-Qaeda’s blessing – to expel the Coalition forces and set up an Islamic state in Iraq that could then spread across the region, restoring the caliphate. But IS’s methods brought it into frequent conflict with al-Qaeda, and by 2008 IS had been strategically defeated after provoking a backlash among Sunnis in Iraq. The distinctions between IS and al-Qaeda hardened thereafter until their formal split in February 2014.
IS, post-2008, changed some tactical aspects so as to bring the tribes back on-board but remained remarkably consistent in its approach, including the celebration of violence, premised on the idea of building an Islamic state as quickly as possible, which would force the population into collaboration with it and ultimately acceptance over time. In contrast, al-Qaeda placed ever-more emphasis on building popular support that would culminate in a caliphate when it had a critical mass.
The discrediting of IS’s predecessor, operating under al-Qaeda’s banner, damaged al-Qaeda so much that Bin Laden considered changing the organization’s name. Events since then, above all allowing the Syria war to protract, allowed al-Qaeda to rebrand as “pragmatic”, using IS as a foil, and recover.
Al-Qaeda, vanguard-style, took on the local concerns, worked to solve them, and in turn claimed the protection of the local population. Al-Qaeda has tangled itself so deeply into local dynamics, in Yemen and Syria most notably, that it would require a substantial local effort to root them out.
Unfortunately, the Western approach is making the problem worse. A good example came on Thursday night (8 September 2016) when the US launched air strikes against some leaders of al-Qaeda in Syria, now calling itself Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (JFS), which ostensibly disaffiliated from al-Qaeda in July in order to further this process of entanglement.
JFS claims it has no external ambitions and is working to break the siege of 300,000 people in the rebel-held areas of Aleppo city, yet it is attacked. Meanwhile, the US has done nothing about the thousands of Iranian-controlled Shia jihadists, tied into Iran’s global terrorist network, who are the leading element in imposing the siege, and conducted these strikes likely in furtherance of a deal with Russia, which also helped impose the siege. JFS thus claimed that it is serving the Syrian people, while the US opposes the revolution and supports the pro-regime coalition.
“It is a highly unfortunate reality that many Syrians living in opposition areas of Syria perceive JFS as a more determined and effective protector of their lives and interests than the United States and its Western allies,” wrote Charles Lister. The West has been unwilling to do anything to complicate the ability of the Bashar al-Assad regime to commit mass-murder for fear of antagonizing the Iranians and collapsing a “legacy-setting nuclear accord“. While that remains the case, al-Qaeda will continue to gain power and acceptance as a necessary-evil in Syria, and the ramifications of Syria are generational and global.
It is true that there is far too much optimism in current assessments of IS’s impending doom. The group will outlast the loss of its cities, and the misguided way the Coalition has conducted the war will provide conditions for a potential revival. Still, it is al-Qaeda that has the long-term advantage.
IS claimed sole legitimacy to rule, gained visibility and therefore followers. But as strategists like Setmariam understood, this made them visible to their enemies too, a toll that is beginning to tell, especially abroad. In Syria, formal al-Qaeda branches were never the organisation’s only lever and al-Qaeda was much more interested in shaping the environment than ruling it. In essence, al-Qaeda will give up the name and the public credit for the sake of the thing – whether that’s the popular understanding of the religion or the foundations of an Islamic emirate.
“IS wants the world to believe that it is everywhere, and … al-Qaeda wants the world to believe that it is nowhere.” That quip from Daveed Gartenstein-Ross neatly summarizes the trajectory of the two organisations. What can’t be seen is harder to stop – al-Qaeda’s counting on it.
Kyle W. Orton is associate fellow at the Henry Jackson Society and a Middle East analyst and commentator.
Getty Image