By Allah, we will take revenge!

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi

The attack by battle-hardened jihadists in the French capital on Friday, November 13, 2015 was not the first time terrorism directed at the residents of Paris had occurred. Yet, even in a large metropolis that has experienced urban terrorism with North African and Middle East connections many times before, there was an unprecedented ruthless efficiency  in the barbarism unleashed  on undefended soft targets and the resulting mass carnage. In its impact, the attack on Paris will likely be compared to 9/11 in the United States and 7/7 in London.

The Islamic State, aka ISIS, has taken credit for the mass killings in the French capital. Should the claim by ISIS be proven accurate, it marks a grave–but not unpredicted–escalation in the global jihad being waged by the Islamic State against an enemy it has defined as essentially the entire world that lies outside the boundaries of the nascent caliphate. In the summer of 2014, shortly after the armies of the Islamic State had begun their territorial grab in Iraq and conquered Mosul, the second largest city in that war-torn country, the self-proclaimed caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, delivered a sermon in that town’s  Great Al-Nuri Mosque.  The essence of his proclamation was that the formation of the caliphate was not an end in itself, but a means to an end, which he stated without a trace of ambiguity was perpetual jihad–holy war– against the non-Islamic world. His prose was stark and uncompromising, and for those who listened, al-Baghdadi made clear his intention of utilizing the ever-expanding Islamic State as a platform for unleashing vengeance upon the non-Islamic world.  The appalling slaughter in Paris followed by only two weeks the destruction of a Russian Metrojet airliner over the Sinai desert, which ISIS has proudly claimed responsibility for–and a growing body of expert analysis tends to confirm the connection, which killed 224 passengers and crew. The day before the Paris atrocity, suicide bombs detonated in a largely Shiite neighborhood in Beirut killed 43. Again, the Islamic State identified itself as the force behind the attack.

The French president, Francois Hollande, described the jihadist attack on Paris as an act of war committed by ISIS. For the first time, a Western leader appears to understand that the Islamic State is not a traditional non-state actor engaging in terrorism, but an actual state entity conducting warfare, asymmetrical in character, but with a clear strategic focus. Will President Hollande, along  with President Obama, draw the proper conclusions? Unfortunately, the past year and a half since the emergence of the Islamic State as a regional and now global actor does not give rise to optimism. The U.S. president, in particular, has displayed indecisiveness and a lack of clarity in confronting the challenge of the Islamic State.

Obama, however, is not alone. The Russian president, Putin, has been equally lacking in leadership. While boasting that his military intervention in Syria’s civil war is for the purpose of fighting ISIS, Putin has been using the Islamic State threat as cover for supporting the Assad dictatorship and its Iranian Shiite allies, in the process facilitating support for the Islamic State by Sunni Muslims in the Arab world, who increasingly look upon ISIS as the only force that can protect them against their perceived enemies, especially Iran and “infidel” foreigners conducting air raids on their lands.

In contrast with the confusion and strategic incoherence among his enemies stands the caliph of the Islamic State. However barbarically inhumane he may be, al-Baghdadi is not incoherent in relation to his long-term objective and the tactical and operational means required for its attainment. He wants the world outside the caliphate, including moderate Arab countries, to be struck down with massive social, political and economic chaos. Mass casualty attacks on the civil population of his perceived enemies are the method. The likelihood, in the absence of  coherent and strong leadership in the target nations, are future attacks that unfortunately will dwarf the bloodbath in Paris in their murderous impact.

DONALD TRUMP 2016: America’s Next President? is available on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/DONALD-TRUMP-2016-Americ…/…/B0156PAAVM

Amid the flurry of Obama administration official statements promulgated by its various presidential and departmental spokespersons, reality is setting in. Despite the happy talk from Washington about ISIL (the Obama administration’s preferred acronym for describing the Islamic State), military facts on the ground cannot be eradicated by press briefings and political spin.  The recent and significant victories by the armies of the Islamic State in Palmyra, Syria and Ramadi, Iraq are a clear testament to the undiminished military efficacy and capability of the nascent caliphate.

Last  October I penned a piece in the Huffington Post, “President Obama Wages War on the Islamic State: Anatomy of a Disaster in the Making” (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/president-obama-wages-war_b_5933642.html), in which I predicted failure for President Obama in his role of Commander-in-Chief in the evolving military confrontation with the Islamic State and its appointed Caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. I specifically highlighted four areas I saw as flaws in the President’s approach towards the struggle with the caliphate: 1. Propensity to underestimate the enemy and his capabilities; 2.Overreliance on insufficient means, primarily airpower; 3.Lack of a grand strategic vision, essential for prevailing in the conflict; 4. Intellectually myopic in recognizing the full dimensions of the threat posed to America by the Islamic State.

Regrettably, all the deficiencies I outlined seven months ago remain intact, as evidenced by the recent strategic victories gained by the Islamic State’s military forces in Syria and Iraq. It should be pointed out that the distance between Palmyra in Syria and Ramadi in Iraq is more than 600 kilometers, or nearly 400 miles. The fact that the Islamic State could simultaneously deploy major forces and prevail in those two widely separated battle arenas is concrete evidence to knowledgeable military experts of a highly competent military staff, and a mastery of the operational art of war. The choice of where the Islamic State advances or withdraws also pinpoints the highly strategic nature of the Islamic State’s military operations, which appear geared towards dominance of road networks, essential for controlling the large areas of Syria and Iraq currently claimed by the caliphate.

When America first began its confrontation with militant Islam in the form of al-Qaeda post 9/11, the jihadists were characterized and described as non-state actors. This description is no longer tenable in comprehending the challenge of the Islamic State. This entity may not follow the pattern of a traditional nation-state that participates in the international arena. However, in terms of its structure and the threat it poses, the Islamic State is in fact what it declares itself to be– a state, and one with an army with a skilled general staff, effective logistics and disciplined and highly motivated foot soldiers, able to employ combined arms, including armor and artillery support. Far from the “jayvee team” Barack Obama suggested as a metaphor for the Islamic State in January 2014, this entity has morphed into a most serious and capable military threat, transcending the conventional description of such Islamist phenomena as terrorist non-state actors.

While confusion and disarray reign within the circles of power in Washington, clarity seems to be the defining characteristic of the Islamic State. Despite attempts by U.S. policymakers with no comprehension of the history of Islam to downplay and distort its Islamic credentials, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the Islamic State’s leadership circles are firmly welded to their historical narrative, which they fully comprehend. Their model is the Prophet Mohammed, who first brought his religious revelation to the Arabian peninsula through the sword. In the century after the Prophet’s death, his companions conquered the largest empire in history up to that time through an unparalleled application of religious fanaticism, combined with innovative military tactics. They were harsh and uncompromising towards the unbelievers, and it is that identical religious zeal that underpins the fierceness and tenacity of the soldiers of the Islamic State.

As the Obama administration gropes for answers to the challenge of the Islamic State, it appears that their new stratagem is to place their hopes in Shiite-dominated Iran, a theocracy that hates America as much as the Islamic State, and which itself is despised by the Sunni Muslim community al-Baghdadi and his caliphate represent. On top of the already monumental mistakes and strategic miscalculations President Obama has been the architect of in addressing the Islamic State, it seems that an even more dangerous error is in the process of being engineered–supporting the anti-American ayatollahs in Tehran as the protector of the Middle East from the Islamic State. I can think of no other policy decision by the Obama administration that would serve the highest hopes and aspirations of the Islamic State so well.

In the ongoing battle between the 21st and 7th centuries, it must be unfortunately concluded that the seventh century is in ascendance.

Hillary Clinton is running for President of the United States  in 2016. See the video about the book that warned back in 2008 what a second Clinton presidency would mean for the USA:

CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW VIDEO Hillary Clinton Nude

“The medium is the message”

Marshall McLuhan

In declaring himself caliph of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is following in the footsteps of an ancient role model, Abu al-Abbas, founder of the Abbasid Caliphate. Historians regard the Abbasid dynasty as the most successful Arab Caliphate. Under their rule, Arab-speaking Islamic civilization reached its zenith, and at its peak it exceeded European civilization in its economic and scientific advancement. Its founder, however, did not rise to power on a bed of roses by conforming to what present-day international law experts would label the “rules of war.” Abu al-Abbas marched to the beat of a different drummer, whose echoes resonate with the present-day leader of the Islamic State.

Abu al-Abbas appointed himself caliph in a manner replicated by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He initiated a civil war against the then-existing Omayyad Caliphate, raising the black flag  that would be copied nearly thirteen centuries later by al-Baghdadi. The founder of the Abbasid dynasty had a very simple military strategy; slaughter every supporter, servant and blood-related operatives of the Omayyad Caliphate, without mercy and always justified on the basis of Islamic texts, suitably interpreted. Then, after the capture of Damascus by his forces in 750 A.D. , the new caliph seemed to relent in his blood lust, inviting eighty surviving officials of the deposed Omayyad Caliphate to a reconciliation dinner. While the unsuspecting dinner guests were gorging on food and drink, they were suddenly attacked by soldiers of the caliph, and hacked to pieces. As described in various Islamic histories, the caliph insisted that the dinner continue, including musical entertainment, without the corpses of the slaughtered victims being removed. Shortly afterwards, Abu al-Abbas delivered his first public address as caliph, in which he proudly referred to himself as “al Saffah,” Arabic for “The Bloodshedder.” That is how the founder of the Abbasid Caliphate has become known in history, and he is the role model for the man who appointed himself caliph of the nascent Islamic State.

The horrifically barbaric ritual murders being propagated via the Internet by the Islamic State would, in a different context, be classified as snuff pornography. However, in the second decade of the 21st century they amount to weapons of war. The Islamic State may not have an air force to compete with American dominance in the skies over Syria and Iraq, but it does have equal access to the  Internet, which in effect serves as the tactical air support for the Islamic State. In an era of asymmetrical warfare, it is the means utilized by al-Baghdadi to create what amounts to a level playing field, enabling him to confront the United States with some degree of success.

Cyberspace has evolved into the most effective operational realm for the Islamic State, and is integrated into all of its activities; military, ideological and psychological. The caliph of the Islamic State has created an image akin to that of the founder of the Abbasid Caliphate; “the Bloodshedder.” In one of the video execution spectacles released by the Islamic State, al-Baghdadi declared : “Know that we have armies in Iraq and an army in Sham [Syria] of hungry lions whose drink is blood and play is carnage.”

With the Islamic State and its elaborate Internet propaganda arm, it is clear that the medium is indeed the message. It provides the war effort of the new caliphate with a pervasiveness that is truly global in its impact. It conveys the clear message that the armies of al-Baghdadi take no prisoners, and display not the slightest compassion or mercy towards those it deems as the “unbelievers.” It also sends another message to that special breed of men it seeks to recruit as fighters;  a theologically-sanctified collective psycho-pathology that provides those on our planet with such inclinations an environment to practice barbaric cruelty on human beings without limits of conscience or the restraint of a Western-imposed Geneva Convention.

Standing in opposition to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is President Barack Obama, America’s Commander-in-Chief and leader of the Free World, whose latest pronouncement on this conflict, made at the National Prayer Breakfast, was advice to Christians not to get on their “high horse” because of the violence being committed by the Islamic State.  “People committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” proffered the President, in connection with the Crusades that occurred a millennium ago (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-31156153).

While Obama engages in an esoteric verbal exercise  in deflecting any reference to radical Islamic extremism, his opponent, free of any intellectual ambiguity, ruthlessly but effectively pursues his war against those he deems the unbelievers. If anything, the most recent comments by the president display  growing disarray and confusion within the Obama administration on how to wage war against the Islamic State.

If Hillary Clinton runs for President of the United States  in 2016, see the video about the book that warned back in 2008 what a second Clinton presidency would mean for the USA:

CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW VIDEO Hillary Clinton Nude

A  full-blooded war in its early stages is now underway, involving two antagonists, the Islamic State led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, known to his followers as Caliph Ibrahim, and the United States of America, led by President Barack Obama. The former, creator of the world’s first Islamic caliphate in nearly a century, is strong-willed, determined, persistent and utterly ruthless. The latter, by contrast, is a reluctant warrior, tentative, incoherent in his understanding and articulation of the threat posed by his nemesis, and prone to missteps. It is the distinction in the capacities of these two leaders far more than the relative military potential of the two opposing actors that will determine the outcome of this potentially epochal struggle. The present trajectory revealed in the leadership style and substance of the President leads me to a pessimistic assessment of this evolving military conflict . The following comprises my diagnosis of why President Obama is leading the United States towards a potentially cataclysmic outcome for his nation:

1. President Obama has consistently underestimated–and misunderstood– his opponent. Hubris is one of the most fatal afflictions that can undermine a national leader engaged in a great struggle. Unfortunately, Obama has time and again demonstrated an inability to accurately gauge his opponent’s capacity.  The intelligence failures and abject unwillingness to comprehend the emerging threat posed by al-Baghdadi and his Islamic State by the President  are already well recognized, such as his reference in January 2014 to the Islamic State as a “JV team.” Recent formulations by the President display continued misconceptions regarding the leader of the Islamic State.

In a nationally televised statement made by President Obama on September 10, 2014 he said, “ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents.” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/10/statement-president-isil-1) Considering that neither the President nor his principal national security advisors are practicing Muslims, while Abu Bakr a-Baghdadi holds two advanced degrees in Islamic studies from the Islamic University of Baghdad, including a PhD, it is an astonishing display of naiveté for America’s Commander-in-Chief to engage in a contest on the relative expertise of the two leaders in the field of Islamic jurisprudence and Koranic exegesis. The brutal truth is that the Caliph of the Islamic State has the credentials and expert knowledge to base all of his military decisions on Islamic principles, and that is a defining strength of al-Baghdadi that enables him to inspire his followers to a fanatical religious devotion. The President’s ill-founded characterizations reveals a lack of ability to comprehend the glue that binds together the military prowess that defines the Islamic State. Furthermore, history repeatedly reveals that religion (and rigid secular ideologies)–not only Islam, but all three monotheistic faith traditions–have scriptures and theological precepts that can and have been used to justify the slaying of non-combatants.

By attempting to turn the conflict  that has been initiated by the Islamic State into a contest in defining the true nature of Islam, President Obama arouses contempt and ridicule from the enemy while achieving nothing on the battlefield.

2. The Commander-in-Chief is attempting to wage war on the cheap. One gets the impression that President Obama believes he can determine the course of a military conflict by edict. For example, he can decide to withdraw troops from one operational theatre, and declare no ground forces will be deployed to another arena, as though politically-determined polices are a substitute for careful, long-term strategic and operational decision-making. Clearly, Obama hopes to contain the Islamic State through airpower and drones, primarily American but supposedly involving a large coalition of allies.

If massive aerial bombing and the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops could not defeat the Vietcong during the Vietnam war, what historical parallels is the President turning towards to instill confidence that airpower alone will bring the forces of the caliphate to their knees? As for the military contribution by several NATO and Arab allies, the miniscule number of combat aircraft being offered by these nations is irrelevance in the broader context of the struggle. The farcical nature of this contribution was illustrated by the British Ministry of Defense highlighting the deployment of a mere two aircraft and their subsequent destruction of a single Islamic State Toyota pickup truck as a major “triumph” on the battlefield.

To date, America’s leader and his key allies are thinking small and short-term, while the looming struggle will be massive and enduring. Conducting this warfare through minimalist means will only guarantee a far lengthier and costly struggle with the forces of the Islamic State.

3. President Obama lacks a grand strategic vision for confronting the Islamic State. The President’s external priorities have been all over the map, diluting the ability of the U.S. to comprehensively and effectively confront the challenge being posed by the Islamic State.  While al-Baghdadi was building up strength, training his cadres and formulating his strategy, America’s  foreign policy and national security agenda has been globally dispersed. Obama and his key advisors, in particular John Kerry, were simultaneously retreating from the Middle East while seeking to have the other anti-American Islamic theocracy in the region, Iran, serve as a substitute for protecting U.S. regional interest through concessions on the nuclear issue; devoting massive allocations of time and effort towards “resolving” the Palestinian-Israeli issue when  all the known facts indicated that this was at present a fool’s errand that was also a marginal factor in the continuing disarray  in the region; pivoting towards the Asia-Pacific region in  a manner that signaled that China, America’s principal financial creditor, was being viewed as a future threat; and restarting the Cold War with Russia through miscalculations and ill-advised intervention in the political turmoil in Ukraine.

If the Islamic State was an insignificant threat, perhaps the United States would have the luxury of engaging in multilateral policy endeavors that would add to Washington’s list of adversaries and estranged allies. However, in the kind of contest of wills that the Caliph has unleashed, I don’t think a wise policymaker would characterize the threat being posed as insubstantial. That being the case, a more coherent presidency would be focused on defeating the threat, and building the alliances that would maximize the ability to crush the Islamic State. Russia and China are both viewed as enemies by the Islamic State, along with the United States. Obama should be reaching out to Moscow and Beijing as potential and powerful allies in the war against the Islamic State, rather than engaging in policies that create tension in the relationship with these two counties, while diverting attention and resources away from the confrontation with the Islamic State.

4. Thus far, the President does not appear to fully recognize the nature and scope of the threat being posed to America by al-Baghdadi and his army. In essence, everything that President Obama has said and every decision he has made in connection with the Islamic State reveals that Obama views it as a phenomenon in continuity with the general “War on Terror,” which actually began prior to September 11, 2001. The very conceptualization labeled as the “War on Terror” betrays the strategic disconnect and intellectual vacuum within the decision-making apparatus in Washington. Terror, per se, is a tactical means employed by a hostile entity, and not the entity itself. Obama apparently sees the conflict as one involving a  confrontation with “terrorists” as opposed to a structured entity, the Islamic State, with an army, battlefield commanders, an effective military staff and strong leadership. Furthermore, this structured entity is clearly at war with the United States, and there is no ambiguity or lack of clarity by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his leadership regarding their intentions towards the United States. This is made clear in a propaganda film released by the Islamic State, “Flames of War,” which concludes with a message from the Caliph aimed directly at the American people:

“Finally, this is a message we direct to America. Know, O defender of the cross, that a  proxy war won’t help you  in Sham [Syria] just as it didn’t help you in Iraq. As for the near future, you will be forced into a direct confrontation, with Allah’s permission, despite your reluctance. And the sons of Islam have prepared for this day, so wait and see, for we too are also going to wait and see.” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XZ3ovDxhw4&bpctr=1412479968)

The Islamic State wants the United States to once again deploy a large field army in the heart of the Arab world, and will seek to provoke President Obama to undertake what his enemy knows he is reluctant to do. How will they achieve their objective? In all probability, by launching a massive attack on American soil, at the level of September 11, 2001, at a minimum. And why do they seek the return of large ground forces from the U.S. to the Middle East? In the short term, this will aid in their recruitment. Long term, the leadership of IS are convinced that they can wear down the U.S. Army in grinding battles of attrition in urban combat, in the process crippling America militarily and economically.

A President who truly understood the threat facing the nation would not be expending time on the golf course or fundraising expeditions; he would be devoting every waking moment he has available in defending the United States from perhaps its most dangerous enemy since the Second World War.

If Hillary Clinton runs for President of the United States  in 2016, see the video about the book that warned back in 2008 what a second Clinton presidency would mean for the USA:

CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW VIDEO Hillary Clinton Nude

As the Obama administrations engages in an awkward and uncertain recalibration of its policy towards the Middle East since of the emergence of the caliphate of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi–the Islamic State–the internal debate amongst the President’s inner circle is being mirrored by pundits on both the Right and the Left. They have vastly different perceptions of the degree of threat the Islamic State poses to the United States, however they share a common disaffection with President Barack Obama’s policymaking.

The rightwing media pundits excoriate Obama as an incompetent in the face of hordes of ISIS jihadists stealthily penetrating the nation’s southern border, aiming to engage in a multitude of attacks against individual Americans. On the other extreme of the ideological divide, liberal media commentators, particularly on one cable news network, seize upon any alarm being sounded by those on the Right as sure evidence of conservative hysteria, clear proof that any claims of a threat being directed at the United States by ISIS are simply wildly exaggerated scare-mongering.

I think they are both wrong.

Neither the Right nor the Left  in America have any credible insights into the strategy, goals and tactical doctrine of the Islamic State. I recall the media response to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s first public appearance at the Great Al-Nuri  Mosque located in the second largest city in Iraq, Mosul, soon after its capture by the caliph’s army.  There was universal scorn espoused by mainstream media representing the entire political spectrum, with more attention devoted to what brand of luxury watch al-Baghdadi was wearing on his wrist rather than the content and meaning of the violent and threatening words pouring from his lips. While the public discourse may have adopted a new script since then, it remains characterized by superficiality.

If it is not for the media pundits to diagnose the threat posed by the Islamic State, can America’s intelligence community be relied upon to perform better? The evidence is not reassuring. The most fateful miscalculation the U.S. has made to date in the region has been the invasion of Iraq mounted in 2003–an intervention which, to his credit, Obama opposed at the time–which opened the Pandora’s box that fueled the jihadist movements in the heart of the Middle East. The justification for that disastrous military escapade was based on the premise of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which we now know was a fallacy. What we must remind ourselves of is that the world’s most expensive intelligence community lacked a single credible human source in the nation its military was planning to invade. In 2014 the intelligence picture is no more reassuring. It is likely that the United States has no human sources operating within the inner command structure of the Islamic State. That being the case, the policymakers in Washington, and the ideological media pundits of both the Right and the Left, lack any substantive basis to construct a meaningful threat assessment with respect to the intentions of al-Baghdadi and his caliphate towards the United States.

What we are left with are the words spoken by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Mosul in early July of this year.  There is no ambiguity or subtlety in his message. The creation of the caliphate is not an end in itself, but merely the means to achieving the ultimate end, which is total victory for the religion of Allah–Islam. “So take up arms, take up arms, O soldiers of the Islamic State! And fight, fight!,” proclaimed the caliph to his followers, reinforcing his message that the Islamic State’s raison d’être was waging perpetual war and inflicting vengeance against the “unbelievers” until their complete destruction and submission (https://ia902501.us.archive.org/2/items/hym3_22aw/english.pdf).

Though  al-Baghdadi defines the entire non-Islamic world as the enemy, and adds to the list Muslims he views as collaborators with those enemies, in the hierarchy of targets it is the “crusaders,”  primarily represented by the United States and Russia, who are at the top of the hierarchy of  “unbelievers.” Accordingly, I would infer from his speech the intention of attacking the United States. Furthermore, based on the observable military characteristics of the Islamic State, one can see clear evidence of well conceived strategic planning, effective tactical execution on the battlefield, the ability to think long-term and, most importantly, utter ruthlessness in the infliction of maximum casualties upon its enemies.

I don’t have a crystal ball, however, any serious observer and analyst of the intentions and capabilities of the Islamic State must conclude that their command authority is constantly thinking of ways and means of inflicting maximum damage on the United States, and should they succeed, I fear the consequences would surpass that horrible day of September 11, 2001.

If Hillary Clinton runs for President of the United States  in 2016, see the video about the book that warned back in 2008 what a second Clinton presidency would mean for the USA:

CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW VIDEO Hillary Clinton Nude

In remarks made before White House journalists on August 28, 2014 President Barack Obama, officially the Commander-in-Chief of the world’s most powerful military, offered his nation the following status of his leadership in the emerging global struggle with the Islamic State. “We don’t have a strategy yet,” so stated President Obama, with a level of reckless candor that is frankly astonishing.

And what about the Commander-in-Chief of the growing jihadi movement  coalescing under the framework of the caliphate that calls itself the Islamic State? The self-appointed caliph, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is much too savvy to reveal his grand strategic plan at a public press briefing. However, his public utterances display no ambiguity about his strategic goals and vision: to wage a merciless war of revenge against all the infidels on the planet, the United States  being his number one target. Furthermore, the impressive and swift battlefield successes achieved by the Islamic State over a wide geographic space encompassing  both Syria and Iraq display clear evidence of high-level strategic planning and near-flawless execution. It is unquestionably clear that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, unlike Barack Obama, is not waiting for a strategy to magically be formed; the grand strategy of the Islamic State not only exists; it is being aggressively implemented.

On paper, one could argue, it is inconceivable that the global jihad under the auspices of the Islamic State can defeat the world’s sole remaining superpower. Such rationalization betrays both intellectual conceit and a profound ignorance of history. From the fall of Rome to the Teutonic barbarians to the defeat of the British Empire by American revolutionaries, the historical record is replete with examples of supposedly mightier nations succumbing to numerically and economically inferior opponents on the battlefield. The brutal lesson of history is that very often it is not the side that is more humane and enlightened that prevails. Too often, the inverse is the case, though for reasons only tangentially linked to the display of greater ruthlessness. Strong leadership with a fierce devotion to victory at whatever cost, combined with a high level of strategic and tactical skill, is far more relevant in the martial contest between competing nations and ideologies than the relative level of civilization. Undoubtedly, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is both informed and inspired by what occurred in the century following the death of the Prophet Mohammed; the conquest of the Middle East, Southwest Asia, North Africa and large parts of Southern Europe by Arabian horsemen inspired by an uncompromising religious ideology that offered but one prescription: conquer or die.

With admirable honesty, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel informed the media that, with respect to the Islamic State, “They’re beyond just a terrorist group. They marry ideology, a sophistication of strategic and tactical military prowess. They are tremendously well-funded. Oh, this is beyond anything that we’ve seen. So we must prepare for everything.”

Since Hagel’s brutally frank characterization of the threat posed to the United States, administration officials and pundits have awkwardly attempted to walk back the perceived threat, arguing that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is too focused on operations in Iraq and Syria at present to be in a position to begin targeting the U.S. homeland-as though these people actually have a pipeline into the innermost thoughts of the caliph of the Islamic State. In reality, the U.S. intelligence community, and by extension President Obama and his administration, have no clear idea of the threat America confronts, or the military and operational capacity of the Islamic State. While frantic arguing ensues over the supposed threat of jihadists with European and American passports returning home to commit random acts of violence, has anyone in the policymaking echelon considered that a declared enemy of the United States who has already displayed an impressive level of operational skill is more likely to attack the American homeland in a manner that achieves far greater strategic consequences than merely bombing a subway or bus?

Until and unless the U.S. has leadership that is as determined, disciplined and focused as is found in the newly established caliphate, we may find the 21st century being overwhelmed and subjugated by the 7th century.

If Hillary Clinton runs for President of the United States  in 2016, see the video about the book that warned back in 2008 what a second Clinton presidency would mean for the USA:

CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW VIDEO Hillary Clinton Nude

In 2003, as President George W. Bush  unleashed his invasion of Iraq-based on the false premise of WMDs- for the overarching goal of reengineering the Arab world to conform to Western notions of governance and economics, the Christian community of that ancient Mesopotamian land numbered 1.5 million, representing some 5 percent of the Iraqi population. At present, eleven years after the disastrous American intervention, the Christian community in Mesopotamia has dwindled by more than two thirds. How many remain is hard to estimate; credible figures range from under half a million to as low as 200,000, the latter estimate postulated by The Economist.  How ironic that the most powerful Christian-majority nation on the planet unleashed a series of events in the heart of the Arab world that may see the eventual  extinction of the nearly two-millennia old Christian community in Mesopotamia.

Christianity predates Islam in the Middle East by hundreds of years. With the establishment of the Arab empires following  the death of the Prophet Mohammed, particularly the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, the status of minorities within the Islamic world became  defined as dhimma, an Arabic term defining the granting of a minority religion the right to practice their faith and establish communal institutions, but with restrictions and requirements that enshrined their submission to the Muslim state, including payment of a special tax, referred to in Arabic as the jizya. The dhimma status was granted to Christians and Jews, both peoples recognized as being “people of the book.” Other religious minorities were deprived of any protection, and regarded as pagan heresies.

Despite the rights granted under the dhimma status, the Christians in the Arab world never had an easy existence, even under the best of circumstances. Under the Caliphate of the Ottoman Turks, the plight of the Christians actually worsened. Nearly a century ago, approximately 1.5 million Armenian Christians died during  a massive ethnic cleansing campaign carried out by the Ottoman Empire during the early period of the First World War-the first genocide of the 20th century.

The period of European colonial rule that followed World War I, which included the creation of artificial, multi-ethnic and religious entities under the Sykes-Picot Agreement,  and subsequent independence of these nations after World War II, allowed a brief period in which Christians in the Arab world could coexist with the Muslim majority in a context where Arab nationalism temporarily transcended religious identity. That is no more.  The radioactive half-life of the U.S. military intervention in Iraq has demolished the thin veneer of secular nationalism that defined the post-World War II Arab Middle East, and opened a Pandora’s box of repressed 7th Century religious fanaticism that may well spell doom for the ancient Christian communities in much of the Arab world.

The recent onslaught of the armies of the Islamic State, under the brutal but militarily effective leadership of its self-appointed caliph, Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, has led to the seizure of large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria. The very heart of the Christian communities in Mesopotamia have now fallen under the control of the Islamic State.  The caliphate has made clear its attitude towards the Christians: they are “crusaders,” and therefore Islam’s number one enemy. In Mosul and other towns with substantial Christian  communities, the Islamic State quickly laid down its policy towards these beleaguered people; convert to Islam, pay the jizya tax or be put to death. Initially, they are also being allowed to flee with no more than the clothes on their backs. In short order, even that option will likely be denied them. The largest Christian town in Iraq, Qaraqosh, with a population of 50,000, has now fallen to the Islamic State. Their future is indeed dire.

Most movements that commit large-scale massacres typically keep their blood-soaked deeds secretive. With the Islamic State, the opposite is the case. The caliphate has placed on the Internet a score or more of videos displaying with boastful pride the mass shootings and beheadings of Shiites in Iraq and Alawites in Syria. If this is the manner in which the Islamic State deals with Muslims who don’t follow the Sunni  tradition, can there be any doubt as to the ultimate fate that will befall the Christians of the Arab world who fall under the control of Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi and his fanatical followers?

A horrific fate awaits the Christians in the Arab world, particularly in Iraq and Syria. Yet, the world is silent. The progressive leftwing has its own ideological agenda, to which the Christians of the Middle East are irrelevant. The two most powerful Christian-majority countries, the United States and Russia, are too distracted by a crisis both nations manufactured over another Christian-majority country, Ukraine, to intervene and prevent the unfolding slaughter.

The first genocide of the  twenty-first century approaches, yet the world displays profound indifference. As we all bear witness to another mass extermination  in human history, it is a scathing reminder that the capacity of the human race to forget the lessons of the past remains daunting.

If Hillary Clinton runs for President of the United States  in 2016, see the video about the book that warned back in 2008 what a second Clinton presidency would mean for the USA:

CLICK ON IMAGE TO VIEW VIDEO Hillary Clinton Nude