Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 19-138-Caliphate- The State of al-Qaida-45-Seven Phases-2

C de Waart; CdW Intelligence to Rent [email protected] In Confidence

Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 19-138-Caliphate- The State of al-Qaida-45-Seven Phases-2

Think tank says al Qaeda, Islamic State could control twice as much territory and have twice as many fighters in two years’ The report called jihadist ideology “the center of gravity” for terrorist groups and said it must be delegitimized to defeat them.

The study titled “A Global Strategy for Combating al Qaeda and the Islamic State,’ “Al Qaeda, in particular, has expanded its control and influence in the past few

years, with affiliates and linked groups present in more than 20 countries,” states the study

“In modern times, much of the extremism we witness today can be traced back to the U.S. and Saudi backing in the 1980s when they built up the Afghan Mujahideen to battle the Soviets; who we come to know today as the Taliban. It just goes to show how such policies of arming the ‘moderate Islamist’ has come back around to bite the U.S., having to invest in conflicts just to get rid of a problem they themselves aided and abetted in creating. We see a similar process taking place in Syria today.

Dec 02, 2015 In the statement, published on an Al Qaeda forum and distributed on social media, al-Zawahiri called on Muslims to “move the war to homes of Europe and America” because “they are the leaders of the Crusader campaign.” The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of “total confrontation.” As soon as the caliphate has been declared the “Islamic army” it will instigate the “fight between the believers and the non-

believers” which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.

There’s no shortage of players acting in bad — or at least, questionable — faith in Syria. First, of course, the regime of President Bashar al-Assad; then the Islamic State — choose your poison. On another level, Russia, the United States, and France. At the National Interest, Daniel DePetris writes about a player too often overlooked.… with all of the concentration on the Islamic State, another highly significant and dangerous terrorist organization is operating largely under the radar: Jabhat al-Nusra [which] shares the same … interpretation of Islam as ISIL, despises any and all sectarian groups outside of Syria’s majority Sunni community and has engaged in the same kind of atrocities [as the Islamic State].

In fact … some of Nusra’s key commanders were originally members of ISIL’s predecessor group, the Islamic State of Iraq.

And Before the Islamic State was operating on the ground in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra was carrying out highly lethal terrorist attacks in the heart of the Assad regime’s territory. The first [likely] attack that the international media picked up [was] a double-suicide bombing in front of Syria’s State Security Directorate and an army office in Damascus, killing 44 civilians in the process. In May 2012, another suicide bombing in Damascus claimed 55 lives.

The farther back you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.–Winston Churchill

CdW Intelligence to Rent Page 1 of 14 02/05/2023

mailto:[email protected]


The Islamic State is more interested in attacking other rebel groups, and lately, the West. Whereas Jabhat al-Nusra… continues to specialize in the kinds of attacks that other opposition groups in Syria are either unwilling or incapable of executing: strikes at the source of the Syrian regime’s military power.

In other words, should the Islamic State be destroyed or the Assad regime toppled, Jabhat al-Nusra will be waiting in the wings.

As the debate on how best to contain the Islamic State continues to rage in Western capitals, the militants themselves have made one point patently clear: They want the United States and its allies to be dragged into a ground war.

In fact, when the United States first invaded Iraq, one of the most enthusiastic proponents of the move was the man who founded the terrorist cell that would one day become the Islamic State, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He excitedly called the Americans’ 2003 intervention “the Blessed Invasion.”

Should that invasion happen, the Islamic State not only would be able to declare its prophecy fulfilled, but could also turn the occurrence into a new recruiting drive at the very moment the terrorist group appears to be losing volunteers

The Security Council’s unanimously passed Resolution 2249 calls upon Member States that “have the capacity to do so to take all necessary measures in compliance with international law” to “redouble and coordinate their efforts to prevent and suppress terrorist acts” committed by IS, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda and others. The weakly worded resolution does not invoke Chapter 7 and there is no obligation to act

It is partly that theory that President Obama referred to in his speech earlier this month, when he said the United States should pursue a “sustainable victory” that involves airstrikes and supports local forces battling the Islamic State rather than sending a new





generation of American soldiers into a ground offensive. “I have said it repeatedly: Because of these prophecies, going in on the ground

would be the worst trap to fall into. They want troops on the ground. Because they have already envisioned it,” said

Jean-Pierre Filiu, a professor of Middle East Studies at Sciences Po in Paris, and the author of “Apocalypse in Islam,” one of the main scholarly texts exploring the scripture that the militants base their ideology on.

“It’s a very powerful and emotional narrative. It gives the potential recruit and the actual fighters the feeling that not only are they part of the elite, they are also part of the final battle.”

The Islamic State’s propaganda is rife with references to apocalyptic prophecy about the last great battle that sets the stage for the end times. Terrorism experts say it has become a powerful recruiting tool for the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL, which sells potential fighters on the promise that joining will give them the most direct chance to battle Western interests and will bring ancient Islamic prophecies to fruition.

The specific scripture they are referring to describes a battle in Dabiq as well as in al-Amaq, small towns that still exist in northern Syria. The countdown to the apocalypse begins once the “Romans” — a term that militants have now conveniently expanded to include Americans and their allies — set foot in Dabiq. Last year, when Islamic State militants beheaded the American hostage Peter Kassig, a former United States Army Ranger, they made sure to do it in Dabiq.

“Here we are, burying the first American crusader in Dabiq, eagerly waiting for the remainder of your armies to arrive,” the executioner announced.

“Elephant in the Room” — Terrorism and the U.S.-Gulf States AllianceDecember 9, 2015 TOBY C. JONES, tobycjones at yahoo.comJones is an associate professor of history at Rutgers University and author of the book Desert Kingdom: How Oil and Water Forged Modern Saudi Arabia. See his interview on The Real News, “Al Qaeda and the Saudi Agenda.”

Hafidh is working on his Ph.D. at the University of Leeds in comparative politics of the Middle East focusing on civil society networks and sectarianism in Gulf States.He said today:

“When it comes to existing discourse on efforts to counter radicalization and the subsequent extremism that arises, it appears that Western policymakers and media outlets want to address everything but the actual long-term causes. The elephant in the room being Gulf states (namely Saudi Arabia and Qatar) whose state institutions have acted as an ideological incubator for extremist sentiment to flourish both domestically and abroad.

“It is rarely talked about in a sensible way since the Saudis continue to hire a spree of U.S. lobbyists and PR experts, one of which is the PR powerhouse Edelman. The largest privately owned PR agency in the world, Edelman is known for helping clients with favorable media coverage on mainstream outlets. Meanwhile, a Saudi-led coalition is continuing to bomb the poorest country in the Middle East (Yemen), violating international law in the process, which like many of their activities has Western approval due to lucrative arms deals, in turn, affording Gulf states impunity for any of their actions. This explains the notable media blackout and minimal coverage on events in Yemen across Western media outlets.

“If you look at the relationship extremist movements have with these countries, you find they will employ various discrete or indirect methods of both financing





and arming. A prime example being Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria — Jabhat Al-Nusra. GCC states along with NATO member Turkey have effectively armed them through the guise of arming a so-called moderate coalition ‘Jaysh al-Fatah,’ which itself is already comprised of hardline Sunni Islamist groups such as Ahrar al-Sham.

“Qatar in particular, are known to finance such groups by way of paying ransoms; acting as a mediator in hostage situations. The most recent example being in Arsal, Lebanon, where Qatar mediated on a prisoner exchange deal for the release of Lebanese soldiers held captive by the group. Using this method enables them to deflect any charges of culpability for financing what are effectively al-Qaeda insurgents.

“In modern times, much of the extremism we witness today can be traced back to the U.S. and Saudi backing in the 1980s when they built up the Afghan Mujahideen to battle the Soviets; who we come to know today as the Taliban. It just goes to show how such policies of arming the ‘moderate Islamist’ has come back around to bite the U.S., having to invest in conflicts just to get rid of a problem they themselves aided and abetted in creating. We see a similar process taking place in Syria today.

“As part of this process, the Saudis would go on to utilize their petrodollars in order to finance and build fanatical religious schools. In the Punjab region alone, (which today witnesses extremism on a regular basis) has seen Salafi madrassas (or religious seminaries) increase threefold over the last few decades. This links back to a more recent case with the San Bernadino shooting, as U.S. officials found links between the infamous Lal Masjid in Islamabad and the woman [Tashfeen Malik] who took part in the ISIS-inspired massacre. This mosque is notorious for its links to past extremism and its leader (Maulana Abdul Aziz) who has gained a reputation in Pakistan for his hateful rhetoric. In the past, he has expressed support for ISIS, named a library after Osama Bin Laden and refused to condemn a massacre of schoolchildren in Rawalpindi (much to the dismay even of many of his own followers).

“In light of both the San Bernardino shooting and the Paris attacks, it is almost inevitable that despite concerted efforts by intelligence services, terrorist attacks will only become more frequent on Western soil. What remains to be seen, however, is whether Western governments will ever re-evaluate their stance with their allies in the Middle East; if they continue to grant them impunity, this means that any efforts to seriously tackle extremism are all but disingenuous, but it will be civilians who will continue to pay the price for governments which remain in denial as to the ideological roots of extremism.”

Report: Terrorist Groups Could Launch U.S. Attacks, Obtain WMDs Under Obama’s Current Strategy; Think tank says al Qaeda, Islamic State could control twice as much territory and have twice as many fighters in two years’ time BY: Daniel WiserFollow @TheWiserChoice December 8, 2015 5:00 am

Al Qaeda or the Islamic State could launch a mass-casualty attack on U.S. soil if the Obama administration does not alter its current strategy to defeat the terrorist groups, according to a new report that lays out recommendations for a revised U.S. counterterrorism policy.

The report from the American Enterprise Institute estimated that, under President Obama’s current strategy and military and diplomatic efforts, the terrorist groups could control “at least twice as much territory and population—in Iraq, Yemen, North Africa (especially Libya), the Sinai, and Syria—and with an army of regular





and irregular fighters at least twice as large within two years.” Those safe havens would allow al Qaeda and the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL) to plot more attacks against the United States and the West.

“As these conditions worsen, al Qaeda, ISIS, or both will carry out a mass-casualty attack against the US: it is a question not of if, but rather of when,” the report said. “Even more worrisome is our assessment that, if we fail to stop the extremists from taking territory and undermining states like Pakistan, al Qaeda or ISIS will obtain weapons of mass destruction, and then it will be too late to act.”

In an address to the nation on Sunday, President Obama said the current combination of U.S. airstrikes, raids by special operations forces, and training of local allies would “achieve a more sustainable victory” against terrorist groups and “won’t require us sending a new generation of Americans overseas to fight and die for another decade on foreign soil.”

However, both al Qaeda and the Islamic State have expanded the amount of territory they control in recent months while launching attacks against Western interests or inspiring radicals to conduct killings in other countries, including in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif. The Islamic State has established a new base of operations in war-torn Libya outside of its original stronghold in Iraq and Syria, while al Qaeda has exploited the chaos in Yemen to carve out more territory.

Additionally, the Daily Beast reported on Sunday that, according to a new U.S. intelligence report for the White House, the Islamic State will increase its global presence, and continue to attract foreign fighters, unless it loses territory in Iraq and Syria.The authors of the AEI report, including two counterterrorism experts, Frederick Kagan and Katherine Zimmerman, said that a retooled strategy to defeat terrorist groups would not require large deployments of hundreds of thousands of U.S. ground troops. In fact, such a strategy would be “unnecessary and inadvisable,” they said, and should focus instead on training local partner forces to conduct counterinsurgency campaigns and work with civilian populations. U.S. forces employed a similar counterinsurgency strategy and achieved some success when they had a larger presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. Still, the U.S. military will likely need thousands more boots on the ground—trainers, advisers, and, when necessary, combat troops—than Obama is currently advocating, they said.“Insurgencies have a tendency to flare up repeatedly, even after being suppressed with all the skill at the command of the counterinsurgents, while civil wars are inherently generational conflicts,” the report said. “This fact might mean that the U.S. and its partners will have to leave sizable numbers of troops on the ground throughout the world, perhaps for decades, as we had to do following World War II and the Korean War.”The report called jihadist ideology “the center of gravity” for terrorist groups and said it must be delegitimized to defeat them. U.S. military and diplomatic officials should seek to “empower local religious rivals” such as Sufi Muslims to undermine al Qaeda and the Islamic State’s ideology, the think tank said, as well as deprive the groups of territory to diminish their recruitment narrative of a growing, successful caliphate.The report also advised against working with U.S. adversaries—including Russia, Iran, and Syria—to combat the Islamic State, which would be “wasteful” and “strategically counterproductive.”“Campaigns should be designed in part to build American and allied confidence that success is possible while acknowledging our commitment must be sustained over time,” the report said. “Our allies, in particular, must be convinced we will not again leave them in the lurch.”





The other claim: A spokesman for ISIS Al-Adnani loosely defined the state territory as running from northern Syria to the Iraqi province of Diyala - a vast stretch of land straddling the border that is already largely under ISIS control. He also said that with the establishment of the caliphate, the group was changing its name to just the Islamic State, dropping the mention of Iraq, Sham and the Levant. However, in a map widely-shared by ISIS supporters on social networks, the Islamist group outlined a five-year plan for how they would like to expand their boundaries beyond Muslim-majority countries.As well as plans to expand the caliphate throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and large parts of western Asia, the map also marks out an expansion in parts of Europe. Spain, which was ruled by Muslims for 700 years until 1492, is marked out as a territory the caliphate plans to have under its control by 2020. Elsewhere, ISIS plans to take control of the the Balkan states - including Greece, Romania and Bulgaria - extending its territories in eastern Europe as far as Austria, which appears to be based on a pre-First World War borders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Elsewhere, ISIS plans to take control of the the Balkan states - including Greece, Romania and Bulgaria - extending its territories in eastern Europe as far as Austria, which appears to be based on a pre-First World War borders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.ISIS regularly makes statements and releases propaganda calling for the return of the geographical boundaries in place before the Great War .The group insist the carving up of the Ottoman Empire by Allied forces after the conflict - commonly known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement - was a deliberate attempt to divide Muslims and restrict the likelihood of another caliphate being established. Muslim extremists have long dreamed of recreating the Islamic state, or caliphate, that ruled over the Middle East, North Africa and beyond in various forms over the course of Islam's 1,400-year history.

Top CIA officials fought bitterly in the years after the September 11, 2001 attacks over whether U.S. intelligence agencies could have done more to stop the deadliest terrorist strikes in American history, documents released on Friday show.The once-secret documents include a more complete version of a 2005 report by the spy agency's inspector general, which found that the CIA did not have a comprehensive strategy or marshal adequate resources to combat al Qaeda before hijacked planes hit New York's World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11. A redacted summary of that report was first made public in 2007.

Top CIA officials fought bitterly in the years after the 9/11 over whether U.S. intelligence agencies could have done more to stop the attacks, documents released on 12 Jun 2015 show. But the documents released by the CIA on Friday also reflect the arguments of former CIA Director George Tenet and his lieutenants that U.S. intelligence was intently focused on al Qaeda and leader Osama bin Laden. At stake in the years-long dispute are the legacies of former top CIA officials and the agency itself.None of the documents focus directly on how President George W. Bush and his White House dealt with the al Qaeda threat after taking office in January 2001. Some former officials, including Bush counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke, have said Bush did not initially make al Qaeda a priority.In a heated June 2005 letter to then CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, Tenet rejected Helgerson's critical draft report. 'Your report challenges my professionalism, diligence and skill in leading the men and women of U.S. intelligence in countering terrorism,' Tenet told Helgerson.





'I did everything I could to inform, warn and motivate action to prevent harm,' he wrote. 'Your report does not fairly or accurately portray my actions, or the heroic work of the men and women of the Intelligence Community.'

After the bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa in 1998 and the USS Cole in October 2000, Tenet said, he warned President Bill Clinton 'to expect from five to fifteen attacks against United States' interests.'Tenet has previously said that he developed a plan to go after al Qaeda in 1999, and worked to increase U.S. intelligence funding, slashed during the 1990s.

'I said when the executive summary was made public eight years ago that the IG's report was flat wrong,' Tenet said on Friday. 'Nothing in the additional material just released changes that judgment in the slightest.'

The documents, which former CIA officials pressed the agency to release, include a July 2005 memo from 17 top officers of the CIA's Counterterrorism Center disputing Helgerson's report. Helgerson was not immediately available for comment. http://www.foia.cia.gov/collection/declassified-documents-related-911-attacks

ISIS, al Qaeda are ‘winning’: Study By Guy Taylor - The Washington Times - Monday, December 7, 2015The U.S. should engage in a dramatic revamping of the post-9/11 global war on terror, according to a new study published Monday in Washington that says major gains during recent years by both al Qaeda and the Islamic State in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and South Asia indicate the “extremists are no longer on the run and arguably are winning.”

“Al Qaeda, in particular, has expanded its control and influence in the past few years, with affiliates and linked groups present in more than 20 countries,” states the study, authored by a team of nine high-level national security and counterterrorism analysts through the politically center-right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. While last week’s San Bernadino attack is currently dominating the headlines, the study asserts that the Nov. 13 coordinated terrorist assault by Islamic State followers on Paris provided clear “proof that the West is losing the fight against terrorist organizations” bent carrying out international operations against Europe and the United States.

The study slams the Obama administration for misjudging the evolving external operations threat posed by local groups that have pledged allegiance to al Qaeda and the Islamic State — also known as ISIS and ISIL — and asserts that “victory requires recognition that the enemy is a global and interconnected system.”

“The current analytical framework the Obama administration and its surrogates have promulgated insists on understanding al Qaeda as a ‘core’ disconnected from ‘affiliates,’ giving intellectual support to our retreat,” the authors wrote. “Through this framework, the U.S. government has justified ignoring the growing threat from so-called ‘local’ insurgencies by defining the ‘real’ threat to the U.S. as emanating solely from a terrorist core in South Asia and downplaying the command and control exercised by al Qaeda’s leadership over its branches.”

At the same time, however, the study suggests that the core strategic approach that President Obama and his advisers have promoted during recent years — that of trying to work with and build up the capacity of local partners to fight Islamic State and al Qaeda affiliates on the ground — is not misguided.

“The United States’ first option cannot be large-scale invasions in places where al Qaeda and its affiliates operate,” the document says. “That approach would allow the enemy to impose high costs on the US and its allies in return for only partial





successes in individual theaters. The best military course of action to pursue against the extremists is a counterinsurgency. This strategy depends heavily on supporting efforts from our partners and allies, which will in most cases make the deployment of large numbers of American military forces into combat both unnecessary and inadvisable.”

The catch, according to the study titled “A Global Strategy for Combating al Qaeda and the Islamic State,’ is that the Obama administration’s current management of the strategy lacks much needed interconnectedness and global resolve — and is nowhere near muscular enough to achieve the goal of defeating “al Qaeda and ISIS by degrading the extremist groups to the point where they are unable to recruit followers to replace leaders lost in battle.”

“The nature of the threat calls for specially tailored campaigns for each country, and sometimes by region, within a larger global framework,” the document states. “Success demands a new strategy: a coordinated series of regional counterinsurgency campaigns.”

“Airstrikes and attrition alone will never defeat al Qaeda and ISIS. We need a population-centric and phased approach that combines diplomatic, political, security, and informational tools at a national and subnational level,” the study’s authors wrote. “These campaigns must be nested in a global framework and tailored for each specific fight according to a variety of factors, including the nature and strength of the enemy, the attitudes of the local population, and the capacity of the host government in the particular area of concern.”

Radical Islam in Asia: the arc of al-Qaida and ISBY MERCY A. KUO The Rebalance authors Mercy Kuo and Angie Tang engage subject-matter experts, policy practitioners and strategic thinkers for their diverse insights into the U.S. rebalance to Asia. This is a conversation with professor Audrey Kurth Cronin, director of the International Security Program at George Mason University’s School of Policy, Government and International Affairs, adviser to senior U.S. policymakers and author of numerous publications, such as “How Terrorism Ends: Understanding the Decline and Demise of Terrorist Campaigns” and “Ending Terrorism: A Strategy for Defeating Al-Qaeda.”In Foreign Affairs (April 2015), you posited that Islamic State is not a terrorist group. Briefly explain the different goals and strategies of al-Qaida and Islamic State (IS).IS and al-Qaida both engage in terrorism, have similar long-term goals, and were once aligned, but they differ in key ways that are vital to fighting them. Terrorist groups like al-Qaida generally have only dozens or hundreds of members, attack civilians, do not hold territory and cannot directly confront military forces. IS boasts some 30,000 fighters, holds territory in both Iraq and Syria, maintains extensive military capabilities, controls lines of communication, commands infrastructure, funds itself and engages in sophisticated military operations. It is not a “terrorist group.” It’s a pseudo-state led by a conventional army that also seeks to inspire acts of transnational terrorism.

Al-Qaida thinks of itself as the vanguard of a global movement mobilizing Muslim communities against secular rule. It is playing a long game. The establishment of a so-called caliphate is a distant, almost utopian goal; educating and mobilizing the Muslim community comes first.

IS has already declared a “caliphate” and is attracting a large number of foreigners, drawn by the potential to build a society that follows strict Muslim rules now. It is unconcerned about popular backlash. Its brutality — videotaped beheadings, mass





executions — is designed to intimidate foes and suppress dissent. It appeals to people who are yearning for personal power. It is the most effective employer of targeted social media propaganda we have ever seen.

Is Asia the next theater for IS to expand its caliphate beyond the Middle East? If so, what is the strategic relevance of Asia or key Asian regions to IS?

No, Africa is the next major theater for expansion. But there is significant risk to Asia. A global competition is underway in the so-called jihadi movement: IS is persuading some existing al-Qaida affiliates or splinter groups to shift their allegiance to it. It’s the current “hot brand.” In Asia, IS succeeded in attracting former al-Qaida-linked affiliates such as the Philippines’ Abu Sayyaf. According to the head of Indonesia’s national counterterrorism agency, IS may also be training fighters in Poso, a port town on the northeastern coast of Central Sulawesi.

What about the threat of foreign fighters from Asia?IS’ mythical concept of a caliphate has drawn tens of thousands of gullible outsiders, including from Asia. Small numbers of foreign fighters have traveled from Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, New Zealand and Australia, sometimes bringing along their families. Estimates vary widely; however, the largest numbers apparently come from Australia (between 100 and 250 people) and Indonesia (between 30 and 60).For Asia, the danger lies in what militarily trained IS foreign fighters will do if they return to their native countries, as well as whether those who have been prevented from traveling will carry out attacks at home. A powerful element of IS’ message is to goad people into violence wherever they are. Unfortunately, terrorist attacks in Asia are virtually inevitable.What countervailing forces and social conditions in Asia could mitigate IS incursions?In the short term, three things are important. First, countries must strengthen their border controls, increasing both domestic and international cooperation in policing and intelligence. Second, they must increase regional cooperation to counteract IS’ financing and the movement of weapons. Third, they must monitor potential risks at home, meaning both returned foreign fighters and those just inspired by IS. Although national perspectives can differ markedly (e.g., China’s Uighur problem is as much about a fear of separatism as it is terrorism), there is no substitute for good intelligence and regional cooperation, within the rule of law.That does not necessarily mean treating returnees as criminals. The “caliphate” is a brutal Wahhabi Sunni Arab empire led by an Iraqi. As the truth unfolds, many foreigners are now trying to flee IS. Well-publicized testimonials from defectors could be a powerful counterterrorism tool. Also, efforts to counter IS messaging through social media, such as Malaysia’s new counter-messaging center, are vital. In the longer run, IS is trying to polarize societies. Governments must address the conditions that contribute to radicalization, including discrimination, unemployment and ignorance.

What emerging, over-the-horizon challenges of violent radical Islamism in Asia will the next U.S. president likely confront? The U.S. will be concerned about violence against Americans and American businesses in Asia, a destabilizing blow to an Asian ally or a partner, and the creation of sanctuaries for recruitment or radicalization to violent extremism, including by IS. Moving forward, regional efforts such as the recent discussions on extremism held during the ASEAN meetings in Kuala Lumpur and the upcoming January conference on deradicalization in the ASEAN region will be crucial to reducing the threat of IS in Asia for everyone.Mercy A. Kuo is an advisory board member of CHINADebate. Angie O. Tang is senior adviser of Asia Value Advisors. © 2015, The Diplomat. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency





Al Qaeda leader praises Charlie Hebdo massacre in new messageBY THOMAS JOSCELYN | December 2, 2015 | In a new message, Ayman al Zawahiri asks Allah to reward al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) for the January 2015 attack on Charlie Hebdo’s offices in Paris.Al Qaeda has released a new speech by Ayman al Zawahiri, who praises the January 2015 terrorist assault on Charlie Hebdo’s offices in Paris, asks Allah to reward the “brothers in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” (AQAP) for helping “to complete this blessed work,” and briefly eulogizes a top AQAP official who was killed in a US drone strike earlier this year. Zawahiri’s message, which was recorded several months ago, was translated by the SITE Intelligence Group.Within days of the attack on Charlie Hebdo’s offices, AQAP issued a claim of responsibility. AQAP’s message was delivered by Nasser bin Ali al Ansi, who said the operation was planned in “compliance” with the “command” of Allah to support his messenger, as well as the “order of our general emir, the generous Sheikh Ayman bin Muhammad al Zawahiri,” and the “will” of Sheikh Osama bin Laden. Al Ansi was subsequently killed in a US drone strike in April.Al Qaeda portrays the January 2015 massacre in Paris, as well as a series of murders in South Asia, as being part of a campaign against the “blasphemers,” who have supposedly offended the honor of the Prophet Mohammed. In addition to the staff of Charlie Hebdo magazine, which published cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, al Qaeda’s jihadists have targeted writers in South Asia who are accused of offending Islamic sensibilities. Indeed, Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) has claimed responsibility for a series of gruesome killings in South Asia. The head of AQIS, Asim Umar, said earlier this year that the “assassinations are part of a series of operations initiated by the different branches of al Qaeda on the orders of our respected leader Sheikh Ayman al Zawahiri (may Allah protect him).”Zawahiri expounds upon this theme in his latest message, saying terrorist attacks like those carried out in Paris in January are justified.

“My mujahideen brothers and sons, and Muslims, this victory is a victory for all of us,” Zawahiri says, according to SITE’s translation. “It is a victory for the Islamic Ummah against those among the immoral Westerners who left their Christianity and assaulted the Prophet of Islam, and their hearts continue to drip with Crusader hatred for the Muslims.”

He adds, “These humanist-believing Crusaders are the ones who are waging against us today the largest Crusader campaign in the history of Islam from Indonesia through West Africa.”

The al Qaeda leader asks Allah to “have mercy on our brothers the martyrs of the Paris invasion, and grant them the highest level in Paradise.” He also asks Allah to support AQAP “over their enemies from among the Crusaders and their agent henchmen and allies of the Rafidi [derogatory term for Shiites] Houthi advocates.” The first AQAP official to praise the killings at Charlie Hebdo’s offices was Harith al Nadhari, who perished in a US drone strike in late January. Zawahiri remembers al Nadhari, saying he “gave an example for the scholars and students who act upon their knowledge, who are martyred in the field and thus they combine the ink of the scholars with the blood of the scholars, and establish the argument against whoever missed the individual form of jihad, to push away the Crusader, the Rafidi [Shiites], and secular assailant on the lands of Islam,” Zawahiri says, according to SITE’s translation. The al Qaeda chief goes on to pray that Allah “compensate us and the Muslim Ummah [community of worldwide Muslims]” for the loss





of al Nadhari.Zawahiri’s message also includes a call for jihadist unity. He argues that the Paris attackers should serve as a model for all the jihadists who want to defend the “sanctity” of the Prophet. “[L]et us give our efforts against our enemies and not to waste them against one another,” Zawahiri says. This is likely a reference to the infighting between al Qaeda’s followers and the Islamic State’s jihadists.

Zawahiri says the jihadists should confront “the enemies of Islam from China, India, and through Russia, Europe, and America,” because they “do not respect from us any sanctity” and it is, therefore, “our right to respond to their aggression, and to take revenge against them.”

“Therefore, we must move the battle to the enemy’s own home, especially Europe and America, because they are leaders of the contemporary Crusader campaign,” the al Qaeda master argues, according to SITE. “They must be killed, just like they kill, and be wounded, just like they wound, and be bombarded, just like they bombard, and be made to weep, be orphans and widows, just like they make others sob and be orphans and widows.” Thomas Joscelyn is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Senior Editor for The Long War Journal.

More evidence on how not to fight DaeshDec 10,2015 - The continuing stream of recent terror attacks against targets in several countries across four continents continues to vex governments and other institutions that seek desperately to counter and eventually stop this dangerous trend. The evidence of policy actions and new research indicates two broad trends, however, that beg for more diligent action based on more credible diagnoses.The first trend is how very complex is the problem of terrorism and its causes, whether it is carried out by individuals who act on their own due to personal grievances, or organised groups like Al Qaeda and Daesh that use religion as a mobilising lens. The second is the limited impact to date of the two principal strategies — military attacks and digital counter-narrative programmes — to fight these groups.The past week typically provides a familiar array of evidence in this arena. This includes the British government launching air attacks against Daesh targets in Syria, reports of Daesh strengthening its foothold in parts of northern Libya, and Al Qaeda expanding its control of towns in southeastern Yemen. The latest attack to attract global attention was the killing of 14 people in San Bernardino, California, this week, by the husband and wife team of Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, of Pakistani origin. We will know in due course whether they were acting alone or were somehow linked to Islamist or other groups that “radicalised” them, whether on-line or through personal contacts.

Two important new reports in the United States this week clarify the difficulties involved in defeating Daesh or at least reducing its impact around the world. The first is a study by the Programme on Extremism at George Washington University that analyses the range of individuals who were involved in legal action against them, showing that there is no single profile of a typical Daesh recruit. Rather, the very wide range of people who explore Daesh and similar ideologies suggests that no single strategy — like social media counter-narratives or more public activism by “moderate” Muslims — will succeed in reducing this threat.

Another press report said that the US government’s campaign to counter Daesh recruitment efforts through online activities has not worked very well, and needs to be revamped — yet again, because many existing efforts to reduce the flow of recruits to





Daesh and Al Qaeda by using online media instruments have only seen the flow of recruits stay strong.This has been accompanied by intense, and increasing, military actions by a dozen Arab and foreign governments against facilities and leaders of these terror groups.

None of these strategies on their own or together seem to have blunted the ability of these Islamist militant groups to keep expanding in pockets here and there, and to keep attracting new recruits. Every week provides fresh evidence of both these troubling realities.

Is it possible that the military, digital, and other policies being carried out to defeat Daesh and Al Qaeda are largely based on wrong or incomplete diagnoses of precisely why such groups came into being and continue to attract recruits and supporters? Are we seeing a repeat of the “war on drugs” that the US government launched decades ago, without making any substantial progress in reducing drug use or trade?

The George Washington University report said that 56 people were arrested in the United States this year on charges of supporting or plotting with Daesh. These people showed a very wide range of ages, religions, ethnicities, professional backgrounds and places of residence, making it difficult for law enforcement organisations to spot potential recruits to radical movements before they become a danger to society. Some only dabbled in reading Daesh-related websites or social media, others travelled to Syria and Iraq, and a few actually seemed ready to plan attacks in the United States. The numbers involved are relatively small. About 250 Americans are thought to have travelled or attempted to travel to join Daesh in some manner, and US government agencies are investigating some 900 cases of individuals across the United States who allegedly support Daesh.The second important report this week is about the findings of an expert group that was commissioned by the US government to assess the State Department’s programmes to counter Daesh and other such militant groups by using social media primarily. The State Department’s counter-narrative attempts via social media seem to have little impact, this and other reports have indicated. So these efforts may be scaled down soon, given doubts about, “the US government’s ability to serve as a credible voice against the terrorist group’s propaganda”, according to current and former US officials quoted by the Washington Post report. This has been just one more typical week in the confounding “global war on terror”, in which terrorists perform their evil deeds across many countries while governments keep looking for the appropriate strategy to defeat them. If governments persist in their existing strategies, we should expect the terrorism to persist as well.

Regards Cees ***Dec 2015; “Terrorist acts are done for specific purposes,” he continued. “In the case of recent acts by ISIS, these are calculated to elicit fear of Muslims and encourage a war mentality that strengthens their hands and enables ISIS to recruit more volunteers from around the world. We need to respond, but with careful measures that undercut ISIS rather than strengthening it.” - Juergensmeyer, a professor of sociology and of global studies. Al-Hamli, who founded TRENDS in 2014 as an independent research center, said the study of terrorism has taken on new urgency. “Terrorism is now becoming more important and complicated,” he noted.

“How can we differentiate between criminal activities and terrorism?” he continued. “This is very important. Now, it just happened in California. This crime, this tragedy that killed 14 people and injured 20 -- how can we describe this type of





event? Is this terrorist activity or a crime? Because this is different now.”Aug 15, 2015; A son of Osama Bin Laden, dubbed the Crown Prince of Terror, has purportedly called for terrorist attacks on London, Washington and Paris in an audio message released by Al Qaeda. He can be heard urging lone wolf attacks in the US and the West, specifically mentioning Washington, London, Paris and Tel Aviv. Rita Katz, director of SITE Intelligence Group, tweeted: 'Hamza Bin Laden, son of Usamah bin Laden, gives strategies in continuing global jihad in audio message. 'Hamza Bin Laden lived the life of jihad with his father throughout AQ’s (Al Qaeda) creation in Afghanistan.

'With Hamza, AQ hopes to renew the popularity of AQ by reviving the brand of "AQ = Bin Laden". 'AQ leadership wants Hamza as a future leader: someone loved & inspirational, without a negative reputation or participation in infighting.

'Hamza Bin Laden calls to move the war from Kabul, Gaza & Baghdad, to Washington, London, Paris & Tel-Aviv. Urges: "This is your duty”.

'Hamza Bin Laden urged lone wolf attacks in the US and the West; targeting of Jewish American interests globally.'

It is believed the audio message was recorded before June of this year, but has only now been released.

“We were too dumb. We didn’t understand who we had there at that moment. When 9/11 occurred, all the emotions took over, and our response was, ‘Where did those bastards come from? Let’s go kill them. Let’s go get them,’” “Instead of asking why they attacked us, we asked where they came from. Then we strategically marched in the wrong direction.” 09 Dec “15 -General Flynn

Regards Cees ***

Calls Grow Louder for New US Terror Strategy Posted December 11th, 2015

In this 1998 file photo (released in May 2004), Ayman al-Zawahri, left, holds a press conference with al-Qaida leader Osama bin Ladin. (AP)

Until 2011, this was the face of international terrorism, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri. That year, President Barack Obama gave the go-ahead for a top secret mission to take out bin Laden, who had been found living in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The mission succeeded and for a long time much of the world relaxed, knowing the man who was behind September 11th was gone forever. Obama was widely praised for his decisive action against the world’s most wanted man.Just three years later, the Islamic State took al-Qaida’s slot as the most dangerous terrorist organization, emerging out of the wreckage of Iraq with its signature brutality of beheading hostages and taking huge swathes of territory. A president once admired for acting boldly against al-Qaida is now under withering criticism for not doing enough to stop this latest incarnation of radical Islam. With the shooting deaths of 14 Americans at a workplace holiday gathering in California by a radicalized Muslim-American couple last week, a new poll shows Americans are now just as nervous as they were right after September 11th.





What Should the U.S. Do About ISIS? Elliott Abrams – The National JournalBomb ISIS. Topple AssadInstead of saying, “There is no military solution,” the United States should realize that there is no solution without stopping ISIS militarily—and breaking its momentum.This means more bombing and more men on the ground as spotters—a role the Canadian military is now playing in some areas of Iraq but that President Obama forbids for the U.S. military. Recent disclosures that, in 75 percent of bombing runs, our jets return without having dropped their ordnance show how useful forward-deployed spotters would be. Second, the United States needs to recommit itself to the downfall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.Shadi Hamid – The National Journal Stop Seeking Quick WinsBeyond Syria and Iraq, the basic assumptions of our ISIS strategy need to be rethought. As long as the Middle East has both failing states and strong, brutal (but brittle) states, ISIS and its ilk—or something like it—will exist. It’s no mistake that ISIS is the dominant opposition force in the two countries riddled by civil war: ISIS’s brutality is at least in part a function of what were already extremely brutal contexts.U.S. strategy must address governance deficits not just in Syria and Iraq but also in Yemen, Libya, and even more “stable” countries, such as Egypt.Why the Islamic State Will Haunt Obama’s Successor Andrew J. Bower – The National InterestWould a President Clinton or President Rubio or Cruz (or Trump for that matter) deeply expand the U.S.’s military commitment? Probably not. The most likely prospect is that a future administration will likely expand the training and equipping of local ground forces, expand the aerial campaign and deepen their engagement with regional partners.A future administration will also likely attempt to exert more pressure on Iran, Russia and President Assad to come to a settlement on Syria. Assad arguably has the best window now to make a deal. If he and his patrons miss this chance, there’s no guarantee that a settlement would be as favorable as it is now.On the face of it, then, counter-ISIL strategy going forward will not likely look drastically different (in absence of a substantial event such as another terrorist attack on the U.S. homeland) than the present strategy, for all of its flaws. Until a political settlement on Syria can be reached, ISIL will have a space to continue to operate.On Syria, U.S. Military Leaders Offer Only Timidity Dana Milbank – The Washington PostThe U.S. military is the world’s most powerful fighting force, but its leaders sounded downright timid on Capitol Hill Wednesday…. Carter, in his opening statement, ruled out a major U.S. ground force. “While we certainly have the capability,” he said, “it would be a significant undertaking” and could “Americanize the conflict.”McCain tried to shake Carter from his caution toward the Islamic State. “There are 20- to 30,000 of them — they are not giants,” he said, arguing that “a small component of American forces with an international force” could “take out this caliphate.”The secretary said he had “less high hopes, perhaps, than you that they would assemble such a force.”




Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 19-138-Caliphate- The State of al-Qaida-45-Seven Phases-2

Documents