Robert Draper, To Start a War

At Amazon, Robert Draper, To Start a War: How the Bush Administration Took America into Iraq.

Former President George W. Bush Overcome by Emotion During His Eulogy for His Father, George H.W. Bush (VIDEO)

I know a lot of conservatives dislike George W. Bush, but I love him. I wish I could meet him. He's my favorite president. I love Trump too, but there was the dignity of George W. while in office, and his dogged perseverance on the Iraq war I'll never forget.

And this is a wonderful eulogy.

G.W. Bush: 'The fact that there was any doubt in anyone’s mind about who the president was blows my mind,' adding that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld 'didn’t make one fucking decision...'

At Politico:

George W. Bush on his presidency: "The fact that there was any doubt in anyone’s mind about who the president was blows my mind,” adding that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld “didn’t make one fucking decision.” https://t.co/8KmHQEwQvP pic.twitter.com/TX0EOqlMo4

— POLITICO (@politico) November 20, 2017

What Will Barack Hussein Do After He Leaves Office?

Well, I'd like to never hear from him again, but I doubt that's going to happen, unfortunately.

This is an interesting piece, otherwise. Did you know former presidents get a $200,000 annual salary, plus an expense account on top of that? Yep. George W. Bush "received an allowance of nearly $1.1 million in 2015."

Heh. Must be rough.

At USA Today:

What will Obama do after the presidency? Hopefully go away. Far away. https://t.co/HPFvnuj4iw #DemsInPhilly

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) July 27, 2016

Former President George W. Bush and Former First Lady Laura Bush Arrive in South Carolina (VIDEO)

Wouldn't that be a wonderful treat, meeting them?

Via AP:

Obama Wants to Kill the Opportunity Scholarship Program, Thus Torpedoing Hopes of Inner-City Blacks

And blacks still love this president, despite his every move demonstrating how he mostly exploits race to keep his corrupt crony Democrats in power.

See Stephen Moore, at WSJ, "President Obama, Are You Listening? The president wants to zero out a program that is saving poor kids from bad schools—the kind of reform that could work in Baltimore too":

The scenes of Baltimore set ablaze this week have many Americans thinking: What can be done to rescue families trapped in an inner-city culture of violence, despair and joblessness?

There are no easy answers, but down the road from Baltimore in Washington, D.C., an education program is giving children in poor neighborhoods a big lift up. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which George W. Bush signed into law in 2004, has so far funded private-school tuition for nearly 5,000 students, 95% of whom are African-American. They attend religious schools, music and arts schools, even elite college-prep schools. Last month at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, I met with about 20 parents and children who participate in the program. I also visited several of these families in their homes—which are located in some of the most beaten-down neighborhoods in the city, places that in many ways resemble the trouble spots in Baltimore.

These families have now pulled together to brace for a David vs. Goliath fight to save the program. For the seventh straight year, President Obama has proposed eliminating this relatively tiny scholarship fund, which at $20 million accounts for a microscopic 0.0005% of the $4 trillion federal budget.

The parents and students point out that the scholarship program has extraordinary benefits—they use phrases like “a godsend for our children,” “a life saver” and “our salvation.” One father, Joseph Kelley, a tireless champion of the program, says simply, “I truly shudder to think where my son would be today without it.” (He and his son, Rashawn Williams, are pictured at home nearby on this page.)

Virginia Ford, whose son escaped the public schools through a private-scholarship to Archbishop Carroll, now runs a group called D.C. Parents for School Choice. She tells me that “kids in the scholarship program have consistently improved their test scores, have higher graduation rates, and are more likely to attend college than those stuck in the D.C. public schools.”

The numbers back her up. An Education Department-funded study at the University of Arkansas recently found that graduation rates rose 21 percentage points—to 91%, from 70%—for students awarded the scholarship vouchers through a lottery, compared with a control group of those who applied for but didn’t get the scholarships. For all D.C. public schools, the high-school graduation rate is closer to an abysmal 56%.

“If you’ve got a program that’s clearly working and helping these kids, why end it?” asks Pamela Battle, whose son Carlos received a voucher and was able to attend the elite Georgetown Day School. He’s now at Northeastern University in Boston. She says Carlos “almost surely wouldn’t have gone to college” without the voucher. “We send all this money overseas for foreign aid,” she adds, “why not save the kids here at home first?”

Amazingly, these energized parents are opposed by almost every liberal group, even the NAACP, and nearly every Democrat in Congress—including Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of Columbia in Congress but opposes a program that benefits her own constituents.

There is little question what stirs this opposition. The teachers union sees the program as taking away union jobs, and it is so powerful that the Democratic establishment falls in line. “It is so sad that our public schools aren’t doing what’s best for the kids,” laments Ms. Ford, but instead are looking out for “the adults.”

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program turns conventional politics upside down. President George W. Bush created the program and invited several of the parents, including Ms. Battle, to the White House. “I got to meet President Bush and his wife, who was so lovely,” she recalls about the meeting.

Mr. Obama won’t even meet with these parents...

Underline that a million times: President Obama won't meet with the parents of the kids he wants to throw under the bus of inner-city crime, unrest, and poverty.

And yet, blacks love the Democrats.

Our political system is seriously f-cked up.

More at the link.

The Dangerous Lie That 'Bush Lied'

From Judge Laurence Silberman, at the Wall Street Journal, "Some journalists still peddle this canard as if it were fact. This is defamatory and could end up hurting the country":

In recent weeks, I have heard former Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier on Fox News twice asserting, quite offhandedly, that President George W. Bush “lied us into war in Iraq.”

I found this shocking. I took a leave of absence from the bench in 2004-05 to serve as co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction—a bipartisan body, sometimes referred to as the Robb-Silberman Commission. It was directed in 2004 to evaluate the intelligence community’s determination that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD—I am, therefore, keenly aware of both the intelligence provided to President Bush and his reliance on that intelligence as his primary casus belli. It is astonishing to see the “Bush lied” allegation evolve from antiwar slogan to journalistic fact.

The intelligence community’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) stated, in a formal presentation to President Bush and to Congress, its view that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction—a belief in which the NIE said it held a 90% level of confidence. That is about as certain as the intelligence community gets on any subject.

Recall that the head of the intelligence community, Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet, famously told the president that the proposition that Iraq possessed WMD was “a slam dunk.” Our WMD commission carefully examined the interrelationships between the Bush administration and the intelligence community and found no indication that anyone in the administration sought to pressure the intelligence community into its findings. As our commission reported, presidential daily briefs from the CIA dating back to the Clinton administration were, if anything, more alarmist about Iraq’s WMD than the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.

Saddam had manifested sharp hostility toward America, including firing at U.S. planes patrolling the no-fly zone set up by the armistice agreement ending the first Iraq war. Saddam had also attempted to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush —a car-bombing plot was foiled—during Mr. Bush’s visit to Kuwait in 1993. But President George W. Bush based his decision to go to war on information about Saddam’s WMD. Accordingly, when Secretary of State Colin Powell formally presented the U.S. case to the United Nations, Mr. Powell relied entirely on that aspect of the threat from Iraq.

Our WMD commission ultimately determined that the intelligence community was “dead wrong” about Saddam’s weapons. But as I recall, no one in Washington political circles offered significant disagreement with the intelligence community before the invasion. The National Intelligence Estimate was persuasive—to the president, to Congress and to the media.

Granted, there were those who disagreed with waging war against Saddam even if he did possess WMD. Some in Congress joined Brent Scowcroft, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and former national security adviser, in publicly doubting the wisdom of invading Iraq. It is worth noting, however, that when Saddam was captured and interrogated, he told his interrogators that he had intended to seek revenge on Kuwait for its cooperation with the U.S. by invading again at a propitious time. This leads me to speculate that if the Bush administration had not gone to war in 2003 and Saddam had remained in power, the U.S. might have felt compelled to do so once Iraq again invaded Kuwait.

In any event, it is one thing to assert, then or now, that the Iraq war was ill-advised. It is quite another to make the horrendous charge that President Bush lied to or deceived the American people about the threat from Saddam.

I recently wrote to Ron Fournier protesting his accusation. His response, in an email, was to reiterate that “an objective reading of the events leads to only one conclusion: the administration . . . misinterpreted, distorted and in some cases lied about intelligence.” Although Mr. Fournier referred to “evidence” supporting his view, he did not cite any—and I do not believe there is any...

Keep reading.

Islamic State Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Appears in Public

At the Los Angeles Times, "Islamic State leader exhorts fellow Sunnis to join him":

The secretive head of the Islamic State militant group has made what appears to be his first public appearance, purportedly speaking from a mosque in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul, according to a video posted online Saturday.

The video, uploaded by supporters to websites, including YouTube, appears to show Abu Bakr Baghdadi, chief of the Islamic State, an Al Qaeda offshoot, leading prayers in the Grand Mosque in Mosul, which was overrun by insurgents last month as part of an offensive across northern Iraq. The Islamic State stands at the forefront of a Sunni Muslim uprising that threatens the U.S.-backed Iraqi government in Baghdad...

NBC's Richard Engel: #ISIS Threat 'Could Easily Be Directed at the United States...'

Engel's been doing great reporting on the jihadist threat, not overdoing it but not candy-coating it either.

Bin Laden's Caliphate Rises in #Iraq

At the Wall Street Journal, "The Caliphate Rises":

The jihadists of the Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS) continue to consolidate their grip on Sunni Iraq. They control most major cities, they took over the border crossings with Jordan this week, and now they're re-opening banks and government offices and establishing political control.

Welcome to the new Middle East caliphate, a state whose leader is considered the religious and political successor to the prophet Mohammed and is thus sovereign over all Muslims. The last time a caliphate was based in Baghdad was 1258, the year it was conquered by the ravaging Mongols. Now the jihadists aim to do the ravaging, and it isn't clear that the Obama Administration has a plan to depose them.

It's important to understand how large a setback for American interests and security this is. Establishing a caliphate in the Middle East was the main political project of Osama bin Laden's life. Current al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri once said a new caliphate would signal a turning of world history "against the empire of the United States and the world's Jewish government."

In 2005, a Jordanian journalist named Fouad Hussein wrote a book on al Qaeda's "second generation," which focused on the thinking of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed by U.S. forces in 2006. The book described a seven-phase plan, beginning with an "awakening" of Islamic consciousness with the September 11 attacks. Among other predictions, it foresaw an effort to "clear plans to partition Syria, Lebanon and Jordan into sectarian statelets to reshape the region."

In phase four, timed to happen between 2010 and 2013, the Arab world's secular regimes would be toppled. And then? Phase five would see the "declaration of the caliphate or Islamic state" sometime between 2013 and 2016. This was to be followed by "total war," or "the beginning of the confrontation between faith and disbelief, which would begin in earnest after the establishment of the Islamic caliphate."

Keep reading.

And keep all of this in mind next time you hear some leftist commentator claiming that ISIS isn't al Qaeda.

More, "#ISIS is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Dream Come True in Iraq."

#ISIS Jihadists Press Closer to Baghdad

At WSJ, "At Least 81 Iraqis Killed in Sunni Rebel Attack on Convoy: The Assault Took place Just 20 Miles South of Central Baghdad':

BAGHDAD—Sunni militants brought their campaign against the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki closer to Baghdad on Monday, attacking a police convoy just 20 miles from the center of the capital and triggering a shootout that left at least 81 people dead.

Rebels of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham struck the convoy in Babil province on the main highway leading south from Baghdad. In the exchange of fire that followed, at least 71 prisoners in police custody, five policemen and five insurgents were killed, security officials said.

In a gruesome sign of the Sunni-Shiite hatred now fueling the conflict, into its third week, the bodies of 15 Shiite fighters were returned to the town of Basheer, 2 miles south of Kirkuk, in northern Iraq.

The fighters, which included one woman, were defending the Shiite-dominated town from an ISIS assault when they were captured by rebels, strung up on electrical poles and lynched. Their bodies were kept hanging for days until they were taken down by Sunni tribal leaders and transported by tractor to Basheer on Monday.

The brutality of the fighting underlined the determination of Sunni insurgents to tighten their grip over areas in the north of the country where they now hold sway after driving out government forces.

Nour al-Dine Kablan, an official in Mosul, said Monday that ISIS rebels were in control of most of the military airport in nearby Tal Afar. Rebels and government forces have been fighting for control of the city of 200,000 people, located 270 miles northwest of Baghdad, near Iraq's border with Syria...

More at the link, especially an astonishing map of spectacular ISIS control across Iraq.

Secretary of State John Kerry, Remarks on Syria and Iraq, U.S. Embassy Baghdad, June 23, 2014

At the U.S. State Department, "Secretary Kerry's Press Availability on Syria and Iraq in Baghdad, June 23, 2014."

Scroll down for questions with reporters. The New York Times' Michael Gordon spoke first:

... So I’d be delighted to take any questions.

MS. PSAKI: The first question is from Michael Gordon of The New York Times.

QUESTION: Sir, you mentioned your meetings today with Prime Minister Maliki, and you’re meeting Shiite and Sunni politicians and Iraq’s foreign minister. Do you think Prime Minister Maliki has an effective strategy for dealing with Iraq’s security and political crisis, and what is that strategy? You mentioned the importance of forming a government in an expedited manner. Did you make any headway today on the process of government formation? Was any progress made, and what was that progress?  And lastly, ISIS, as you – has been noted, has been erasing the border between Iraq and Syria. They’ve taken the town of Rutba, which sits astride the highway to Jordan. American officials said that ISIS would like to attack the Shia shrine in Samarra, which could lead to an explosion of violence in Iraq. Given these security developments, can the United States really afford to wait until the government formation process in Iraq is complete before taking some form of action, potentially air strikes? Thank you.

SECRETARY KERRY: Well, let me answer the last part of that question first. President Obama has not declared that he will wait. He has made it very clear in his most recent statement that he is preparing with the increased intelligence and the work that the military is doing at this point in time, and the President is prepared to take action when and if the President decides that is important. Clearly, everyone understands that Samarra is an important line. Historically, an assault on Samarra created enormous problems in Iraq. That is something that we all do not want to see happen again. And so the President and the team, the entire security team, are watching this movement and these events very, very closely.

The key today was to get from each of the government leaders a clarity with respect to the road forward in terms of government formation. And indeed, Prime Minister Maliki firmly, on multiple occasions because it was a great part of the conversation, affirmed his commitment to July 1st as the date when the representatives will convene and when they must choose a speaker and then a president and then a prime minister. And he committed to try to move that process as expeditiously as possible. And that was emphasized again and again.

With respect to the strategy for going forward, we agreed today that we will work very, very closely with the joint command. The joint command is now being set up. The additional advisors are coming in and dispersing through their various posts and brigades, and they will be making assessments, and that will help define the strategy on the security front. But make no mistake, the President has moved the assets into place and has been gaining each day the assurances he needs with respect to potential targeting, and he has reserved the right to himself, as he should, to make a decision at any point in time if he deems it necessary strategically.

Recall Michael Gordon's report this morning at the New York Times, "U.S. May Launch Airstrikes Ahead of Forming New Government in #Iraq."

U.S. May Launch Airstrikes Ahead of Forming New Government in #Iraq

Following-up from my last entry, "Nouri al-Maliki Commits to Formation of New Government in #Iraq."

Now here's Michael Gordon, at the New York Times, "Kerry Says ISIS Threat Could Hasten Military Action":

BAGHDAD — Winding up a day of crisis talks with Iraqi leaders, Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday that the Sunni militants seizing territory in Iraq had become such a threat that the United States might not wait for Iraqi politicians to form a new government before taking military action.

“They do pose a threat,” Mr. Kerry said, referring to the fighters from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. “They cannot be given safe haven anywhere.”

“That’s why, again, I reiterate the president will not be hampered if he deems it necessary if the formation is not complete,” he added, referring to the Iraqi efforts to establish a new multisectarian government that bridges the deep divisions among the majority Shiites and minority Sunnis, Kurds and other smaller groups....

While the political consultations continue behind closed doors, ISIS has become a growing regional danger. Its fighters have basically erased Iraq’s western border with Syria, which is expected to strengthen their position there. They have also taken the town of Rutba in western Iraq, which sits astride the road to Jordan and could head south from there to Saudi Arabia....

So great are the concerns that Mr. Kerry stressed on Monday that if American action is taken soon — President Obama has said that he is considering airstrikes — it should not be interpreted as a gesture of political support for Mr. Maliki’s Shiite-dominated government, but rather as a strike against the ISIS militants. Such a decision by Mr. Obama, Mr. Kerry said, should not be considered to be an act of “support for the existing prime minister or for one sect or another.”

I think there's more to it than that. Maliki is on edge, knowing that not just his government's on the line, but his life. No doubt he demanded prompt U.S. military action against ISIS, especially since Obama's precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces has created the worst nightmare scenario on the ground.

More at Telegraph UK, "Iraq crisis: John Kerry vows 'intense, sustained' US support in fight against Isis," and at the BBC, "Iraq crisis: Kerry vows 'intense support' to counter Isis."

And here's this tidbit from the Guardian UK:

A close ally of Maliki has described him as having grown bitter towards the US in recent days over its failure to provide strong military support.

Barack Obama agreed last week to send up to 300 US special forces troops as advisers, but has held back from air strikes requested by the Iraqi government. The gains made by Isis – backed by disaffected Sunni tribes and former Baathists – has forced the US to look to Iran as a potential ally.

Obviously, the U.S. doesn't want to give ISIS advance warning of pending U.S. military action, but strong victories on the battlefield should be a prerequisite for the formation of a new government. Note too that despite the administration's eagerness for a rapprochement with Tehran, for decades U.S. policy had been to bolster a strong Iraq against the revolutionary Shia Islamist regime in Iran.

Expect updates throughout the day.

Nouri al-Maliki Commits to Formation of New Government in #Iraq

At the Wall Street Journal, "Iraqi Leader Commits to Steps on Forming New Government: No Word on Whether Prime Minister, Fallen From U.S. Favor, Will Seek a Third Term":

In #Baghdad today, discussions w/ PM Maliki, FM Zebari, Spkr Nujaifi & other key Iraqi leaders re urgency of forming new/inclusive gov’t.
— John Kerry (@JohnKerry) June 23, 2014

BAGHDAD—Secretary of State John Kerry said he received a commitment from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to begin the process of forming the next national government in Baghdad by July 1.

Mr. Kerry met with Iraq's leader for nearly two hours Monday to stress the need for a new Iraqi government to unify its Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities against the mounting threat posed by the al Qaeda-linked militia, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, that has gained control of large swaths of western Iraq in recent weeks.

The top U.S. diplomat, in an unannounced, one-day stop in Baghdad, also met with top Shiite and Kurdish leaders Monday to press the same point.

"The goal of today was to get clarity," Mr. Kerry said. "Prime Minister Maliki firmly, and on multiple occasions…affirmed his commitment to July 1 when the Parliament will convene."

The Iraqi leader didn't immediately comment on his conversation with Mr. Kerry.  Mr. Kerry said at a news conference that it isn't Washington's place to choose the next Iraqi leader. But senior U.S. officials privately have said that Mr. Maliki, a Shiite, should not serve a third term because his policies alienated Sunnis and Kurds during his eight years in office.

The Iraqi leader hasn't commented in recent days on his commitment to a third term or if he'd be willing to step aside.  Iraq held parliamentary election in April, and the results were ratified by the country's judiciary last week. Under the Iraqi constitution, parliament must convene and first elect a legislative speaker and national president, before then choosing a prime minister.

Mr. Maliki's party won a plurality of seats in Iraq's 328-seat party and will need to form alliances with Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties to win the prime minister a third term.

Mr. Kerry's meeting with Mr. Maliki at his private office took place as ISIS seized control of shared Iraqi border crossings with Syria and Jordan in recent days, and consolidated its control over major Iraqi cities, such as Mosul.

"This is clearly a moment when the stakes for Iraq's future couldn't be higher," Mr. Kerry told reporters following his day of meetings in Baghdad. "ISIS is not fighting, as it claims, on behalf of Sunnis. ISIS is fighting to divide Iraq. ISIS is fighting to destroy Iraq,"  Mr. Maliki's leadership also has been questioned by Iraq's most powerful Shiite voice, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who indicated Friday that Mr. Maliki should recast his approach or consider stepping down.

"The things that the Iraqis need to do to kind of pull their country together are really things that the next government needs to do," said a senior U.S. official traveling with Mr. Kerry in Baghdad Monday. "It's a little late for the outgoing government, when there's no parliament, to do things to kind of pull the country together."

More.

Also at CNN, "Kerry assures Iraqis of U.S. support if they unite against militants."

ADDED: At the Hill, "Iraq gives US military advisers immunity."

#ISIS Jihadists Seize Main Border Crossing with Jordan

ISIS gets its caliphate on.

Previously, "#ISIS is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Dream Come True in Iraq."

At the New York Times, "Sunni Militants Seize Crossing on Iraq-Jordan Border":

BAGHDAD — Sunni militants seized the border crossing between Iraq and Jordan late Sunday night as they consolidated control of Iraq’s vast western region. The seizing of the crossing, known as Turabil, raised the specter of the insurgency’s becoming a menace not just to Iraq and Syria, where they already control territory, but also to Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

The advance by the militants followed their seizing of an important border crossing with Syria at Qaim, allowing them to move fighters and supplies almost unimpeded between the areas they control in Syria and Iraq. A third border crossing, Al Waleed, was also said to be in militant hands on the Iraqi side, though officials said the Syrian army still controlled the Syrian side of that crossing, indicating that at least for now, the militants could not cross freely there.

The Iraqi government said it had abandoned the Qaim crossing as a “tactical” decision as it concentrates its forces — Iraqi army units and Shiite militias — around Baghdad and in the Shiite heartland of Iraq.

Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Baghdad on Monday morning for talks with Iraqi leaders, urging them to form an inclusive government, as they face the grave threat from Sunni insurgents, many of them fighting under the banner of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, known as ISIS. In recent weeks the militants have gained control of large areas of northern and western Iraq, including Mosul, the country’s second-largest city, as the government’s forces were routed or melted away.

Meanwhile, in Hilla, south of Baghdad, dozens of Sunni prisoners were said have been killed as they were being transported by security forces to a more secure prison. As the troubling news emerged about a new sectarian massacre, officials gave conflicting explanations...

More.

Also at the Washington Post, "Insurgents in Iraq seize main border crossing with Jordan as Kerry arrives for talks."

#ISIS is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Dream Come True in Iraq

The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) is not an "offshoot" or an "affiliate" of al-Qaeda in Iraq. It is al-Qaeda in Iraq, updated and expanded into Syria, with new leadership at the helm. Very few media outlets have resisted using the false characterization of ISIS as an abandoned stepchild of Ayman al Zawahiri. At most there's a leadership quarrel at the top levels of organization, without which no one would be saying how much more horrible is ISIS than al-Qaeda. It's a stupid and malicious program of downplaying the evil and significance of al-Qaeda's global jihad. IBD is one of the few outlets that truly gets it, as seen in its piece the other day, "#ISIS Coming to America: 'See You in New York'."

However, this morning's Los Angeles Times does an excellent job of putting ISIS in the context of al-Qaeda's religious and ideological program for the global holy war. See, "Long-dead militant's battle plan resurrected in Iraq":

ISIS in many ways seems better equipped for a long, complex insurgency than its precursor organization of a decade ago, Zarqawi's Al Qaeda in Iraq. Rebranded as the Islamic State of Iraq after Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in 2006, the group exploited a U.S. military occupation to rally its fighters. Its current incarnation has railed against the Iraqi government that was formed during the U.S. occupation and has been led by Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, a Shiite who critics say has systematically marginalized minority Sunnis.

Now headed by Abu Bakr Baghdadi, a reclusive former teacher, the group added Syria to its name to reflect its widening ambitions. In March 2013, ISIS seized the Syrian city of Raqqah, the first provincial capital it held, and by taking several more cities in eastern Syria over the last year the group has gained what Zarqawi wanted but never had: a safe haven in which to hide fighters and plot major operations.

In his 2004 letter to Al Qaeda leadership, Zarqawi lamented his inability to invite large numbers of foreign Islamic militants to Iraq to help fight U.S. and Iraqi forces.

"What prevents us from [calling] a general alert is that the country has no mountains in which we can take refuge and no forests in whose thickets we can hide," he wrote. "Our backs are exposed and our movements compromised."

Thanks to its conquests in Syria, analysts say, ISIS has become a magnet for foreign radicals, particularly from Europe. The influx of eager fighters has allowed the group to dramatically increase the pace of its attacks in Iraq over the last 18 months even as it continues to battle President Bashar Assad's troops in Syria.

Read the whole thing at the link.

Remember, Zarqawi personally beheaded numerous hostages and al-Qaeda in Iraq gained notorious propaganda victories by posted those to online videos, an early exploitation of social media, before Twitter was invented. Bare Naked Islam has Zarqawi's execution of American contractor Nicholas Berg here, "AMERICAN ‘Leftist’ NICK BERG’S BEHEADING (WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES)." Today's mass beheadings by ISIS forces advancing toward Baghdad are not new, only a more widespread campaign of terror that has been the hallmark of al-Qaeda's totalitarian jihad.

Al-Qaeda in Iraq's leadership struggle began in 2005, when Zawahiri wrote a letter to Zarqawi warning against building flamboyant "cults of personality," though seeking compromise on the organization's ideological program. See Long War Journal, "Dear Zarqawi: A Letter from Zawahiri, and a Constitutional Compromise." And that is key: Today ISIS in Iraq is securing the Islamic caliphate that has been the stated goal of al-Qaeda since the days of Osama bin Laden. See Walid Phares on that, for example, "Bin Laden’s Dream of a Caliphate Lives On," and Tara Servatius, "The Realization of Osama bin Laden's Dream."

In 2011, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger warned that the Arab Spring revolution would bring the most fundamental change in international politics "we have known since World War Two." In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood came to power following the elections of June 2012, but was later ousted when the military toppled the government of Mohamed Morsi last year. But now with ISIS establishing a quasi-state stretching from Raqqah in Syria to Mosul in Iraq and beyond, Zarqawi's dream of the Islamic caliphate is coming to fruition, as brutal as ever, and with an endless supply of jihadists ready to die in the name of Allah.

The Man Who Broke the Middle East

From Elliott Abrams, at Politico.

Read it at the link. One of very best pieces I've read over these last few days. Indeed, I could assign this for my World Politics class in the fall.

Officials and Military Experts: Iraq Forces Can't Defeat #ISIS Jihadists

For the left's antiwar hordes, these reports should be the "uh oh" moment. Because as much as the administration wants to stay out, pressure to avoid an ISIS takeover of Baghdad, and revulsion at the unequivocal waste of U.S. sacrifice in the country, is going to hurt the Democrats in public opinion. The 300 "advisers" could be just the beginning of a renewed robust role for the U.S. in Iraq. It is, in a sense, like a quagmire, and Obama has a tough choice even as he outwardly sticks to his meme that we won the war and his decision to wind it down was a good one.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Iraq Army's Ability to Fight Raises Worries: U.S. Says Decline of Local Forces Leaves Country Vulnerable to Sunni Insurgents, Who Gained Key Border Crossings on Sunday":

The Iraq army's quick collapse against Sunni insurgents in Mosul this month surprised the U.S. military, which spent about $25 billion to train and supply the army over nearly a decade of occupation until 2011.

But it didn't surprise Mosul's residents, who say they witnessed the Iraqi army's decay through corruption, sectarianism and incompetence.  Before the conquest, the city's mostly Sunni residents said they lived under a Shiite-dominant military regime that behaved like an occupying army—extorting protection money from local businesses and motorists and detaining those who refused, the residents said.

"It was as if everyone was cooperating to eradicate the people of Mosul," said Mahmoud Attaie, a dentist who lived in the city until the Islamist State of Iraq and al-Sham, or ISIS, arrived this month.

Now, as ISIS seems intent on attacking Baghdad and important Shiite pilgrimage cities south of Iraq's capital, U.S. and Iraqi military leaders say they worry Iraqi forces will once again collapse.  The U.S. discovered significant problems as it stepped up its assessment of Iraq's security forces in recent months, American officials said. They say they noted that more competent Sunni military tacticians in units in the north had been forced out by the Shiite-dominated government.

Across the military U.S. military personnel found the Iraqis were failing to properly maintain equipment. Training standards have declined sharply from 2011, when U.S. military forces advised Iraqi units.

The ISIS insurgents "are not strong, but the military is very weak," said Atheel Al Nujaifi, the governor of Nineveh province who said he fled its capital Mosul in the middle of the night on June 10 before the city fell. "There was no responsible leadership, there was no planning, there was no correct utilization for the military tools."

"The leaders and the soldiers have no military experience and have no convictions," he added.  Instead, the Iraqi command that ran Mosul by direct order of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ruled the city like a fief, Mr. Nujaifi and other residents said.

"They are not an army, they just take money. No more," said a local Sunni militant in Mosul who said he fought alongside ISIS. "They don't care about orders, weapons or vehicles. They are paid just to get money."

Given how Iraqi soldiers departed without staging any defense of Mosul, the city's residents, as well as Iraqi and U.S. officials, speculate that former operations commander Mahdi Al Gharawi and his lieutenants sold the city to the conquering Islamist militants.

Spokesmen for the military, which has relieved Mr. Gharawi of his command, and for Mr. Maliki didn't respond to requests for comment.

Still, U.S. and Iraqi officials acknowledge that Iraqi soldiers may also have fled under the belief that Mosul's residents would have risen up against them. That scenario, these people say, complicates any possibility of Iraqi security forces—or the Shiite militias that are forming in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities to fight ISIS's Sunni militants—from retaking Mosul and nearby towns.

"If the Shiite militias and the military come to Mosul, all the people of Mosul will fight them," Mr. Nujaifi said. "The people are afraid of the militias and the army now more than they were afraid of ISIS."

The threat to Baghdad grew on Sunday as ISIS insurgents swept through towns in western Iraq and overran the Turaibil border outpost with Jordan and the al-Walid crossing with Syria, a day after they took the Syrian border crossing of al Qaim, security officials said. They faced little resistance from Iraqi national security soldiers, many of whom left their posts.

The assaults bolstered ISIS's cross-border supply lines with Syria and could serve the group's goal of carving out an Islamic state from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf.

Military spokesman Gen. Qassim Atta disputed reports that Iraqi forces had abandoned their positions on the Iraq's western border, saying that the army tactically pulled out of the area to regroup and attack insurgents from the east.

This year, Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the main U.S. foreign military espionage agency, noted the Iraqi security forces had been unable to stop rising violence or suppress militant activity in Iraq's Sunni-dominated areas.

"Iraqi military and police forces lack cohesion, are undermanned, and are poorly trained, equipped, and supplied," Gen. Flynn said in February. "This leaves them vulnerable to terrorist attack, infiltration and corruption."

The Pentagon said it has seen apparent improvements in the performance of the Iraqi military in recent days of fighting against Sunni militants, but many officials still said they harbor concerns over whether the forces can defend the capital.

Units stationed near Baghdad, U.S. defense officials said, are better trained and possess more motivation to fight and defend the capital from ISIS's Sunni militants than forces positioned in Sunni-dominated parts of the country.

But some U.S. officials were concerned that the Iraq military's apparent improved recent performance is due to a slowdown in the advance of ISIS forces and that the Sunni militants may be simply be resetting their forces for a larger assault on the capital.

One senior U.S. defense official said ISIS militants were likely to avoid a frontal onslaught on Baghdad or direct engagement with the troops stationed outside the city.

Instead, the official said militants likely would slip in through Sunni neighborhoods, then resume the kind of sectarian attacks that ripped apart Baghdad in 2006. U.S. officials are also worried about the potential of rocket and artillery attacks on Baghdad. ISIS isn't adept enough to precisely fire artillery, but will be able to hit populated areas of Baghdad...

Also at the New York Times, "Iraq’s Military Seen as Unlikely to Turn the Tide":

BAGHDAD — As Iraqi Army forces try to rally on the outskirts of Baghdad after two weeks of retreat, it has become increasingly clear to Western officials that the army will continue to suffer losses in its fight with Sunni militants and will not soon retake the ground it has ceded.

Recent assessments by Western officials and military experts indicate that about a quarter of Iraq’s military forces are “combat ineffective,” its air force is minuscule, morale among troops is low and its leadership suffers from widespread corruption.

As other nations consider whether to support military action in Iraq, their decision will hinge on the quality of Iraqi forces, which have proved far more ragged than expected given years of American training.

Even now, fighters with the militant Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are consolidating their gains, extending their hold on Euphrates River valley towns, securing access routes between their bases in Syria and the front lines in Iraq, and pressuring other Sunni groups to fight with them...

More.

#Iraq Militants 'Turning Back Clock' in Captured Mosul

At Agence France-Presse:

Baghdad (AFP) - In the two weeks since it was seized by Sunni militants, some residents of the northern Iraq city of Mosul feel the clock has been turned back hundreds of years.

The militants, led by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) jihadist group, have begun imposing an extreme interpretation of Islamic law in the days since they took the city, residents reached by telephone told AFP.

"These militants will return us and our country hundreds of years backwards, and their laws are the opposite of the laws of human rights and international laws," said Umm Mohammed, a 35-year-old teacher.

"We live in continuous fear of being subjected to new pressures," she said. "We are afraid of being prevented from working and contributing to building the community."

The city, known before 2003 for its historic sites and parks and in later years as a hub for deadly violence, fell on June 10 to the militants, who subsequently overran surrounding Nineveh province and swathes of other territory.

Security forces in Mosul, a city of some two million people before the offensive, wilted in the face of the onslaught, in some cases abandoning uniforms and even vehicles in their haste to flee...

More.

Plus video, "Iraqis seek shelter from battles and privation."

Michael O'Hanlon #Iraq Analysis on CBS 'This Morning'

"Maliki is the Shia Saddam."

Watch:



An excellent analysis that overlaps quite closely with Charles Krauthammer's essay,"In #Iraq, Abdication Has a Price."