Chrissy Teigen, Nina Agdal and Lily Aldridge

For Sports Illustrated Swimsuit:

Ex-CIA Deputy Chief Michael Morell Slams Obama's #Iran Rapprochement — #Iraq #ISIS

At the Washington Free Beacon, "Morell: Not in U.S. Interests to Work with Iran to Stop ISIS."

Yeah, well, you think?

Full video at CBS "This Morning":

Al-Shabaab Massacres Dozens in Nairobi! U.S Marines Stationed Atop Embassy!

At London's Daily Mail, "'My husband told them we were Christians and they shot him in the head': How al-Shabaab militia went from door to door killing non-Muslims as Kenyan village watched World Cup."

And at Pamela's, "“U.S. Marines Now Stationed on the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi”: Dozens Killed In Jihadist Attack On Kenyan Town":

More of the catastrophic fall-out of Obama’s pro-jihadist foreign policy putsch. The roiling chaos across the Middle East and Africa escalates at frightening speed.

Obama’s patriarchal homeland, once the beacon of democracy on the dark continent, is under siege by jihadists.

Obama’s priority? He is coming to New York in as part of a Democratic fundraising effort.

CNN Reports on #Iraq Troop Executions by Tunisian #ISIS Jihadi

I reported on this yesterday, "Tunisian #ISIS Jihadist Executes 5 Captured Soldiers in #Iraq — WARNING GRAPHIC."

CNN's Brooke Baldwin is reporting on this as this post goes live, and here's an Arwa Damon report from a little while ago.

MSM outlets are at least 24 hours late on reporting ISIS war crimes in #IRAQ. Here's looking at you @CNN, @NYTimes.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 16, 2014

"This just in," @CNN, on the Tunisian jihadist's execution of Iraq soldiers? That story broke yesterday. @BrookeBCNN

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 16, 2014

Hey John Kerry, Iran's EFPs (Explosively Formed Penetrators) Killed Hundreds of U.S. Troops in #Iraq!

A number of outlets are reporting that Secretary of State John Kerry is opening talks on security cooperation with Iran, which is world's biggest state-sponsor of international terrorism.

For Example, at the Los Angeles Times, "U.S. may join Iran in effort to resolve crisis in Iraq"; at Politico, "John Kerry: U.S. open to talks with Iran over Iraq"; and the Wall Street Journal, "Iraq Loses Key City, as U.S. 'Open' to Iran Talks on Crisis."

It boggles the mind that the Obama administration would be seeking an entente with our greatest enemy in the region, or perhaps not, since the president and his treasonous cronies have been scheming to reduce U.S. global power from their first day in office.

Here's National Journal's report from 2011, "Record Number of U.S. Troops Killed by Iranian Weapons":

U.S. military commanders in Iraq say Iranian-made weaponry is killing American troops there at an unprecedented pace, posing new dangers to the remaining forces and highlighting Tehran’s intensifying push to gain influence over post-U.S. Iraq.

June was the deadliest month in more than two years for U.S. troops, with 14 killed. In May, the U.S. death toll was two. In April, it was 11. Senior U.S. commanders say the three primary Iranian-backed militias, Kataib Hezbollah, the Promise Day Brigade, and Asaib al Haq, and their rockets were behind 12 of the deaths in June.

A detailed U.S. military breakdown of June’s casualties illustrates the growing threat posed by Iranian munitions.

Military officials said six of the 14 dead troops were killed by so-called “explosively formed penetrators,” or EFPs, a sophisticated roadside bomb capable of piercing through even the best-protected U.S. vehicles. Five other troops were killed earlier in the month when a barrage of rockets slammed into their base in Baghdad. It was the largest single-day U.S. loss of life since April 2009, when a truck bomb killed five soldiers. The remaining three troops killed in June died after a rocket known as an “improvised rocket-assisted mortar,” or IRAM, landed in a remote U.S. outpost in southern Iraq.

U.S. officials say the EFPs, rockets, and IRAMs all come from neighboring Iran. Tehran denies providing the weaponry to Shia militias operating in Iraq.

“We’re seeing a sharp increase in the amount of munitions coming across the border, some manufactured as recently as 2010,” Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan, the top U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad, said in an interview. “These are highly lethal weapons, and their sheer volume is a major concern.”

Buchanan said much of the current weaponry is passing into the country through its formal border crossings with Iran. Current and former American military officers claim that those border crossings are guarded by Iraqi security personnel whose long-standing financial relationships with their Iranian counterparts means they will accept bribes or turn a blind eye in order to allow munitions through.

Back in 2007, the Washington post called EFPs "The Deadliest IEDs." See, "'The single most effective weapon against our deployed forces'":

IEDs have caused nearly two-thirds of the 3,100 American combat deaths in Iraq, and an even higher proportion of battle wounds. This year alone, through mid-July, they have also resulted in an estimated 11,000 Iraqi civilian casualties and more than 600 deaths among Iraqi security forces. To the extent that the United States is not winning militarily in Iraq, the roadside bomb, which as of Sept. 22 had killed or wounded 21,200 Americans, is both a proximate cause and a metaphor for the miscalculation and improvisation that have characterized the war.

EFPs constituted the most serious threat the coalition forces in Iraq. Here's Toby Harnden in 2006, at Telegraph UK, "Three Iranian factories 'mass-produce bombs to kill British in Iraq'":

Three factories in Iran are mass-producing the sophisticated roadside bombs used to kill British soldiers over the border in Iraq, it has been claimed.

The lethal bombs are being made by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps at ordnance factory sites in Tehran, according to opponents of the country's theocratic regime.

Designed to penetrate heavy armour, the devices being manufactured in Iran involve the use of "explosively formed projectiles" or EFPs, also known as shaped charges, often triggered by infra-red beams.

The weapons can pierce the armour of British and American tanks and armoured personnel carriers and completely destroy armoured Land Rovers, which are used by the majority of British troops on operations in Iraq.

The Sunday Telegraph revealed in April that Iranian-made devices employing several EFPs, directed at different angles, were being used in Iraq.

And in June, this newspaper obtained the first picture of one of the Iraqi insurgent weapons - designed to fire an armour-piercing EFP - believed to have been responsible for the deaths of 17 British soldiers.

British Government scientists have already established that the mines are precision-made weapons thought to have been turned on a lathe by craftsmen trained in the manufacture of munitions.

Members of the Washington-based Iran Policy Committee have released the details about the three bomb factories gathered by the exile group, the National Council for Resistance in Iran (NCRI).

Here are graphic photos of the destruction inflicted by these devices. In your mind's eye, situate yourself behind the controls of a Humvee patrolling Baghdad in 2007. Via Pajamas Media, "How Iran Is Killing U.S. Troops in Iraq." These projectiles explode at more than 2,000 feet-per-second:





And now the U.S. is seeking to give Tehran a lead role in resolving the crisis in Iraq? That'd be like opening talks on cooperation with the German High Command as British and French forces were being evacuated at Dunkirk in 1940.

The Obama administration has sold out American interests and placed the lives of Americans and untold number of Iraqis at risk. The solution is not to let Iran gain greater influence in Iraq. We have the options to reverse the ISIS advance. And we have over a decade of on-the-ground experience in defeating the jihadi extremist. All we need is the requisite leadership to beat back this incursion and avoid an existential defeat in the Middle East.

Obama's Iraq Disaster

From Marc Thiessen, at the Washington Post:

When Obama took office he inherited a pacified Iraq, where the terrorists had been defeated both militarily and ideologically.

Militarily, thanks to Bush’s surge, coupled with the Sunni Awakening, al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI, now the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) was driven from the strongholds it had established in Anbar and other Iraqi provinces. It controlled no major territory, and its top leader — Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — had been killed by U.S. Special Operations forces.

Ideologically, the terrorists had suffered a popular rejection. Iraq was supposed to be a place where al-Qaeda rallied the Sunni masses to drive America out, but instead, the Sunnis joined with Americans to drive al-Qaeda out — a massive ideological defeat.  Obama took that inheritance and squandered it, with two catastrophic mistakes:

First, he withdrew all U.S. forces from Iraq — allowing the defeated terrorists to regroup and reconstitute themselves.

Second, he failed to support the moderate, pro-Western opposition in neighboring Syria — creating room for ISIS to fill the security vacuum. ISIS took over large swaths of Syrian territory, established a safe haven, used it to recruit and train thousands of jihadists, and prepared their current offensive in Iraq.

The result: When Obama took office, the terrorists had been driven from their safe havens; now they are on threatening to take control of a nation. Iraq is on the cusp of turning into what Afghanistan was in the 1990s — a safe haven from which to plan attacks on America and its allies.

More.

American Soccer Players Don't Fake Injuries or Exaggerate Contact as Much as Others

I posted a few soccer tweets the other day, joking about how I was waiting for the Angels game to come on (although I didn't go so far as to say soccer wasn't an American sport --- I used to enjoy playing soccer as a kid).

I later got a kick when I saw Althouse hilarious dissing the soccer sensationalism over the World Cup. See, "Why I'm not clicking on Google doodles for a while." And the comments are a riot:

Finally Althouse gets something right. One of the few remaining reasons to be proud of being an American is that we are the only people who realize that soccer is shit. It's the only sport that bans the use of the hands, and using our hands is what makes us human. Thus, by definition, soccer is a game for sub-humans, and, boy, do the fans show it. To be fair to them, though, the games themselves are so boring that the only way to stay awake is to start a riot or a war, or at least turn to the guy next to you and head-butt his face in.

In any case, I guess we're not so great at the sport's cheating culture either. At the New York Times, "On Soccer: Where Dishonesty Is Best Policy, U.S. Soccer Falls Short":

NATAL, Brazil — The list of improvements that the United States men’s soccer team needs to make is considerable. Coach Jurgen Klinsmann would like to see a more consistent back line, better touch from his midfielders and plenty more production from the attackers.  

Yet as Klinsmann and his players begin their World Cup here Monday against Ghana, trickier questions of soccer acumen have come into focus:

Are the Americans bad at playacting? And if so, should they try to get better?

The first part seems easy enough. For better or worse, gamesmanship and embellishment — or, depending on your sensibilities, cheating — are part of high-level soccer. Players exaggerate contact. They amplify the mundane. They turn niggling knocks into something closer to grim death.

They do all this to force the referee to make decisions, with the hope that if he is confronted by imagined bloodshed often enough, he will ultimately determine he has seen some. Applying this sort of pressure on the official is a skill that, by their own admission, United States players generally perform poorly, if they perform it at all...

More.

#Obama Faces Fresh Questions on 'How Wars End'

From Julie Pace, at AP, "For Obama, Fresh Questions About How Wars End":

This is how wars end in 2014 (plus victory kiss update) http://t.co/XoecUUL7qd #TCOT pic.twitter.com/yNTlD7n6AA

— The People's Cube (@ThePeoplesCube) June 15, 2014

From the Rose Garden, President Barack Obama outlined a timetable for the gradual withdrawal of the last U.S. troops in Afghanistan and said confidently, "This is how wars end in the 21st century."

But less than three weeks after his May 27 announcement, there is a sudden burst of uncertainty surrounding the way Obama has moved to bring the two conflicts he inherited to a close.

In Iraq, a fast-moving Islamic insurgency is pressing toward Baghdad, raising the possibility of fresh American military action more than two years after the last U.S. troops withdrew. The chaos in Iraq also raises questions about whether Obama's plans to keep a small military presence in Afghanistan until the end of 2016 can prevent a similar backslide there or whether extremists are simply lying in wait until the U.S. withdrawal deadline passes.

"Could all of this have been avoided? The answer is absolutely yes," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said of the deteriorating situation in Iraq. McCain, one of the White House's chief foreign policy critics and Obama's 2008 presidential rival, added that Obama is "about to make the same mistake in Afghanistan he made in Iraq."

That criticism strikes at the heart of Obama's clearest foreign policy pledge: a commitment to ending the conflicts started by his predecessor, George W. Bush, and keeping the U.S. out of further military entanglements.

The turmoil in Iraq presents a particularly troubling dilemma for the White House. Obama's early opposition to the Iraq war was a defining factor in his 2008 presidential campaign and he cast the withdrawal of all American troops in late 2011 as a promise fulfilled. The president and his top advisers have since cited the end of the war as one of Obama's top achievements in office.

But the vacuum left by American forces has been filled by waves of resurgent violence and burgeoning Sunni extremism. Still, Obama resisted calls for the U.S. to get involved, saying it was now Iraq's sovereign government's responsibility to ensure the country's security.

The current situation in Iraq appears to have made that stance untenable.

Obama, who once called Iraq a "dumb war," now says it is clear the government in Baghdad needs more help from the U.S. in order to contain a violent al-Qaida inspired group that, he said, could pose a threat to American security interests.

While the White House is still evaluating a range of options, administration officials say the president is considering strikes with manned aircrafts, but only if Iraqi leaders were to outline a political plan for easing sectarian tensions.

Even limited and targeted U.S. airstrikes in Iraq would mark an almost unimaginable turn of events for many of the war-weary Americans who twice elected Obama president.

Continue reading.

Laura Ingraham on Sunday's News Shows

Ingraham played a huge hand in the Dave Brat win last week.

Watch, from "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," with Jonathan Karl moderating, "'This Week': Powerhouse Roundtable I."

Fact that #luisgutierrez said on @ThisWeekABC that he is not for amnesty is funnier than my #Cantor Taliban prisoner swap joke.

— Laura Ingraham (@IngrahamAngle) June 15, 2014

And on Howard Kurtz's show, on Fox News, "Radio Host Helped Sink Cantor - Ingraham Campaigned With David Brat."

#ISIS Leader Ibrahim Awwad al-Badri al-Samarrai Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Looks to Gain Ground in #Iraq

At WSJ, "Top Militant Carves New Identity for Group: Leader of al Qaeda Offshoot ISIS, Emphasizing Practical Gains and Patriotism Over Ideology, Distinguishes His Mission":

As a master's-degree student at a university in Baghdad in 1997, Ibrahim Awwad al-Badri al-Samarrai was so poor he took cash handouts every month from a kindly professor, said a former classmate.

Now flush with cash, armed to the teeth and backed by an army known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, he is within striking distance of attacking the city where spent his humble youth.  The rise of the militant Islamist leader, who changed his name to Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi in 2010, is a rags-to-riches story that mirrors the rise of the ISIS militia he now leads.

By emphasizing practical gains over ideology and placing a premium on battlefield victories rather than lofty principals, Mr. Baghdadi's ISIS has become one of the most powerful militant Islamist groups, said experts on militant Islamism.  For the West, ISIS's strength and identity have created a new sort of enemy that has a reputation for brutality and in many ways looks and acts like the army of a state seeking to expand its territory.

ISIS is "actualizing the idea of the Islamic state. On the jihadi side of things, there's appeal in that," said Aaron Zelin, an expert on Islamist groups at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.  "You have guys just talking about it and al Qaeda and Jabhat Al Nusra saying they'll get there, whereas ISIS is just doing it," he said, referring to ISIS's rivals in Syria and throughout the world.

While ISIS shares much of the same ideology and jihadist vocabulary as al Qaeda, it differs on methodology. Whereas al Qaeda, which got its start during the resistance against the Soviet Union's occupation of Afghanistan during the 1980s, behaves as a terrorist organization advancing a global ideology, ISIS in many ways acts like the army of a sovereign nation with defined borders and a semi-legitimate system of governance...

Keep reading.

PREVIOUSLY: "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi."

Obama-Addled Democrat Slurs Iraq Vet J.R. Saltzman: 'You got your arm blown off cause of #BushCheneyLies...'

Man, this dude is overdosing on the leftist Obama-laced Kool-aid.

At Twitchy, "‘Beneath contempt’: Iraq vet J.R. Salzman told he lost arm because of Bush and not doing his job":

Classy guy, that @mikeejoe. I guess any soldier who lost a limb in Iraq wasn't doing their job. pic.twitter.com/N8zrXeP0V1

— J.R. Salzman (@jrsalzman) June 15, 2014

Total asshole:

Dirtbag leftist: ~~> @mikeejoe

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) June 16, 2014

Obama Sneakily Releases 12 Jihadis from Parwan Detention Center in #Afghanistan

Obama's sending the terrorists back to the battlefield, very quietly and secretly.

At Jihad Watch, "U.S. quietly releases 12 jihadis from U.S. military prison in Afghanistan":

Just in case the five jihadis traded for Bowe Bergdahl weren’t enough, Barack Obama has released twelve more. What could possibly go wrong? Ten of them are Pakistanis, and “Pakistani officials have said that returned detainees would be kept under surveillance to make sure they had no militant links.” We all know that Pakistani authorities are completely honest and indefatigably anti-jihad!

Keep reading.

IDF Soldiers Arrest Top Hamas Terrorist Hassan Yousef

Via Blazing Cat Fur, who's got a complete report, "Things heat up in Israel over kidnapped teens: Shots fired at soldiers near Jerusalem, rockets at Ashkelon."

Lara Logan: #ISIS Arms Seizures Have 'significantly changed the dynamics of what we face...'

I watched this morning, the first time I've seen her on TV since that botched "60 Minutes" segment on Benghazi some time ago. She's lucky she wasn't fired. But good thing. If you know Logan, she's really one of the few network reporters out there who truly understands the nature of the enemy and the costs to international security from an American and Iraq defeat across the region.

At Truth Revolt, "Lara Logan Explains the Disaster of Losing US Weapons to ISIS."



And flashback to 2012, "Lara Logan Speaks Truth to War on Terror."

U.S. Must Put Out the Fire in #Iraq — With Ground Troops

So far the first analysis I've read thus far expliciting calling for a ground troop deployment.

From Frederick Kagan, at the New York Daily News, "Put out this fire":

President Obama says that he is mulling options for providing support to Iraq, but with great reluctance. "The U.S. is not simply going to involve itself in a military action in the absence of a political plan by the Iraqis," he said Friday.

A political plan for Iraq is vital. Everything the administration has said about the sectarianism and mis-governance of Prime Minister Nuri al Maliki is true. Assistance to Iraq must include strong conditions to press Maliki to change his approach - or leave office.

But the Iraqis need vigorous and intelligent American involvement right now to prevent a stalemate that will leave ISIS in control of much of northern Iraq. That is an unacceptable outcome, one that would do far more damage to America than our retreat from Vietnam in 1975.

We face a simple choice: We can either rejoin our demoralized Iraqi partners in the fight against ISIS or we can watch as this Al Qaeda franchise solidifies its control over several million Iraqis and Syrians, completes its plundering of military bases and continues to build up, train and equip an honest-to-goodness military.

Rejoining the fight means immediately sending air support; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets; air transportation; Special Operations forces; training teams; and more military equipment back into Iraq. It does not mean re-invading Iraq.

Immediately sending air support and Special Forces to Mosul might shock ISIS and embolden the population enough to rout the jihadis from the city. But if it does not, the Iraqi Security Forces may well prove unable to regain Mosul on their own.

In that case, a small contingent of U.S. ground forces would be required...

Keep reading.

RELATED: At the Wall Street Journal, "Militants Claim Photos Show Mass Execution in Iraq: Twitter Account Associated With ISIS Appears to Dozens of Captured Men in Civilian Clothes," and "Iraq Militants Claim Soldier Massacre: Photos of Alleged Killings Posted Online as U.S., Iran Near Talks on Cooperation to Counter Insurgents."

Also at Long War Journal, "ISIS photographs detail execution of Iraqi soldiers."

Beware the Islamic #Caliphate in the Middle East

From political scientist Michael Curtis, at American Thinker, "Beware the Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East":

The Obama administration confronts a difficult problem of what role to play in the context of the success of ISIS, civil war in both Iraq and Syria, and sectarian conflict between Shiites and Sunnis. The administration was wrong when the chief of staff, Denis McDonough, declared in 2011 that the U.S. had helped bring about a secure, stable, self-reliant Iraq. No one is presently calling for American troops to fight on Iraqi soil. But should the U.S. now supply drones and manned aircraft, strengthen intelligence capabilities, and aid in more training exercises? Can the administration and U.S. citizens in general forget the American sacrifices and losses in the battles for Mosul and Fallujah? The Obama belief that the tide of war was receding and therefore that the U.S. could reduce its forces abroad, and concentrate on “nation-building,” was always arguable, if popular in public opinion, and now resembles a policy of appeasement. It was unhelpful that Obama suggested to Congress that it repeal the 2001 Authorization to use military force against al-Qaeda.

American refusal or hesitation in helping to control the Islamic threat in Iraq is even more unacceptable because the objective of ISIS is clear. It is fighting to establish an Islamic caliphate in the Persian Gulf area, and to become the leader of global jihad. ISIS has declared that “we are soldiers of Islam and took on our responsibility to bring back the glory of the Islamic Caliphate."

Whatever the decisions made by President Obama on the increasingly perilous situation in Iraq, and the regional instability caused by the ambitions of ISIS, he has to take into account two other facts: the decision for total withdrawal in 2016 from Afghanistan, a country menaced by the Taliban, and the interest of some Palestinians to create another version of the Islamic caliphate surrounding or replacing the State of Israel. Will the U.S. and the European Union face with all their courage the fight against Islamic tyranny and the support for Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East?

RTWT.

Father's Day #Rule5

I'm going to hold off on a big roundup today. I want to keep up with developments in the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Pirate's cove has some lovely Rule 5 blogging, "Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup," and "If All You See……is a horrible fossil fueled vehicle which should be banned for Everyone Else, you might just be a Warmist."

Have a great day everybody!

ADDED: At First Street Journal, "Rule 5 Blogging: Back to the IDF!," and Goodstuff's, "GOODSTUFF'S BLOGGING MAGAZINE (143rd Issue)."

U.S. Begins Evacuation of U.S. Embassy in #Iraq

At the New York Times (via Memeorandum), "U.S. to Evacuate Many Staff Members From Baghdad Embassy."

Also at Gateway Pundit, "U.S. EMBASSY IN BAGHDAD to Begin Evacuation," and Zero Hedge, "U.S. Orders Partial Evacuation of Baghdad Embassy as Aircraft Carrier Arrives in Gulf." (Added: From Robert Spencer, at Jihad Watch, "U.S. to evacuate substantial number of personnel from Baghdad embassy."

And here's this morning's report from CBS News:

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair Calls for Western Intervention in #Iraq

At the BBC, "Tony Blair: 'We didn't cause Iraq crisis'."

And from the Office of Tony Blair, "Iraq, Syria and the Middle East – An essay by Tony Blair":

The civil war in Syria with its attendant disintegration is having its predictable and malign effect. Iraq is now in mortal danger. The whole of the Middle East is under threat.  We will have to re-think our strategy towards Syria; support the Iraqi Government in beating back the insurgency; whilst making it clear that Iraq’s politics will have to change for any resolution of the current crisis to be sustained. Then we need a comprehensive plan for the Middle East that correctly learns the lessons of the past decade. In doing so, we should listen to and work closely with our allies across the region, whose understanding of these issues is crucial and who are prepared to work with us in fighting the root causes of this extremism which goes far beyond the crisis in Iraq or Syria.

It is inevitable that events in Mosul have led to a re-run of the arguments over the decision to remove Saddam Hussein in 2003. The key question obviously is what to do now. But because some of the commentary has gone immediately to claim that but for that decision, Iraq would not be facing this challenge; or even more extraordinary, implying that but for the decision, the Middle East would be at peace right now; it is necessary that certain points are made forcefully before putting forward a solution to what is happening now.  3/4 years ago Al Qaida in Iraq was a beaten force. The country had massive challenges but had a prospect, at least, of overcoming them. It did not pose a threat to its neighbours. Indeed, since the removal of Saddam, and despite the bloodshed, Iraq had contained its own instability mostly within its own borders.

Though the challenge of terrorism was and is very real, the sectarianism of the Maliki Government snuffed out what was a genuine opportunity to build a cohesive Iraq. This, combined with the failure to use the oil money to re-build the country, and the inadequacy of the Iraqi forces have led to the alienation of the Sunni community and the inability of the Iraqi army to repulse the attack on Mosul and the earlier loss of Fallujah. And there will be debate about whether the withdrawal of US forces happened too soon.

However there is also no doubt that a major proximate cause of the takeover of Mosul by ISIS is the situation in Syria.  To argue otherwise is wilful. The operation in Mosul was planned and organised from Raqqa across the Syria border. The fighters were trained and battle-hardened in the Syrian war. It is true that they originate in Iraq and have shifted focus to Iraq over the past months. But, Islamist extremism in all its different manifestations as a group, rebuilt refinanced and re-armed mainly as a result of its ability to grow and gain experience through the war in Syria.

As for how these events reflect on the original decision to remove Saddam, if we want to have this debate, we have to do something that is rarely done: put the counterfactual i.e. suppose in 2003, Saddam had been left running Iraq.  Now take each of the arguments against the decision in turn...

The reality is that the whole of the Middle East and beyond is going through a huge, agonising and protracted transition. We have to liberate ourselves from the notion that ‘we’ have caused this. We haven't. We can argue as to whether our policies at points have helped or not; and whether action or inaction is the best policy and there is a lot to be said on both sides. But the fundamental cause of the crisis lies within the region not outside it.

The problems of the Middle East are the product of bad systems of politics mixed with a bad abuse of religion going back over a long time. Poor governance, weak institutions, oppressive rule and a failure within parts of Islam to work out a sensible relationship between religion and Government have combined to create countries which are simply unprepared for the modern world. Put into that mix, young populations with no effective job opportunities and education systems that do not correspond to the requirements of the future economy, and you have a toxic, inherently unstable matrix of factors that was always – repeat always - going to lead to a revolution.

But because of the way these factors interrelate, the revolution was never going to be straightforward. This is the true lesson of Iraq. But it is also the lesson from the whole of the so-called Arab Spring. The fact is that as a result of the way these societies have developed and because Islamism of various descriptions became the focal point of opposition to oppression, the removal of the dictatorship is only the beginning not the end of the challenge. Once the regime changes, then out come pouring all the tensions – tribal, ethnic and of course above all religious; and the rebuilding of the country, with functioning institutions and systems of Government, becomes incredibly hard. The extremism de-stabilises the country, hinders the attempts at development, the sectarian divisions become even more acute and the result is the mess we see all over the region. And beyond it. Look at Pakistan or Afghanistan and the same elements are present.

Understanding this and analysing properly what has happened, is absolutely vital to the severe challenge of working out what we can do about it. So rather than continuing to re-run the debate over Iraq from over 11 years ago, realise that whatever we had done or not done, we would be facing a big challenge today.  Indeed we now have three examples of Western policy towards regime change in the region. In Iraq, we called for the regime to change, removed it and put in troops to try to rebuild the country. But intervention proved very tough and today the country is at risk again. In Libya, we called for the regime to change, we removed it by airpower, but refused to put in troops and now Libya is racked by instability, violence and has exported vast amounts of trouble and weapons across North Africa and down into sub- Saharan Africa. In Syria we called for the regime to change, took no action and it is in the worst state of all.

And when we do act, it is often difficult to discern the governing principles of action. Gaddafi, who in 2003 had given up his WMD and cooperated with us in the fight against terrorism, is removed by us on the basis he threatens to kill his people but Assad, who actually kills his people on a vast scale including with chemical weapons, is left in power.  So what does all this mean? How do we make sense of it? I speak with humility on this issue because I went through the post 9/11 world and know how tough the decisions are in respect of it. But I have also, since leaving office, spent a great deal of time in the region and have studied its dynamics carefully.

The beginning of understanding is to appreciate that resolving this situation is immensely complex. This is a generation long struggle. It is not a ‘war’ which you win or lose in some clear and clean-cut way. There is no easy or painless solution. Intervention is hard. Partial intervention is hard. Non-intervention is hard.

Ok, so if it is that hard, why not stay out of it all, the current default position of the West? The answer is because the outcome of this long transition impacts us profoundly. At its simplest, the jihadist groups are never going to leave us alone. 9/11 happened for a reason. That reason and the ideology behind it have not disappeared.

However more than that, in this struggle will be decided many things: the fate of individual countries, the future of the Middle East, and the direction of the relationship between politics and the religion of Islam. This last point will affect us in a large number of ways. It will affect the radicalism within our own societies which now have significant Muslim populations. And it will affect how Islam develops across the world. If the extremism is defeated in the Middle East it will eventually be defeated the world over, because this region is its spiritual home and from this region has been spread the extremist message.  There is no sensible policy for the West based on indifference. This is, in part, our struggle, whether we like it or not...

Continue reading.

Tunisian #ISIS Jihadist Executes 5 Captured Soldiers in #Iraq — WARNING GRAPHIC

According to Dubai journalist Jenan Moussa on Twitter (here, here, and here):





More on the jihadist's Facebook page. Social media for the caliphate.