McCarthy – Obama ISIS "Management" – A National Discussion?

Editor’s Note – So what will our illustrious leader, President Obama, tell us tonight regarding ISIS, Iraq, Syria, and terror threats the day before the second anniversary of Benghazi and the 13th anniversary of 9/11/01?

Are we in for a ‘fireside chat’, or a ‘come to Jesus moment’, maybe this is when Obama becomes an adult, not just a bad actor trying to look Presidential? Only the teleprompter knows! The irony of this moment is palpable – especially when we see the image below of his speech from 2010 declaring the end of our Iraqi combat mission – he looked like an adult then, didn’t he?

President Obama delivers an address to the nation on the end of the combat mission in Iraq from the Oval Office August 31, 2010
President Obama delivers an address to the nation on the end of the combat mission in Iraq from the Oval Office August 31, 2010. The irony is palpable indeed.

Does anyone think he will manage this mess in the Middle East well? Doubtful, the reason things are so bad across the globe now are directly attributable to his inability to manage to begin with. Of course, no matter what actions he chooses to take, we are all supposed to back him as he does. We are supposed to unite behind our “Commander-in-Chief” aren’t we?

The old axiom of leaving politics at our shoreline was crossed off the list by Obama himself beginning with his 2009 Cairo speech and his apology tour, so forgive us if we have no faith in his ability to manage any foreign policy, let alone a war, especially in regard to anything Islamic.

If you have family in the military now, like many of us, be very worried – we do not have to explain why, now do we? Using Obama and the word management in the same sentence is clearly an oxymoron, now isn’t it?

We could go on and on but Andy McCarthy has summed it up so well. Please read below:

A Mismanage-able Problem

Obama’s belief that he can “manage” the Islamic State may collide with reality.

By Andrew C. McCarthy – National Review Online

Liberal Rant – Conservatives are Pro-War, a Response

Editor’s Note – In a recent Facebook discussion on the Cowboy Logic page, several people posited that Republicans are pro-war and therefore are responsible for many of today’s ills across the globe, and most notably Iraq. As usual, the discussion devolved into a typical morass due to the application of common liberal tactics by more than a few people.

Since there was an argument about the facts, Don Neuen (SUA/Cowboy Logic Radio Co-Host) decided to stop the conversation and do some research. He did so and re-initiated the discussion after posting the following. We encourage anyone to respond as a few did after the initial posting of Don’s research. Please read:

By Don Neuen

Conservatives are pro DEFENSE… pro MILITARY… we are not pro WAR as ‘you’ [referring to a liberal respondent] have repeatedly stated incorrectly…

  • World War I – Woodrow Wilson – Democrat

    Join us on Facebook to participate in similar discussions.
    Join us on Facebook to participate in similar discussions.
  • World War II – FDR – Democrat
  • Korean War – Truman – Democrat
  • Bay of Pigs – Kennedy – Democrat
  • Vietnam War – LBJ – Democrat
  • Grenada – Reagan – Republican
  • Persian Gulf War – Bush – Republican
  • Bosnia and Herzegovina – Clinton – Democrat
  • War on Terror – Bush – Republican
  • War on Terror – Obama – Democrat

But let us look deeper…

Under Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat (Progressive), the Democrats held control of both the Senate and the House from 1913-1917… From 1917-1921, The Democrats continued to control the Senate…


Under FDR, a Democrat (Progressive), the Democrats held control of both the Senate and the House from 1933-1945…

Under Truman, a Democrat, the Democrats held control of both the Senate and the House from 1945-1953, with the exception of 1947-1949 when the Republicans took control of the House…

Let’s pause here and reflect: During WWI, WWII and the Korean War, the Democrats held control of the Senate exclusively… And with the exception of 1917-1921, and 1947-1949, the Democrats also held control of the House…

I’d also like to note that WWI ended in 1918, while the Republicans held the House… And WWII ended in 1945 when the Republicans closed the gap in the House to its most narrow margin during FDR’s reign…

I’ll continue…

Under JFK, a Democrat, both the Senate and House were controlled by Democrats…

Under LBJ, a Democrat, both the Senate and the House were under the control of… you guessed it: the Democrats…

Under Reagan, a Republican, The Senate was under the control of Republicans for his first 6 years, from 1981-1987… Reagan had two years of a Democrat held Senate: 1987-1989… During Reagan’s entire term, Democrats held control of the House – from 1981-1989…

Under a Conservative failure: Bush 41, a Republican, both the Senate and the House were under the control of the Democrats during his term from 1989-1993…

Under Clinton, a Democrat, the Senate and House were under the control of the Democrats (1993-1995)… From that point forth, both the Senate and the House were under the control of the Republicans (1995-2001)…LBJ.JFK

Now we get to the next Conservative failure: Bush 43, a Republican… The Senate was barely held, but held nonetheless, under the control of the Republicans for half of his term… From 2001-2003, and again from 2007-2009, neither party held control of the Senate… As far as the House goes, Republicans held the purse strings for the first 6 years (2001-2007), but from 2007-2009, the Democrats gained control of the spending…

Now we get to Obama, a Progressive… The Senate has been under the control of the Democrats from 2009-today… The House was under the control of the Democrats from 2009-2011 and has been under the control of the Republicans from 2011-today…

“What’s your point Don???”

My point is this: When you look at the Commander-in-Chief during times of War, you also must look at which party controls the House and the Senate… It is undeniable that more wars have started under Democrat/Progressive Presidents… That cannot be argued…

Furthermore, More wars have been started and perpetuated during times when the Democrats held control of the House and the Senate… That cannot be argued…

If Democrats don’t like war: Don’t fund war… Don’t preside over war… Don’t authorize war…

You statement that “Conservatives are “pro war” is clearly incorrect…

Now let’s take a look at US casualties from war…

Clearly, WWI & WWII fall under Democrat Presidents as well as an exclusive Democrat Senate and with the exception of 1917-1919, an exclusive Democrat House of Representatives…

Not a good way to start the argument that “Conservatives are pro war”, but I digress…

During WWI & WWII, we lost 116,000 and 405,399 soldiers respectively…

The Korean War cost us 36,516 soldiers… Again, Democrat President… Democrat Senate, and a Democrat House, with the exception of 1947-1949… I’d like to note that the Korean War was not taking place during the time in which Republicans held control of the House during Truman’s term, so the Korean War belongs to the Democrat Party…

Bay of Pigs/Vietnam… While some may consider the loss of 4 US lives inconsequential, Conservatives do NOT… I’ll drop Benghazi into the mix briefly… Back to the Bay of Pigs… we lost 4… During a period in which the President was a Democrat, and both the Senate and the House were under control of the Democrats…

Are we staring to see a pattern here?

Now for LBJ and Vietnam… I can’t blame LBJ entirely for the Vietnam War, in which we lost 58,209 US soldiers… But I can pin him for his term as President, as I can Nixon… But I can, and will blame the Senate and House, both controlled by the Democrats during the entire Vietnam War… And if you are a stickler for details, let’s go back to the start of the Vietnam War, and much to my surprise, who controlled Congress, both chambers? Bingo, the Democrats… moving on…

TrumanReaganUnder Reagan, a Conservative, we have a few military conflicts to discuss… First, Iran… clearly, history has shown that Iran mocks Democrats and is afraid of Conservatives…

Then we have El Salvador, Beirut, and Grenada… US deaths: 322… It should be noted that all three of these conflicts, or wars took place under a Republican Senate and a Democrat House…

Now we get to Conservative failure #1: Bush 41… Total loss of life: 353 (Panama, Gulf War and Operation Provide Comfort)…

Please note that during these conflicts, the Democrats held complete control of both the Senate and the House…

During Clinton’s terms… Somalia was the biggest loss of life… 43… Next was Bosnia: 32… But let’s also note that the House and the Senate were controlled by the Republicans from 1995-2001… Democrats held control of both the House and Senate from 1993-1995…

And now for Conservative failure #2: Bush 43… Clearly, this man, to a Conservative, was an abysmal failure… During his terms, an accurate loss of life count is varying… But I’ll use the estimate of 4,539 (Iraq) and 1,049 (Afghanistan)… During the Bush 43 debacle, Republicans held the purse strings from 2001-2007… For the most part, the Republicans also controlled the Senate during that same time period…

For the record… In the opinion of this Conservative, the Bush administration/Congress was a complete failure of true Conservative values…

Now, for Obama… Again, statistics are clearly inaccurate… But according to what I know, during Obama’s time at quarterback (2009-2014), we’ve lost 265 in Iraq and 2,416 in Afghanistan… oh… and 4 in Benghazi…

So again you ask “What’s your point Don????”

My point is simple… The party of War is clearly the Democrats… Historical facts prove that…

Quite possibly, Sir… you are confusing “Conservative Democrats” with “Conservatives”…

ME Intelligence Update – Iraq’s ‘King of Clubs’

Editor’s Note – The following report was the subject of last night’s “Cowboy Logic” radio program on WDFP, and was hosted by Donna Fiducia and Don Neuen.

Their guests were the authors of the report and the show was riveting. You will learn things here that no outlet in the United States can provide.

Col. Najjar is a former Intelligence officer from Lebanon during the civil war there. He is now a long time US citizen and is a Lebanese Christian. He is also a member of the SUA Kitchen Cabinet and Col. Najjar is SUA’s International Intelligence Director.

As MG Vallely says, “I do not go anywhere overseas without Col. Najjar.” It was Col. Najjar who arranged the visit inside war torn Syria to the embattled city of Aleppo last year for himself and MG Vallely.

King of Clubs

“Cowboy Logic” WDFP Radio is the flag ship radio program of MG Vallely and Stand Up America US.

Latest Intelligence Update – MELT (Middle East Liaison Team) team from Stand Up America

By Col. Nagi N. Najjar and MG Paul E. Vallely (US Army-ret.)

General Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, the King of Clubs, is back and leading the Sunni Insurgency with the backing of the Iraqis national tribes, units of the Republican Guards and the Fedayeen of Saddam.

Both nationalistic and religious units are at odds with each other, two different trajectories – ISIS being led by Al Baghdadi wants the Caliphate, others (The Sunnis led by al-Douri) want the return of the old Iraq.

They are fighting together in the same trench and the same battle filed to remove Iran’s influence in the area and abolish the Iraqi/Maliki government in Baghdad.

Al-Douri first escaped out of Iraq in April 2003 and took refuge in Aleppo, Syria where he has planned and led the offensive/killing operations against the Shia and civilians throughout Iraq.

He has many dedicated officers and soldiers from the Saddam days and new recruits who make up his staff, field commanders and foot soldiers.

The precision and timely attack operations of the Iraqi tribes and former Iraqi army units is due to his planning and operational control. He also works closely with Saddam’s daughter.

Currently, they are conducting their operations from a command and control HQ from a clandestine location in Jordan.

General Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri - the 'King of Clubs' of Iraq
General Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri – the ‘King of Clubs’ of Iraq

Footnote: Now, after a decade as a fugitive, and believed by many to be dead, General Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri – one of the late Iraqi dictator’s most trusted Generals and confidants – has emerged as the spiritual and power figurehead of the movement dedicated to restoring Iraq’s current revolution against Iran’s take over.

The 70 year-old, on whose head the US set a $10 million bounty and who helped Saddam lead his 1968 coup, is leading a group of regime Sunni die-hards.

The action over the last 72 hours  was not an ISIS instigated show, rather ISIS jihadists are trying to climb on board and hijack the Iraq insurgency train towards a major Caliphate upsurge across the Middle East. What we are witnessing in Iraq is a major Rebellion in the move with more than 50% of the forces fighting are the Iraqi Sunni tribes allied with Duri.

Overwhelmingly drawn from the Sunni Muslim minority, their stated goal is to topple the Shia-dominated government of President Nouri-al Maliki, which they believe has been left vulnerable since the departure of US troops from Iraq 18 months ago and ensure that Iran will not dominate the region.

They are united against a common enemy for the moment, but there are strong tensions between the Iraqi loyalists’ tribes /al- Douri and ISIS and after the fall of Baghdad there will be a deterrence show between the two groups for command and control.

This is based on recent intelligence reports to the Middle East Liaison Team (MELT) from Stand Up America organization headed up by MG Paul Vallely and Col. Nagi Najjar.

Listen to the show here:


ISIL Takes Mosul, Tikrit – al Qaeda Affiliate gets US Equip.

Editor’s Note by Scott W. Winchell, SUA

It is a mystery why President Obama wanted to release the Taliban five, yet sent a drone to kill Anwar al Awlaki, an American citizen in Yemen. He also sent in Seal Team Six to get Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, spiked the ‘football’ about it endlessly, yet he has said or done nothing about Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIL (Aka ISIS) in Iraq.

Many experts consider al-Baghdadi to be more dangerous than Osama bin Laden ever was, the “most powerful jihadi leader,” and that he hates the United States and Israel with more fervor to boot. In Syria ISIS suffered some great setbacks, yet they are now resurgent in Iraq and eastern Syria, creating what can now be called a new nation-state about the size of Syria and growing.

Iran’s armed forces are not likely to prevail in any attempt to retake what was newly seized, nor are they likely to hold other contested areas.

Now the second largest city in Iraq has fallen to ISIL, Mosul, with 500,000 refugees, in a lightening fast victory (The story in pictures can be seen here).

As many as 500,000 people have been forced to flee the Iraqi city of Mosul after hundreds of Islamist militants took control of it, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) says. Troops were among those fleeing as the jihadists from the ISIS group took the city and much of Nineveh province. The head of the Turkish mission in Mosul and dozens of consulate officials have been seized. PM Nouri Maliki has asked parliament to declare a state of emergency.

Then Tikrit (Birth place of Saddam Hussein) just fell today to the al Qaeda linked group. Is Baghdad next? US arms and a lot of equipment are now in their hands, including helicopters. Will the British or US come to Maliki’s aid? The Brits say yes – ‘no question’ says British Foreign Secretary William Hague.Iraq isis

ISIL is unconcerned with international borders because they know they were arbitrarily set decades ago and recognize only the clan/tribe claims of old, but now they have redrawn the map for all intents and purposes. This outcome was foreseeable, and swelled and shrunk back only to reemerge stronger than ever. Tyler Durden at Zerohedge posted the following:

As reported earlier, and as most know by now, as if out of nowhere the al-Qaeda faction Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) has, over the past 24 hours, stormed across northern Iraq, taken over key northern cities and even taken control over countless modern US weapons and military equipment including Humvees and Blackhawk helicopters. As we further reported, after looting nearly half a billion from the Mosul central bank, ISIS is also the “world’s richest terror force.” So weapons? Check. Money? Check.

In what was one prime Obama foreign policy failure in the past, not securing a new “Status of Forces” agreement before leaving Iraq, the fruits of the boondoggle are now apparent. What do we say for the $18 billion in treasure spent and 4,487 dead Americans, along with thousands of the maimed and wounded who are now seeking care from a domestic failure at home in the Veterans Administration, all just to give Iraq right back to the most evil and violent people on Earth?

Can anyone define Obama/Clinton/Kerry foreign policy for us? Now, thanks to them, Afghanistan will become a Taliban/al Qaeda stronghold again, Iraq is now in worse shape than when Saddam Hussein was dictator, Libya has no government, Syria is a bloody mess without end in sight, and Egypt is on its second government since Mubarak fell. Now the Saudis are mad at us, Israel has been thrown under the bus, Lebanon teeters, yet Qatar is his ‘go to’ team.

Didn’t we hear that al Qaeda was on the run in 2012? Yet Benghazi is a “bogus scandal,” and “Dude, this was two years ago. We’re still talking about the most mundane thing.” – Tommy Vietor. Don’t you feel safer now, with the “dudes” generation counseling and running this administration?

Do you feel safe about future prospects for national security if Hillary Clinton becomes President? She did hire the “dude,” Tommy Vietor, for “Benghazi spin control” in preparation of the Benghazi Select Committee Hearings soon to begin. Dudes, we cannot afford any more “dude advice” and glaring “dude” foreign policy failures.

Political reform in Iraq will stem the rise of Islamists

Earlier this year, as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) suffered major defeats by various rebel groups in Syria, it raised a defiant slogan: “Remaining and expanding”. A few months later, the slogan does not look as detached from reality as it used to. The group, arguably the most brutal in the region, is now in control of large swathes of lands stretching from Aleppo to Raqqa to Deir Ezzor, in Syria, and from Ramadi to Fallujah and Mosul, in Iraq.

Undated file picture released Jan. 29, 2014, by the official Web site of Iraq’s Interior Ministry claiming to show Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. (Iraqi Interior Ministry via AP)
Undated file picture released Jan. 29, 2014, by the official Web site of Iraq’s Interior Ministry claiming to show Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the head of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. (Iraqi Interior Ministry via AP)

The group’s remarkable successes defy basic military instincts. Consider the type of adversaries ISIL has fought since December. It fought the Iraqi army, backed by battle-hardened Shiite militias as well as Sunni tribal forces, and it unsuccessfully fought the militia in Anbar. In Syria, secular, Islamist and Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels fought ISIL in Aleppo, Idlib and Deir Ezzor, with little success except in Idlib. And yet, the group is still as strong as ever.

So the pressing question is: how can this numerically small group control large areas in two countries? Three main reasons can be identified for its resilience and expansion.

The first is the inconsistency of its opponents. In Iraq, the revival of the group since it was essentially wiped out in the wake of the country’s civil war in 2006 and 2007 was made possible in large part due the imprudent policies of prime minister Nouri Al Maliki. The biased anti-terror laws as well as the tendency to employ sectarian rhetoric in military campaigns against militancy in Sunni areas, as he did in his speech in December, have estranged the Sunni population, which has played into ISIL’s hands.

These policies lead Sunnis, even while they dislike ISIL, to feel they have no stake in fighting ISIL or resisting its presence because the government is just as bad. Additionally, there is a growing sense among Shiites that they have no stake in fighting in Sunni areas and leaving their areas exposed to danger. That leaves the Iraqi government forces with little appetite to face a brutal and resilient militia.

In Syria, ISIL’s opponents have not stood together, even on a factional level, in the fight against the group. Although ISIL has killed and humiliated the leaders of major rebel groups, many Islamists were reluctant to fight a fellow jihadi group rather than focus on the fight against the regime – regardless of ISIL’s day-to-day acts. This helped the group to establish a cult of fear across Syria, despite its relatively low numbers. The fear was broken as many groups declared war against ISIL, but the group has already become resilient and hard to defeat.

The second reason is, simply put, the clarity of its ideology and approach compared to other Islamists. In a business lingo, why would a potential buyer wait for a building planned for construction by a company that might and might not build it, when there is a building already under construction? The fact that ISIL has already announced an “Islamic state” that Muslims can join, and fight for its survival and expansion, appeals to a considerable number of people – even though its brutal tactics have alienated others.

ISIL is quietly expanding its following in the villages and towns dotting the Iraqi-Syrian border mostly because of the perceived reality of an Islamic state. In recent interviews with ISIL associates or their family members, it is clear that the group’s rigid yet clear ideology appeals to an increasing number of young people. These fighters currently travel to hotspots to fight with ISIL, and are not necessarily busy imposing its ideology in their hometowns.

The third reason is the group’s ability to gain substantial funding. As most jihadist groups, ISIL justifies extortion, ransom payments, takeover of weapons from fellow rebels and monopoly of resources by the fact that it considers itself as the only legitimate Islamic entity that represents the interests of Sunni Muslims. It acts as a state and other fighters can either pledge allegiance to it or be considered legitimate targets. While other rebel groups fight the regime, ISIL has busied itself with taking over areas under rebel control, seizing weapons from rebels under various pretexts. In eastern Syria, ISIL has taken control of oilfields, gas plants, factories and other lucrative resources.

Donors with deep pockets also prefer to sponsor an Islamic state in the making rather than a project for one. This tendency reflects an ongoing debate among Islamists from across the spectrum, mainly that attempts to establish an Islamic state by pragmatic groups through peaceful means have consistently failed thanks to an unreceptive regional and international political order. While such reality does not necessarily draw existing political Islamists towards the extreme, it encourages new recruits to join or support the more “realistic” forces to hit their enemies where it hurts.

As far as the recent events around Mosul are concerned, a caveat is in order. ISIL was not the only force that took part in the overrunning of Iraq’s security forces, even though it might be convenient for everyone to portray it as such. There are reports that other forces – including a Sufi-Baathist militia known as the Army of the Men of the Naqshbandi Order, which appeals to many Iraqi Sunnis as they offer a nationalist alternative to the brutish ISIL – have played a central role. In 2009, US officials warned that ISIL might be more dangerous than Al Qaeda because it had managed to build roots within society. The group was mostly based in Mosul and Kirkuk, the sites of this week’s advances.

Where does Iraq go from here? Given the recent performance of the Iraqi army, Baghdad is unlikely to be able to regain ground from these militias. The situation in northern Iraq resembles that of northern Mali in the early months of 2012, when insurgent groups overran government forces and took control of the region. The way to counter the influence of ISIL might be just what happened in Mali, a foreign military to pave the way for a peace deal. But a lasting solution could not be clearer: alongside a military campaign, Baghdad must be pressured into carrying out substantial and real reforms to include Sunnis in the political process.

Hassan Hassan is a Middle East analyst based in Abu Dhabi

Hezbollah terrorist absolved in Iraq – US failed foreign policy

Editor’s Note – Once again we want to post a story that points out how ludicrous it is that people think that Obama has one major asset that Romney does not have – foreign policy experience. Yes he does have more, the trouble is, its a long and consistent list of failures.

When this administration blew the negotiations to leave troops in Iraq, they forgot one guy, Ali Mussa Daqduq. A man responsible for five American deaths. Just how do you screw up that badly? Of course they spun that one to sound like it was what they were aiming for, due to his campaign promises, but once again, the truth is, the “keystone Kops” in the Obama administration got “punk’d” by Iraq. Now we see Iraq quickly melting into chaos and the hegemony of Iran.

Iraqi Court Absolves Terrorist Freed By U.S. After Killing Soldiers

Judicial Watch

Surprise, surprise the Hezbollah terrorist released by the Obama Administration to Iraq out of respect for the country’s sovereignty won’t make it to the U.S. to face trial for killing five American soldiers.

We all knew this would happen back in December when the commander-in-chief handed over the Lebanese militant, Ali Mussa Daqduq, to Iraqi officials. A mainstream newspaper presented it as a“dilemma” for the president as American troops prepared to exit Iraq. Daqduq had been in U.S. military custody in Iraq since 2007 for his involvement in a carefully orchestrated plot that killed, kidnapped and tortured American military officers.

The atrocities took place in a city called Karbala, south of Baghdad in early 2007. Around a dozen terrorists dressed in U.S. military uniforms opened fire on Americans after approaching a camp in five sports utility vehicles resembling U.S. transports. One U.S. soldier died at the scene and four others were kidnapped, tortured and executed. Daqduq, a Hezbollah commander, was the mastermind.

But President Obama didn’t want to remove the terrorist from Iraq without permission from the country, in order not to violate its sovereignty. He also refused to take Daqduq to the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Cuba, which houses other high-value terrorists, because the facility is an anathema in the Middle East and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki would not approve the “unacceptable” Guantanamo option.

So Obama handed Daqduq over to the Iraqis even though several members of congress pointed out that it would be the same as freeing him. Apparently, Iraq pinky promised to hold him accountable for murdering our soldiers. No one, probably not even Obama, really believed that and this week a nationalnewswire story confirmed it.

It turns out that two Iraqi courts have found Daqduq not guilty of masterminding the 2007 raid on an American military base and just a few days ago the nation’s central criminal court ordered that he be freed immediately. As far as the Iraqis are concerned, the legal case against him is over. That’s why authorities there refused the Obama Administration’s joke of an extradition request.

This may lead some to wonder if the administration really thought Iraq ever even toyed with idea of extraditing Duqduq, who is considered a hero among Islamists? The official line is that the government believes the Hezbollah commander is a top threat to Americans in the Middle East, which is why the U.S. even bothered filing the delusional extradition request.

The Iraqi court’s decision ends the Obama Administration’s laughable, last-ditch efforts to prosecute Daqduq. A Pentagon spokesman said Daqduq “should be held accountable for his crimes” and that the U.S. “”will continue to work closely with the Iraqi government to explore all legal options to pursue justice in this case.” The first part sounds good, but the second part is a crock.