AP Exclusive: 20,000 foreign fighters flock to Syria, Iraq

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By KEN DILANIAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Foreign fighters are streaming into Syria and Iraq in unprecedented numbers to join the Islamic State or other extremist groups, including at least 3,400 from Western nations among 20,000 from around the world, U.S. intelligence officials say in an updated estimate of a top terrorism concern.

Intelligence agencies now believe that as many as 150 Americans have tried and some have succeeded in reaching in the Syrian war zone, officials told the House Homeland Security Committee in testimony prepared for delivery on Wednesday. Some of those Americans were arrested en route, some died in the area and a small number are still fighting with extremists.

The testimony and other data were obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.

Nick Rasmussen, chief of the National Counterterrorism Center, said the rate of foreign fighter travel to Syria is without precedent, far exceeding the rate of foreigners who went to wage jihad in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen or Somalia at any other point in the past 20 years.

FULL story at link.


FILE - In this Jan. 30, 2015 file photo, a Syrian Kurdish sniper looks at the rubble in the Syrian city of Ain al-Arab, also known as Kobani. Foreign fighters are streaming in unprecedented numbers to Syria and Iraq to battle for the Islamic State or other U.S. foes, including at least 3,400 from Western nations and 150 Americans, U.S. intelligence officials conclude. In all, more than 20,000 fighters have traveled to Syria from more than 90 countries, top intelligence officials will tell Congress this week. (AP Photo, File)

Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20150210/us--islamic_state-foreign_fighters-c048ef68fb.html

[xocet]

1. This certainly could not have been achieved without G.W. Bush's tremendous capacity for forethought

and planning. So, thank you, W!

[leveymg]

5. Actually this one was Hillary & Petraeus' work

Iraq and Afghanistan were Shrub wars. None of them ever seem to end, they just spread and merge.

[George II]

6. Can you explain how/why it is Hillary Clinton's and David Petraeus' work?

[leveymg]

10. Their role in expanding the Syria war has been widely covered. Here are some reports:

White House rebuffed Clinton-Petraeus plan to arm Syrian rebels: report [View all]
Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A plan developed last summer by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA Director David Petraeus to arm and train Syrian rebels was rebuffed by the White House, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

The United States has sent humanitarian aid to Syria but has declined requests for weapons by rebels fighting to overthrow the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The White House rejected the Clinton-Petraeus proposal over concerns it could draw the United States into the Syrian conflict and the arms could fall into the wrong hands, the Times said, citing unnamed Obama administration officials.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-rebuffed-clinton-petraeus-plan-arm-syrian-023937923.html

Clinton was the strongest voice within the Administration inner circle for a more activist US military role in regime change operations across the region, as the NYT reports: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/politics/in-behind-scene-blows-and-triumphs-sense-of-clinton-future.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And yet, interviews with more than a dozen current and former officials also paint a more complex picture: of a dogged diplomat and a sometimes frustrated figure who prized her role as team player, but whose instincts were often more activist than those of a White House that has kept a tight grip on foreign policy.

The disclosures about Mrs. Clinton’s behind-the-scenes role in Syria and Myanmar — one a setback, the other a success — offer a window into her time as a member of Mr. Obama’s cabinet. They may also be a guide to her thinking as she ponders a future run for the presidency with favorability ratings that are the highest of her career, even after her last months at the State Department were marred by the deadly attack on the American Mission in Benghazi, Libya.

“Secretary Clinton has dramatically changed the face of U.S. foreign policy globally for the good,” said Richard L. Armitage, deputy secretary of state during the George W. Bush administration. “But I wish she had been unleashed more by the White House.”

In an administration often faulted for its timidity abroad, “Clinton wanted to lead from the front, not from behind,” said Vali R. Nasr, a former State Department adviser on Afghanistan and Pakistan who is now the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.

Panetta Exposes Rift With Obama Over Arming Syrian Rebels
The Obama administration’s two top defense officials publicly acknowledged a policy rift with the White House over whether to send U.S. arms to Syrian rebels.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who is retiring, and Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both said in congressional testimony yesterday that they supported a plan last year to provide weapons to the rebels fighting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.

--clip
“We did,” said Dempsey, responding to McCain’s question on whether they supported the plan to arm Assad’s opponents by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and David Petraeus, who was director of the Central Intelligence Agency at the time.

“That was our position,” Panetta said to Graham. “I do want to say, senator, that obviously there were a number of factors that were involved here that ultimately led to the president’s decision to make it non-lethal.”

MORE...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-07/panetta-exposes-rift-with-obama-over-arming-syrian-rebels.html

[George II]

12. Unless I'm reading that incorrectly, they WANTED to take an active role but Obama "rebuffed" them.

Meaning that what they wanted never happened. Correct?

[leveymg]

13. Glad to see you're paying attention. Let's take this step by step.

Now that we established the authorship of the policy, indeed, we have to demonstrate what the policy was and that it was in fact carried out by the U.S., either directly or through regional surrogates. The following premises will be taken as stipulated facts already on the record, unless you object:

1) The U.S. did, in fact, provide guidance and material assistance to a number of armed militia groups in Libya and Syria in the overthrow of the Ghadaffi regime;
2) After the collapse of the Libyan regime, large stocks of military heavy weapons -- including approx. 20,000 MANPAD launchers -- were looted by rebel militias, and only a fraction were recovered and recorded as destroyed by CIA contractors working out of facilities in Eastern Libya.
3) The rest of these were retained or sold into the international black market. Some of them were transshipped to Syria by way of Turkey.
4) The US set up several regional command and control facilities in Turkey and Jordan, through which aid was provided to Syrian opposition groups that acquired manpower and weapons, in part, from Libyan militant groups.
5) The majority of financial assistance and logistical support in acquiring weapons were supplied by US regional partners, primarily Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and to an increasing extent over time by the GCC states, with Qatar becoming the primary coordinator.
6) Over the course of time, most of these foreign sourced weapons and fighters came under the control of al Nusra and then ISIS elements, which were the most militarily effective part of the opposition forces, in large part because of their bottomless funding from Gulf elites. Radical elements within these Jihadist groups -- reinforced by foreign fighters flocking to Syria from around the world -- used the territory they seized to reconstitute al-Qaeda and establish a Caliphate in Syria and Iraq.
7) The risk of this outcome was not unforeseen, which is why in the Spring of 2013 President Obama attempted to slow or stop the role of the United States in facilitating this policy of indirect covert cooperation with KSA/Qatar in arming and financing Jihadist groups.
8) CIA Director Petraeus was least cooperative in changing course, with Secretary Clinton supporting his position. As a result, both left the Administration.

[George II]

14. Bottom line is you're blaming Clinton and Petraeus even though what they wanted didn't happen.

Seems like a stretch to me.

[leveymg]

15. No. What they wanted did happen, only it was (and still is) mostly funded offshore

by financiers and intelligence services in KSA, Qatar and the other Gulf states. Please see, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026192755

[pasto76]

17. they 'wanted it' and it 'did happen' - but they arent related

price of oil has had a HUGE impact on this since they are funded by the newly super,super rich arabian peninsula countries. Nobody has to rely on US aid to reach their goals. If the IS hadnt had so much local funding they would have had a much harder time gaining dominance.

[leveymg]

18. Taken a step further - risky action despite foreseeable unintended consequences = willful negligence

There's culpability for proceeding with reckless disregard for risk, regardless of whether the results were entirely intended. Obama saw the further risks and costs of proceeding further with the Petraeus-Clinton regime change across MENA policy, but the risks manifested themselves into ISIS territory gains in Syria and Iraq, and attendant terrorist attacks in the west. That's what I'm saying happened.

You're the one who used the term, "wanted it." You're right, it's not exactly the same thing. But, the adverse results were practically the same.

[George II]

20. Huh? So you're now saying that Clinton and Petraeus wanted to fund ISIS?

[leveymg]

21. See my post #18. They knew the risks, and proceeded anyway. Reckless, if not entirely intentional.

Had the MENA region not been systematically destabilized in 2011-12 through serial regime change involving CIA and the State Department (working with others, including France, KSA, Qatar, Turkey, and Jordan), ISIS would not have emerged as a regional force that must now be dealt with.

Today, the President issued a draft war resolution, and the US is preparing to go boots into Syria. The results are the largely same, whether they wanted all the foreseeable intervening events is almost irrelevant.

I posted my clarification, above. Please, don't play word games.

[George II]

22. No word games, but the "policies" (okay? not using "wanted") of Clinton and Petraeus....

....were not implemented. But still "this one was Hillary & Petraeus' work". Just asking, again, how?

[leveymg]

24. What was wanted was regime change - implemented, if incomplete. The instrument of regime

change are Jihadi warriors and terrorists (now manifested under the Black Flag of the Islamic State.) Clinton and Petraeus couldn't get one without the other, and they knew the dangers that the militants posed. They thought those risks and the foreseeable consequences of regime change were acceptable. Considering the outcomes, that shows extraordinary bad judgement, at least, particularly if they didn't want this level of violence to happen.

[xocet]

19. "None of them ever seem to end, they just spread and merge."

That statement does seem to encapsulate it all, Clinton and Petraeus though would have had nothing to work with had W not invaded Iraq.

Though the diplomatic cables were not entirely the cause of the Arab Awakening, they do seem to have played a substantial role:

This Is The Wikileak That Sparked The Tunisian Crisis
Gregory White
Jan. 14, 2011, 2:19 PM

Tunisia's government has collapsed, partially due to food price inflation and unemployment, but also because of WikiLeaks.

One of the U.S. government cables released by WikiLeaks (via @spbaines) exposed the corruption of Tunisia's President's family, its reach into business in the country, and ability to transcend the rule of law. President Ben Ali's family was called "The Family" throughout the leak. The government attempted to block access to WikiLeaks earlier this month.

Here are some highlights from the June 2008 leak....

...

http://www.businessinsider.com/tunisia-wikileaks-2011-1#ixzz3RSMx3Pxu

CBS/AP
February 28, 2013, 5:44 PM
Judge accepts Manning's guilty pleas in WikiLeaks case

FORT MEADE, Md. A U.S. Army judge has accepted an offer by a private to plead guilty to violating military regulations in the biggest leak of classified material in U.S. history.

Pfc. Bradley Manning admits to sending hundreds of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan battlefield reports, State Department diplomatic cables and other files to WikiLeaks while working as an intelligence analyst in Baghdad.

An Army judge accepted the pleas to 10 charges at a hearing Thursday. Manning could face a maximum of 20 years on those charges alone.

...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-accepts-mannings-guilty-pleas-in-wikileaks-case/

In summary, the following history occurred:

2001: Earlier warnings and the PDB in August are ignored.
2001: 9-11 happens.
2003: W invades Iraq for no good reason.
2008: W signs the SOFA setting a timeline for the US withdrawal from Iraq.
2010: The US diplomatic cables etc. are made public.
2010: The Tunisian revolution occurs partially based on information from said cables.
2011: The Arab Spring/Awakening ensues - approximately so, January, Egypt; February, Libya; March, Syria.
2011: December, US withdrawal from Iraq leaving the Embassy and staff etc.
2014: February, ISIL is separated from al-Qaeda-backed al-Nusra.
2014: June, ISIL takes Mosul, Fallujah and Tikrit etc.
2014: August, US airstrikes against ISIL begin.

W seems to be the efficient cause of the situation Iraq and Syria. This makes W is an unwitting, indirect founding father of ISIL. He certainly would not have wanted ISIL to have formed, but bin Laden long ago outwitted W:

Does This Mean Osama Bin Laden Has Won?
By Kurt Eichenwald / June 13, 2014 2:35 PM EDT

...

What so many Americans, including their leaders in government, have long failed to understand is that this was what bin Laden and Al-Qaeda wanted all along. The intent of the bloody attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was to lure the U.S. and its allies into attacking the Middle East. Bin Laden was quite open about that. Such a war, he believed, would unify Muslims and then lead to an enormous victory that would drive the West to withdraw from all of the Middle East. From there, bin Laden wanted to set off a Sunni revolution that would topple secular, Western-supported governments in the Arab world and confront Shiites, whom he deeply opposed. In fact, ISIL has proclaimed that the current confrontation isn’t a war between Iraq’s government and Islamists but a Sunnis vs. Shiites conflict.

...

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/06/27/does-mean-osama-bin-laden-has-won-254785.html?piano_t=1

At any rate, that is how I see it. Thanks for your comment.

P.S. I see that you have replied at length on this topic to another poster. Please let me have a chance to read that if you want to continue this discussion - I will not be able to get back to this thread for a while. Later.

[leveymg]

25. Without going into infinite regress, I would say the fathers of ISIS are Bush, Sr. and Prince Turki

Here's why I say that. BCCI was created as the funding vehicle for a joint intelligence operation organized by CIA Director Bush and Saudi GID intelligence. That 1976 arrangement was called the Safari Club. In addition to bank takeovers, BCCI funded Khan's program to build the Islamic atomic bomb and the develpment of a global Jihadist paramilitary, programs managed by Pakistani ISI intelligence. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/280

[xocet]

27. Thank you for that information and the journal entry with the linked articles.

I was unaware of those aspects of the whole situation.

I have not read all of the journal entry yet, but I will - thanks, again.

[freshwest]

2. What goes up, must go down. What goes in, must come out. How far will they go then...

[DisgustipatedinCA]

3. I wonder what other intelligence agencies say.

I was just reading a different AP article attributed to unnamed US sources, and it was a steaming pile of lies. Maybe this number is accurate and maybe it isn't, but we have no way of knowing.

[George II]

7. I was thinking the same thing - how do we know it isn't some speculation by someone?

[Fred Sanders]

4. Overlooked is the unappreciated role of American and Western media spreading fear so freely - that

and "high production value videos" being shown for free daily and incessantly.

Special shout out to CNN and Wolf Blitzer's daily Hour of Horror, and top award to Fox and RW websites which made available, worldwide and unblockable, a 23 minute embedded production of the ISIL recruitment video of the Jordanian pilot execution. That helped a lot.

[bearssoapbox]

9. That's what I thought before and after reading the article.

Terrorism couldn't get better advertisement for recruiting if they paid for it.

[bravenak]

26. So true. +1

[DeSwiss]

8. We've all heard this tune before......

- They never get tired of it because they never go......

[brooklynite]

11. Just a few lone wolves...nothing for religion to be blamed for.

[seveneyes]

16. Like a dirt magnet

Just make sure they are not allowed to come home. Perhaps the freedom loving locals at their destination will take out the trash.

[Blue_Tires]

23. +1