Iraq &#8211; Law Street

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Battle for Mosul: The Fight for ISIS’s Stronghold in Iraq appeared first on Law Street.

Operation Mosul: Iraqi Troops Enter City Limits for the First Time in Two Years

Alec Siegel — Wed, 02 Nov 2016 14:27:34 +0000

Image Courtesy of California National Guard; License: (CC BY 2.0)

For the first time in over two years, Iraqi army units have entered the outskirts of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, and the Islamic State’s final staging ground in the country. According to Major General Sami al-Aridi of the Iraqi special forces, his troops got as far as the neighborhoods of Gogjali and Karama on Tuesday, pushing through fierce Islamic State (ISIS) resistance to retake a state television building, and breach the city limits. The closest unit to the city center is still six miles out.

“Daesh is fighting back and have set up concrete blast walls to block off the Karama neighborhood and our troops’ advance,” al-Aridi said, referring to the Arabic name for ISIS, Daesh. The push into Gogjali and Karama began with Iraqi troops firing artillery, tank and machine gun fire toward ISIS positions, supported by airstrikes from a U.S.-led coalition. ISIS responded with firing guided antitank missiles, and used small arms to resist the advancing Iraqi troops.

BBC Arabic team were caught in the crossfire between #IS and #Iraqi special forces near #Mosul pic.twitter.com/2W8xxBs2Yb

— Feras Kilani (@FerasKilaniBBC) November 1, 2016

An officer with Iraq’s Counter-Terrorism Force told CNN that ISIS also planted scores of mines and improvised explosive devices, or IEDs along the route to Gogjali. The officer also said as many as 20,000 civilians were trapped in Gogjali, many of whom ISIS is using as human shields. As the fight contracts into the denser areas of Mosul, fighting is expected to move into a house-to-house, street-by-street operation, and could take weeks, perhaps months, to liberate the city from ISIS control.

In a televised news conference with Iraqi forces in Qayara, a city south of Mosul, Col. John Dorrian, spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, spoke of the dwindling options for ISIS. “If Daesh stand and fight, they’re going to be killed. There’s no question about that. If they run, they will either be captured or killed. They are not going to be allowed to escape,” he said.

The operation to retake Mosul from ISIS began two weeks ago. After Iraqi troops abandoned the city over two years ago, fleeing from an emboldened and emerging ISIS, the city was governed under the extreme jihadist group. The U.S. military, which is supporting the effort with special ops forces on the ground and airstrikes from the sky, estimated 4,500 to 7,500 ISIS fighters remain in and around the city. The liberating forces–led by Iraqi troops, and bolstered by Kurdish fighters, Shiite and Sunni groups–is approximately 40,000 strong.

Iraqi forces continue to advance into Mosul, signaling dangerous new stage of urban combat against Islamic State https://t.co/lwZVL6gdyw pic.twitter.com/w1jcrhgXMe

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) November 1, 2016

According to the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, the number of casualties in the country is at its highest since June 2014: “A total of 1,792 Iraqis were killed and another 1,358 were injured in acts of terrorism, violence and armed conflict in Iraq in October 2016,” the group’s latest report said. In September, 1,003 people were killed, and 1,159 were wounded.

As troops fighting for his government inch toward Mosul, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi expressed confidence that the effort will prove successful. “There is no way to escape, either surrender or die,” he told the state-run Iraqiya TV.

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Operation Mosul: Iraqi Troops Enter City Limits for the First Time in Two Years appeared first on Law Street.

RantCrush Top 5: November 1, 2016

Rant Crush — Tue, 01 Nov 2016 16:10:29 +0000

Image courtesy of David Long; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

You Guys Ok?: Republicans Are Flipping Out

With one week to go until the election, team Trump is finding new ways to provoke people. On Monday night the hashtag #HillaryForPrision trended among people who want to see Hillary locked up. The word “prison” was misspelled to avoid detection by Twitter’s “censors”–the users employing the hashtag claim Twitter is trying to silence their opinions. Smart move, Republicans?

#HillaryForPrison Has been blocked by Twitter, so use the hashtag #HillaryForPrision!

— Democrats for Trump (@YoungDems4Trump) October 31, 2016

Please tell me again HOW she’s still allowed to run for President? 2 FBI criminal investigations? Seriously? #HillaryForPrision

— Heather Ross (@RealHeatherRoss) October 31, 2016

Also, during a rally in Las Vegas on Sunday, Trump supporter Wayne Allyn Root basically wished for the deaths of Clinton and Huma Abedin by comparing them with the movie characters Thelma and Louise. Hint: the movie ends with them driving their car off a cliff.

via GIPHY

And lastly, someone dumped a huge truckload of cow poop outside the Democratic Party headquarters in Lebanon, Ohio on Saturday. Can this election get any crappier?

Pile of manure dumped in front of Warren County Democratic Party HQ early today https://t.co/3QOOjyrfpV pic.twitter.com/MvwZwZwpzK

— Ohio_Politics (@Ohio_Politics) October 29, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 1, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

What is Happening In Mosul?

Alec Siegel — Wed, 19 Oct 2016 21:20:04 +0000

Image courtesy of DVIDSHUB; License: (CC BY 2.0)

Iraqi forces, aligned with local tribal units, Kurdish peshmerga fighters, and U.S. Special Operations troops began the operation to wrest the city of Mosul from the claws of the Islamic State this week. As the nearly 100,000-strong coalition crept closer to the city proper on Wednesday, villages on its fringe are being liberated, fierce battles are being fought, and some citizens are fleeing their homes for neighboring Syria.

However, ISIS is not ceding control of the outlying villages without a fight. In Qaraqosh, a Christian village 30 kilometers east of Mosul, ISIS militants and an Iraqi-led force exchanged heavy gunfire, a general involved in the fight told CNN. He said ISIS forces are concentrated in the center of the village, as parts of the fringes have been liberated, while airstrikes rain down to support the Iraqi-led troops. Reuters reported that villages just outside of the city are booby trapped with tunnels and bombs.

In June 2014, Iraqi forces fled Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city with a population upwards of two million, ceding control of the city to ISIS. The jihadist group has ruled the city under a strict Islamic code ever since. Women are forced to be covered in public, smoking and drinking alcohol is prohibited, and minor offenses could result in a beheading. The offensive, announced by Iraq’s Prime Minister, Haider al-Abadi early Monday morning, is expected to take months.

Once Mosul is free from ISIS control, it’s unclear how power will transition and to whom exactly it will transition to. Many of the city’s residents are Sunni Muslims, while the bulk of the Iraqi government are Shia. Years of sectarian tensions between Sunni citizens and Shia leaders has led to deep mistrust. In addition, the Iraqi government is concerned that the Kurds, who are helping them in the fight against ISIS, might seek to control the city themselves after ISIS is forced out.

“We would have loved to have a political plan along with a military plan, how to manage Mosul, how to administer Mosul, because Mosul has a variety of religions, with ethnicities,” Iraqi Kurdish President Massoud Barzani told CNN. Acknowledging a political plan “would have taken a longer time,” Barzani said that the Peshmerga and Iraqi forces are looking for a “good solution” for Mosul.

The good news is that Mosul is the last large city under ISIS control in Iraq, and retaking it could deliver a knockout blow to the group’s operations in Iraq and beyond.

The post What is Happening In Mosul? appeared first on Law Street.

In Fallujah, Offensive Stalls As Civilian Lives Are Threatened

Alec Siegel — Thu, 02 Jun 2016 16:26:31 +0000

"iraq" courtesy of [The U.S. Army via Flickr]

Amid machine gunfire and plumes of smoke, the Iraqi military halted its push to retake the city of Fallujah from the grip of the Islamic State on Wednesday. The pause is due to a confluence of factors: to protect civilians still inside the city, and to weather a fierce Islamic State, or ISIS, counterattack.

The Fallujah offensive began on May 22. In the days since, the outskirts of the city have been pounded by American led airstrikes and Iraqi forces on the ground. The city proper, a dense urban sprawl with 50,000 civilians still trapped inside (20,000 of which are children, according to UNICEF), has yet to be directly attacked. The Iraqi army and American forces are reluctant to attack the city proper because of the deep roots ISIS has planted there during its two year occupation and the high risk of civilian casualties.

Deepening the dicey situation in Fallujah is the fact that sectarian divisions that have long been present in Iraq are heightened by the warring factions as well as the non-fighting citizens. ISIS is largely comprised of Sunnis, as are most civilians in Fallujah, and the Iraq military is dominated by Shiites. The two Islamic sects have been at the center of violent clashes in the country since its inception in 1920.

Despite the sluggish pace of the offensive, The Associated Press reported that Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi remains confident, noting the “remarkable advance” by his country’s forces against ISIS. “The main goal of the military operation now is to reduce civilian and army casualties,” he said.

Fallujah is the last city held by ISIS in western Iraq, though the group still controls Mosul, the country’s second-largest city to Baghdad, which is 40 miles east of Fallujah. Preparations for an offensive there are currently being made, with a full-scale attack expected sometime next year.

According to the United Nations, 3,700 people have already fled Fallujah for nearby cities that are not about to be shelled. Still a massive concern for the Iraqi army, the U.S. air force, and international aid groups is the thousands of children still within the city.

A statement by UNICEF–the U.N.’s child rights arm–expressed hope that both sides will recognize the danger this conflict poses to the children in Fallujah and elsewhere in Iraq:

“Children face the risk of forced recruitment into the fighting, strict procedures for security screening and separation from their families. Children who are recruited see their lives and futures jeopardized as they are forced to carry and use arms, fighting in an adult war.”

It added, “According to reports, food and medicine are running out and clean water is in short supply.”

A total of 867 people were killed in Iraq in May. Over half of those were civilian deaths.

The post In Fallujah, Offensive Stalls As Civilian Lives Are Threatened appeared first on Law Street.

A Delicate Dance: Fighting ISIS Online While Protecting Free Speech

Alec Siegel — Sat, 07 May 2016 13:00:07 +0000

"Cyber Security - Tablet" courtesy of [www.perspecsys.com/Perspecsys Photos via Flickr]

In October 2014, a teenager from the suburbs of Chicago was arrested at O’Hare International Airport for attempting to join the Islamic State terrorist organization. His method of communication with the group, also known as ISIS, or ISIL: Twitter.

Over the past few years, ISIS has increased its presence on social media platforms as a radicalization tool. From the European Union to the United States, ISIS has taken advantage of the relatively borderless world of social media to bring Muslims and non-Muslims into its twisted realm of influence, encouraging them to take violent action in their home country or to make the journey and join the caliphate in parts of Syria and Iraq.

At a panel hosted by the Congressional Internet Caucus in Washington D.C. on Friday, experts discussed ISIS and other terrorist networks’ increasingly sophisticated online recruitment methods and what the government and the private sector can do to mitigate their efforts without affecting freedom of speech.

“[ISIS and other terrorist groups] reach out to disaffected youth and offer a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging,” said Rashad Hussain, member of the National Security Division at the U.S. Department of Justice. “As twisted as it sounds, they claim to be building something.”

A recent report by the Program on Extremism at George Washington University provided a window into the demographics of people ISIS is recruiting in the U.S. According to the report, the average age of those in the U.S. who have been recruited by ISIS is 26. Eighty-seven percent are male, and thirty-eighty percent are converts to Islam, not people who grew up in the faith. As of April 30, 2016, 85 individuals have been arrested on ISIS-related charges.

Policing social media poses a unique challenge to the federal government: how to effectively tamper hateful messaging and support of violent acts without infringing on the First Amendment.

There has been increased co-operation between the government and social media companies to thwart the threat of online radicalization. But Emma Llanso, Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology’s Free Expression Project and a member at Friday’s discussion, worries about government policies that could throw a blanket over the broad and ambiguous category of “unlawful speech.”

“Is it a direct incitement to violence? A true threat of violence? We don’t have broad prohibitions against hate speech, no definition of extremist content as a set of unlawful speech,” Llanso cautioned.

She underscored the importance of prohibiting hate speech or actions that incite violence, but also the imperative to preserve freedom of speech, something she noted as leading to the innovation that sparked the variety of ways we now have to express ourselves online.

Social media platforms all formulate their own terms of service, or a sets of rules that outline the types of messages that are or are not welcome on their sites and might be taken down or reported to government authorities. Llanso portended that a policy requiring companies to share messages deemed “unlawful” would do more harm than good.

She said it would lead social media companies “to err on the side of caution in reporting their users to the government as suspects of terrorist acts.”

Hussain agreed that government should play a limited role in ensuring social media platforms don’t exist as places where extremist ideas are disseminated and allowed to fester. He advocated for a “counter messaging” strategy, taking advantage of the platforms to spread messages on the other end of the spectrum as groups like ISIS.

He called for spreading messages “highlighting ISIL battlefield losses” and ones that “expose living conditions” of ISIS members.

“[Social media] platforms provide an opportunity for counter messaging and positive messaging,” he said, noting that there are also opportunities to spread the positive values Muslim communities stand for.

Seamus Hughes, who heads the Program on Extremism at George Washington University and is a previous member of the National Counterterrorism Center, also underlined the need for counter messaging in lieu of “takedowns,” or the removal of ISIS-supported accounts on sites like Twitter.

Studies have shown that accounts that are removed do experience an immediate drop in followers when they come back, he said, but the platform’s “built in system of resiliency” allows users to reconfigure their accounts under different names.

But for all of the radicalization opportunities afforded by the tricky semantics and difficult-to-police sites like Twitter, Hughes reinforced the fact that “the physical space of a caliphate is a driver for people to go.”

“Twitter is a place to facilitate the recruitment,” he said. “It’s not like if Twitter went away tomorrow we wouldn’t have recruits that are joining [terrorist groups].”

Washington Post: Who Are the Kurds?

The post A Delicate Dance: Fighting ISIS Online While Protecting Free Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Who are the Kurds?

Michael Sliwinski — Tue, 05 Apr 2016 13:00:40 +0000

"Kurdish flag" courtesy of [William John Gauthier/williamjohngauthier.net via Flickr]

Most people know that the Kurds have been one of the most effective groups when it comes to fighting ISIS. But beyond that, little is known to some in the United States about who the Kurds are and what the history of the ethnic group is. With the United States and the many countries involved in the fight against ISIS relying on the group, it is important to take a closer look at who they are and what the majority want.

Who exactly are the Kurds and how did they become the largest ethnic group without a homeland? Read on to find out who the Kurds are, what their role in the Middle East is, and most importantly, what they are looking for.

History of the Kurds

The history of the Kurds is, in many ways, as convoluted as their present–with no exact date or time for when they first appeared on the world stage as an ethnic group. Some speculate they were part of an ancient group that ruled large chunks of the Middle East more than 2,500 years ago. The first widely acknowledged mention of the Kurds as a people came in the seventh century when they converted to Islam. The Kurds often “fought for other groups that succeeded as regional powers, receiving a reputation for being fierce fighters.”

Along with their fighting prowess, the Kurds were also known for their nomadic lifestyle. According to the Kurdistan Tribune, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds–like many other groups in the region–were guaranteed a homeland by the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. But like many other groups, they were lied to. After Kemal Ataturk rose to power and Turkey’s borders were formalized in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne, the Kurds were not given a country of their own. They were then left in the historically unenviable position of being an unpopular minority in an unwelcoming region. This led to a revolt by Kurdish groups and a subsequent violent crackdown by Turkish forces in the 1920s and 30s.

The Kurds and Turks have had an especially hostile relationship following these failed revolts. For years, the Turks tried to suppress the Kurds’ cultural identity by forbidding them to wear traditional clothes or teach their own language in schools. Not surprisingly then, a Kurdish leader named Abdullah Ocalan rose up and created an organization, the Kurdish Workers’ Party or PKK, to fight the Turks and gain a Kurdish homeland in 1978. Despite years of fighting and guerrilla warfare against Turkey, Ocalan ultimately failed and was eventually captured by Turkish forces in 1999. Turkey considers the PKK a terrorist organization and its campaign to fight the group in the southeast region of the country has escalated recently.

Aside from Turkey, the Kurds also had issues in other surrounding countries where they have sizable minorities. After many years of allowing Ocalan to manage the PKK from within its borders, the Syrian government forced him from the country in 1998 after being pressured by Turkey. In Iran, the Kurds made two attempts, both with little success, to carve out an autonomous region.

Iraq rivaled Turkey in its harsh treatment of the Kurds. Throughout the 20th century, the Kurds in Northern Iraq launched several revolts, all of which ended in defeat. However, the worst situation for the Kurds came after Saddam Hussein took power. Angry over their support for Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, Hussein targeted the Kurds with chemical weapons. These attacks stopped after Iraq was defeated in the first Gulf War, however, he crushed another Kurdish revolt soon after.

The video below gives a look at Kurdish history:

Role in the Middle East

Today the Kurdish people live in an area at the intersecting borders of five countries; Armenia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Despite not having a homeland, the Kurds are still an important group made up of as many as 30 million people–the fourth largest ethnic group in the Middle East. So what role does such a large group, spread over a number of countries, play in the region?

Turkey

Currently, Kurds make up 15 to 20 percent of the population of Turkey. Turkey and the Kurds have a long and bloody history of animosity. Much of this recent struggle has centered on fighting between the PKK and Turkey. Since the PKK took up arms in 1984, approximately 40,000 people have been killed. However, when the PKK toned down its demands and exchanged autonomy for independence in 2012, a ceasefire was finally reached. Nevertheless, all that work was undone in 2015 following a suicide bombing against the Kurds in Suruc. In response, Kurdish forces lashed out against Turkish authorities reigniting the old feud.

Still, the PKK is not representative of all Kurds and, in fact, many are actually entrenched in the Turkish economy. This group, in fact, is a strong pillar of support for the ruling Turkish Justice and Development Part (AKP). There is also a third group that splits the middle between the supporters of the Turkish AKP and the militant PKK, the People’s Democratic Party or HDP.

Iraq

The Kurds make up as large of a portion of the Iraqi population as they do in Turkey–between 15 and 20 percent. As in Turkey, the Kurds in Iraq have faced years of crackdowns and repression following unsuccessful rebellion attempts. However, they achieved some limited autonomy following the First Gulf War and even greater autonomy after the second in 2003. Since the formation of the new Iraqi government, the Kurds have been constant participants in Iraqi politics. Amid the rise of ISIS and the resulting conflict, Kurdish leaders have gone beyond autonomy and called for a referendum on independence.The Kurds and the Iraqi government eventually reconciled several of their differences and started working together closely in the fight against ISIS.

Kurds in Iraq have made the most significant progress toward autonomy relative to Kurds in other countries. The 2005 Iraqi Constitution actually guarantees the Kurds an autonomous area, in which they have established their own government that operates within Iraq’s federal rule. The Kurds have taken advantage of this arrangement with its involvement in the Iraqi oil industry. The Kurds operate a pipeline between Iraq and Turkey, for which they have a revenue sharing agreement with Iraq. A recent dispute over the revenue sharing agreement disrupted oil transfers pending a new agreement.

Syria

The Kurds make up a sizable portion of the population in Syria as well, accounting for between 7 and 10 percent before the Syrian Civil War erupted. This population was concentrated in urban centers and in the north of the country. Like in Turkey and Iraq, Kurds in Syria were also marginalized through repression from the government, which also denies citizenship to over 300,000 Kurds living there. Once the war in Syria began, however, Kurds began asserting their rights and now plan to carve out autonomous regions for themselves. They have also sought to be actively involved in the peace talks determining Syria’s fate.

The Kurds’ battle against ISIS has been particularly challenging in Syria. Several Kurdish positions were overrun by ISIS, partly because Turkey refused to let Turkish Kurds cross the border to intercede. But in October, Turkey eventually allowed some fighters to help Syrian Kurds push back ISIS with the support of U.S. airstrikes. However, the Kurds continue to encounter challenges in terms of their relations with Turkey, notably after their recent attempt to establish an autonomous zone in Syria. While they were quick to clarify they are not seeking independence to appease Turkey, this may have fallen on deaf ears. The Turks have worked to exclude the Kurds from Syria’s peace talks, meaning the appeasement may not be enough.

Elsewhere

Kurds make up about 10 percent of Iran’s population, however in total numbers, they rank only second to those living in Turkey. Nevertheless, unlike in other countries Iranian Kurds enjoy no autonomous regions and like in other neighboring countries they are violently repressed. There is also a much smaller Kurdish community living in Armenia; unlike in other places this group does not govern nor aspire to an autonomous region. The accompanying video looks at the Kurds role in the Middle East:

What the Kurds Want

As the world’s largest “stateless nation,” a priority for the majority of Kurds has long been a country of their own. This has been evident since the start of the Kurdish nationalist movement beginning after WWI, following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. It is also evident today in Kurdish efforts to achieve autonomous areas where it has large populations, which it has in three countries: Iraq, Syria and Turkey. The real question, then, is not what the Kurds want, but how they hope to achieve it.

But it’s important to note that the Kurds are by no means a monolithic group. While they share the same ethnicity, they are a very diverse group. In Turkey, where the largest Kurd population resides, there are three major Kurdish political groups ranging politically from loyal to the state to hostile to it. There are also major divisions in Iraq with one party controlling two of the Kurdish provinces and a different party controlling the other. The leaders of the dominant party have close relationships with Turkey and have even worked with the Turks in fighting the Turkish PKK. The Kurds in Iraq also fought a civil war during the 1990s which lasted three years.

The Kurds are also divided at even smaller levels with sizable differences between those in cities and those still adhering to their nomadic roots. Even in a country as small as Armenia, there are divisions between traditional Kurdish Sunni Muslims and Kurdish Christians. While many Kurds seek a homeland, for now, the best they may be able to get are autonomous regions like the ones in Syria and Iraq. The following video looks at some of the different Kurdish parties at play across the Middle East:

Conclusion

It is easy to characterize the Kurds as just one more ethnic group with deep historical roots wandering the Middle East searching for a homeland, but that characterization is overly simplistic. The Kurds are not a monolithic group, but a diverse set of actors spread mostly across five countries that are bound by a common heritage. Yes, many do want a homeland, but due to the diversity within the group, how they achieve it, or even if they can, varies widely.

In the seemingly never-ending conflicts in the Middle East, the Kurds are a recurring actor. Much of what is known or understood about them comes from other generalizations–they are Sunni Muslims, they are searching for a country, etc. This is all true but the reality is more complicated. The Kurds’ situation is emblematic of many other realities in the Middle East, an intricate web of interconnected groups with, at times, converging and differing interests. While the Syrian conflict has actually given them the opportunity to further assert their claims, nothing in the fluid region is certain. Thus, only time will tell if those dreams can amount to more than that.

Resources

New Historian: History of the Kurds

BBC News: Who are the Kurds?

The Atlantic: What Exactly Are ‘the Kurds’?

Reuters: Iraq seeks financial agreement with Kurds before pumping crude to Turkey

RT: Turkish fighter jets pound PKK targets in Northern Iraq

BBC News: Iraqi Kurdistan Profile

The New York Times: The Kurds Push for Self-Rule in Syria

TA Central: Kurds

Council on Foreign Relations: The Time of the Kurds

Editor’s Note: This article has been updated to reflect sources of information.

Council on Foreign Relations: Tracking Down Terrorist Financing

The post Who are the Kurds? appeared first on Law Street.

The Cost of Terrorism: How is ISIS Funded?

Michael Sliwinski — Mon, 14 Dec 2015 17:02:47 +0000

Image courtesy of [Pictures of Money via Flickr]

ISIS has been the focal point of public discussion for several months now and it seems like the group will not leave the spotlight anytime soon. But while we often talk about what the group is doing and how to respond, we often spend less time understanding how it is able to sustain itself. How do ISIS and other terrorist groups manage to continuously fund global operations while being attacked by several world powers?

In the case of ISIS, estimates suggest that the group’s assets equaled approximately $875 million in 2014, coming from a variety of sources that include oil production and taxes. ISIS and many other terrorist groups actually seem to resemble a sort of mix between a state government and a criminal syndicate, as their funding comes from a wide variety of sources. Read on to see where some of the money supporting ISIS, and other global terror groups, comes from.

Funding Terrorism in the Past

Traditionally terrorism has primarily been funded through private donations. This was certainly the case for ISIS’s predecessor, al-Qaida, which received much of its funding from wealthy Saudis. Charities can be effective because they are difficult to detect and tie to radical organizations. Many of these groups worked on legitimate causes while also funneling money to extremists, muddying the waters even further.

The money raised by these charities is then laundered through shell companies and some legitimate businesses, then transferred to a terrorist group. Another popular means of moving money is through remittances, which are popular in the Middle East. One example of remittances is the use of Hawalas, which are essentially untraceable wire transfers that allow people to send money from one country to their friends or relatives in another. According to a Treasury Department report, Hawalas are often cheaper and faster than traditional bank transactions, making them particularly appealing. Using middlemen with contacts in both countries, payments can be made without needing to transfer money for each transaction. While Hawalas are useful for many people who send money abroad for legitimate reasons, they are also well-liked by terrorist groups because they can be used in areas with little financial infrastructure and are hard to trace.

Efforts have been made to crack down on this type of financing–pressure has been placed both on Gulf nations, like Saudi Arabia, and financial institutions to look for any suspicious activity. While this certainly remains a viable source of income for terrorists, it has generally stopped being the number one source as governments have placed additional scrutiny on international financial transactions. Instead, ISIS and other groups have shifted to new tactics. The following video gives a look at money laundering and how terrorist groups raise funds illegally:

Help from Their Friends

While Gulf states’ support for terrorism has declined, it has certainly not been eliminated altogether. People in countries like Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia have long been known as funders of ISIS and other extremist groups that include al-Qaida. These countries, which are in many ways American allies, argue that they are protecting Sunnis from Shiites in a larger struggle for the heart of Islam. The accompanying video looks at from where and how ISIS gets private donations, including those from American allies:

While banks, especially Western banks, have measures in place to identify money laundering and terrorist funding, the same is not true for all of the Gulf states. In places like Qatar, these controls are not as stringent and are not strongly enforced. ISIS also hires fundraisers to reach out to wealthy individuals and solicit money to support its cause.

Money can also be sent to ISIS in the form of fake humanitarian aid packages. These packages are often sent to war zones under the guise of humanitarian assistance but are not actually directed to an individual or organization. These transactions tend to be very difficult to stop for a host of reasons. In addition to poorly regulated banking systems, groups and individuals who send money are often influential in their home countries. Additionally, few humanitarian organizations have direct ties in the region to ensure that the assistance makes it to the proper aid workers.

Traditional Means

Taxes, Extortion, and Robbery

To fill the gap from private donations, ISIS, like traditional states, relies heavily on taxes. The group places a tax on everything it believes to be valuable, from businesses to vehicles. ISIS also taxes non-Muslims, giving them the choice between forced conversion, paying a tax, or facing death. These shakedowns take place at businesses, public areas, or at checkpoints, forcing people to pay or face violence and possibly death. ISIS also sends fundraisers ahead of its fighters to a town or city to demand money. It is important to note that the group only attacks and attempts to conquer areas with some sort of financial value. It rarely, for example, conquers vast tracts of desert simply to take more territory. Taxation has become an especially important source of income as its other revenue streams, like oil production, have declined. In fact, taxation and extortion were actually ISIS’s largest sources of income in 2014, amounting to a reported $600 million in revenue.

In many ways, the taxation practiced by ISIS is a form of theft, but the group also does its fair share of outright robbery. When the group took the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Tikrit last year it seized vast quantities of money from bank vaults–estimates suggest those confiscations amounted to $1.5 billion. The group is also notorious for outright stealing possessions from people when it conquers a new territory.

Kidnapping

Another means for ISIS to offset its expenses is turning to organized crime. Emulating its predecessor al-Qaida, ISIS has relied heavily on kidnapping for ransoms. ISIS’s victims are traditionally Westerners, many of whom work for wealthy organizations. Although European countries sometimes pay ransoms, some countries such as the United States will not, though some corporations will discreetly pay ransoms for their workers.

In 2014, the U.S. Treasury estimated that ISIS made as much as $20 million dollars from kidnapping. This money did not only come from abducting foreigners, it was also the result of the group’s willingness to kidnap citizens within its own territory if it feels it can generate a high enough payoff.

Drug Trafficking

Along with trafficking in people, like any criminal organization, ISIS may deal in drugs. While it is unclear how much revenue the group receives from the practice, it seems likely that drugs are one more weapon in ISIS’s financial arsenal. This is another example of ISIS learning from its predecessor Al-Qaeda.

Oil/Water/Food

While these are all important revenue streams for ISIS, its most valuable asset is the one it shares with its Middle Eastern neighbors: oil. Iraq has the fifth largest proven oil reserves in the world and ISIS uses this supply to help fill its coffers. While many of the world’s nations impose sanctions on ISIS to prevent it from selling any of these supplies, the group still manages to smuggle oil for profit. Using paths developed in Iraq during the time of Saddam Hussein, the group is able to smuggle out oil, cash, and other contraband to neighboring countries. In 2014, depending on the always-volatile price-per-barrel of oil, ISIS was making between $1 to $2 million a day off oil revenue.

Although much of the oil is smuggled illegally into neighboring countries, it may also be finding more legitimate routes. According to Russian sources, Turkey is allowing large shipments of oil from areas known to be under ISIS’s control. While this could very easily be a baseless accusation in the wake of Turkey shooting down a Russian fighter jet, it may be worth considering. David Cohen, the Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the U.S. Treasury noted that Turkey, Syria, and the Kurds have all made deals, through middlemen, to acquire oil from ISIS despite openly fighting the group.

Other Means

ISIS has also utilized other creative methods to fill its reserves. One such method is looting the historical sites that it has become notorious for destroying. Another is through its well-known skills with social media. ISIS uses apps such as WhatsApp and Kik to coordinate covert money drop-offs from its supporters. Other groups such as Boko Haram have even more innovative schemes, from acting as local muscle to employing internet scams.

Ultimately, though, how much ISIS relies on any one source and how valuable any one source is to the group tends to fluctuate a lot. After all, the group now makes far more from taxes than oil production and early sources of income like robbing banks may start to dry up. So far, this strategy has been effective as ISIS really only spends money on fighter salaries, while it salvages weapons and avoids building projects because of the threat posed by airstrikes.ISIS’s strategy is one of thriftiness, especially regarding the social services it offers to its conquered subjects, could prove more decisive than any allied bomb strike in determining its future.

The video below details how ISIS gets its money:

Conclusion

ISIS has proven to be extremely difficult to defeat by conventional means. Despite waves of airstrikes and military support for the Syrian, Kurdish, and Iraqi militaries, the group has endured and even thrived. This is a result of several factors, one of which is ISIS’s ability to draw revenue from a variety of sources while operating a crude form of local government. Another is its ability to draw revenue from a variety of sources much like a criminal enterprise. Many of these methods were pioneered by al-Qaida and are now also being adopted by Boko Haram as well.

However, ISIS’s ability to survive is also partly attributable to the difficulty, and the occasional unwillingness, of bordering countries to crack down on the flow of money to terrorist organizations. These countries have, in some cases, let ISIS smuggle goods into their countries, rampage unopposed and even somewhat directly financed its operations.

To eliminate ISIS, like al-Qaida before it, ISIS’s finances must be crippled. If you can’t pay people to fight for you, or provide services as a government, staying in power becomes increasingly difficult. However, ISIS and like-minded groups have become particularly effective at keeping the lights on.

Resources

Newsweek: How does ISIS fund its Reign of Terror?

The Jerusalem Post: How does the Islamic State Fund its Activities?

Security Intelligence: Funding Terrorists the Rise of ISIS

The Daily Beast: America’s Allies are Funding ISIS

Independent: Russia Publishes “Proof” Turkey’s Erdogan is Smuggling ISIS Oil Across Border from Syria

RFI: Nigerian Intelligence Chief Calls for Untangling of Boko Haram Funding

Perspectives on Terrorism: A Financial Profile of the Terrorism of Al-Qaeda and its Affiliates

Political Violence at a Glance: ISIS, Ideology, and the Illicit Economy

New York Times: ISIS Finances Are Strong

Vox: This Detailed Look at ISIS’s Budget Shows That it’s Well-funded and Somewhat Incompetent

The National Post: Why is Russia further expected to increase its presence in Syria?

The post The Cost of Terrorism: How is ISIS Funded? appeared first on Law Street.

What is the U.S. Strategy to Fight ISIS?

Kevin Rizzo — Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:03:55 +0000

Image courtesy of [U.S. Department of Defense Current Photo via Flickr]

In light of the recent tragedy in Paris, the fight against ISIS is likely to retake the spotlight. In a press conference on Monday, President Obama was forced to defend his current strategy for the Middle East, as his opponents argue that the United States needs to take a stronger approach to prevent future terrorist attacks on the western world.

Currently, the United States is leading an international coalition of airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. In addition to airstrikes, a force of over 3,000 U.S. advisors is on the ground in Iraq to train the local military. The focus of the campaign is to build up ground forces in the region, notably the Iraqi army and moderate Syrian rebels, while supporting established groups as they fight ISIS. So far, the goal has been to contain ISIS, prevent it from taking additional land, and slowly take back territory without the direct use of American soldiers on the ground.

At the end of October, the president announced that he was sending up to 50 special operations troops in Syria to coordinate ground forces there. While the addition of American ground forces in Syria marks a possible departure from Obama’s promise not to use ground forces in Syria, he emphasized that the general strategy remains unchanged. We also know that prior to that announcement, U.S. special forces have been embarking on covert raids against ISIS. One such raid led to the first American combat fatality in Iraq since 2011, while U.S. forces rescued 70 hostages facing what anonymous sources told CNN was “imminent mass execution.”

The Obama administration argues that training local forces, rather than using U.S. troops, is crucial for stability in the long term, but doing so also requires a lot of time. One aspect of the U.S. strategy that has generally failed is the effort to train and build up a force in Syria. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter recently told Congress that the army has only managed to train about 60 Syrian fighters to take on ISIS. As a result, the Defense Department shifted its plan in Syria to support existing forces rather than build new ones.

President Obama’s strategy has been relatively successful in terms of containing and pushing back ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but in light of the recent attacks in Paris many argue the current response is not strong enough. While criticism of the current strategy in the Middle East is easy to find, an alternative strategy is more elusive. Most, like Republican candidates, argue that the United States needs to take a stronger tone in the region, but few have said how they would actually do so. John Kasich argues that boots on the ground are necessary to defeat ISIS, but he has not yet said how many would be required. Lindsey Graham is so far the only candidate who has given a specific policy plan for the region, calling on the United States to deploy 20,000 troops to Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIS.

Donald Trump has said that he would “bomb the shit” out of ISIS, but he has been generally vague on details beyond that–though if you ask him, vagueness is actually his intention. Jeb Bush has said that the United States needs to declare war on ISIS, which would include the imposition of a no-fly zone. He has also called on Obama to consult with military leaders to figure out how to defeat ISIS and then enact that strategy, but he has not directly offered a plan beyond the need for U.S. leadership in the region. Marco Rubio has criticized the current strategy while coincidentally offering a plan that looks very similar to the current strategy. However, he argues that only Sunni forces will be able to defeat ISIS, who claim to be Sunni Muslims themselves.

In a press conference at the G20 Summitt on Monday, President Obama addressed his critics while stating that the current strategy in the Middle East will remain in place. He reiterated his view that using local forces to fight ISIS is the most effective way to build stability and prevent a resurgence. When asked about the use of U.S. troops, he highlighted the threat that ISIS poses beyond its territory in Iraq and Syria:

And let’s assume that we were to send 50,000 troops into Syria. What happens when there’s a terrorist attack generated from Yemen? Do we then send more troops into there? Or Libya, perhaps? Or if there’s a terrorist network that’s operating anywhere else — in North Africa, or in Southeast Asia?

The nature of the threat posed by ISIS is becoming increasingly more complicated as the group begins to act outside of its territory in Iraq and Syria. Critics argue that the United States needs to take a much stronger stance in Iraq and Syria, but few have proposed a vision of what that would look like.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the U.S. Strategy to Fight ISIS? appeared first on Law Street.

Why is Russia Getting Involved in the Middle East?

Michael Sliwinski — Tue, 20 Oct 2015 20:05:00 +0000

Image courtesy of [Global Panorama's via Flickr]

In September, Russian forces began a controversial air campaign in Syria in an attempt to increase the nation’s involvement in the Middle East. While some leaders have welcomed Russia’s increased involvement, many in the west have been skeptical of President Vladimir Putin’s motives. As Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s position weakens amid an ongoing civil war, Russia has stepped in and with Iran’s help is ensuring he stays in power.

The situation in Syria is becoming increasingly complex as the Islamic State seeks to expand its control in the midst of a civil war between Syrian rebels and the Assad regime. But Russia’s intervention in Syria is only part of an emerging trend for the country, as it seeks to exert its influence outside of its borders. Recent developments have caused many to ask why Russia is intervening and what it hopes to gain. Read on to see what Russia has been doing to grow its influence and expand its role in the Middle East.

History in the Middle East

Russia’s intervention in Syria is not the first time that the country has been involved in the Middle East. In fact, the country has a long history in the region. The Soviet Union was a major supplier of the Arab forces who fought against Israel in the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, also known as the Yom Kuppur War. The USSR later invaded Afghanistan in 1979, occupying the country for nearly 10 years. In 1990, it lost a key ally in the region when what was then South Yemen merged with the North. Growing U.S. influence in the region further hurt the Soviet Union’s control of the region, particularly after the success of the Operation Desert Storm, a significant victory for the United States over Saddam. Shortly afterward, the Soviet Union collapsed and its influence in the Middle East largely receded.

The following video depicts Russia’s difficulties in Afghanistan:

Russia’s Return

Russia worked its way back into the region as an alternative arms supplier to the United States. Many Middle East countries saw Russia’s more lenient human rights perspective as an appealing reason to do business with the country. This shift allowed Russia to attract many Middle Eastern countries away from their traditional supplier, the United States, which was quick to abandon authoritarian leaders during the Arab Spring.

While the Arab Spring helped Russia increase its arms exports, the region was already an important market for Russia. Between 2006 and 2009 Russia’s largest arms buyers were in the Middle East. While the Arab Spring increased demand for weapons in the Middle East, Russia did not immediately expand its sales to new countries. However, its traditional customers did significantly increase their demand–most notably Syria, which increased its purchases by 600 percent.

The breakthrough for Russia came later in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, as countries who were normally loyal customers of the United States began looking to Russia. This movement started with Egypt, whose relationship with the United States soured during the Arab Spring and the subsequent overthrow of the democratically elected government of Mohammad Morsi. Seeing an opportunity, Russia secured a deal with Egypt. A potential deal between Russia and Saudi Arabia, arguably the United States’ closest ally in the region outside of Israel, highlights Russia’s ambitions for its weapons industry. However, the Russians also supply Iran, Saudi Arabia’s most significant regional enemy.

The video below details Russia’s displacement of the US in formerly pro-Washington areas:

Current Operations

In addition to expanding its weapons exports in the Middle East, Russia recently started conducting military strikes in Syria, making the ongoing civil war even more complicated. At the end of September, Russia began a controversial airstrike campaign, which largely helped the Assad regime by targeting Syrian rebels. These actions have had an impact on the relationship between Russia and several key nations within the region as well as observers in the west.

The accompanying video provides an in-depth look at Russia’s actions in the Middle East:

Turkey

Russia’s relationship with Turkey is potentially its most complicated. Turkey relies on Russia, as well as Iran, for energy and trade, which amounted to $31 billion in 2014. The leaders of the two nations are often compared to each other, with President Erdogan reminding many of Putin based on his leadership style and his motivations to remain in office.

However, the relationship has been strained recently with Russia’s bombings of anti-Assad rebels and its repeated violations of Turkish airspace. There is also a historical legacy hanging over the two countries dating back to the time of the Ottoman Empire, which repeatedly fought the Russian Empire.

Syria

Even before Russia’s recent intervention in Syria, the two were close allies. This relationship has existed for years based, initially, on military contracts that Russian arms dealers had with Syrian buyers. Their relationship was strengthened back in 2010 after Russia’s U.N. Security Council veto–Russia, along with North Korea and China, blocked a resolution to force President Assad to step down. Since then, Russia has been Syria’s strongest backer outside of the Middle East. Russia also successfully negotiated the transfer and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons in 2014, diffusing a particularly controversial issue with the United States.

All of this serves as the backdrop for Russia’s recent incursion into Syria and its civil war. It started with Russia sending advisors and fighter planes but has continued to include ground troops, artillery, and stationing ships off Syria’s coast. Russia’s intervention in Syria has been particularly controversial because of the targets that the country has chosen to attack. While Russia initiated its air campaign with the intention to focus on ISIS and fight terrorism, many of the strikes have benefited the Assad regime.

Iran

Russia’s relationship with Iran is also particularly complex. Recently, Russia played an important role in securing the deal to stop Iran’s nuclear weapon program. But after the deal, Russia quickly unfroze an $800 million deal–previously suspended during negotiations–to give Iran a missile defense system. Additionally, it approved an oil-for-goods deal, which allows Russia to buy up large amounts of Iranian oil in exchange for food and other goods. But oil is also an area that could create conflict between the two countries. Iran’s now-unsanctioned supply of oil, when dumped on the market, could lower the international price of crude oil even further. Lately, the falling price of oil has hurt Russia’s economy, particularly in light of sanctions after its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

Since the Iranian Revolution, the two nations have been joined by their desire to keep the West at a distance. Even as sanctions are lifted on Iran, this relationship is likely to endure, allowing Iran to continue its anti-western rhetoric. Both nations are also united in strong support for the Assad regime in Syria. However, this shared sentiment flies in the face of more distant history–one that involved Russia either trying to acquire Iranian territory or intervening in the country’s affairs, as it did in the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. More recently, Russia continues to arm Iran’s regional enemies and has gone along with American sanctions on the nation.

Iraq

Along with its collaboration with Iran and the Assad Regime in Syria, Russia also recently agreed to share information with Iraq in its fight against ISIS. Doing so has put the United States in a challenging situation, as it has been sceptical of Russia’s increased presence in the region, but has also advocated for international action against the Islamic State.

Russia also has a history of supporting Iraq, most notably in the form of funding during the Iran-Iraq war. Following the American invasion in 2003, it has also worked to normalize relations with the new government, especially in order to re-secure lucrative energy contracts.

Conclusion

So why is Russia wading back into the Middle East, especially given its history in the region? For most, an interest in the Middle East generally relates to the wealth of oil found there, but for Russia it is more complicated than oil alone. While Russia has worked to get energy contracts there, it is also one of the leading producers of crude oil and is widely regarded as having the largest proven reserves of natural gas. Traditionally, the Middle East had been a major market for Russian weapons, but as the politics of the region changed the United States took hold of the market. But in the wake of the Arab Spring, Russia has been working to expand its weapons exports, while also strengthening ties to its regional allies, like Syria and Iran. The revenue from arms sales is even more important considering the growth of sanctions from the west and the falling price of oil, a crucial source of revenue for Russia.

While a more involved position in the region may help Russia economically, either through energy or weapons, that does still not seem to be the major impetus for its invasion in Syria. Ultimately, Russia’s growing role in the Middle East may simply be a product of its efforts to grow its influence around the world. Russia seems to be positioning itself to be an effective alternative to the United States and its recent actions best reflect that goal. This move, while viewed critically in the West, has also been welcomed by leaders in the Middle East as a counterweight to American influence. Russia’s recent involvement in Syria, combined with its important role in the Iran nuclear deal, lends it even more regional significance.

Resources

Washington Post: Russia’s move into Syria upends U.S. plans

BBC: Russia in the Middle East Return of the Bear

Al-Monitor: New Russian arms deals could shakeup Mideast market

New York Times: Russia’s military actions in Syria cause rift with Turkey

New York Times: For Syria, Reliant on Russia for Weapons and Food, Old Bonds Run Deep

Wall Street Journal: Removal of Chemical Weapons from Syria is completed

CNN: NATO Secretary General questions Russia’s aim in Syria

The Washington Post: Russia-Iran relationship is a marriage of opportunity

The United States Institute of Peace: Iran and Russia

Financial Times: Iraq and Russia to collaborate in fight against ISIS

World Politics Review: Russia-Iraq Relations

The post Why is Russia Getting Involved in the Middle East? appeared first on Law Street.

The Drone Papers: The Intercept Releases Massive Report on America’s Use of Drones

Anneliese Mahoney — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:13:34 +0000

Image courtesy of [http://www.dronethusiast.com/image/AK Rockefeller via Flickr]

The newest massive dump of confidential American military information came this week, and it focused on one much-criticized aspect of American foreign policy: our use of drones in conflict. The information, which was released via an eight-part report entitled “The Drone Papers” by the Intercept, doesn’t look good for the U.S. It contains many shocking revelations, including the fact that nearly 90 percent of the people killed in recent drone attacks in a five-month period in Afghanistan “were not the intended targets.”

The papers, which were released by an anonymous whistleblower only identified as “a source” are secret, classified documents. They encompass the United States’ use of drones from 2011-2013 in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Iraq, and outline the chain of command and process through which the United States government approves an attack. They also go through in detail the evolution of the United States’ drone program.

The Intercept–which was founded in the wake of Edward Snowden’s release of NSA documents that clued Americans into the spying being conducted by the U.S. government–has been hinting that it has a new source of information for a while now. So, while this drone report release doesn’t necessarily come as a surprise, it’s hard to deny that the revelations are anything other than grim, and echo the concerns that human rights activists have been uttering since we began using drones as tools for warfare. As the Intercept puts it, what should be understood as a result of the release of these documents is clear:

Taken together, the secret documents lead to the conclusion that Washington’s14-year high-value targeting campaign suffers from an overreliance on signals intelligence, an apparently incalculable civilian toll, and — due to a preference for assassination rather than capture — an inability to extract potentially valuable intelligence from terror suspects. They also highlight the futility of the war in Afghanistan by showing how the U.S. has poured vast resources into killing local insurgents, in the process exacerbating the very threat the U.S. is seeking to confront.

The source also explained his motivations for releasing the information to the Intercept, explaining that the public deserves to know the truth about the American drone program, and stating:

This outrageous explosion of watchlisting — of monitoring people and racking and stacking them on lists, assigning them numbers, assigning them ‘baseball cards,’ assigning them death sentences without notice, on a worldwide battlefield — it was, from the very first instance, wrong,

The Obama Administration has long assured the American people that the use of drone strikes attempted to mitigate civilian deaths–this information seems to indicate that those assurances are simply not accurate. So far the various American government agencies involved, including the Pentagon, the White House, and the Defense Department have all avoided public comment. While mum may be the word for now, Americans will almost certainly start demanding answers, similar to the controversy over the NSA and the Patriot Act after Snowden’s papers were released. That leak fundamentally changed the conversation about privacy in this country–this newest release threatens to do the same when it comes to the use of American military force via drone.

Pew Research Center: Women in the Military

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Drone Papers: The Intercept Releases Massive Report on America’s Use of Drones appeared first on Law Street.

The Women in Combat Debate Continued: Should Every Door be Opened?

Jessica McLaughlin — Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:50:27 +0000

Image courtesy of [The U.S. Army via Flickr]

Two incredible women made history when they passed the Army’s elite Ranger School last Friday. Rangers make up an exceptionally trained unit of the Army comparable to the Navy SEALs. The graduation re-sparked the national debate over the ability of women to take on combat roles. To be clear, today women are located on the front-line, but some positions are still off-limits. Critics call the practice unfair and sexist while supporters dismiss those labels entirely. Is the current system in place justifiable? Or should women be given the opportunity to fill any position?

In Today’s News

Capt. Kristen Griest and 1st Lt. Shaye Haver are the first female soldiers to graduate Ranger School–one of the most grueling training courses that the Army has to offer. The Pentagon describes Ranger School as “the Army’s premier combat leadership course, teaching Ranger students how to overcome fatigue, hunger, and stress to lead Soldiers during small unit combat operations.”

Army Rangers are trained to lead soldiers on difficult combat-related missions. They are specifically trained for close combat and direct-fire battles. Candidates must pass three phases of Ranger School: Crawl, Walk, and Run. The Crawl phase, lasting 20 days, focuses on physical and mental development. The Walk phase, lasting 21 days, is conducted in the mountains and focuses on military mountaineering tasks. And the Run phase further develops combat-arms functional skills under extremely stressful environments.

When the class began in April, there were 381 men and 19 women. The class finished, 62 days later, down to 94 men and two women. Each graduate had to pass a physical fitness test that requires:

Forty-nine pushups, 59 situps, a 5-mile run in 40 minutes, six chin-ups, a swim test, a land navigation test, a 12-mile foot march in three hours, several obstacle courses, four days of military mountaineering, three parachute jumps, four air assaults on helicopters and 27 days of mock combat patrols.

On a trial basis, this was the first year that the Army allowed women to participate in Ranger School. Although they could train, Capt. Griest and Lt. Haver still cannot apply to the 75^th Ranger Regiment with their fellow classmates. A follow-up decision on the specific roles that women can have in combat is expected by the end of the year. In 2013, the U.S. Military officially lifted the 1994 ban on women in combat roles. In addition, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta initiated a three-year project in 2012 calling for all branches to fully integrate women in combat roles by 2016, or request a special exception.

Statistics

Despite the ban for certain combat roles, women served on the war front in Iraq and Afghanistan. Women can hold jobs on gun crews, air crews, and in seamanship specialties. U.S. military women accounted for 67 combat deaths in Iraq and 33 in Afghanistan; those wars also saw more than 600 and 300 female injuries, respectively. Two military women were held prisoner in Desert Storm and three in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Regardless of the post, women are integral to the U.S. military. According to statistics from 2011, more than 200,000 women served in active military duty, including 69 generals and admirals. Women account for 14.5 percent of the military’s active armed forces. There are 74,000 women in the Army, 53,000 in the Navy, 62,000 in the Air Force and 14,000 in the Marine Corps. Women account for 10.5 percent of the Coast Guard as well.

Women are represented in leadership positions as well. Women make up roughly 14 percent of the enlisted ranks and 16.6 percent of the officer corps. More than seven percent of all generals and admirals are women–with 28 generals in the Air Force, 19 in the Army, one in the Marine Corps, and 21 admirals in the Navy. Nearly 20 percent of female enlisted reservists and National Guard officers are women. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, there were 1,853,690 female veterans in the United States as of September 2011.

Arguments against Full Female Integration

Strength

The main argument against expanding the role of women to new combat positions focuses on their physical capabilities. Many critics argue that their opinions have nothing to do with sexism and that they have the fullest respect for women in the armed forces. But when it comes down to it, women are not as strong as men. Male muscles and bones are denser. Critics argue that the endangerment of team members isn’t worth the military being politically correct. As Brig. Gen. George Smith explained on “60 Minutes,” “The realities of combat aren’t going to change based on gender.”

In 2012, the Marine Corps opened its Infantry Officer Course to women on a trial basis, which is similar to the Ranger training. While 29 women have attempted the course, none have passed so far. Only four women passed the combat endurance test held on the first day. This includes, for example, a 25-foot rope climb with a heavy backpack full of gear. You must reach the top to pass. An imbalance in strength allows for differences between men and women in the Marine Corps basic physical fitness test. For example, a woman can perform fewer pull-ups than her male counterpart. Today 45 percent of female Marines can complete three pull-ups, the requirement for male testing.

Standards

The standards are high, and that is yet another argument against full integration. If you lower the standards to allow women to pass, you elevate the risk in the field. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey, the nation’s top military officer, started to question these high standards two years ago. He claimed,

If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?

In other words, the Marine Corps Officer Course, along with other courses of similar intensity, will now have to justify current standards. However, there are those that don’t accept that argument. Retired Marine Corps Officer Dakota Wood believes they have “decades of experience on which to base requirements.”

Medical Concerns

Women have time and time again proved their worth on the front-line. They have exhibited poise and efficiency under fire. A main concern, however, is longevity. Capt. Katie Petronio, a former combat engineer officer on deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, returned from deployment with new concerns about women in combat zones. She asks,

Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?…Five years later, I am physically not the woman I once was and my views have greatly changed on the possibility of women having successful long careers while serving in the infantry. I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not just emotion, that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the -specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

With a similar viewpoint, Retired Marine Gunnery Sergeant Jessie Jane Duff links the ban on women in combat roles to women in the NFL. She told Business Insider:

There’s simply too great a disparity in body mass and strength between NFL players and women, and the physical demands are too great… Currently, women have higher rates of discharge for medical disability that prevents them from finishing their enlistment, or re-enlistment. Stress and muscular deterioration in women come on faster and harder due to the heavy gear and physical duress in the field environment.

Put simply, physical deterioration ultimately occurs more in woman than it does in men.

Arguments for Full Female Integration

When it comes to strength and standards, the counterargument seems obvious: keep the standards universal. If you don’t lower the standards and keep everything even for men and women, then that should silence critics at least against the physical arguments. Keeping standards high will remove sex from the equation.

Even though no women have passed the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course, 150 women did graduate from the Marine Corps Infantry Training Battalion Course at the School of Infantry in North Carolina. These women passed with the same standards as the men. Marine Corps Spokeswoman, Capt. Maureen Krebs explained that even though basic physical fitness tests may allow different expectations, they are “separate from standards that must be met for a particular occupation, such as infantry, where women must achieve the same as men.” In other words, everyone meets the same standards to graduate.

Although a woman hasn’t yet passed the Officer Course, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen in the future. Allowing women to perform any combat role doesn’t provide a free pass. A woman will have to earn it like any male counterpart. That could still mean zero female Marine Corps Officers, for example, but at least they get a shot at it. As for medial concerns, extra pre-training for muscle building can be required to reduce female injury rates.

Conclusion

The two women who graduated from Ranger School certainly reignited the debate, but it’s been a controversial conversation that has existed for years. Both sides have sticking points to their arguments, but there is a resolution in sight. The Pentagon will release a final statement settling the issue after careful analysis of the research, perhaps solving the question once and for all.

Resources

Primary

USArmy: Ranger School

Additional

Business Insider: There’s A Big Unknown About Putting The Female Body In Combat

CNN: History in the Making

The Washington Times: Pressure Grows on Marines to Consider Lowering Combat Standards for Women

The Guardian: Women in Combat

Marine Times: Need to Know, 2015

SistersinArms: Women in Combat Pros and Cons

StatisticBrain: Women in the Military Statistics

CNN: By the Numbers

The Washington Post: Women now 0 for 29 in attempting Marine Infantry Officer Course

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Women in Combat Debate Continued: Should Every Door be Opened? appeared first on Law Street.

Same Fight, Better Photoshop: Bush and Clinton Take to Twitter

Anneliese Mahoney — Wed, 12 Aug 2015 19:35:26 +0000

Image courtesy of [Shawn Campbell via Flickr]

Traditionally, other than poorly-veiled shots at press events, political opponents had to wait until debates in order to discuss the important issues directly. But that seems to be changing–social media tools make it way easier for candidates to directly interact with each other. Case in point, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton and Republican contender Jeb Bush directly engaged in an argument via Twitter this Monday about Clinton’s plan to make education more affordable.

Here are the tweets from Bush and Clinton, in sequential order:

Hillary started with a pretty basic tweet promoting her plan to take on student debt.

Cost won't be a barrier to an education. Debt won't hold you back. Read Hillary's plan: http://t.co/A4pWb3fOf4 pic.twitter.com/KVyr8SlSVn

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 10, 2015

Then, Bush fired back, attacking Obama’s approach to college debt and suggesting that Hillary will be the same.

@HillaryClinton pic.twitter.com/m6LAHYCLok

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) August 10, 2015

Then, Clinton got personal and brought up Bush’s less-than-stellar record on education affordability when he was the governor of Florida.

.@JebBush Fixed it for you. pic.twitter.com/d4q9EWpXCA

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 10, 2015

Finally, Bush fired back with a “redesign” of Clinton’s much-mocked arrow logo, but moved the conversation from student debt to taxes.

.@HillaryClinton fixed your logo for you. pic.twitter.com/141nXHQe4Z

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) August 11, 2015

The back-and-forth got pretty nasty relatively quickly. While there’s no guarantee that it was Clinton or Bush behind these tweets, and not members of their respective staffs, the fact that both official accounts were willing to play ball is pretty indicative of the important role that social media will have in this race. Currently, Clinton has roughly four million Twitter followers, Bush’s campaign clocks in at just over 250,000. Both are almost certainly looking to grow those followings, particularly as surprise GOP frontrunner Donald Trump approaches the four million followers mark himself.

So, why are our politicians suddenly getting into Twitter spats a la Nicki Minaj and Taylor Swift or Drake and Meek Mill? It’s pretty simple–it’s tantamount to free advertising. Although it’s estimated that one billion dollars will be spent on online campaigning in 2016, attracting followers and conversation via silly photoshop jabs is pretty cheap. Given how expensive it is to run a campaign, attracting free press–after all, we’re all writing about the Bush/Clinton Twitter spat now–is a smart idea.

Bush and Clintons’ Twitter back-and-forth also falls directly in line with the kind of animosity that these two candidates have developed. For example, when both candidates appeared at the Urban League Conference on July 31, Clinton spoke first and took the opportunity to slam Bush’s “Right to Rise” campaign slogan, stating:

I don’t think you can credibly say that everyone has a right to rise and then say you’re for phasing out Medicare, or repealing Obamacare. People can’t rise if they can’t afford health care. They can’t rise if the minimum wage is too low to live on. They can’t rise if their governor makes it harder for them to get a college education. And you can’t seriously talk about the right to rise and support laws that deny the right to vote.

Bush’s camp responded to Clinton’s comments by accusing her of playing politics–a time-old jab that roughly translates to “the other candidate said something mean.”

Bush hasn’t missed his opportunity to push back, however. Last night, Bush purported that current problems in Iraq stem from the actions of the Obama administration–which Clinton served under as Secretary of State. Bush said Obama and Clinton were too eager to pull troops out of Iraq and stated:

So eager to be the history-makers, they failed to be the peacemakers. Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous.

Given Clinton’s dominance in the Democratic polls, and Bush’s strong second place standing on the Republican side, it makes sense they’re starting to snipe at each other. Doing so over social media might add a new facet to those interactions, but as this promises to be an incredibly long campaign, we can expect to see shade thrown from all sorts of directions–in person and over social media alike.

Washington Examiner: 5 Times Democrats Undermined Republican Presidents With Foreign Governments

The post Same Fight, Better Photoshop: Bush and Clinton Take to Twitter appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. Government: A House Divided on Foreign Policy

Michael Sliwinski — Sat, 21 Mar 2015 13:00:27 +0000

Image courtesy of [Ted Eytan via Flickr]

In 1858, then-Senator Abraham Lincoln made one of his most famous speeches. In this particular speech he referenced the bible in stating, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” At that time, of course, Lincoln was referring to the schism that divided the nation, namely should we be a free country or a slave-owning country? While the slavery question has been answered, the idea of a divided nation has continued and seemingly grown as time passed. The problem now is not over any singular issue, but the conduct of various branches of the government. In short, what effect does public disagreement over foreign policy issues have on the United States in presenting a unified front when trying to implement some type of cohesive strategy?

History of Disagreement

With the two most recent high-profile episodes of dissension in federal government–the Senate Republicans’ letter to Iran and the House Republicans’ invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress without executive consent–it may appear as though these events were particularly egregious; however, disagreement between members of the government is certainly not something new. For that matter, this level of disagreement is not even that extraordinary. In fact, at various times throughout the nation’s history members or former members of the government have engaged in literal duels where one of the parties was actually killed. Of course those are the extreem examples of disagreement, but they are part of our history nonetheless.

The 1980s seemed like an especially appropriate time to publicly undermine the president and his foreign policy, as evidenced by two specific events. In 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy allegedly secretly conspired with the then-premier of the USSR to help him defeat Ronald Reagan and win the presidency. Just a year later, in 1984, Democrats wrote a letter to the leader of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua that was critical of the president and forgave the rebel regime’s many atrocities.

Another episode occurred in 1990 when former president Jimmy Carter wrote to the members of the United Nations Security Council denouncing President Bush’s efforts to authorize the Gulf War. In 2002, several democratic senators went to Iraq on a trip financed by late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and actually actively campaigned for his government. This was also aimed at undermining support for the second president Bush’s Iraq War. And the most recent example came in 2007 when newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Basher Assad. Even before he had launched a civil war on his own people, Assad had already made enemies of the Bush Administration by supporting insurgents in Iraq.

This is the context in which Congress’ most recent acts of defiance should be considered. When Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak to congress without the consent of the president, he knew perfectly well that Netanyahu would come to urge the use of force in preventing a nuclear armed Iran. This strategy is the complete opposite of the one pursued by the Obama Administration, which has centered on negotiation, give and take. The video below explains why this invitation was so controversial.

The second most recent act of dissent also comes in relation to a nuclear deal with Iran. In this case, 47 senators signed a letter to Iran stating that any agreement between President Obama and the Ayatollah will be considered as an executive agreement only and subject to being overturned when a new president is elected. The video below explores the ramifications of the letter.

Taken alone these efforts by Republicans appear outrageous and indeed even treasonous. But they are actually just two more in a series of moves from both parties to undermine the other. The main difference this time is that it was the Republicans doing the undermining of a Democratic President.

Roles in Foreign policy for Each Branch of the Government

The three branches of the government–the judicial, legislative, and executive branches–each play a role in determining foreign policy. While the courts are instrumental in determining the constitutionality, and therefore legality, of agreements, the legislative and executive branches are the real driving forces behind United States’ foreign policy. So what then are their roles?

Executive

As the saying goes, on paper the President’s foreign policy powers seem limited. According to the Constitution, he is limited to his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and nominating and appointing officials. However, the president has several unofficial powers that are more encompassing. First is the executive agreement, which basically allows the president to make an accord without the consent of Congress. This is what Obama did, for example, in relation to immigration in Fall 2014, as well as the situation to which Republicans referred in their letter to Iran.

This power is perhaps the most important as the president is able to pursue his agenda without needing Congressional support, which is often hostile to his ambitions. Along this same track, the president has the ability to determine the foreign policy agenda, and by doing so making it the agenda for the entire nation.

The executive branch also controls the means to carry out foreign policy through its various agencies. Of particular importance are the Department of State, which handles foreign affairs, and the Department of Defense, which is in charge of military operations. The intelligence community is also a key cog in this branch of government.

Legislative

The role of this branch has traditionally been three-fold: advising the president, approving/disapproving the president’s foreign policy agreements, and confirming appointments to the State Department. Recently these powers have come under challenge as Obama himself has conducted military actions in Libya without getting war powers consent from Congress first.

Like everything else, the roles taken on by the particular branches with regard to foreign policy have expanded far beyond those originally outlined in the Constitution. Nevertheless, because the president, as mentioned previously, serves as both the face of policy and its catalyst, it is generally assumed that he will take the lead in those matters. However, a certain gray area still exists as to specifically who has the right to do what. This role was supposed to be more clearly defined through legislation, namely the Logan Act; however, perpetually changing circumstances, such as the role of the media, have continued to make the boundaries for conduct less clear.

What Happens Next

So what is to be done about these quarrelsome representatives and senators? When Pelosi made her infamous trip to visit Assad in 2007, the Bush Administration was extremely angry and reacted accordingly, deeming her actions as criminal and possibly treasonous. If this rhetoric sounds familiar that is because these are the same types of phrases being hurled at the Congresspeople who invited Netanyahu to speak and condemned Iran with their signatures.

The Logan Act

The real issue here is with who is conducting foreign policy as opposed to who is supposed to, according to the Logan Act. The act was passed in 1799 in response to its namesake’s efforts to single-handedly end the quasi-war with the French by engaging in a solo journey to the country. The basic outline of the act is that no unauthorized person is allowed to negotiate on behalf of the United States with a foreign government during a dispute. Thus, while in theory this was meant to resolve the issue as to who was qualified to represent U.S. foreign policy, the video below explains that is far from what actually occurred.

Along with the damning words being thrown about, critics of the Republican actions also call for their prosecution under this relatively obscure law; however, no such indictments are likely to take place as no one has even been charged under it, not even the man for whom it was named. In addition, the language itself is unclear. For example, wouldn’t congresspeople be considered authorized persons? These threats of prosecution, along with the strong language being thrown about hide another important factor in this whole mess: the role of the media.

Media’s Role

In the tumult following the Iranian letter, a somewhat important piece of evidence has been overlooked. While the senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, indeed signed a letter, the letter was not actually sent anywhere. In fact, after getting 46 other senators to sign the letter, Senator Cotton posted it to his own website and social media accounts. Similarly with the Netanyahu speech, while it is odd for a foreign leader to speak to Congress without approval of the president, the significance of the whole thing can be attributed as much to the stage it was broadcast on as its peculiarity.

There is a history of government officials undermining the White House’s foreign policy. However, in 2015 there are so many avenues to openly and very publicly express dissent that when it does occur it is a bigger deal now than ever. Information is so accessible now, thus when someone posts something to social media anyone all over the world can see it. This is different than if something were broadcast 20 years ago on network news.

Conclusion

In 1951, President Truman removed General MacArthur from command in the Korean War. While MacArthur was one of the most renowned war heroes of WWII, his threats to invade China and expand the war undermined Truman’s efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict. While Truman was able to dismiss MacArthur, this is not true for the current case of branches of government undermining others.Unlike MacArthur who was a general and beholden to the president, these representatives and senators are beholden to the people and cannot be as easily removed. Nor should they, not only because the precedent for this type of disagreement has been set, but also because the president should not have the ability to dismiss everyone who disagrees with him. People voicing their opinions after all, is the whole idea behind representative government.

While recent Republican actions can certainly be termed at least as ill-advised, the question of illegality is much less clear. The Iranians for their part took the letter as well as can be expected, acknowledging its obvious political nature.

Sources

Foreign Policy Association: How Foreign Policy is Made.

Politico: John Boehner’s Bibi Invite Sets Up Showdown With White House

Intercept: The Parties Role Reversal on Interfering With the Commander-in-Chief’s Foreign Policy

Politico: Iran, Tom Cotton and the Bizarre History of the Logan Act

National Review: The Cotton Letter Was Not Sent Anywhere, Especially Not to Iran

LA Times: Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress Has Politics Written All Over it

The New York Times: Iranian Officials Ask Kerry about Republicans’ Letter

CNN: Did 47 Republican Senators Break the Law in Plain Sight?

Anti-Defamation League: Hashtag Terror

The post The U.S. Government: A House Divided on Foreign Policy appeared first on Law Street.

ISIS and the Terrorist Social Network

Michael Sliwinski — Sun, 15 Mar 2015 15:37:15 +0000

Image courtesy of [Andreas Eldh via Flickr]

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is well known for its brutality and fighting prowess. However, to create a caliphate and establish its own vision of Islam, ISIS leaders have done more than win battles and intimidate enemies. Taking a page from the Arab Spring, the group has adopted a very modern approach to attracting its followers and spreading its message. Read on to learn about ISIS’ use of social media and the results of its campaigns.

ISIS and Social Media

The use of media by terrorist groups and even Al Qaeda, ISIS’ precursor in some ways, is not new. Under ISIS however, a transformation has begun. It started slowly–when ISIS was first on the rise it engaged mostly in simple, private media communications among its own members or dissidents. But with the fall of Mosul in June 2014, the group finally had its stage and was ready to broadcast to the world audience. Far from the grainy videos of Osama Bin Laden wandering around in the mountains, ISIS began live tweeting its actions and posting statuses on Facebook. On Twitter especially the group has been successful in delivering its message by commandeering popular hashtags.

ISIS Fighters have also taken selfies next to victims or in occupied areas in attempts to show how great life is under the aspiring caliphate. ISIS has even engaged in unsolicited product placement, flashing images of Nutella and Call of Duty in videos and other forms of media. Perhaps most importantly to its Western audience, it started attracting an English-speaking membership that could communicate directly to the English-speaking world. Perhaps no better example exists than the man known as “Jihadi John.” Born Mohammed Emwazi, he graduated with a degree in computer science from the University of Westminster, England. Despite his British upbringing, in 2013 he left Britain for Syria. Emwazi is by now a familiar figure, as he has been involved in some high-profile executions of non-Muslims.

ISIS has even utilized less popular forms of social media. For example, it’s used PalTalk, a video chatroom where radical clerics have convened to praise ISIS and its leadership. The group created an Android App called Fajer Al Bashayer (Dawn of the Good Omens) that provides users with up-to-the-minute updates on ISIS’ movements. The app also includes software that appropriates the Twitter accounts of the downloaders and uses them to further propagate the group’s ideology. ISIS even has its own magazine, Dabiq, which combines graphic insights into violence perpetrated by the group with interviews of its members, resembling a sort of gossip magazine. The video below details how ISIS has been using social media to its advantage.

Influence of the Arab Spring

How did ISIS end up turning to social media to further its cause? Well, it may have taken some inspiration from the Arab Spring. In 2011, one of the catalysts that fueled the Arab Spring movement was the use of social media to coordinate gatherings and denounce authoritarian regimes. While this has been employed for similar causes before, the scope in this case was revolutionary and transformative.

Various Middle Eastern leaders took notice and began to censor social media access they deemed dangerous. This may have had the negative consequences of chasing off progressive voices who lost faith in social media as a means of communication. But, it gave groups like ISIS ideas about powerful ways to attract members and money. The accompanying video explains the way social media has been used from Arab Spring to ISIS.

Have ISIS’ social media campaigns been successful?

How successful has the group been in attracting new fighters and inflows of capital? These results can be broken up into two categories: those who have pledged direct support to the group and the potential lone wolves it has inspired at home in Western nations.

Direct Supporters of ISIS

The first group includes people who have actually moved to ISIS-controlled areas. Many of them, particularly from the West, are drawn by the notion of a Muslim paradise. Often they feel out of place in Western culture. Many are young and eager to find a place where they can be accepted.

The message seems to be finding a plentiful breeding ground too, as thousands of Westerners, including teenagers, have already gone to the Middle East to fight for ISIS. Evidence of this startling trend can be found all over the West. In late 2014, there were three sisters from Colorado who were stopped in Germany as they were trying to fly to ISIS-controlled territory. More recently, the news has focused on three teenage British girls who are believed to have left their homes to join ISIS.

While ISIS is sinister in every way, its recruitment of girls and young women is especially so. Preying upon feelings of alienation and offering acceptance, ISIS has lured many women from Western nations to its cause. While many of these girls may dream of aiding a movement and finding a soulmate, they often experience something much worse. Their fates can include rape, forced marriages, and even enslavement at the hands of their alleged liberators.

How exactly is ISIS seducing these women and its other alienated recruits? The answer to that question comes in two parts. First, ISIS tries to attract attention and create a bigger name for itself. The end goal here is to project its strength and its ability to stand up to entrenched powers such as the United States. This strategy can speak particularly to people who feel victimized by the dominant cultures in the West.

Secondly the group has made a series of videos depicting how great life is under ISIS. These include highlighting the group’s charity work, its efforts at establishing an appropriate Muslim state, and choreographed scenes of violence to appeal to viewers. ISIS also has responders who will directly engage Westerners who feel an inclination to join ISIS. These responders act as recruiters, echoing the themes of the videos that show the greatness of life under ISIS and the satisfaction women and others can gain living in an ISIS sphere.

The group is also getting some financial support online. ISIS has used Twitter as a place to receive donations along with recruits, despite the best efforts of the US government.

Lastly the group has been able to garner support and allegiance from other like-minded terrorist organizations through social media. Recently, the infamous Nigerian terrorist group, Boko Haram, pledged its support for ISIS and has even begun adopting some of its tactics for publication and recruitment.

Fighting Back

While ISIS has shown a mastery of modern day social networks, Western forces are also fighting back. The United States has already launched a major social media offensive, dedicating a contingent of manpower and materials to fighting ISIS propaganda online. The British have taken a similar approach and adopted the American model for its own program. Both countries are also pressuring companies such as Twitter and YouTube to clean up their sites and rid them of ISIS propaganda.

It is far from clear how effective these efforts have been. Many experts caution against ridding the web entirely of ISIS and its supporters as their posts can be valuable sources of information on the group. Additionally, while the U.S. and British governments are launching their own offensives against ISIS, many people remain skeptical about how effective government-run social media can be. Lastly there are strategic concerns to be considered. While to most people ISIS comes off as repulsive, a mystique could be created about the group by denying it the opportunity to speak, which could further improve recruiting.

Conclusion

ISIS’ use and mastery of social media is intriguing. The fact that it uses sites such as Twitter or Facebook seems almost unbelievable, and stands in direct contrast to common assumptions about the backward nature of terrorist organizations. Additionally, the efforts in response by the United States and its allies also clearly show that the nature of warfare has rapidly changed in the social media age.

Despite the seemingly harmless means by which it communicates and disseminates its messages, ISIS remains a ruthless terrorist organization. It is also clear however, that it is successful both on the battlefield and on the internet. The next step for the West is how to counter ISIS’ message while pushing back in Iraq and Syria. Unfortunately the military part will likely be the easier path, even as debate over putting boots on the ground proofs devisive. There’s a new battle being fought, but this time, it’s on our computers.

Resources

Primary

Additional

Independent: Mohammed Emwazi

CNN: What is ISIS’ Appeal to Young People?

CBS News: ISIS Message Resonating With Young People From U.S., West

U.S. News & World Report: ISIS Ability to Recruit Women Baffles West, Strengthens Cause

Hill: ISIS Rakes in Donations on Twitter

Newsmax: Tell ISIS Aligned Groups They Are Targets

Fox News: “What Are You Waiting For?”

Daily Beast: Can the West Beat ISIS on the Web?

Daily Beast: ISIS is Using Social Media to Reach You, Its New Audience

The post ISIS and the Terrorist Social Network appeared first on Law Street.

Understanding ISIS’ Radical Apocalyptic Vision

Kevin Rizzo — Sun, 08 Mar 2015 13:00:49 +0000

Image courtesy of [thierry ehrmann via Flickr]

Nearly everyone knows what the Islamic State is doing–treacherous acts and the consolidation of control in territories throughout Iraq and Syria–but few realize exactly what the group’s goals are. ISIS is a unique manifestation of radical Islam that is bent on establishing a religious government that enforces what it believes is to be the purest form of Islam. Supporting that vision is its supporters’ closely held belief that ISIS is bringing about the apocalypse. Yes, deeply rooted in its ideology is the idea that establishing an “Islamic State” will eventually lead to a final battle between good and evil near the small town of Dabiq in northern Syria.

Is ISIS Actually Islamic?

Kevin Rizzo — Fri, 06 Mar 2015 17:27:22 +0000

Image courtesy of [Global Panorama via Flickr]

ISIS has been at the center of media attention since the group began taking over and controlling large portions of land in Iraq last summer, but amid this coverage, several important misconceptions about the organization and its goals have emerged.

The Atlantic recently published an article titled “What ISIS Really Wants,” which discusses the group’s underlying ideology and the misconceptions about it in the western world. Writer Graeme Wood carefully researched the organization by studying nearly every available source of information about it. Central to Wood’s article is the idea that the Islamic State adheres to established Islamic texts and principles and is not simply a group of crazy people twisting religion to support their blood lust.

While the claim that the Islamic State is Islamic may not be surprising–most radical extremist groups tie their goals to religion one way or another–Wood takes ISIS’ connection to Islam a step further. He says,

“The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.”

This argument is important to understanding ISIS–religion clearly plays a vital role in its actions and recruiting strategy–but this quote and the implicit argument throughout his article has dangerous implications for the religion of Islam. While Wood does not make the outright claim that Islam is a violent religion, many readers have interpreted it that way. As a result, some variation of this logic arises: ISIS is the purest manifestation of Islam, and peaceful Muslims are somehow less faithful to their religion.

That argument, however, is a dramatic mischaracterization of the Islamic State and is a serious insult to the 1.6 billion Muslims around the world.

I am not an expert on Islam, and determining the proper way to interpret the Quran and its foundational texts should be left to Islamic clerics and individual Muslims. Historically, there have been many different interpretations of Islam, and while ISIS’ ideology represents one interpretation that does not mean it is right or even valid. Not only do clerics believe ISIS misinterprets many of Islam’s sacred texts, they also note that the group’s “literal” interpretation is very exclusive. The passages that the Islamic State chooses to justify its actions are very specific, and the group ignores those that may conflict with its actions.

Nearly all of the world’s Muslims reject the Islamic State and its abhorrent actions that are reportedly done in the name of Islam. In addition to aggressively denouncing the cruel actions of ISIS and the misinterpretation of Islamic texts that supposedly justify them, most Muslims object to ISIS’ refusal to acknowledge the peaceful and compassionate teachings that clerics commonly accept.

Wood’s article ignited a debate over ISIS and its beliefs, so much so that its reception prompted him to write a short follow up summarizing the responses he received. Many respondents acknowledged the importance of ideology to ISIS, but argued that other factors–like group identity and the current circumstances in Iraq–are equally important to understanding ISIS. Some went even further, challenging Wood’s assertion of “the Islamic State’s medieval nature.” John Terry, writing for Slate, argued that the Islamic State selectively remembers the medieval times to fit its modern goals.

ISIS’ ideology is a variant of Salafist-Jihadism, which calls for a return to the “pure” practice of Islam that was established during the early days of the religion using outward violence. The first issue of ISIS’ Dabiq magazine includes a section titled “The World Has Divided Into Two Camps.” ISIS believes that it is the true manifestation of Islam and that all others are in a state of disbelief, which makes them enemies. One aspect of ISIS that makes it unique in the context of radical Islam is its use of takfir, or the practice of excommunicating another Muslim. In fact, the vast majority of its violence is directed toward Muslims and has led its recent rift with al Qaeda.

The nature of the organization and the stated commitment to its apocalyptic goal presents unique challenges for the United States and the coalition against it. The Clarion Project summarizes this issue in a recent article,

“The fundamental problem of Islamists seeking to trigger these end-of-times events will remain. The Islamic State could be crushed, but others with similar beliefs will arise. This entire mindset of fulfilling prophecy through war needs to be challenged by peace-seeking Muslims.”

Kevin Rizzo

The post Is ISIS Actually Islamic? appeared first on Law Street.

Obama Asks Congress for Authorization to Fight ISIS

Anneliese Mahoney — Thu, 12 Feb 2015 14:00:01 +0000

Image courtesy of [United States Forces Iraq via Flickr]

President Obama has officially asked Congress to authorize military force to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS). The request was sent in the form of a three-page legislation draft, as well as a letter to the members of Congress. It would create a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

The force that Obama requested would be “limited”–although that term is obviously very vague. Essentially, what the Obama Administration is looking for is a three-year long military campaign against ISIS. There wouldn’t be a mass invasion, but rather air force and limited ground support. Particularly, Obama mentioned that U.S. forces would be used for matters “such as rescue operations” or “Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.” Obama also acknowledged that the emphasis should be on supporting local forces, not sending in American troops, saying, “local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations.”

It’s important to note that American forces have been present in the fight against ISIS for a long time now. Obama had previously justified those actions based on the authorizations of force granted to President George W. Bush after 9/11. This new authorization would provide an update, and serve as a political point for Obama. As he puts in the letter:

Although my proposed AUMF does not address the 2001 AUMF, I remain committed to working with the Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF. Enacting an AUMF that is specific to the threat posed by ISIL could serve as a model for how we can work together to tailor the authorities granted by the 2001 AUMF.

Essentially what that means is that Obama still wants to curtail that original 2001 AUMF, which has been decried by many as being too broad, but still be able to use force against ISIS.

The president explained in the letter that the motive behind asking for this authorization to act against ISIS is based on the threat that the group poses to the region, and by extension, the world. He also brought up the actions that ISIS has taken against Americans–particularly the executions of American citizens James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller, all taken as ISIS hostages. Foley and Sotloff were both journalists; Kassig and Mueller were humanitarians and aid workers. News of Mueller’s death came just a few days ago, although unlike the male American hostages, a video was not released of her execution.

So far, political responses to Obama’s request seem tepid at best from Republicans and Democrats alike. Many are aware of the incredible unpopularity of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars at this point. Obama has, at various points, been criticized for being too hesitant and too active in the fight against ISIS. Speaker of the House John Boehner said about the request:

Any authorization for the use of military force must give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people. While I believe an A.U.M.F. against ISIL is important, I have concerns that the president’s request does not meet this standard.

Many Democrats were also less than enthused by the request, many of whom appear to think that it’s still too broad. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) stated: “Part of the feedback they’re getting from some members will be unless that is further defined, that might be seen as too big a statement to ultimately embrace.”

There’s a twofold need to balance here. First of all, it’s not surprising that within this hot-blooded, acrimonious political environment disagreements would be obvious. The politics here don’t surprise me. But what’s important to remember is that while Democrats and Republicans, and everyone in between, may fight about what to do against ISIS, no one really has an answer. We haven’t quite figured out how to fight terrorist groups yet; honestly the only thing that can be said with certainty is that they’re not like conventional conflicts. It’s hard to determine whether Obama’s action is right or wrong, and it’s just as difficult to determine which of his critics are right. That being said, what almost certainly won’t work against ISIS is doing nothing–a step toward action is probably a step in the right direction.

The post Obama Asks Congress for Authorization to Fight ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

Jordan’s Negotiations With ISIS Fail: What Does it Mean for the U.S.?

Anneliese Mahoney — Thu, 05 Feb 2015 16:00:05 +0000

Image courtesy of [t i g via Flickr]

Much of the world reacted on Tuesday, horrified, as ISIS released a video of a Jordanian pilot burned alive. The pilot was named Lieutenant Moath al-Kasasbeh, a member of the Royal Jordanian Air Force, and only 27 years old. He went missing in December in a mission against ISIS, and was captured by the terrorist organization.

Do not share the monstrous pics of Moath Al-Kasasbeh’s death, let’s remember the pilot for his smile.. #IAmMoath pic.twitter.com/FqekJBfhdz

— Waleed Abu Nada (@waleedabunada) February 3, 2015

ISIS had threatened his death in a supposed sort-of ransom letter to Jordan: the country could either bring terrorist Sajida al-Rishawi to a given place by January 29, or al-Kasasbeh would be killed. Jordan didn’t give in to the demands, saying that it couldn’t release the terrorist unless it was sure that al-Kasasbeh was alive, although Jordanian officials talked openly about releasing al-Rishawi under the right conditions. There was a lot of back and forth, and for a time it looked like Jordan’s negotiations might be effective. Unfortunately, the terms were never met, and the video of al-Kasasbeh’s death was released Tuesday night.

Just a few days before al-Kasasbeh was killed, ISIS killed Japanese journalist Kenji Goto. Like al-Kasasbeh, news of Goto’s kiling was released online in video form; however, unlike al-Kasasbeh, Goto was beheaded.

In response to al-Kasasbeh’s killing, Jordan killed two prisoners that it held. One was al-Rishawi, the woman whose release ISIS had demanded. She was a would-be suicide bomber who was involved in an attack on a wedding on November 9, 2005. The group she was with killed 58 people, but her vest failed to detonate. The other prisoner was Ziad Karbouli, who used to be an aide to the top al-Qaeda leader in Iraq.

My heart goes out to the families of al-Kasasbeh and Goto–they were sad, horrific casualties of a bloody and terrifying war. But my brain is left with an overwhelming question: what’s next? Jordan’s attempt at negotiations with ISIS didn’t work out, but what does that mean for other nations?

I was relatively young when 9/11 happened–at least young enough that most of my formal education as it relates to international affairs and politics occurred in a post-9/11 world. Since the War on Terrorism began, one of the most fundamental principles has been that we absolutely, under no circumstances, negotiate with terrorists. In the wake of the horrific killings of al-Kasasbeh and Goto, as well as the killing of Americans such as James Foley and Steven Sotloff, the question of what nations should do when their people are taken hostage by ISIS, or organizations like ISIS, is cloudier than it has ever been.

It’s by no means simple. First of all, the idea of negotiating with belligerents–not terrorists, necessarily, but state actors, isn’t similarly reviled. Wars can end in a few ways, one of which is by reaching an agreement or peace treaty. That seems straightforward enough–we may negotiate with recognized foreign governments, but not with terrorist groups. But remember the fact that until about 100 years ago, nations and their borders weren’t as concrete as they are now, and it becomes more complicated–the difference between the leader of a nation and of a group aren’t very black and white. Take, for example, the Taliban. When it ruled Afghanistan, was it a terror group, or a government? Or a little bit of both?

The truth is, we’ve been negotiating with, or at least attempting to negotiate with, terrorist groups for years–remember all the intricacies of the Iran-Contra affair? So, why are we so adamant about the fact that we don’t negotiate with terrorists? The Bowe Bergdahl scandal this summer, and the willingness of both sides to slam President Obama over his trade, showed that much of America still staunchly believes in that principle.

I want to be clear here, I’m not saying we should negotiate with terrorists. But I think that the question of how to deal with ISIS is more nuanced than a political buzz-phrase. The negotiations between Jordan and ISIS show just how complicated it really is, and how while the “war on terror” is not necessarily over, a look at our tactics may be in order.

The post Jordan’s Negotiations With ISIS Fail: What Does it Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

ISIS Video Validity Questioned After Ransom Deadline Passes

Alexis Evans — Fri, 23 Jan 2015 20:40:07 +0000

Image courtesy of [Sam Greenhalgh via Flickr]

The 72-hour deadline for Japan to pay Islamic terror organization ISIS $200 million in exchange for two Japanese hostages has come and passed. The impending fate of the two men is unknown.

The video below was posted Tuesday on militant websites showing a masked man with a knife threatening to execute kneeling freelance journalist Kenji Goto and security contractor Haruna Yukawa, if Japan refused to pay their hefty ransom in time. This hostage situation comes in response to ISIS allegations that the Japanese government is financially supporting U.S.-led air strikes on ISIS installations in Syria and Iraq, even though they have vehemently denied these claims.

While the world waits to see what will happen to the two captives, some experts are questioning the validity of the video itself. Evidence suggests that the ISIS video may have been filmed indoors using a green screen. The video is said to have been filmed in the same location as videos showing American hostages James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and Peter Kassig, and British captives David Haines and Alan Henning.

Veryan Khan, editorial director for the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium, told the Associated Press that the light source on the men in the latest videos appears to be coming from two different directions as opposed to one bright sun. If the video was made outdoors in natural light, the shadows behind them should be going in one direction. Instead, they converge. Khan goes on to say that “the hostages are visibly bothered by the bright light.”

So how do we explain the noticeable breeze in the video blowing around both hostages’ orange jumpsuits? According to Khan it’s the result of a fan:

Wind in the desert would be noisy and affect the sound quality of the statements being made by the knife-wielding man. It would also kick up dust, and none seems apparent.

Many are wondering why the captors chose to use the green screen in the video. Some believe it is indicative of ISIS captors being less able to move around the Islamic State than initially believed, the green screen tactic being more for intimidation and concealment purposes than production value.

While the condemnation of two captors is almost certain, Japanese citizens are responding to the video with their own visual manipulation. A mocking hashtag translating loosely to “ISIS Crappy Photoshop Grand Prix” has been mentioned more than 75,000 times on Twitter. It features extravagant yet insensitive memes of the hostages and their masked captor. The memes may come in poor taste due to the likely fate of the hostages, but for some humor is their weapon against terror.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS Video Validity Questioned After Ransom Deadline Passes appeared first on Law Street.

With 22 Veteran Suicides Each Day, Where Are Our Priorities?

Anneliese Mahoney — Mon, 08 Dec 2014 18:37:04 +0000

Image courtesy of [Vince Alongi via Flickr]

For the majority of my life, war has been the norm in the United States. We entered Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. War is the new normal–and between 2004-2011 war was, as expected, mostly the leading cause of death for troops in the U.S. military. But for the last two years, that trend did not hold true. Suicide has surpassed war as the number one killer of American troops.

Suicide is also incredibly prevalent among veterans. According to a report released by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 22 veterans take their own lives every day. Given the way the VA collects that information it’s speculated that that number could be even higher. To put this in context, roughly 20 percent of suicides in the United States are committed by veterans, even though they make up just 10 percent of the population. That’s a startling and terrifying figure; as News21 put it:

Suicide rates within the veteran population often were double and sometimes triple the civilian suicide rate in several states. Arizona’s 2011 veteran suicide rate was 43.9 per 100,000 people, nearly tripling the civilian suicide rate of 14.4, according to the latest numbers from the state health department.

Now, the civilian suicide rate has also been rising. According to the New Yorker:

In the United States, suicide rates have risen, particularly among middle-aged people: between 1999 and 2010, the number of Americans between the ages of thirty-five and sixty-four who took their own lives rose by almost thirty percent.

Suicide is a gigantic issue among both our troops and our veterans. The ways in which we understand Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the effects of war continue to evolve, but clearly we haven’t done enough. See the infographic below for just some of the ways in which veterans’ and active service peoples’ duties can affect them.

Courtesy of Blackwater Law.

PTSD is tricky because it can show up suddenly or gradually, sometimes a long time after the traumatic event. In addition, medical care for veterans hasn’t always been as top notch as it could be–we all remember the VA hospital scandals earlier this year. PTSD can fuel depression, alcoholism, and various other problems. There are other reasons that veterans and service members are at particular risk. For some, reacclimating to civilian life can be very difficult. While there’s no dispositive list of risk factors, it’s clear from statistics alone that this is a significant problem.

The argument that the suicide rate will go down once we’re fully out of Afghanistan and Iraq seems like it should make sense, but it’s not that simple. Even while those wars have been slowly de-escalated, suicide rates have remained pretty constant. That ties back to the fact that PTSD can develop over time along with those struggles that veterans face when they return. A troubling portion of our nation’s veterans become homeless, which makes getting them access to health care and help even more difficult. After all, since 2010, there has been a thirty-three percent increase in homeless veterans.

The fact is that anyone who is a member of our military forces–or former member–deserves the utmost respect, help, and care. But that simply isn’t happening–and until I started looking up these statistics today I didn’t quite realize how much we are failing them. Something has to change–and it starts with awareness.

The post With 22 Veteran Suicides Each Day, Where Are Our Priorities? appeared first on Law Street.

ISIS: The Mentality of Madness

Marisa Mostek — Thu, 16 Oct 2014 17:08:17 +0000

Image courtesy of [European Commission DG ECHO/EC/ECHO via Flickr]

The bone-chilling, stomach-churning sounds of a knife tearing through human flesh followed by the camera panning over a decapitated corpse lying in a pool of the blood that once sustained it played on the screen. Yet, following this savage montage of brutality, no credits rolled. Those nauseating and disturbing sounds were not fabricated in a Hollywood studio. Those haunting images, permanently tattooed into the viewer’s mind, were not created with fake blood and body parts.

The most recent video released by the Muslim extremist group ISIS is a jarring demonstration of the sheer brutality going on in the Middle East today. Immediately after viewing this heinous, offensive act, it took awhile for the feeling to return to my numbed face. I felt as if I had received a massive blow to my gut. Once I could wrap my mind around what I had just seen and the revelation that yes, this was real, I was overcome by a tidal wave of emotion. Rage, sadness, and helplessness were just the tip of the iceberg of what I felt.

After discovering more about the man who was mercilessly slaughtered for all to see as a warning to the United States and its allies, I became even more outraged. Alan Henning was a father of two and dedicated husband from England who had traveled to Syria to partake in aid work. The injustice of his death astounded me. I simply cannot imagine the depth of grief his family is feeling right now, and will continue to feel for the remainder of their lives. I was struck with the revelation that this is exactly how ISIS wanted the viewers of this murder to feel.

Then the questions began swirling dizzyingly in my mind. Why is ISIS committing these unforgivable acts of barbaric violence? In a recent article, Britain’s Telegraph provided insights into the psychological motivation for such public brutality. First on the list is the dissuasive power of fear. One of the reasons the Iraqi people have withheld from engaging ISIS in battle, the article purports, is the sheer element of extreme violence utilized by ISIS fighters. The article makes the insightful inquiry, “which poorly paid soldier wishes to risk decapitation, impalement, or amputation for the sake of a distant, crumbling government? Fear is a uniquely effective weapon.”

Additionally, the members of the Islamic state feel that the United States and its allies will be equally deterred from engaging in militant action against them if it means its citizens will meet such an abhorrent fate. But honestly, I cannot imagine that its enemies ceasing their attempts at military interference would halt ISIS’ streak of terror.

The last point made by the author of the article explains why the murder of an individual rather than a large population affects us so much. Selecting a single person via a methodical, calculated process produces a means of propaganda not likely to be forgotten, which is the nature of terrorist acts. With the detonation of a bomb, the deaths are numerous and quick and lack a specific individual target. Although deaths by any means of violence are horrific, acts of beheading are chilling and terrifying in that they are a complete desecration of the body by the hand of another human.

However, when addressing the effectiveness or lack thereof of these acts, the article points out that they often backfire entirely. When my eyes beheld the merciless slaughter of an innocent man by the ISIS executioner, I was anything but turned to sympathy for their cause. It merely deepened the chasm of my anger and hatred for their “cause,” if you can even call it that. It made me realize the gravity of the challenge imposed by the extremist group in terms of its defeat. By demonstrating the lack of humanity possessed by its members, ISIS has hurled coals into the already blazing fire of animosity and antipathy bore by its enemies.

Has ISIS learned nothing from its predecessors? Engaging in brutal violence that clearly knows no bounds was one of the major downfalls of al-Qaeda. I desire one thing to be the response to the question posed by the article in the Telegraph, “the modern jihadist’s dilemma: when does a strategy of calibrated terror turn into a self-defeating orgy of violence?” I hope that their “strategy” brings about their downfall before anyone else falls victim to it. No child should have to lose a parent, no one should have to lose a dedicated friend, and no innocent person should perish at the hands of hate.

Watching the brutal killing of this man grounded, humbled, outraged, and upset me in ways I never could have imagined. I would never wish my worst enemy to see the video. The menacing voice of the executioner, the sounds of the beheading itself, and the final words of the victim will forever echo in my mind. The images I beheld are forever seared into my retinas. Now, my passionate desire to see the end of violence in the Middle East is stronger than it ever was.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ISIS: The Mentality of Madness appeared first on Law Street.

Strikes Against ISIS in Syria: Shaky Ground for Obama Administration

Zaid Shoorbajee — Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:23:59 +0000

Image courtesy of [Official U.S. Navy Page via Flickr]

On Tuesday in a dramatic escalation of the many-sided conflict in Syria, the United States, along with a coalition of Middle Eastern states, showered ISIS strongholds with airstrikes and Tomahawk cruise missiles. Lawmakers, public officials, and pundits have traded arguments over whether the United States has any interest in intervening, whether ISIS poses any threat to United States, and whether the United States has any justification in getting involved in Syria’s three and half year long civil war. In support of the strikes that started on Tuesday, President Obama has invoked several international and domestic legal justifications. Like any justifications for war, however, they aren’t completely solid.

On Tuesday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power answered the international justification question in a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, saying that the United States has the right to carry out self-defense on behalf of Iraq.

Generally, a country can only use force in the territory of another sovereign country if it is authorized to do so by the U.N. Syria is a sovereign country, and Power’s letter to Secretary General Ban only informs him of the attacks, it doesn’t ask for his permission. However, force can be used against a sovereign country without permission if it’s for the sake of self-defense. The United States is arguing that, although Syria is a sovereign state, it isn’t doing anything to stop or weaken ISIS within its own borders, justifying the United States’ defense-based intervention.

President Obama also has to cover his bases for legal justification domestically. To that end, he told Congress on September 9th that he doesn’t need Congressional permission and that he has the authority to take action. This justification can be found in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). That resolution gave the President authority to:

Use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.

The law is vague and has a wide enough breadth that it has been successfully used by the United States for continued military actions across the world.

The organizations targeted in the wording of the AUMF have generally been Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. While ISIS has its origins in Al-Qaeda and claimed to still be affiliated, Al-Qaeda officially cut ties with ISIS in February, prompting controversy over whether the president actually has the legal authority to target them without Congressional approval. But this week’s strikes didn’t target ISIS alone. The Pentagon announced that the attacks also targeted the Khorasan, a little-known terrorist group that does have connections with Al-Qaeda via Jabhat al-Nusra, another Al-Qaeda offshoot in Syria.

Additionally, an incredibly interesting facet of this conflict is that, despite the fact that Obama has previously said that he wanted to eventually repeal the AUMF, he is using it to justify strikes against ISIS. The Obama Administration’s choice of justifications has prompted questions over the president’s apparent change of heart about practicing restraint in counterterrorism. Historically, however, the expanded offensive isn’t so strange, as Obama has bombed half a dozen other countries in the Middle East and North Africa during his presidency.

Remember that just over a year ago, the United States was having the same debate about getting involved in Syria, except that Obama was then insisting that it was necessary to bomb Syrian President Assad, after his regime killed upwards of 1,400 people in a sarin gas attack. That plan was ditched at the last second when Russia made a deal with Syria to dispose of the country’s chemical weapons. But historically speaking, what Obama’s administration did on Tuesday really isn’t a departure from his foreign policy strategies.

Some Obama critics say that if Obama had gone through with those threats against Assad last year, the United States may not be in this mess with ISIS today. A common theory about how ISIS grew to be so powerful is that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad strategically watched idly by as it clashed other rebel groups, who were trying to oust him and create a democratic government, and took over large swaths of land. He even bombed the rebels as they gained ground against ISIS. He did this, some say, in order to have a legitimate claim to having a terrorist threat in Syria and lure in Western powers to help him, and not the rebels. As it turns out, Assad didn’t need to convince the West to join his side. They are, however, giving him a courteous “heads-up” about bombing his enemies.

While his administration has done its homework and technically managed to justify these new attacks on ISIS, Obama’s words and actions surrounding them don’t scream consistency, either. His backing out of the plan last year to strike Assad in Syria suggests that he may have only been talking about strikes to save face. It suggests that only when words like “Islamist” and “terrorist” are being thrown around is it necessary to take action. And using the AUMF to take those actions suggests that it’s acceptable for the president to change his position on that justification whenever it’s convenient.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Strikes Against ISIS in Syria: Shaky Ground for Obama Administration appeared first on Law Street.

Collectively In Crisis: The Sad State of World Affairs

Trevor Smith — Mon, 15 Sep 2014 16:44:08 +0000

Image courtesy of [The U.S. Army via Flickr]

For the first time in decades, the United Nations has declared four of the world’s humanitarian crises a “Level 3 Emergency,” the highest possible rating the organization can assign. The four on the list are Syria, South Sudan, Central African Republic, and Iraq; Iraq was just added to the list on August 14th. From the Islamic State beheading journalists, to the thousands dying from the Ebola virus in Western Africa, from the thousands of civilians fleeing towns in Iraq, to the million malnourished and displaced in South Sudan, as a world, we are collectively in crisis.

According to Nickolay Mladenov, special representative of the United Nations Secretary General, the “Level 3” emergency designation facilitates “mobilization of additional resources in goods, funds and assets to ensure a more effective response to the humanitarian needs of populations affected by forced displacement.”

The Inter-Agency Standing Committee, a team of UN and other NGO humanitarians, is responsible for determining the level of crisis. Level 3 is given to countries experiencing civil unrest that causes the displacement or removal of thousands of people. Unlike natural disasters, conflicts put humanitarian workers in the crossfire, making relief efforts that much more difficult.

Iraq became a particular concern after the situation on Sinjar Mountain escalated and thousands of Yazidi families–a particular religious community in Iraq–were trapped on the mountain without water, nourishment or any form of sanitation as ISIS fighters surrounded them. Despite numerous Department of Defense airdrops over a week long period in August, 1.5 million Iraqis are in need of humanitarian help, according to USAID.

USAID estimates that 10.8 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance in Syria; 2.5 million in the Central African Republic, with 900,000 more displaced; and 1.1 million displaced in South Sudan. USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah said:

This is the first time in our agency’s history that we have been called on to manage four large-scale humanitarian responses at once— in addition to reaching other vulnerable populations worldwide and preparing communities ahead of natural disasters.

UNICEF, WFP, UNFPA, UNHCR, CARE USA, World Vision USA, Save the Children, Oxfam America and many other NGOs are currently operating in these four countries. Their contributions have saved thousands from death, and millions of individuals have been helped to get back on their feet. The U.S. government alone has sent more than $2.8 billion in assistance to these four countries; but the battle is nowhere close to being done.

To the 5,000 people who are suffering from the Ebola virus, I feel for you. To my sisters in India, who have no choice but to give contaminated water to their children, I feel for you. To the 5.5 million children affected by the crisis in Syria, I feel for you. To the families in Gaza whose houses have been destroyed, I feel for you. I know my empathy won’t bring your loved ones back, give you a new home, or calm the fear that you have to live with everyday. But I hope my words can reach and inspire my colleagues here in America. I hope my words will make people realize how mundane their issues are compared to those I’ve outlined above. I hope my words can bring us together collectively, so we can finally realize that it isn’t “us and them,” but simply “us.” We are Iraq. We are Syria. We are South Sudan. We are Central African Republic. If they are experiencing a crisis, we are experiencing a crisis. With countries like Gaza, Yemen and the Democratic Republic of Congo on the horizon of reaching a level 3 designation, humanitarian aid is needed now more than ever. We are collectively in crisis, but it doesn’t have to be that way.

Mic Drop

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Collectively In Crisis: The Sad State of World Affairs appeared first on Law Street.

Don’t Watch the Foley Video

Anneliese Mahoney — Thu, 21 Aug 2014 19:41:31 +0000

Image courtesy of [Markus Grossalber via Flickr]

The world is reeling after the very public slaughter of an American journalist named James Foley.

Although details are still unclear, here’s what we know right now: Foley was taken hostage by members of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorist group. According to ISIS, it also has some other American and British hostages — the exact number is unknown, but American officials believe there are at least three other American hostages. Some demands were made, but the United States obviously does not negotiate with terrorists. An unsuccessful rescue attempt was made earlier this summer. Now the news has surfaced that Foley was guarded by a specific group of ISIS militants, British-born, who call themselves “the Beatles.” According to reports, the British jihadists were especially brutal and worthless. A New Hampshire native, Foley was in Syria reporting for the Agence France-Presse and the GlobalPost. He’s been held since November 2012. Earlier this week, he tragically lost his life.

I want to start by saying how tragic and horrible this was — Foley, an innocent bystander, lost his life because he was used as a powerful political pawn. ISIS is expanding its influence and becoming an incredibly powerful and terrifying group in Iraq and Syria — the Foley execution is just another example of that power it now wields.

But it’s important to remember that the move by ISIS was relatively unsurprising. Hostages have been powerful bargaining tools since the beginning of time. As tragic and horrific as Foley’s death was, and I want to emphasize that this is not an attempt in any way to diminish that, it was unremarkable in a historical sense.

The way it’s been handled, however, has been remarkable in every sense of the word. The video of Foley’s execution was uploaded to YouTube. Since then, it has made the rounds of pretty much every corner of the internet. It’s gory, it’s horrifying, and the fact that anyone with an internet connection can now access it pretty easily is a public travesty. Social networks have started banning users who share the video, and various media publications are under fire for their choices to provide either the video or still shots from it.

The New York Post especially received a lot of ire for its decision to show a still from the video on its front page, in print. Where anyone could see it, even if they didn’t want to. I’m no stranger to blood and gore — I have distinct memories of watching that video of Saddam Hussein being executed when I was a freshman in high school. But that doesn’t mean it’s right to force that kind of stuff on people. I follow the news every day, but that’s my choice. I have friends and family who avoid the news — and until this week I have to be honest that I didn’t fully understand why. But when it’s that easy to accidentally see something that disturbing, I get it. Anyone who published this video or pictures is very close to being over the line.

Then there’s the fact that by sharing this video, the power that groups like ISIS can have has been magnified. ISIS claims that it killed James Foley because its demands were not met, and while that may be true, there’s another motive here. ISIS is an organization that relies heavily on terroristic tactics. The thing about terrorism though is it works really, really well if people know about it. Every time that video is shared or a screengrab is published, ISIS gains more power in the form of fear to wield.

I know I’m in the qualification for a hypocritical lifetime achievement award now that I’ve just spent the last 600-odd words writing about the very people I’m encouraging you not to give attention to, but I’ll leave you with this: my condolences go out to Foley’s loved ones. That’s where our minds should be, not watching the perverse and horrifying circumstances of his death, for so many different reasons.