RUTHFULLY YOURS

Abu Muhammad al Adnani, one of the most important figures in the Islamic State terror network, has been killed in Syria. As Tom Joscelyn reports in a Long War Journal profile of Adnani, the jihadist was recently targeted in a “precision” air strike in Aleppo province. His death has been confirmed in an ISIS “martyrdom statement.”

As Tom elaborates, Adnani rose through the ranks of ISIS’s predecessor organization, al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), under the notorious jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He became a significant figure in al Qaeda’s jihadist operations against American troops in Iraq, which were strongly supported by Syria’s Assad regime and its sponsor Iran. Subsequently, when AQI rebranded as the Islamic State of Iraq (then ISIS, and ultimately IS) and split with the al Qaeda mothership, Adnani became a significant figure in IS’s lethal rivalry with al Qaeda, and in its jihadist operations against the Iran- (and Russia-) supported Assad regime – as well as against U.S.-backed rebel groups (extensively infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda and other jihadists, in addition to some secular elements).

Adnani came to international prominence as a spokesman for the Islamic State. His role, however, was far more consequential than that. Four weeks ago, the New York Times published an eye-opening report about how the Islamic State had built a “global network of killers.” The network, identified as “the Emni,” has been operating under the direct command of Adnani. Drawing on accounts provided by a defector from the group, a German named Harry Sarfo, the report described Emni as:

A multilevel secret service under the overall command of the Islamic State’s most senior Syrian operative, spokesman and propaganda chief, Abu Muhammad al-Adnani. Below him is a tier of lieutenants empowered to plan attacks in different regions of the world, including a “secret service for European affairs,” a “secret service for Asian affairs” and a “secret service for Arab affairs[.]”…

Based on the accounts of operatives arrested so far, the Emni has become the crucial cog in the group’s terrorism machinery, and its trainees led the Paris attacks and built the suitcase bombs used in a Brussels airport terminal and subway station. Investigation records show that its foot soldiers have also been sent to Austria, Germany, Spain, Lebanon, Tunisia, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Malaysia.

With European officials stretched by a string of assaults by seemingly unconnected attackers who pledged allegiance to the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, Mr. Sarfo suggested that there may be more of a link than the authorities yet know. He said he was told that undercover operatives in Europe used new converts as go-betweens, or “clean men,” who help link up people interested in carrying out attacks with operatives who can pass on instructions on everything from how to make a suicide vest to how to credit their violence to the Islamic State.

The group has sent “hundreds of operatives” back to the European Union, with “hundreds more in Turkey alone,” according to a senior United States intelligence official and a senior American defense official, both of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence.

It would be foolish to think IS will be critically wounded by the loss of even someone as vital to its operations as Adnani. IS is an extensive network with global reach that has been more successful in a shorter period of time than any terrorist organization in history in terms of territory and assets captured. It has a history of flourishing despite losing leaders as influential as Zarqawi himself, so it will certainly withstand Adnani’s loss. That loss will nevertheless hurt, but IS won’t be “degraded and destroyed” unless and until there are many more like it.

WASHINGTON — All Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee warned President Obama today that he is releasing “increasingly dangerous terrorists” in his rush to fulfill his vow to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

Earlier this month, the Defense Department announced the transfer of 15 detainees to the United Arab Emirates, a dozen Yemenis and three Afghans.

The UAE said it plans to send the men and their families through a rehabilitation program launched in November. The program includes psychiatrists, social workers and clergy. Terrorism-related crimes carry penalties up to capital punishment in the UAE. The emirates accepted five Yemeni detainees last year and a UAE citizen back in 2008.

“As you continue to draw down the prisoner population at Guantanamo Bay you are releasing increasingly dangerous terrorists who are more closely linked to al-Qaida and attacks against the U.S. and coalition forces in Afghanistan,” the lawmakers, led by chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), wrote in the letter to Obama. “This largest-ever release includes several who trained in al-Qaida training camps, were bodyguards for Usama bin Laden, and fought at Tora Bora. They were non-compliant with their interrogators and hostile towards the Joint Task Force Guantanamo guards.”

They noted that the Periodic Review Board report for Obaidullah, an Afghan detainee who goes by one name, said he was “mostly compliant” because he committed “less than 100 infractions since his arrival-a low number relative to the other detainees.”

“If 100 infractions is considered a low number, then the bar for acceptable behavior has skewed far from reality,” the Intelligence GOPs wrote. “Obaidullah was part of an al-Qaida-associated improvised explosive device cell that targeted coalition forces in Khowst, Afghanistan, and was captured with 23 antitank landmines and a notebook containing electronic and detonator schematics involving explosives and mines. His lack of stated intent to re-engage in terrorist activities is due to his lack of candor with his interrogators who admit that they ‘lack insight into his current mindset.’ That is no rationalization for his transfer.”

“Your justification for emptying Guantanamo, despite the significant known risks, are not credible,” the letter continued. “Nearly one third of detainees released from Guantanamo have reengaged in terrorist activities; the costs associated with maintaining the facility have not significantly diminished because of the transfers; and the facility does not feature prominently in terrorist propaganda or recruitment efforts.” CONTINUE AT SITE

In the current issue of Commentary my friend Rabbi Meir Soloveichik discusses J.R.R. Tolkien’s fascination with the Jews, who are of course the Dwarves in the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, as Tolkien himself stated in a 1971 BBC interview. Tolkien was no anti-Semite (not, at least, according to the canonical definition, namely someone who hates the Jews more than is absolutely necessary). His views in The Hobbit were typical of the philo-Semites of the 1930s: the Jews/Dwarves are “calculating folk with a great idea of the value of money; some are tricky and treacherous and pretty bad lots; some are not, but are decent enough people…if you don’t expect too much.”

In The Lord of the Rings, completed after the Holocaust, Tolkien turned more sympathetic, depicting a great Elf-Dwarf friendship, and presaging (as Rabbi Soloveichik points out) a Jewish-Christian alliance against the forces of evil. One might add that in The Silmarillion, Tolkien’s early (but posthumously published) compendium of Middle-Earth mythology, the Dwarves were created before the Elves, just as the Jews came before the Christians–but by mistake, in Tolkien’s account.

In the Dwarves’ quest for their ancient homeland in the Lonely Mountain, Rabbi Soloveichik observes, Tolkien evinces a certain sympathy for Zionism.

But all this begs the question of what put the Jews at the center of Tolkien’s attention in the first place. Part of the answer is to be found in Tolkien’s lifelong effort to undo the pernicious influence of Richard Wagner, whose “Ring of the Nibelungs” is the most influential art work of the past two hundreds years (and in my view also the most pernicious). Wagner plundered the ancient Norse and Germanic sagas in the service of a revived paganism. Tolkien by contrast set out to repurpose the old pagan stories to make them a sounder foundation for the Christianity that would succeed them.

In Wagner’s pageant of gods and heroes, the aristocracy (the gods) establish their rule by treaties (covenants). But in order to maintain their rule they must hire the Giants (capital and labor) to build their fortress Valhalla, and steal the cursed gold of the Nibelung dwarves (the Jews). Wagner made clear in his writings and correspondence that the nasty Nibelungen were the Jews, whom he really, really hated. In one of his last writings he claims that the point of the Eucharist is to purge the communicant of pollutants to Aryan blood, in particular to remove the stain of Jewish blood from Jesus himself. Wagner stole the plot of his breakthrough opera “The Flying Dutchman” from one Jew (Heinrich Heine) and its musical portrayal of the sea from another Jew (Felix Mendelssohn), and then published a pamphlet alleging that Jews could only imitate but not create new art. CONTINUE AT SITE

Secretary of State John Kerry wants to keep the American people in the dark regarding the global jihadist terrorist threat we are facing. Referring to terrorism in remarks he made at the Edward M. Kennedy Center in Dhaka, Bangladesh, a country that has recently experienced its own encounter with Islamist terrorists, Kerry said, “Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”

Kerry was just reflecting his boss’s bizarro worldview. In an interview with Vox, for example, Obama agreed “absolutely” with the proposition posed by the questioner that “the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism and this kind of chaos…”

Knowing too much about what is really going on under President Obama’s watch, after all, might make us realize just how bad the Obama administration’s foreign policy failures have metastasized into a worldwide catastrophe.

Obama and Kerry want us to think that climate change is the real number one security threat, not jihadists determined to kill us by any means possible. “No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change,” said Obama in his 2015 State of the Union speech. During his April 18, 2015 weekly address on climate change, Obama said that “today, there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”

The president who derisively referred to ISIS as a “jayvee” team does not believe the jihadist terrorists represent a serious threat to Americans’ safety, even as they seek weapons of mass destruction to annihilate us. “They’re not coming here to chop our heads off,” Obama reportedly told his close adviser, Valerie Jarrett, back in 2014 after she had raised with him the concerns felt by the American people as they witnessed beheadings of Americans abroad.

In his April 2016 Atlantic article entitled “The Obama Doctrine,” Jeffrey Goldberg wrote that “Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do.” Goldberg quoted Obama as saying that “for me to satisfy the cable news hype-fest would lead to us making worse and worse decisions over time.”

In his remarks in Bangladesh on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry explicitly asked the media to cover terrorism less, so “people wouldn’t know what’s going on.” The line also drew applause from the audience.

While discussing terrorism, Kerry said “it’s easy to terrorize … you can make some noise.” He then suggested, “Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”

Here is the context of his remark (from the official State Department transcript):

Remember this: No country is immune from terrorism. It’s easy to terrorize. Government and law enforcement have to be correct 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. But if you decide one day you’re going to be a terrorist and you’re willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on. (Applause.)

In emphasizing the difference between government and terrorists, the secretary of State made a good point: that it is easier for a terrorist to grab people’s attention than for the government to do so. The reasons for this are obvious: terrorists threaten life and limb, while government should not do so. In reality, government does abuse its citizens, but since its primary aim is to serve them, such scandals are comparatively rare.

Terror attacks happen nearly every day around the world, however, and they more easily draw media attention. But here’s the rub — they deserve media attention.

The media’s job isn’t to ignore these events, no matter how much the terrorists want the media to focus on them. Indeed, the job of the press is exactly the opposite of what Kerry is explicitly calling for — that “people wouldn’t know what’s going on.” Journalism exists to let people know what’s going on, even if the events in question were caused by an insane radical.

The media coverage blares that Anthony Weiner has been “at it again” – sexting to women, this time with his 4 year old son next to him in bed. But the date on the text tells a different story; this actually occurred more than a year ago on July 31, 2015. Why then has it just been splashed across front pages and tv screens? The eponymous legal title – Latin for who benefits – may offer some plausible explanations.

After last week’s revelations of Huma Abedin’s pivotal role in arranging for various international donors to the Clinton Foundation to receive consideration and favors from our Secretary of State, it became necessary to deflect negative criticism of both her and her boss. What better way to turn Huma into an object of sympathy than to make her the ongoing victim of a serial sexual pervert. It worked well for Mrs. Clinton when the news reported Bill’s novel use of a cigar with Monica Lewinsky, turning him into someone far less palatable to mainstream America than a routine adulterer and shooing Hillary into her victorious election as senator from a state to which she was barely connected. Anyone who has seen the documentary of Weiner, released this year, would have reason to question the judgment of Ms. Abedin, not only for staying married to a man who cannot control his sexual cravings or his temper when baited by hecklers, but for her acquiescence in allowing their young son to be photographed as a prop to make both father and mother appear more wholesome. Even publicity-hungry celebrities in our Kardashian-crazed culture draw the line at letting their innocent children be photographed or filmed. One watched this documentary wondering why nobody called Child Protective Services, something which has suddenly been mentioned after the release of the sext in the current spotlight.

Politicos understand that it’s better to control your candidate’s negative publicity pre-emptively – in this case, before the debates begin and with sufficient lead time to insure that a fickle public will have forgotten all this by November. Huma needed a divestment from her unsavory husband so that Hillary would not be tarnished with the hangover from Bill’s sordid pecadilloes just before voters pulled the election levers. End of August is traditionally a time when many Americans are on vacation, not reading the daily papers and less concerned with the daily ritual of watching the news on tv. In two weeks’ time, this will all be stale and Huma will be the aggrieved little woman who stood by her man until he left her no choice. The truth is that we don’t know whether Anthony Weiner has continued with his exhibitionistic perversions since July, 2015 – we only know that the Post dug up an old picture and smeared it across its front page to divert our interest from Huma’s role in Hillary’s sordid and illegal involvement with many foreign interests, not to mention her foundation’s enormous monetary gain from this indefensible pay for play.

Let me cut right to the chase here — this is a great movie.

Hands of Stone is a movie about the great Panamanian boxer Roberto Duran, active from the 1970’s until his retirement in 2002, at age 50.

I almost didn’t see this movie, despite my intense interest in 1960’s-2000 boxing, which was the Ali-Frazier-Duran-Leonard-Hagler-Holmes-Tyson-Holyfield golden era of the sport. Stone received many mediocre reviews prior to its release and I said to my wife, “Let’s skip it.” She said, “No. I’ve heard some good reviews and besides, most of the negative reviews are from people who know nothing about boxing or its history. We should see this.”

As usual, she was completely, totally right. Like the 2000 movie Ali starring Will Smith, Hands of Stone gets all the important things correct and captures the essence and manner of the main character perfectly. Duran grew up on the streets of Panama’s slums, using boxing as a way out. He earned the nickname Hands of Stone early on, because of his ability to hit so hard, in spite of his small stature (a 5’ 7” 135-lb lightweight).

After coming to the U.S, a string of impressive wins put him in line for a title fight against highly regarded lightweight champion Ken Buchannan of Scotland in September 1972. Buchannan was no match for Duran’s relentless aggression, and Duran won after the fight was stopped following the 13th round, with Buchannan faking having taken a low blow, claiming he couldn’t continue. What a prophetic and ironic way this would prove to be for Duran to win the title. The referee rightly discounted Buchannan’s hollow claim and awarded the fight to Duran on a technical knockout (a TKO in boxing terminology).

In 1976, the U.S. Olympic boxing team won an unprecedented five gold medals in Montreal, a team featuring the soon-to-be famous Spinks brothers (Michael and Leon). The star of the team, however, was unquestionably the charismatic and telegenic Ray Leonard, who took the nickname of a former boxing great “Sugar,” after Sugar Ray Robinson. A new generation of sports fans now knew only of ‘Sugar Ray’ Leonard.

Turning professional right after the Olympic Games ended, Leonard proved that his talents and abilities as a boxer were truly special. His articulate manner and sharp wit — along with his handsome looks and cool demeanor — reminded many people of the previous boxing generation’s big attraction, Muhammad Ali. That he was trained/managed by the same person as Ali (Angelo Dundee) and hyped by boxing’s biggest broadcaster (Howard Cosell) as was Ali, only added to that perception. Leonard was boxing’s big draw, in an era when boxing enjoyed perhaps its greatest popularity and — because of satellite broadcast technology — its biggest worldwide audience.

There are, I fancy, few more avid admirers of James Madison than I. But reading through Bernard Bailyn’s extraordinarily brilliant The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, I have to admit that the anti-Federalists who opposed those, like the temporary allies Madison and Alexander Hamilton, who argued for ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, had a point.

Their basic argument was that the Constitution as framed by the Federalists would subordinate the rights of the individual states and impose exactly the same sort of tyranny that the colonists had rebelled against in 1776. “Examination of the Constitution revealed,” Bailyn noted, “a taxing power in the hands of the proposed national government that would prove to be as unqualified by the restraints of the states as Parliament’s had been by the colonial assemblies.”

Here’s Patrick (“Give men liberty or give me death”) Henry on what would happen should the Constitution be adopted:

the Senate would live in splendor and a “great and mighty President” would “be supported in extravagant magnificence, so that the whole of our property may be taken by this American government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure.”

The anti-Federalist “Brutus” (probably Melancton Smith) dilated further on the economic calamity that awaited. The government’s power to “borrow money on the credit of the United States,” he warned, meant that

the Congress may mortgage any or all the revenues of the union . . . [and] may borrow of foreign nations a principal sum, the interest of which will be equal to the annual revenues of the country. By this means, they may create a national debt so large as to exceed the ability of the country ever to sink. I can scarcely contemplate a greater calamity that could befal this country than to be loaded with a debt exceeding their ability ever to discharge.

It’s a pity that “Brutus” couldn’t meet Barack Obama. They would have had a lot to talk about. CONTINUE AT SITE

It’s not even September yet, but I’m already hailing this USA Today item as the feelgood story of the year.

Read:

Two American fighter pilots who intercepted Syrian combat jets over northern Syria last week said they came within 2,000 feet of the planes without the Syrians aware they were being shadowed.

The tense encounter occurred after Syrian jets dropped bombs near a U.S. adviser team with Kurdish forces in northern Syria. The Pentagon warned Syria that American forces were authorized to take action to defend its troops. Syrian aircraft haven’t dropped bombs in the area since then, and the U.S. military is no longer operating continuous combat patrols there.

“I followed him around for all three of his loops,” one of the American pilots, a 38-year-old Air Force major, told USA TODAY Wednesday in the first detailed account of the incident. “He didn’t appear to have any idea I was there.”

The two pilots asked that their names be withheld for security reasons.

“The behavior stopped,” said Brig. Gen. Charles Corcoran, commander of the 380th Air Expeditionary Wing, which conducts airstrikes in Iraq and Syria from an undisclosed location in this region. “We made our point.”

But wait — it gets better:

Friday’s incident, as described by commanders here, began in the afternoon, when a Syrian aircraft was spotted entering the airspace around Hasakah, and the pair of F-22s, already in the area, raced toward them.

The captain said he quickly got on a common radio frequency in an effort to reach the Syrian aircraft, asking the pilot to identify himself and state his intentions. There was no response.

U.S. commanders also contacted the Russians by phone to seek information, but the Russians were unaware of the Syrian action.

At that point the only way to get information was to have the American pilots approach the Syrian planes, Su-24 Fencers, to determine if they were armed or dropping bombs.

The American pilots asked permission to get closer to the Syrian aircraft to determine if they were carrying weapons on their wings or appeared to be attacking ground targets. Normally pilots are under orders to keep their distance from Russian or Syrian planes to avoid a miscalculation.

Permission was granted. One of the F-22s watched as the other maneuvered behind the Syrian aircraft to get a closer look. After about 15 minutes, the Syrian jet left the area, apparently unaware it was being followed.

With the ongoing love fest between Turkey and Russia, there are several interesting and dangerous scenarios emerging for the United States. For years Incirlik Air Base has been the centerpiece of NATO forces on the southern tier of this alliance. This air base is also home to the U.S. nuclear force which serves as a deterrent to possible Russian adventurism.

Although it is a long arduous way for the Russians to gain access to this base, official requests have been made as a launch pad for Russian air strikes against Syrian rebels. Imagine, for the moment, a situation in which NATO permits this Russian access. Fifty U.S.-B61 nuclear warheads would be vulnerable to Russian intervention; a key U.S. deterrent would be rendered nugatory.

Moreover, there is the additional fear that these weapons of mass destruction are only 65 miles from the Syrian border and ISIS forces. Unaided by Turkish troops, it might be difficult for a small contingent of U.S. forces to prevent a breach in the present security arrangement.

Igor Morozov, a Russian official, said, “It just remains to come to an agreement with Erdogan that we get the NATO base Incirlik as [our] primary airbase.” Assuming the plausibility of this claim, Russian aircraft would be flying out of Iran and Turkey, a truly unprecedented situation.

Not only would this gesture add to Russian ascendency in the region, it would unequivocally demonstrate the diminished status of the United States. Russia has emerged as the Middle East “strong horse,” despite an economy rocked by failure and entirely dependent on the price of oil.

What has surprised U.S. State Department officials is the rapidity of this change. Part of the explanation lies with President Erdogan who believes the U.S. was at least partially responsible for the recent coup against his government by harboring Mr. Gulen – the man Erdogan believes planned and executed the plot against him.