Iran’s 2012 Jihad in Iraq - by Ryan Mauro

Posted by Ryan Mauro Bio ↓ on Oct 10th, 2011
FRONT PAGE

Moqtada al-Sadr is back and is thirsty for the blood of American soldiers in Iraq. The Iranian-backed cleric says he will revive his Mehdi Army militia and starting on January 1, 2012, he’s coming after every single one of the 3 to 4,000 U.S. soldiers remaining in Iraq.

On October 4, all of Iraq’s political parties but one agreed that U.S. trainers should be asked to stay past the 2011 deadline for withdrawal. The Iraqi government did not, however, agreed to give them immunity from prosecution as demanded by the U.S. The faction dissenting was the Sadrist bloc, the followers of Moqtada al-Sadr. He has vowed to attack any American soldier on Iraqi soil come 2012, even if they are trainers and not combat soldiers. The Obama Administration envisions reducing forces to 3-4,000, rebuffing the request of General Lloyd Austin to have 14-18,000 troops.

Al-Sadr has shown what he is capable of. He led a radical Shiite uprising that nearly threw the country into civil war, and has positioned himself as a powerful force in Iraqi politics. At its height, his Mehdi Army was 60,000-strong, far more than the force Al-Qaeda in Iraq mustered. Since he disbanded the militia, splinter groups have kept fighting. He went to Iran around the time of the 2007 surge, where he began studying in Qom to receive the title of Grand Ayatollah. With that addition to his resume, he has returned to Iraq to expel U.S. forces and become the religious leader of the Iraqi Shiites.

The U.S. military detected a mobilization of Al-Sadr’s forces in the south earlier this year when they attacked rival Shiites. The rhetoric of Moqtada al-Sadr became more and more heated. He threatened to “escalate military resistance” and one of his aides said, “We are all time bombs and detonators at the hands of Moqtada al-Sadr.” His website published a letter from a supporter expressing his eagerness to become a martyr once the jihad is declared and that no public property or civilians will be targeted. Al-Sadr’s response was to thank him.

Iranian proxies increased their attacks on U.S. forces when summer began. Kataib Hezbollah, whose leader resides in Iran, used Iranian arms. Two other proxies, the Promised Day Brigade and Asaib Ahl al-Haq, took credit for a string of rocket and mortar firings. The death toll for the month was the highest since 2008. Defense Secretary Panetta and General Lloyd Austin, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, spoke cryptically about how they’d respond. In August, the Iranian-backed attacks significantly declined. The Iranians backed down, but they also must have sensed that it was better to wait until 2012 when there are less American soldiers and attacks will be more acceptable.

It is unknown if al-Sadr can assemble the force he did before, but Iranian-backed proxies can make up the difference. Kaitab Hezbollah numbers only 1,000, but its training by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and armaments make it a threatening force. Asaib Ahl al-Haq gets $5 million every single month, along with weapons, from the Iranian regime. Al-Sadr and these proxies will capitalize upon the anger of Iraqis who disagree with the prolonged stay of the U.S. military.

Moqtada al-Sadr can also cause massive political instability by undermining the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. The massive protests in February against government inefficiency were a symptom of discontent. The Sadrists helped al-Maliki win a second term, but will never forget how he ordered the Iraqi military to crush the Mehdi Army. The Sadrists have 40 deputies in parliament and seven ministers in al-Maliki’s government. By withdrawing support for the unity government, he can cause a major political crisis and potentially bring al-Maliki down if he does not bend to his will.

The U.S. is putting together a covert campaign to deal with Iranian meddling as troop levels decrease. Reportedly, this will include secret operations to stop arms shipments to Iranian proxies. Some officials want the campaign to be regional in scope, targeting Iranian support to the Syrian government and terrorist groups outside of Iraq. The administration rejected this idea, and is limiting operations to Iraq.

The Iranian jihad could compel the Sunnis to again take up arms, perhaps embracing militias and Islamic extremists like Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The New York Times interviewed Iraqis around the country and found that many are afraid of Iranian domination. As a result, Iraqi public opinion has warmed up to the idea of extending the stay of American forces. However, this is not a large majority and so Iran’s proxies will have plenty of anger to use to their advantage. Iraqi Shiite opinion is very hostile to Iranian meddling, but a desire to expel U.S. forces among could override this hostility for some. Much will depend upon what the pro-withdrawal Shiites feel are appropriate means and whether it is worth rewarding Iran with greater influence.

Iraq gets little attention these days, but if Moqtada al-Sadr and his Iranian patrons have their way, that will suddenly and dramatically change beginning on January 1, 2012.

About Ryan Mauro

Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com, the national security adviser for the Christian Action Network, an analyst with Wikistrat and is a frequent contributor to Fox News. He can be contacted at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.

Another war? Why US troops were quietly sent to Uganda

THE LORD'S RESISTANCE ARMY

THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

BY JASON STRAZIUSO

Associated Press

NAIROBI, Kenya • Why is the U.S. sending its troops to finish off a fractured band of bush fighters in the middle of Africa? Political payback for the quiet sacrifices of Uganda’s troops in Somalia could be one reason.

President Barack Obama announced Friday he is dispatching about 100 U.S. troops — mostly special operations forces — to central Africa to advise in the fight against the Lord’s Resistance Army — a guerrilla group accused of widespread atrocities across several countries. The first U.S. troops arrived Wednesday.

Long considered one of Africa’s most brutal rebel groups, the Lord’s Resistance Army began its attacks in Uganda more than 20 years ago. But the rebels are at their weakest point in 15 years. Their forces are fractured and scattered, and the Ugandan military estimated earlier this year that only 200 to 400 fighters remain. In 2003 the LRA had 3,000 armed troops and 2,000 people in support roles.

But capturing LRA leader Joseph Kony — a ruthless and brutal thug — remains the highest priority for Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, a 25-year-leader who has committed thousands of troops to the African Union force in Somalia to fight militants from al-Shabab, a group with ties from al-Qaida.

The U.S. has not had forces in Somalia since pulling out shortly after the 1993 Black Hawk Down battle in Mogadishu in which 18 American troops died.

Some experts believe that the U.S. military advisers sent to Uganda could be a reward for the U.S.-funded Ugandan troops service in Somalia.

“I’ve been hearing that. I don’t know if our group necessarily agrees with that, but it definitely would make sense,” said Matt Brown, a spokesman for the Enough Project, a U.S. group working to end genocide and crimes against humanity, especially in central Africa.

“The U.S. doesn’t have to fight al-Qaida-linked Shabab in Somalia, so we help Uganda take care of their domestic security problems, freeing them up to fight a more dangerous — or a more pressing, perhaps — issue in Somalia. I don’t know if we would necessarily say that but it’s surely a plausible theory,” Brown said.

Col. Felix Kulayigye, Uganda’s military spokesman, told The Associated Press previously that Ugandan forces have long received “invaluable” support from the U.S. military, including intelligence sharing, in the fight against the LRA.

That support got a huge boost this week.

Though the deployment of 100 troops is relatively small, it marks a possible sea-change for Washington in overcoming its reluctance to commit troops to Africa. Even the U.S. Africa Command, which oversees U.S. military operations on the continent, is based in Germany. The U.S. maintains a base in the tiny East African nation of Djibouti, but most troops there are not on combat missions.

The LRA poses no known security threat to the United States, and a report from the Enough Project last year said that Kony no longer has complete and direct command and control over each LRA unit.

But the group’s tactics have been widely condemned as vicious. Few are expected to object to Obama’s move to help regional security forces eliminate a group that has slaughtered thousands of civilians and routinely kidnaps children to be child soldiers and sex slaves.

Kony is wanted by the International Criminal Court for his group’s attacks, which now take place in South Sudan, Congo and the Central African Republic.

Still, Bill Roggio, the managing editor of The Long War Journal, called the Obama administration’s rationale for sending troops “puzzling,” especially since the LRA does not present a national security threat to the U.S. — “despite what President Obama said.”

“The timing of this deployment is odd, especially given the administration’s desire to disengage from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Roggio said. “It is unclear why the issue has resurfaced, but the administration may be rewarding Uganda” for its military contributions in Somalia, he said.

Obama said that although the U.S. troops will be combat equipped, they will not engage LRA forces unless it is in self-defense.

In recent months, the administration has stepped up its support for Uganda. In June, the Pentagon moved to send nearly $45 million in military equipment to Uganda and Burundi, another country contributing in Somalia. The aid included four small drones, body armor and night-vision and communications gear and is being used in the fight against al-Shabab.

Last November, the U.S. announced a new strategy to counter the LRA’s attacks on civilians. U.S. legislation passed last year with huge bipartisan support calling for the coordination of U.S. diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military efforts against the LRA. That’s one reason, Brown said, Obama may be sending in advisers. He said that regional stability is also good for U.S. interests.

“It really doesn’t take that many U.S. resources,” Brown said. “You’ve got 100 troops to go in and take care of the LRA problem once and for all.”

——

Jason Straziuso has been AP’s bureau chief in East Africa since 2009.

NOTE:

How long before combat troops, sent into a highly terrorist-run areas in deepest Africa, remain non-combatant? Last year, the House and Senate were "Democrat" majority - would be interesting to know if the House would have approved this after November's elections.  ... Yes, we remember Black Hawk "down".  This administration has not convinced the America public that "our interests" in Africa are for America's "national" security.  Is the U.S. army now becoming a "peace-keeping" army much like the UN peacekeepers?  "Advisers"? "Sent quietly"!  I guess!  Why isn't this headline news in the mainstream media?!  Stay tuned .... will update as more is revealed.

The Nobel Prize committee is shaking their heads and saying, "Whoa!  Didn't see this one coming!"  

"Good Morning Vietnam!" ... Oops! I mean Uganda!

Note:  It's Friday afternoon and time for the White House to reveal yet another war to the American people!  Fridays' seem to be Obama's best day to announce bad news.  It was on a Friday afternoon, months back, when we learned troops were sent to Libya.  Now, this administration can say all it wants about "national interest", blah, blah, blah!  However, sending troops to Africa as in an "advisory" compacity has the same ring as sending small waves of troops to Vietnam; ... just a war that escalated with time; with now a Memorial in Washington, DC as America's witness to how many of our troops died over a period of ten years.  Americans today have been enduring another ten year,plus war that this administration refuses to call a "War on Terror"; talks about bringing troops home; while in his back pocket, SURPRISE! Do the Occupier demonstrators know about this?! Ladies and Gentlemen, WELCOME TO AFRICA!  It must be Friday!  Has Joseph Kony become America's "NEW" bin Laden?!                                                                                                                                                       

Joseph Kony

Hey, Hey LBJ

Obama Sends 100 US Troops to Uganda to Help Combat Lord’s Resistance Army

ABC NEWS

October 14, 2011

Jake Tapper

Two days ago President Obama authorized the deployment to Uganda of approximately 100 combat-equipped U.S. forces to help regional forces “remove from the battlefield” – meaning capture or kill – Lord’s Resistance Army leader Joseph Kony and senior leaders of the LRA.

The forces will deploy beginning with a small group and grow over the next  month to 100. They will ultimately go to Uganda, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, with the permission of those countries.

The president made this announcement in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Friday afternoon, saying that “deploying these U.S. Armed Forces furthers U.S. national security interests and foreign policy and will be a significant contribution toward counter-LRA efforts in central Africa.”

He said that “although the U.S. forces are combat-equipped, they will only be providing information, advice, and assistance to partner nation forces, and they will not themselves engage LRA forces unless necessary for self-defense.”

The president said that for more than two decades the LRA has been responsible for having “murdered, raped, and kidnapped tens of thousands of men, women, and children in central Africa” and continues to “commit atrocities across the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan that have a disproportionate impact on regional security.”

The president in his letter noted that Congress passed “the Lord’s Resistance Army Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act,” signed into law on May 24, 2010, in which, the president said, “the Congress also expressed support for increased, comprehensive U.S. efforts to help mitigate and eliminate the threat posed by the LRA to civilians and regional stability.”

When the president signed that letter in May 2010,  he said the bill “crystallizes the commitment of the United States to help bring an end to the brutality and destruction that have been a hallmark of the LRA across several countries for two decades, and to pursue a future of greater security and hope for the people of central Africa. The Lord’s Resistance Army preys on civilians – killing, raping, and mutilating the people of central Africa; stealing and brutalizing their children; and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.  Its leadership, indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, has no agenda and no purpose other than its own survival.  It fills its ranks of fighters with the young boys and girls it abducts.  By any measure, its actions are an affront to human dignity.”

Human Rights Watch has a great deal of information about the infamous LRA.

Update: A Defense Department official tells ABC’s Luis Martinez at the Pentagon that the U.S. troops will be in Africa “for a few months in an advisory role.”

- Jake Tapper

Pete Seeger: Where Have All the Flowers Gone?

See: Hot Air for more information on our "newest" enemy!

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/14/good-news-obama-sending-100-u-s-combat-troops-to-uganda-for-some-reason/

Obama's Red October Uprising - By Mark Alexander

THE PATRIOT POST

By Mark Alexander · Thursday, October 13, 2011

The Resurgence of the American Socialist Movement

"We must make our election between economy and Liberty, or profusion and servitude." --Thomas Jefferson

By now, you're aware that the seeds of socialist dissent are being sown across our great nation, mostly within the fetid soil of urban centers, where cadres of activists coalesce under the aegis of "Occupy [fill in the blank]." It would be difficult to avoid the fanfare, given the amount ofLeftmedia coverage (read: promotion) that these protests receive.

According to my colleague Brent Bozell at Media Research Center, the protests were the subject of "more broadcast network stories in the first nine days than the Tea Party drew in the first nine months."

Typical of the adoring coverage was this missive from ABC's Diane Sawyer, who claimed the occupiers "have spread to more than 250 American cities, more than a thousand countries -- every continent but Antarctica." (Seriously, this drama queen actually said "more than a thousand countries.")

In stark ideological contrast to the Tea Party Movement, which seeks to restore Liberty and Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution, the socialist "Flea Party" movement occupying city blocks across our nation is composed of the latest generation of useful idiots and debauched opportunists.

Conservative political observers have uniformly written off these protests because they're populated by the usual suspects -- a mix of leftist protagonists supported by Ivy League ignorati, collegiate lemmings, paid union thugs, the socially disenfranchised, and a handful of unwitting poor folks. Though these protestors exhibit limited "intellectual occupancy," I would caution that underestimating the threat to Liberty that these Occupier protests pose is a serious error. Reputable polling firms find that more than 35 percent of likely voters support the protests.

Just who is behind the Occupiers?

Here's the short answer: Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist bourgeoisie.

As our editors have comprehensively revealed through the pages of The Patriot Post, from the time Obama first emerged on the national political scene in 2004, to the rise of his present-day regime, Team Obama has crafted a perilous national security crisis bent on "fundamentally transforming the United States of America" by imploding free enterprise and replacing it withDemocratic Socialism.

So, while the Occupiers are of many guises their common thread is a storm-trooper adherence to Obama's Marxist agenda.

Memo to Barack's Red Brigade protestors on Wall Street: I know you will be shocked, SHOCKED, to learn that Obama received more campaign funding] from big Wall Street investment firms ($16 million) than any other politician on record, fully 20 percent of his campaign revenue in 2008. Wall Street firms have already contributed $7.2 to Obama's 2012 campaign.

This latest manifestation of socialist malcontents was organized by "Occupy Wall Street," a front for the Marxist General Assembly movement, whose communications director, Brian Phillips, clearly articulated the organization's primary objective "to overthrow the government."

That goal has been echoed in the last two weeks from coast to coast, as affirmed by an Occupy LA leader, who proclaimed that nonviolence is not an option: "[T]he bourgeoisie won't go without violent means. Revolution! Yes, revolution that is led by the working class. Long live revolution! Long live socialism!"

Their populist national slogan, "99 percenters v. 1 percenters," implies that the American people are 99-to-1 in favor of forcibly redistributing the possessions of the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans to the other 99 percent.

This slogan, and its underlying message, is being promoted by William Ayers, the former Weather Underground radical. Ayers issued a "collective statement" for the Occupiers concluding "that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power."

As you may recall, Ayers is a close friend and former neighbor of Obama back in Barack's "community organizer" days in the fashionable Hyde Park section of Chicago. It was Ayers who hosted, in his own home, the first fundraiser for Obama's successful 1996 Illinois State Senate campaign, thus launching BO's political career.

This latest rash of socialist protests has crafted its classist message around the revolution-tested politics of disparity, under the leadership of old-school radicals like Ayers.

They are building on Obama's classist theme of "asking people who have benefited the most over the last decade to share in the sacrifice." Of the current 99-percenter protests, Obama concludes, "I think it expresses the frustrations the American people feel."

Obama's DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was a bit more candid: "The protests are symbolic of the frustration that middle class folks and working people feel. ... We understand their frustration, we applaud their activism and hopefully they're going to help get the Republicans in Washington's attention so we shift the Republicans' focus from just Barack Obama's job, to everyone's job."

Nancy Pelosi added, "The message of the protesters is a message for the establishment everyplace. No longer will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street. ... God bless them for their spontaneity. It's independent ... it's young, it's spontaneous, it's focused. And it's going to be effective."

Obama's "Red October" uprising takes its inspiration from the 1917 Social Democratic Labour Party protests in Russia, which gave rise to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Then, as now, the economy was in serious decline. Then, as now, Bolshevik revolutionaries were young, some 85 percent of them under age 30. Then, as now, they issued decrees giving rise to "the most militant and class-conscious" protests.

When their protests had grown to sufficient strength, the Socialist Democrats concluded, "an armed uprising is inevitable, and that the time for it is fully ripe."

It was a brief and bloody revolution, and at its conclusion, the protestors implemented policies that mirror proposals advocated by SDLP of today, the Occupiers: All real property was seized and redistributed, companies and factories were nationalized, all private wealth was confiscated by the state, Church properties were seized, and debts were repudiated.

Fast-forward about 100 years to the "99 percenters v. 1 percenters."

Today, almost 35 percent of Americans are dependent upon government subsidies, and 40 percent of Americans pay no income tax and thus have no stake in the cost of government. Consequently, most are predisposed to vote for the redistribution of others' incomes rather than work for their own. Further, if the Supreme Court rules that ObamaCare comports with the so-called "living constitution" rather than strikes it down based upon Rule of Law, by 2013 the number of Americans who depend on the largess of the central government will swell to well over 50 percent.

Combine the dependent ranks, the sprouting seeds of socialist unrest and the grim reality that the American economy is at serious risk of collapsing altogether under the Obama "[debt bomb |http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2011/02/10/the-debt-bomb-showdown/]", and we have all the ingredients for an even bigger Red October uprising today and just before the election of 2012.

Should Barack Hussein Obama be re-elected in 2012, a prospect that, admittedly, seems rather inconceivable today, it would create the proverbial "perfect storm" to finish transforming the national landscape from one characterized by Liberty to one smothered by tyranny.

America is a great nation with a resilient economy and political system, but it is only kept so to the extent that the American people uphold the principles and values upon which that greatness is founded. However, for those who remain complacent in the belief that Liberty is self-perpetuating, that the question of transition of power by bullets rather than ballots is archaic, I remind you that those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it. Of such complacency, Samuel Adams wrote, "If ye love wealth better than Liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"