- May 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
- ARMS RACE
- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
- Benjamin Netanyahu
- BREITBART -WH
- CORONA VIRUS
- Counter Terrorism
- COUNTER TERRORISM
- CYBBER SECURITY
- CYBER CRIME
- CYBER INTELLIGENCE
- CYBER TERRORISM
- DARK WEB
- DEFENCE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
- Defense Foreign Policy
- DEFENSE INDUSTRY
- Defense Intelligence Agency
- Department of Homeland Security
- DIA, COUNTER CYBER SECURITY
- DOMESTIC TERROR
- Domestic Terrorism
- FAKE NEWS OR NOT
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- GREAT BRITIN
- GUCIFIER 20
- Hizb ut-Tahrir
- HomeLand Security
- HOMELAND TERRORISM
- HUMAN INTELLIGENCE
- IDEOLOGIES AND RELIGION
- Intelligence Community
- INTELLIGENCE TALK
- International affairs
- INTERNET SURVAILANCE
- IRAN REGIME CHANGE
- IRAQ INVASION
- IRAQI CHRISTIANS
- ISLAMIC MILITARY COUNTER TERRORISM COALITION
- LAW ENFORCEMENT
- MI5, MI6
- Military News
- Modern Slavery
- Money Launder
- MONEY LAUNDRY
- N. KOREA
- National Counterterrorism Center
- NORT KOREA
- NUCLEAR WEAPONS
- ORGANS INDUSTRY
- POLITICAL ISLAM
- RACIST MOVEMENTS IN USA
- Saudi Arabia
- SAUDI ARABIA
- SAUDI-ISRAELI RELATIONS
- SECRETARY OF TREASURY
- Security and Intelligence
- SEX TRAFFICKING
- SHIN BET
- STATE DEPRTMENT
- SYRIA WMD
- Syrian Army
- TRUMP – IMMIGRATION
- united nations
- US POLITICS
- USA EMBASSIES
- USA Embassies and Consulates
- USA-N.KOREA Conflict
- VETERANS AFFAIRS
- white house
Like Father, Like Daughter? Ilhan Omar’s Father was Top Propaganda Official in Genocidal Barre Regime
Far Left Communist Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar’s father and other Somalian war crimes perpetrators are currently living illegally in the United States.
No wonder she supports communists, terrorists and illegal aliens!
The Gateway Pundit has obtained information that is damning for Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar.
Omar’s father, Nur Omar Mohamed (aka Nur Said Elmi Mohamed), is connected to the former dictator in Somalia, Said Barre. Nur and other former Barre accomplices are living in the US illegally.
We now have evidence that seems to indicate that Ilhan Omar’s father (Nur Said Elmi Mohamed) worked for the cruel regime of Barre and came to the U.S. with his daughter claiming to be victims of the cruel regime.
Maxamuud-Aar uses one twitter account specifically to defend victims of violence in Somalia and has shown that Omar’s father is a war criminal. Aar also has another account in Twitter as @MoHussein, in which he also points out whom Omar’sfather truly is.
What’s more, there have been people of the Somali community in MINNEAPOLIS, MN, whom have spoken out on how Ilhan Omar and those within the community who back her have used intimidation and threats to silence other members of the Somali community.
What’s more it seems that some secrets of Ilhan Omar and her family have been exposed in City Pages when during an interview that Ilhan Omar made with city pages’ Cory Zurowski, she said the name of her father is “Nur Said Elmi Mohamed”, but a day later Zurowski changed some information from the interview by changing the name of Omar’s father to “Nur Omar Muhamed” and also changing how many brothers Ilhan Omar has from 5 which Zurowski wrote in the original article and changed it to three brothers.
The original article also points out that Omar’s father was a friend of, and served with none other than former Colonel Yusuf Abdi Ali whom served as Colonel of the Somalian Army’s 5th Mechanized Brigade in 1987 under Barre’s dictatorship.
Both Omar’s father and Yusuf Abdi Ali fled from Somalia after the dictatorship of Barre was deposed.
To me both Ali and Omar’s father look identical which is quite strange.
What’s more I found the following website which shows information about Yusuf Abdi Ali and also has a picture of him.
Colonel Yusuf Abdi Ali, also called Tukeh, is a Somali native and a resident of the United States.
In 1984, Abdi Ali and his soldiers allegedly terrorized the dominant Isaaq population by arbitrarily detaining individuals and subjecting them to torture and cruel and inhuman treatment, including starvation and beatings, and summary executions. They allegedly also burned homes, looted the wealth of dwellers and ransacked livestock. Abdi Ali is alleged to have personally participated in many instances of torture and summary executions.
Abdi Ali fled to Canada and applied for asylum. However, in October 1992, he was deported when evidence of his alleged brutality emerged. In 1993, he went to the US, where he filed for permanent residency. Despite facing deportation in 1994, in 1996 he was permitted to return to the US where he has lived openly ever since.
On 26 June 2017, the Supreme Court denied a request for judicial review of the lower court’s decision, thus affirming its outcome. This opened the path to proceed to hold Abdi Ali responsible for torture and extrajudicial killings against Warfaa under the Torture Victim Protection Act.
The case is currently ongoing.
edit on 19-7-2019 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.
The profiling of critics by Turkish embassies, part of large-scale spying on diaspora groups that has irked many host governments, has taken a new twist in Sri Lanka,South Asian country that was recently hit by a string of terrorist attacks.
The Turkish Embassy in Colombo leaked the names of critics of Turkey’s Islamist ruler, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, accusing them of terrorism, when no evidence to support any of these ludicrous charges leveled by the government in Turkey exists. The critics are believed to be affiliated with the Gülen movement, a vocal critic of the Erdoğan regime over pervasive corruption in the government and Erdoğan’s arming and funding of radical jihadist groups in Syria and Libya.
The names of 50 Turks, mostly teachers and businesspeople who had been living in Sri Lanka for years, were released with their passport numbers, apparently as a result of work clandestinely carried out by the Turkish ambassador and his staff at the embassy. The goal was to push Sri Lankan authorities to crack down on Erdoğan government critics in the South Asian country. The first attempt by the embassy to smear this civic group was made in 2015, a move that was was initially balked at by the Sri Lankan government. It was not surprising given the fact that most governments have refused to work with Turkey in going after Erdoğan’s critics, who have not broken the laws of their host countries and certainly have not been involved in any crimes.
Yet, the Turkish Embassy in Colombo, under relentless pressure from a headquarters that was demanding results, continued to raise the matter with Sri Lankan authorities in 2017 and 2018. Many Turkish diplomats are obviously afraid that they could end up in jail just like some 600 diplomats who were dismissed and labeled overnight as terrorists in Turkey without any effective judicial or administrative investigation.
When churches and hotels in the capital of Colombo were targeted in a series of coordinated suicide bombings on April 21, 2019, killing 259 people, the embassy staff saw an opportunity to make a fresh attempt against Erdoğan critics just like scavengers that feed on carcasses. Branding them as terrorists, Turkish Ambassador Tunca Özçuhadar tried to exploit sensitivities in Sri Lanka and spin his own story in a bid to portray innocent and law-abiding Turkish expatriates in Sri Lanka as terrorists. In a statement put out on May 3, 2019, the Turkish Embassy admitted that it had been sharing with Sri Lankan authorities information on teachers and businesspeople affiliated with the Gülen movement for the last four years.
The illegal profiling by the embassy was also revealed by former State Foreign Minister Wasantha Senanayake, who announced that the Turkish ambassador had handed over a list of 50 Turks to the ministry when he was in office. Later, the ambassador even bypassed the foreign ministry and directly raised the issue with the Defense Ministry in the hope that he could secure the deportation or extradition of critics. The embassy faxed lists of critics to the Defense Ministry on at least two occasions.
Turkey has branded one-third of all its diplomats including high-profile ambassadors who served as advisors to prime ministers and presidents as terrorists; purged over 4,000 judges and prosecutors; and expelled over 70 percent of its generals and admirals on dubious terrorism charges. Over half a million people including journalists, teachers, professors and human rights defenders have faced criminal charges since 2016. Some 15 percent of the police force, mostly veterans and senior chiefs, have been arrested on terrorism charges.
Turkey has held the world record in recent years in terms of jailing journalists under abusive anti-terror charges. According to the Stockholm Center for Freedom, nearly 200 journalists and media workers are behind bars in Turkey on charges of terrorism for writing critically about the government.
The scandalous leak of private information by the embassy and the branding of teachers as terrorists prompted some on the list to file complaints with Sri Lankan authorities. Nordic Monitor has learned that eight Turks in Sweden who served in Sri Lanka at Gülen-affiliated schools and institutions between 2002 and 2015 lodged formal grievances with the Sri Lankan Embassy in Stockholm, asking for an explanation for the published list. Some of the people named in the list have never even been in Sri Lanka, raising questions as to how the embassy gathered the data.
“It is unacceptable that I have been declared a terrorist in Sri Lanka, where I worked for two years! I’m willing to do whatever it takes to correct this mistake as soon as possible. If necessary, I will make a request to international institutions such as the UN to rectify this situation. It is a clear assault on my personal rights that I was declared a terrorist in Sri Lankan newspapers without any evidence. I hope this serious mistake is corrected soon. Otherwise, I will act to preserve my rights in Sri Lankan and international courts,” one Turkish national wrote to the Sri Lankan Embassy in Stockholm.
About a dozen Turkish nationals who fled the long arm of Erdoğan in Sri Lanka have taken refuge in Sweden as political asylum seekers. Embassy officials responded by saying that they had conveyed the grievances to headquarters in Sri Lanka and asked for an explanation about the leaked list of names.
It is not uncommon to uncover sensitive data like personally identifiable information (PII), login credentials, financial information, and medical records being offered for sale on the dark web. However, it is incredibly rare for criminal hackers to steal and then attempt to sell military documents on an open market.
Read Full Leaked Report
Read Full Leaked Report
Here’s a video documenting the evolution of Syrian Army tanks during the several-year civil war, which include both improvised “DIY” type modifications as well as technological upgrades organically-developed and received from allies.
Susceptibility to rocket propelled grenades and recoilless rifle rounds quickly forced Syrian troops to develop improvised countermeasures to increase survivability. They piled sandbags on top of the armor, and hung chains and welded steel cages around the hull of their tanks. The idea was to detonate shape-charged warheads prematurely to exhaust their spalling distance before actually reaching the vehicle’s hull.
Later, when the rebels began receiving anti tank guided missiles (ATGM) like the BGM-71 TOW through President Obama’s arm and equip program, the improvised armor systems were of little use. Soon, the Syrian military began developing active protection systems like the Sarab variants that use infrared lights to mitigate the threats of enemy missiles.
Donald Trump’s declaration of readiness to negotiate without a precondition with Iran and his explicit statements about Washington’s reluctance to a regime change project in Tehran indicates that the United States intends to bring Iran to the negotiating table by imposing economic sanctions and political pressure. The goal of Washington is to bring Tehran to the negotiating table. He goes on to say that he does not want the United States to engage with Iran in the phase of military conflicts. Washington seems to have realized the limitations of its national and military power after the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the events that followed, and it does not seem necessary to launch a rally on regime change.
Another important fact is that there is no active anti-regime force inside Iran that Washington can unite with and begin a regime change operation. In Iran, there is no rebellion, no coup d’état or protest streams. The Green Movement, which considers itself inherited from the reform movement of 1376, does not believe in a subversion of government. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, Green Movement Moveers, despite the delinquency and other problems, refused to question the legitimacy of Iran’s Supreme Leader Sayed Ali Husseini Khamenei. The result of the 2009 presidential election was controversial, and Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi did not accept it. In that election, Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was announced victorious. After Mr. Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi did not accept the result, popular waves came to the streets and protested the result of the election. Khamenei’s legitimacy was questioned along the lines of the demonstration, but the leaders of the Green Movement did not want to dispel the slogan of the military overthrow that Mr. Khamenei was at the head of.
The Green Movement, the reform movement, and even the supporters of Iran’s current president, Hassan Rouhani, do not want a gun battle for the fall of government in the theory. Reform Movement Leader Seyed Mohammad Khatami believes that democratic capacities are in the constitution and the current Iranian system, and should activate it and lead to more democracy. They are in favor of gradual democratization of Iran. Their aspirations are to increase the qualifications of elected institutions and reduce the qualifications of non-elected institutions. This nonviolent movement can not overthrow a coalition in a united war.
The reality of the riot, revolution and coup in Iran indicates that the legitimacy of the current leader of Iran has not been hurt very seriously. In 1996, a powerful revolutionary movement was formed in Iranian cities and it became clear that the last Shah of Iran lost its legitimacy. Seyyed Roohollah Mousavi Khomeini led the revolution. With the fall of the monarchy, its legitimacy was transferred to the deceased Khomeini. The monarchy is an institution whose legitimacy has a strong roots in the religious and cultural narratives of the region, the military’s overwhelming self-control of a major political legitimacy. This legacy was legacy and traditional. In the past, the power struggle was limited to the members of the royal family, and the executive and political powers were exercised between them. If they ruined the kingdom, he would turn his son to his successor. But in the 1979 revolution of Iran, masses of people came to the streets, and the scope of the power struggle was broad. But at the end of the work, the legitimacy of the monarchy was transferred to Khomeini, and he laid the foundation for an ideological religious rule. This religious government, but along with the religious legitimacy, considered the legitimacy of the election itself. Unlike the Saudi government and the Taliban, the religious government of Iran recognizes electoral legitimacy and selective institutions. The existence of electoral institutions has led political forces to come together in elections. Perhaps the existence of these elected institutions and the electoral institution has caused the political force to overthrow inside Iran. With the death of Khomeini, his legitimacy and authority were transferred to Khamenei, and he is currently in charge of the whole. Since all political, administrative and religious power is in his hands, the political science theorists regard the Iranian regime as an undemocratic one. The religious theory that sees the government as the right of one jurisprudent is also contradictory to the foundations of democracy. But opponents of the Iranian government’s exiles have not been able to build a social base for themselves within Iran. They have lost their ties to Iran. Perhaps this is why no foreign power, including America, desires to overthrow the Iranian government using military force and considers it useless.
But it is clear from the current US government’s behavior that the government wants to turn Iran from an hostile state to a US-friendly government. The US Secretary of State last year demanded 12 Washington calls from Tehran. Stopping Tehran’s nuclear and missile programs, capturing hostility with Israel, ending Iran’s support for Shiite militias in the Middle East and the withdrawal of Iranian troops from Syria are among the most important of these. The United States now says it intends to force Tehran to put pressure on Iran to negotiate and negotiate with Washington on these issues. If Iran accepts all the demands of the United States, Washington has promised to establish normal relations with that country and will cooperate. In other words, acceptance of the demands of the United States by Tehran makes Iran a friend of America.
But it seems that Iran’s leaders do not currently intend to negotiate with the United States. Iran is waiting to be thrown off in the US election in 2020. But if Turkmen wins in that election, it is not clear what the leaders of Iran will decide. The enthusiastic tramp is that air.
ORIGINAL TEXT IN FARSI \ PERSIAN LANGUAGE
اعلام آمادهگی دونالد ترمپ برای مذاکرهی بدون پیششرط با ایران و سخنان صریح او در مورد عدم تمایل واشنگتن به پروژهی تغییر رژیم در تهران، نشاندهندهی آن است که امریکا قصد دارد با اعمال تحریم اقتصادی و فشارهای سیاسی، ایران را روی میز مذاکره بیاورد. هدف واشنگتن روی میز مذاکره آوردن تهران است. از سخنان ترمپ و دیگر مقامهای امریکایی برمیآید که او نمیخواهد ایالات متحده با ایران وارد فاز درگیریهای نظامی شود. به نظر میرسد که واشنگتن پس از لشکرکشی به عراق در سال ۲۰۰۳ و حوادثی که پس از آن واقع شد، محدودیتهای قدرت ملی و نظامی خودش را درک کرده است و لزومی نمیبیند که برای تغییر رژیم به ایران هم لشکرکشی کند.
واقعیت مهم دیگر این است که در داخل ایران هم نیروی فعال ضد رژیم وجود ندارد که واشنگتن بتواند با آن متحد شود و عملیات تغییر رژیم را آغاز کند. در ایران نه شورشگری است، نه کودتا و نه موجهای مردمی معترض در خیابانها دیده میشود. جنبش سبز که خودش را وارث جنبش اصلاحات سال ۱۳۷۶ میداند، به براندازی قهری حکومت باور ندارد. میرحسین موسوی و مهدی کروبی رهبران جنبش سبز به رغم تحمل حصر و مشکلات دیگر، حاضر نشدند مشروعیت سید علیحسینی خامنهای رهبر ایران را زیر سوال ببرند. نتیجهی انتخابات ریاست جمهوری سال ۱۳۸۸ جنجالی شد و آقایان میرحسین موسوی و مهدی کروبی آن را نپذیرفتند. در آن انتخابات آقای محمود احمدینژاد پیروز اعلام شد. پس از این که آقای موسوی و مهدی کروبی نتیجه را نپذیرفتند، موجهای مردمی به خیابان آمدند و به نتیجهی آن انتخابات اعتراض کردند. در حواشی این تظاهرات هم مشروعیت آقای خامنهای زیر سوال رفت، اما رهبران جنبش سبز نخواستند که شعار سرنگونی نظامی را که آقای خامنهای در رأس آن است سر دهند.
جنبش سبز، جنبش اصلاحات و حتا طرفداران آقای حسن روحانی رییسجمهور کنونی ایران، در تیوری هم خواستار جنگ مسلحانه برای سقوط حکومت نیستند. کسانی مثل سید محمدخاتمی رهبر جنبش اصلاحات به این باور اند که ظرفیتهای دموکراتیکی در قانون اساسی و نظام کنونی ایران است و باید آن را فعال کرد و به دموکراسی بیشتر رسید. آنان طرفدار دموکراتیزه شدن تدریجی ایران اند. آرمان آنان بیشتر شدن صلاحیتهای نهادهای انتخابی و کاسته شدن صلاحیتهای نهادهای غیر انتخابی است. این جنبش خشونتپرهیز به هیچ وجه نمیتواند در یک جنگ گرم متحد یک نیروی برانداز باشد.
واقعیت نبود شورش، انقلاب و کودتا در ایران نشاندهندهی آن است که مشروعیت رهبر کنونی ایران به صورت بسیار جدی و اساسی صدمه ندیده است. در سال ۱۳۷۵ جنبش انقلابی نیرومندی در شهرهای ایران شکل گرفت و با گسترش آن روشن شد که آخرین شاه ایران مشروعیتش را از دست داده است. سید روحالله موسوی خمینی رهبری آن انقلاب را به دوش گرفت. با سقوط سلطنت مشروعیت آن نهاد به مرحوم خمینی انتقال یافت. سلطنت نهادی است که مشروعیتش ریشهی نیرومندی در روایتهای مذهبی و فرهنگی این منطقه داشت، نفس غلبهی نظامی به یک سرلشکر مشروعیت سیاسی به بار میآورد. این مشروعیت میراثی و سنتی بود. در گذشته منازعهی قدرت هم محدود به اعضای خاندان سلطنتی بود و اختیارات اجرایی و سیاسی بین آنان دستبهدست میشد. اگر شاهی را خلع میکردند، پسرش را به جانشینی او بر میگزیدند. ولی در انقلاب ۱۳۵۷ ایران تودههای مردم به خیابان آمدند و گسترهی منازعهی قدرت وسیع شد. اما در پایان کار مشروعیت نهاد سلطنت به شخص خمینی انتقال یافت و او یک حکومت ایدیولوژیک دینی را اساس گذاشت. این حکومت دینی اما در کنار مشروعیت مذهبی، مشروعیت انتخاباتی نیز برای خودش در نظر گرفت. حکومت دینی ایران برخلاف حکومت عربستان و امارت طالبان، مشروعیت انتخاباتی را به رسمیت میشناسد و نهادهای انتخابی دارد. وجود نهادهای انتخاباتی سبب شده است که نیروهای سیاسی در انتخاباتها به مصاف همدیگر بروند. شاید وجود همین نهادهای انتخابی و نهاد انتخابات سبب شده است که نیروی سیاسی برانداز در داخل ایران شکل نگیرد. با مرگ خمینی، مشروعیت و اختیارات او به خامنهای انتقال کرد و او در حال حاضر اختیاردار کل است. از آنجایی که تمام قدرت سیاسی، اجرایی و مذهبی به دست او است، نظریهپردازان علم سیاست، نظام ایران را غیر دموکراتیک میدانند. نظریهی مذهبیای که حکومت را حق یک فقیه میداند نیز با مبانی دموکراسی در تضاد است. ولی مخالفان خارجنشین حکومت ایران، نتوانستهاند، پایگاه اجتماعی برای خودشان در داخل ایران بسازند. آنان ربطشان را با داخل ایران از دست دادهاند. شاید به همین دلیل است که هیچ قدرت خارجی از جمله امریکا، میل به براندازی حکومت ایران با استفاده از نیروی نظامی ندارد و آن را بی فایده میداند.
اما از رفتار حکومت کنونی ایالات متحده معلوم میشود که این حکومت میخواهد ایران را از یک دولت خصم به یک دولت دوست امریکا بدل کند. وزیر خارجهی امریکا سال گذشته ۱۲ خواست واشنگتن از تهران را رسانهای کرد. توقف برنامههای هستهای و موشکی تهران، دست برداری از دشمنی با اسراییل، پایان حمایت ایران از نیروهای شبهنظامی شیعه در خاورمیانه و خروج نظامیان ایرانی از سوریه، از مهمترین این خواستها است. امریکا حالا میگوید که قصد دارد با اعمال فشار اقتصادی بر ایران، تهران را وادار سازد تا روی میز مذاکره بیاید و با واشنگتن روی این مسایل مذاکره کند و به توافق برسد. اگر ایران تمام خواستهای امریکا را بپذیرد، واشنگتن وعده کرده است که با آن کشور روابط عادی ایجاد میکند و آن را همکاری خواهد کرد. به بیان دیگر پذیرفتن خواستهای امریکا از سوی تهران، ایران را به دولت دوست امریکا بدل میکند.
اما به نظر میرسد که رهبران ایران در حال حاضر قصد مذاکره با امریکا را ندارند. ایران منتظر است که در انتخابات سال ۲۰۲۰ امریکا ترمپ ببازد. ولی اگر ترمپ در آن انتخابات برنده شود، روشن نیست که رهبران ایران چه تصمیمی خواهند گرفت. ترمپ مشتاق است که ایرانیها به او زنگ بزنند و روی میز مذاکره بیایند.
Eurasia Daily Monitor
- Since the reform and modernization of Russia’s Armed Forces was initiated in late 2008, the General Staff leadership has been persistent in its appeals to the military scientific community to meet the challenges stemming from these complex processes. An essential ingredient in this public discussion is the focus on future warfare as part of the national defense strategy, to encourage greater attention to strategic foresight. The chief of the Russian General Staff, Army General Valery Gerasimov, has pressed this issue heavily in his public speeches and articles, since his appointment in November 2012. This past March, Gerasimov outlined a new doctrine of limited actions that conceptualizes Russia’s approaches to warfare beyond its borders—particularly, as witnessed in Syria. Gerasimov also once more raised the issue of future warfare (see EDM, March 6). These views offer insights into how Russian defense specialists see future warfare and, consequently, some of the factors driving Moscow’s strategic posture.
In November 2018, Colonel General (ret.) Leonty Shevtsov authored a review article in Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer examining a monograph by General Aleksandr Vladimirov. The second edition of Vladimirov’s book, Osnovy Obshchey Teorii Voyny (The Basics of the General Theory of War), was examined in detail. In one section of the review, Vladimirov’s use of Soviet and Russian military theorists is outlined, many of whom are also frequently referred to in Gerasimov’s speeches (see EDM, March 12). In particular, Vladimirov based much of his thinking about modern warfare on Aleksandr Svechin, Andrei Snesarev and Yevgeny Messner. He refers to Snesarev: “The solution to the question of the future of war—positive or negative—remains a matter of faith, not a scientifically proven fact.” He also notes that Messner had forecast, “We must stop thinking that war is when people fight, and peace when they are not fighting. You can be in war without fighting” (Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, November 28, 2018).
While themes and concepts drawn from some of the leading Soviet and Russian military theorists are present in Gerasimov’s speeches, showing the roots of current military thought among the General Staff leadership, elements of the interface between military science and emerging perspectives on future warfare are clearly represented in a May 28 article on this theme in Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer. Lieutenant General (ret.) Vladimir Ostankov considers the issue of Russian perspectives on future warfare and shows clearly how this is influencing Moscow’s defense posture in many areas. Ostankov is a former head of the highly influential Center for Military-Strategic Research Under the General Staff (Tsentr Voyenno-Strategicheskikh Issledovaniy Generalnogo Shtaba Vooruzhennykh Sil’ Rossiyskoy Federatsii—TsSVI GSh). It is known, for instance, that the TsVSI plays a role in the formulation of military doctrine and produces classified papers on strategy, force development and future warfare, among other issues (Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, May 28).
Ostankov declares at the start of his article the importance high technology and modern weapons systems and their impact on shaping the views and concepts of the Armed Forces, noting that the most important aspect of strategy is to predict the nature of future wars and outline the potential of the future enemy in order to form counter measures. Ostankov then describes the main features of modern warfare as follows:
- The massive use of high-precision and hypersonic weapons and Electronic Warfare (EW) tools;
- Multifaceted impact on the enemy throughout the depth of its territory and simultaneously in the global information and aerospace confrontation;
- Strengthened centralization and automation of troops and weapons control;
- Participation in the battles of irregular armed formations and private military companies (PMC);
- The complex use of force and non-military measures implemented with the wide use of the protest potential of the population;
- The use of externally funded political forces and social movements.
The author asserts that modern warfare increasingly centers on the application of political, economic, information, and other non-military means. He suggests this has been used during Russian military operations in Syria, mixing military and non-means in its application of power. On this basis, Ostankov claims the present Russian political leadership has augmented deterrence by adopting a deliberate policy of intimidating potential adversaries (Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, May 28).
However, Ostankov believes the dominant role in future warfare still lies in the application of kinetic force. He refers to the changing face of warfare and its implications for the future: “New technologies have significantly reduced the spatial, temporal and informational gap between troops and command and control. Frontal collisions of large groups of troops (forces) at the strategic and operational levels are gradually becoming a thing of the past. A remote contactless impact on the enemy becomes the main way to achieve the goals of the battle and operation. The destruction of its objects is carried out [across] the entire depth of the territory. The differences between the strategic, operational and tactical levels, [as well as] offensive and defensive actions are erased.” The author further argues that artificial intelligence will play a much greater role in the wars of the future, robotizing the battlefield but not entirely negating the needs for human involvement (Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, May 28).
Drawing on Russia’s experiments in Syria with network-centric warfare capability, Ostankov asserts this has significant implication for Moscow’s planning for future wars: “Anticipating a similar change in the nature of the struggle, the military strategy develops requirements for the development of interspecific reconnaissance-strike and reconnaissance-fire complexes, determining their place in the combat system and share participation in the destruction of the enemy. No wonder that a unit has been created within the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation to deal with this problem.” Analysis of the United States’ military capabilities has resulted in a “transition of Russia from the policy of deterring a potential adversary with nuclear weapons to a policy of intimidation by causing unacceptable damage with hypersonic weapons in response to any large-scale aggression” (Voyenno Promyshlennyy Kuryer, May 28).
It appears that a combination of views on the likely nature of future warfare, analysis of Russia’s threat environment and close attention to US military capability, has resulted in a shift in Moscow to adopting a policy of intimidating potential enemies, while strengthening its own capabilities to strike with unacceptable damage below the nuclear threshold. Ostankov’s article should not be underestimated given his background in the TsVSI and his access to and knowledge of current strategic thinking. He offers insight on Moscow adopting a deliberate policy of intimidating its potential enemies, which may be important in understanding Russia’s strategic actions in a wider context.
A litmus test of the impact of the law, once adopted, will be how Saudi Arabia deals with people like Pakistani cleric Maulana Ali Muhammad Abu Turab. Mr. Abu Turab was identified last May as a specially designated terrorist by the US Treasury at the very moment that he was in the kingdom to raise funds for his militant madrassas or religious seminaries that dot the border between the Pakistani province of Balochistan and Afghanistan.https://chainsoff.me/2019/05/25/moderating-saudi-islam-government-proposes-tightening-fundraising-rules/
James Dorsey 31 Jan, 2018_A Saudi draft law could constitute a first indication that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s vow to return the kingdom to a moderate form of Islam will include reshaping of the kingdom’s global funding for Sunni Muslim ultra-conservative educational and cultural facilities as well as militants.
The law, if adopted, would at the very least tighten rules governing the raising of funds in the kingdom that often flowed to militants in campaigns of which it was not always clear whether the government had tacitly approved. Tighter rules will make it more difficult for the government to put a distance between itself and militant fundraising.
To be sure, analysts have long assumed that fundraising, particularly with the help of members of Saudi Arabia’s government-aligned, ultra-conservative religious establishment, could not occur without the knowledge of a regime that maintains tight political control.
It remains unclear how tighter fundraising rules will affect Saudi Arabia’s ideological war with Iran. The kingdom has for decades invested billions of dollars in globally propagating Sunni Muslim ultra-conservatism as an antidote to the Islamic republic’s revolutionary zeal.
The bulk of the funds flowed to non-violent groups, but in some cases also to ones that attacked Shiites and/or Iranian targets. That has largely not changed since the rise in 2015 of King Salman and his powerful son, Prince Mohammed.
Saudi Arabia, in the latest suggestion that tightened fundraising may target militancy rather than supremacist, sectarian and intolerant strands of ultra-conservatism, plans to open a Salafi missionary centre in the Yemeni province of Al Mahrah on the border with Oman and the kingdom.
The plan harks back to the creation of an anti-Shiite Salafi mission near the Houthi stronghold of Saada that sparked a military confrontation in 2011 with the Yemeni government, one of several wars in the region. The centre was closed in 2014 as part of an agreement to end the fighting.
Prince Mohammed’s use of ultra-conservative Sunni Islam in his controversial war with the Houthis was also evident in the appointment as governor of Saada of Hadi Tirshan al-Wa’ili, a member of a tribe hostile to the Shiite sect, and a follower of Saudi-backed Islamic scholar Uthman Mujalli. Mr. Mujalli reportedly serves as an advisor to Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi, the exiled, kingdom-backed Yemeni president.
Writing in Al-Monitor, Brookings fellow and former CIA official Bruce Riedel argued that continued government support of ultra-conservatism served not only Saudi Arabia’s regional ambitions but also as a pacifier for a religious establishment that, despite public endorsement of Prince Mohammed’s social reforms, is deeply uncomfortable with changes like a loosening of restrictions on women and greater entertainment opportunities.
“After three years on the throne, King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud and his son Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are pursuing the most aggressively sectarian and anti-Iran policy in modern Saudi history. The Wahhabi clerical establishment is an enthusiastic partner, which is good internal politics for the royals…it’s a way to keep the mainstream Wahhabi establishment and the Al Sheikhs content that their core interests are safe,” Mr. Riedel said, referring to the descendants of 18th century preacher Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahhab, who constitute the ruling Al Sauds’ religious counterpart.
If adopted, fundraisers would have to be authorized before launching a campaign. Failure to obtain authorization would result in a jail sentence of up to two years and, in the case of foreigners, deportation. Fundraisers would only be allowed to accept donations from Saudi nationals and institutions.
The stipulation that the fundraisers themselves too would have to be Saudi nationals would effectively block foreign individuals and groups from Pakistan and elsewhere that have been supported for decades by Saudi Arabia from independently seeking financial support in the kingdom.
A litmus test of the impact of the law, once adopted, will be how Saudi Arabia deals with people like Pakistani cleric Maulana Ali Muhammad Abu Turab. Mr. Abu Turab was identified last May as a specially designated terrorist by the US Treasury at the very moment that he was in the kingdom to raise funds for his militant madrassas or religious seminaries that dot the border between the Pakistani province of Balochistan and Afghanistan.
A member of Pakistan’s Council of Islamic Ideology that oversees whether legislation is in line with Islamic law, Mr. Abu Turab is a leader of Ahl-i-Hadith, a Pakistani Wahhabi group supported by the kingdom for decades, and a board member of Pakistan’s Saudi-backed Paigham TV.
He also heads the Saudi-funded Movement for the Protection of the Two Holy Cities (Tehrike Tahafaz Haramain Sharifain) whose secretary general Maulana Fazlur Rehman Khalil has also been designated by the Treasury.
Similarly, Pakistani militants reported over the last 18 months that funds from Saudi Arabia were pouring into militant madrassas in Balochistan against the backdrop of indications that the kingdom may want to try to destabilize Iran by stirring unrest among the Islamic republic’s ethnic minorities, including the Baloch.
Saudi efforts to more tightly control fundraising may also serve Prince Mohammed’s unconventional effort to fill depleted government coffers at a time of economic recession. Prince Mohammed launched in November what amounted to a power and asset grab packaged as an anti-corruption campaign after the kingdom’s elite had failed to respond to a request to make patriotic contributions to help shore up government finances.
Saudi Finance Minister Mohammed Al-Jadaan said last week that authorities had received a total of roughly $100 billion in out-of-court settlements from around 350 people accused in the purge. As a result, tougher fundraising rules could potentially mean that donations would increasingly favour domestic rather than foreign causes.
However, with no indication that Saudi Arabia is willing to reduce tension with Iran, it is unlikely that the kingdom will halt funding of its ideological war with the Islamic republic. Nor is there an apparent Islamic packaged alternative to the propagation of ultra-conservatism as its primary soft power tool.
In short, tighter fundraising rules are certain to enhance control of the causes for which money is solicited and who will be allowed to raise funds. It may well also result in support for advocacy of interfaith dialogue and greater tolerance as recently propagated by the World Muslim League, a government-controlled non-governmental vehicle that for decades funded the global spread of ultra-conservatism. The rules, however, are unlikely to mean an end to funding of ultra-conservatism and sectarianism that serves Saudi Arabia’s existential battle with Iran.
Aaron Swartz’s words: “It’s not OK not to understand the internet anymore.” That goes double for cryptography: any politician caught spouting off about back doors is unfit for office anywhere but Hogwarts, which is also the only educational institution whose computer science department believes in “golden keys” that only let the right sort of people break your encryption. –