“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

U.S. commanders have already sought permission, on at least one occasion, to deploy small teams of U.S. advisers into battle with Iraqi troops. Dempsey also suggested that, while Obama has held firm, he might be persuaded to change his mind.

Dempsey raises possibility of involving U.S. combat troops in fight against Islamic State

 September 16 at 7:10 PM
The nation’s top military officer raised the possibility Tuesday that U.S. troops could become involved in ground attacks against the Islamic State, despite repeated pledges to the contrary from President Obama.
In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sketched out scenarios in which U.S. Special Forces might need to embed with Iraqi or Kurdish troops engaged in direct combat with Islamic State fighters.
Under questioning from lawmakers, Dempsey acknowledged that Obama has vowed not to send U.S. ground combat forces back into Iraq, less than three years after the president fulfilled a campaign promise to extricate the military from a long, costly and unpopular war there.
But the general revealed that U.S. commanders have already sought permission, on at least one occasion, to deploy small teams of U.S. advisers into battle with Iraqi troops. Dempsey also suggested that, while Obama has held firm, he might be persuaded to change his mind.
“He has told me as well to come back to him on a case-by-case basis,” Dempsey said. “If we reach the point where I believe our advisers should accompany Iraqi troops on attacks against specific [Islamic State] targets, I’ll recommend that to the president.”
The uncertainty of exactly what role U.S. troops might play in Iraq and Syria comes as Congress prepares to vote on Obama’s request for approval to train and equip about 5,000 moderate Syrian rebels to fight the Islamic State.
The House resolution, expected to come to a vote Wednesday, explicitly says that it does not support U.S. forces on the ground. The resolution is likely to be approved on a bipartisan basis and be included in a broader government funding bill that will make it to the president’s desk by the end of the week, lawmakers said.
The question of ground forces, however, will probably become a central focus of a legislative debate about war powers that is expected to begin after the Nov. 4 elections.
Since June, Obama has ordered the deployment of 1,600 U.S. troops to Iraq in an effort to bolster the country’s faltering army and stop the Islamic State’s advance.
Even as the mission has gradually expanded and the U.S. military has launched 167 airstrikes against the Islamic State, Obama and other White House officials have consistently promised that U.S. troops will not engage in ground combat.
As recently as last week, Obama said in a televised address to the nationthat “American forces will not have a combat mission — we will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq.”
Dempsey told lawmakers that U.S. military advisers are helping Iraqi government forces prepare for a major offensive to reclaim territory seized by the Islamic State in recent months. Those advisers are embedded with Iraqi and Kurdish forces at the brigade or headquarters level — away from the front lines.
Despite Obama’s firm position, some U.S. military commanders have pressed for more leeway to send small numbers of troops into combat with Iraqi forces.
Dempsey testified that Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, the commander of U.S. troops in the Middle East, wanted to embed U.S. troops with Iraqi and Kurdish security forces last month during a battle to retake control of the Mosul Dam from the Islamic State.
According to Dempsey, Austin wanted the U.S. troops to help call in airstrikes. The Joint Chiefs chairman suggested that Austin was overruled, saying the commander changed his mind after further discussions and “found a way” to organize the operation without U.S. personnel present.
At the same time, Dempsey said he and Austin agreed that more situations will arise when military commanders will want to put U.S. Special Forces or airstrike spotters on the ground. “There will be circumstances when we think that will be necessary, but we haven’t encountered one yet,” Dempsey said.
By openly suggesting that U.S. ground combat forces will be needed, Dempsey was walking a fine line between questioning the judgment of Obama, the commander in chief, and sharing his own professional military opinion with lawmakers and the public.
Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the committee chairman, asked Dempsey whether he supported Obama’s strategy.
Dempsey said he did. But he added that if the current approach were to falter, he might recommend a different one, possibly including “the use of U.S. military ground forces.”
Later, he also said he might recommend that U.S. troops provide “close combat advising” to Iraqi forces if they were to attempt a complex mission, such as retaking the northern city of Mosul from the Islamic State.
Obama is scheduled to meet with Austin and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday at the U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa. Last week, Obama ordered an expansion of airstrikes, adding that it was time to “go on offense” against the Islamic State.
After Dempsey finished his testimony, the White House reiterated that Obama remained opposed to sending U.S. ground troops into combat in Iraq or Syria.
Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, told reporters that Dempsey’s remarks referred to “a hypothetical scenario” and that it was the military’s responsibility to plan for a wide range of contingencies.
The debate about whether to send U.S. troops back into combat in Iraq — and possibly into Syria — is sensitive politically but in some ways a matter of semantics.
Air Force and Navy pilots already are firing missiles and dropping bombs on Islamic State fighters in Iraq. And although the 1,600 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq have not engaged in firefights with the Islamic State, they are armed and authorized to defend themselves.
But the issue also cuts to the heart of Obama’s military strategy for fighting the Islamic State — and whether U.S. forces should take a leading and visible role on the ground or leave the fighting to Iraqi and Kurdish troops, as well as proxy forces in Syria.
Dempsey said the Obama administration’s plan to train and equip 5,000 Syrian rebels would take time — up to five months to establish the program and as long as a year to recruit, vet and train the fighters. Much of the training is expected to take place in Saudi Arabia.
Lawmakers questioned how the Pentagon would ensure that weapons provided to the Syrian rebels do not end up in the hands of the Islamic State or other jihadist fighters.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) pressed Dempsey and Hagel on whether the U.S. military would intervene in Syria to aid the rebels if they were pinned down by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The two Pentagon leaders replied that the primary purpose of training the rebels was to help them fight the Islamic State, not Assad.
Earlier in the hearing, Hagel told lawmakers that “we are at war” with the Islamic State and warned that “this will not be an easy or brief effort.”
Some lawmakers urged the Pentagon and White House to act more aggressively. Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) said it was “foolhardy” for Obama to rule out ground troops to advise Iraqi forces in combat and help call in U.S. airstrikes.
“His claim of ‘no boots on the ground’ is an insult to the men and women in Iraq today who are serving in harm’s way,” Inhofe said.
The United States had held off further military assistance to Baghdad until a new broad-based government is formed, but Iraqi politicians are still wrangling over who should hold the key positions of minister of defense and interior. Parliament rejected Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s candidates for the posts Tuesday.
Abadi had pledged to fill the defense and interior posts, and four other ministerial positions left open when the government was formed a week ago, by Tuesday. However, there has been fierce debate about who should steer the security posts amid the violence racking the country.
Paul Kane in Washington and Loveday Morris in Baghdad contributed to this report.


  1. How long will the US people put up with another ground war in Iraq?

    1. A court in the US has formally charged a man with planning to assist the Islamic State militant group and attempting to murder US soldiers.

      Mufid A Elfgeeh, 30, a naturalised citizen from Yemen, was arrested in May after an undercover operation.

      Mr Elfgeeh, from Rochester, New York, tried to buy two handguns from an FBI informant, court documents said.

      He planned to kill Shia Muslims and American military personnel returning from the Middle East.

      "As this case shows, our agents and prosecutors are using all the investigative tools at our disposal to break up these plots before individuals can put their plans into action," said Attorney General Eric Holder in a statement.

  2. The Bard of MurdockTue Sep 16, 09:27:00 PM EDT

    No matter how much lipstick they put on that pig in the Defense Department, after six decades it is still the War Department.

  3. The Bard of MurdockTue Sep 16, 09:32:00 PM EDT

    There are two truths that the West is going to have to face about ISIS and the dotty “Caliphate”: these executioners began their careers – or their predecessors did – in the video-murderers of the anti-American resistance in Iraq; and however disgusting their activities, there are hundreds of thousands of Sunni Muslims who live in the area of the Caliphate and who have NOT fled for their lives.

    This, of course, makes unhappy reading. If the “Caliphate” is so revolting, disgusting, gruesome in its purity-driven brutality, how come all these people – Iraqis and Syrians – did not flee along with their Christian brothers? Are a few thousand armed fighters really able to coerce so many people over such a vast tract of the Middle East?

  4. Well, well, well. So now we ordinary people are to be saddled with huge expenditures for endless conflict fueled by weapons manufacturers and True Believers with all those petrodollars, on phony or trumped-up “justifications,” not for the general welfare but to make a welfare state for the generals who live so large on our hard-earned dollars.

  5. Won't be no "ground war."

    Just a turkey shoot.

    1. I wish I had your conviction,

    2. .

      It's simple Deuce. Take a deep breath, click the heels on your slippers, and 'assume': "There will be no boots on the ground. There will be no boots on the ground."



    3. Not really a "conviction." More like a "feeling."

      I just feel like this ISIS group has made an horrific mistake. They appear, to me, to be a bunch of big, dumb fish flopping in the field after the water has receded. YMMV.

  6. Exactly, the General and the Joint Chiefs want to expand their domain. But the truth of the matter, the local roops are "good enough" to call in US air support. The mission at the dam near Mosul stands in evidence of that reality.

    If Mr Obama retains his resolve, if he can "Stay the Course" then the US will have its cake, and eat it too.
    ISIS can be engaged and defeated, in Iraq, by Iraqis. The troops for this are being trained, even now.
    They will be ready to take offensive action 'in a few months'.

    The financial expenditures should be limited and the US can well fulfill its interests without US troops engaging the ISIS 'Army'.
    In Syria the problems are more complicated, but not unsolvable.

    1. It is the same story arc that was told during the "al-Qeada in Iraq" phase of the conflict. "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" which was 'answered' by the 'Sons of Iraq' program. That was always a very shallow solution, but it can be replicated.

    2. The biggest danger is the "First" (Iraqi) operation. It will be soon, and, they're probably really not ready, yet. And, it will, almost surely, be Fallujah Dam - high profile, and complicated.

      If the Iraqis get halfway in, and run out of nerve, it will paint a big, ugly mustache on this whole concept.

      But, as far as America is concerned, all we can lose is time, and a little hubris - and, we have plenty of that.

  7. America is now going to send it's sons to fight and die protecting Iran and Syria.

    Enjoy the clusterfuck you have created.

  8. Hamas authorities in the Gaza Strip arrested the militants who launched a mortar at southern Israel on Tuesday evening, Israel Radio quoted a senior defense official as saying.

    Israel made clear to Hamas that if it did not take swift action against those responsible for firing the mortar, the IDF would need to enter the picture, according to Israel Radio.

    Hamas told mediators that it was interested in preserving the cease-fire and that it apprehended those responsible for the mortar.

    Defense sources told Israel Radio that Hamas moved quickly to arrest the perpetrators because the organization is "disturbed by the situation."

    A Palestinian shell fired from Gaza landed in Israeli territory, near the southern border on Tuesday evening. There were no injuries or damages in the attack, which occurred in the region between Eshkol and Sdot Negev.


  9. Obama's Air Force, and his Kurdish Allies freed 7 Christian towns, today.

    You would think that there would be some words of appreciation for some of our "Religio/Cultural" posters, wouldn't you?

    1. No, one would not expect that.
      They are just US bashers.
      Whether it is the President or the country they despise, does no much matter.

      ISIS is thrown out of Christian communities in Iraq, and not a word of praise, for the US strategy, Iraqi Army, the Kurdish militias or the individual troops that accomplished turning the ISIS tide.


    2. But there was a bunch of praise of the ISIS, as they advanced against no opposition.
      Especially from the Israelis.

      But then, that is to be expected, Israel prefers al-Qeada.

      Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.

      “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”

      Even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda.
      “We understand that they are pretty bad guys,” Oren said in the interview.

    3. Yeah, they were "Warrior Genii" there for awhile, after the Sunni General sent his troops home, and gifted the headcutters with a couple of Divisions' worth of equipment.

    4. Jack HawkinsTue Sep 16, 11:24:00 PM EDT
      No, one would not expect that.
      They are just US bashers.
      Whether it is the President or the country they despise, does no much matter.

      ISIS is thrown out of Christian communities in Iraq, and not a word of praise, for the US strategy, Iraqi Army, the Kurdish militias or the individual troops that accomplished turning the ISIS tide.


      You are a traitor to the USA.

      You lie and slander, distort and mislead

      You speak no truth.

      You are a shill for Iran.

  10. General Dempsey's testimony, today, makes it clear that it will be 12 - 18 months before the "good guys" can field the 5,000 trainees they are recruiting. A lot can happen in that time.

    It is very unlikely that the Kurds will travel too far from home to support a ground operation. Even if they could be persuaded, it is unlikely that the Sunni tribes among whom they would work would accept them.

    Since the Iraqi Army is a Shi'a outfit, it can expect little to no support from the Sunni tribes among whom it would work.

    Some on Dempsey's staff offer the suggestion that ISIS will have to be confronted by the Sunni tribes. The ISIS is Sunni.

    Given enough cash, some Sunni tribesmen might be rented for a while. The U.S. did this in 2007. Either the money was insufficient or Sunni loyalty is short-lived.

    There was one incident during the recent Mosul Dam combat where an American unit attempted to coordinate close air support. Permission was denied. The President did promise General Dempsey to consider each request for American involvement on a "case by case" basis.

    As to 7 Christian villages being taken, I have seen nothing about that on any site, today. I did see that Hamas broke the ceasefire, today.

    1. I haven't either but Rufus has his ways of knowing these 800 number to upstairs perhaps......

    2. I am not denying 7 Christian villages were rescued.

      I do wonder if there was anybody left in them.

  11. Yes Rufus the rescue of the Christian villages is much appreciated.

    If your boy hadn't taken the troops out too soon they would not have had to have been rescued at all.

    Other than the humanitarian reasons......think of the women, the Christians, etc. - I don't seen why we should be involved other than to help the Kurds.

    Since I was horse whipped by Quirk for mentioning humanitarian reasoning in Syria, I'll drop the subject.

    ISIS is just a bunch of Sunni fundies, and if one is a Sunni up that way I don't think you'd have much to be concerned about.

    The reason they did so well in the beginning is because the Sunnis up that way in the Iraqi army simply quit, or switched sides, and the Shia took off to the south and friendlier climes.

    It's idiotic to continue and try to make a single country out of this stew. They hate each others guts.

    Protect the Kurds and the others as best we can but don't worry too much about the rest of it.

    US airpower alone is not going to cleanse that area of Sunni fundies.

  12. The situation does give the Generals desert rat and swamp rat a chance to blah blah blah for days on end.

  13. These people have been fighting for something like 13 hundred years before the pickup truck was even invented.

  14. SPIEGEL: Mr. Chalabi, how close have fighters from Islamic State come to Baghdad?

    Chalabi: They are 26 kilometers away. That is menacingly close, but the situation is calm at the moment and Islamic State has not made any more advances on Baghdad. Thank God.
    SPIEGEL: Do you believe they will attack?

    Chalabi: The extremists have long since brought their terror to Baghdad. Islamic State has sent its suicide bombers, has detonated explosives in front of our homes. I could show you parts from a car bomb that rained down on our roof not long ago. But Islamic State will not attempt to attack Baghdad militarily. Of the six million residents in the city, four million are Shiites. And almost every adult Shiite in the city owns a weapon. Islamic State well knows that it would be ground down by a brutal house-to-house fight.

    SPIEGEL: Nevertheless, many Baghdad residents have fled while others have at least begun making preparations.

    Chalabi: Such reports are exaggerated. We are not panicking because we know that Islamic State cannot conquer the capital.

    SPIEGEL: Until recently it also seemed impossible that Islamic State might overrun Iraq's second largest city. But now, Mosul is under the control of the jihadists.

    Chalabi: Yes, but the situation was different in Mosul. There are Arabs, Kurds, Turkmens and Yazidis living there, all of whom have suffered under the sectarian central government. They feel excluded and cheated out of participation in the government. What happened there was predictable. Six months earlier, we already had clear indications that Islamic State was preparing to attack. The Islamists have long been levying their own taxes in Mosul, totaling some $5 million per month. As early as January, Kurdish President Masoud Barzani warned the government of an impending disaster.

    SPIEGEL: And the government did nothing?

    Chalabi: No. Maliki saw Islamic State as a way to exert pressure. If I am not re-elected, terror will befall you -- that was his message.

    SPIEGEL: Would Islamic State have been able to conquer even more territory if the autonomous Kurdish government not gone on the attack?

    Chalabi: The Kurds' achievement was outstanding, both militarily and diplomatically. European governments recognized this and abandoned their resistance to weapons deliveries. Germany, too, acted correctly. Now, we need a joint military leadership so that the Kurds and the army can retake Mosul.

    1. SPIEGEL: The Kurds believe they are closer than ever to having their own state. Are you concerned about secession?

      Chalabi: The Kurds know that they won't achieve their own state by force of arms but through international recognition. And they have certainly heard what the German foreign minister said in connection with the arms deliveries: There is no Kurdish state. But that shouldn't prevent the Kurds from continuing to develop their own institutions. Still, the best thing for them would be to remain a part of Iraq, but in return we must treat them with respect -- their nationality, their language and their culture.

      SPIEGEL: And if that isn't enough for the Kurds?

      Chalabi: Then it wouldn't spell the end for Iraq. Germany lost East Prussia. Isn't Germany a strong country today anyway?

      SPIEGEL: In Syria, Islamic State is fighting against opposition groups rebelling against President Bashar al-Assad, who has left them alone as a result. But now, the jihadists are also endangering the regime. Do you believe that Assad regrets not having gone after Islamic State earlier?

      Chalabi: No, I don't. Yes, the Islamists are now the only ones that can offer significant resistance. After taking over Mosul, Islamic State sent 75 trucks full of weapons captured from our army to Syria. But Islamic State also weakened all those forces that could have been dangerous for Assad. As such, he was able to concentrate on solidifying his power in metropolitan areas like Damascus and on the coast. Now we are faced with the question: Who is the lesser evil?

      SPIEGEL: And what is your answer to that question?

      Chalabi: I think it is clear. We need a united front against Islamic State and Assad happens to be the decisive power that can fight them. But the situation is preposterous because we also have to respect the calls for change. I would be in favor of a dignified change.

      SPIEGEL: A senior American diplomat in Baghdad told us that Islamic State fighters are "sociopaths led by psychopaths."

      Chalabi: That may apply to the fighters from the West who feel excluded in Europe and come here for that reason. But the leaders are former officers in the Iraqi army or professors. They are not psychopaths, they know exactly what they are doing, are very well organized and have a strict hierarchy.

      SPIEGEL: What is so fascinating about Islamic State that hundreds of Sunnis are rushing to join?

      Chalabi: Islamic State isn't corrupt. That makes it very attractive in a country like Iraq. And of course many are attracted by its military success. For the first time, the Sunnis have an effective fighting force. For Sunnis, Islamic State has a function similar to that of Hezbollah for Shiites. Before they conquered Mosul, Islamic State had maybe 10,000 fighters, but now they have many more. Their recruitment rate is enormously high: Each month, some 2,000 men are trained. And their success radiates to Jordan, Libya and the Arabian Peninsula -- even as far as Mali and Pakistan.

    2. SPIEGEL: Yet the backbone of Islamic State is the Sunni clans that Maliki basically forced into revolt.

      Chalabi: Many Sunnis joined Islamic State because they felt they were being treated poorly. Winning back their trust is the primary task of the new government. That will be difficult, but it is possible.

      SPIEGEL: Where will the next battlefield be?

      Chalabi: Islamic State is following a clear strategy. First, it wants to solidify its power in Iraq and Syria. Then, their fighters will try to advance to Syria's Mediterranean coast. If they are successful, that will be seen as their next great triumph. And then, their target will be Jordan, where things will be easy for them. Already, Islamic State has broad support in many cities there. And when they get there, it will once again come as a great surprise to everybody.

      SPIEGEL: Why were we so wrong about the situation in Iraq and Syria?

      Chalabi: You thought Islamic State was just a bunch of gunmen and underestimated their strategic and military abilities. When Sunni clans near Fallujah rebelled at the beginning of the year, Islamic State in Syria sent just 150 fighters. Now, the extremists control a huge area in Iraq. Until the US airstrikes began, they were able to move about completely freely.

      SPIEGEL: US President Barack Obama announced his intention to expand airstrikes on Islamic State fighters to Syria. Do you welcome this declaration of war on the terrorists?

      Chalabi: I hope we can take advantage of this new, forward-looking approach. It is shameful, but without American support, Islamic State would have taken over many more places in Iraq. Just yesterday, they wanted to capture the Haditha Dam, but airstrikes kept them from doing so. Now, our army has to make the best use of this assistance.

      SPIEGEL: Do you believe that the US can stop Islamic State just with airstrikes?

      Chalabi: No, effective ground troops are necessary as well. The anti-Islamic State coalition has to be totally realistic on that score.

      SPIEGEL: You wouldn't be opposed to ground support?

      Chalabi: The US is already supporting us with around 1,000 specialists. But it should stay at that. I am opposed to a larger military intervention with ground troops. That wouldn't be helpful.

    3. SPIEGEL: When the last American soldier was pulled out of Iraq in 2011, Obama said that the country was a sovereign, independent and democratic state. Was that a lie, or a colossal misjudgment?

      Chalabi: At the time, the president was prepared to do anything to get out of here. He had promised to withdraw the troops during the campaign and he had to fulfill that pledge, no matter what the price.

      SPIEGEL: When you look around today, at the terror, the human suffering, the economic misery, do you still believe it was worth it to get rid of Saddam Hussein? And do you regret providing false information to the US to justify the 2003 invasion?
      Chalabi: I don't regret anything. And we didn't provide any false information. We provided the Americans with three informants and also gave them our own assessment. But the decision to invade was one the Americans made on their own. And, as difficult as the situation in Iraq currently is, it was still right to topple Saddam Hussein. We had no future under him. Today, we at least have hope that better times are coming.

      SPIEGEL: Mr. Chalabi, thank you for this interview.

    4. Achmad Chalabi, 69, became notorious as the man who delivered false information regarding Saddam Hussein's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 US invasion. Chalabi has long denied responsibility. More recently, he was seen as being a possible successor to Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, but the post was ultimately given to Haidar al-Abadi, who took office last week.

  15. Here's an intelligent woman, who points out in passing how idiotic some women are -

    My wife is of the view we out to pay the airfare for such dimbos and get them out of here.

    Never to return.

    1. Obama's Self-Defeating Fight

      By Caroline Glick - September 16, 2014

  16. There is a lot in that interview to chew on.

  17. The pair of teenage jihadis who fled Austria to devote their lives to ISIS are believed to be pregnant, according to a published report.
    The girls’ tale of terror got the “Maury” treatment Tuesday when it was revealed that Samra Kesinovic, 16, and her friend Sabina Selimovic, 15, made claims on their purported social media accounts that they were both alive and pregnant in Syria, Central European News reports.

    Kesinovic was originally thought to be dead when reports emerged Monday that she had been killed in combat. But a Tuesday conversation between an anonymous WhatsApp account believed to be the teen and her friends in Austria confirmed that those rumors weren’t true.

    The duo, previously seen in photos brandishing AK47s, are believed to have married a pair of Chechen fighters in Syria, according to CEN. The two vanished earlier this year and were parading their involvement with ISIS on social media — leading Austrian media to dub them the new face of jihad.

    Austrian police and Interpol continue to hunt the teens as posts on their WhatsApp and Facebook accounts Tuesday said they were alive and well. The messages also said they had received new names featuring the word “umm” — which is Arabic for mother.

    Despite the numerous comments, Austrian officials pointed to the men of ISIS as the possible culprits behind such outlandish statements. They warned that the jihadists had complete control over the young girls’ lives and said the madmen would never allow them to use social media, according to CEN.

    “We have no independent confirmation that either of them are dead or alive, or that either of them are pregnant, although we suspect both are married,” an Austrian police spokesman said. “At the moment investigations are ongoing.”

    Authorities believe that ISIS is using Kesinovic and Selimovic to promote their cause and recruit other youngsters from the West to join them and spread bloodshed abroad, CEN reports.

    Government officials proposed Monday that citizens who return to Austria be forced to withdraw citizenship or asylum status if they were known to be fighting for ISIS. A government organization in Vienna has also been established to de-radicalize Muslim youngsters who may be urged to answer the call to jihad.

  18. It's Glick...Caroline Glick...a woman with an audience of more than four.