DISEC Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014
Table of Contents
1. Message from the Committee Directors

Muhammad Waleed
Abdul Sattar
2. Introduction to the committee
3. Topic Area A:
The Eradication of Dual Standards in the Fight against Terrorism
4. Topic Area B:
Discussing Measures to Curb ISIS
1. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMITTEE DIRECTORS

MUHAMMAD WALEED
Assalam o Alaikum.
First of all the most important notice: A lot of fun and
learning is awaiting you in DISEC this year!
I welcome you all to the 2nd annual KIET Model United
Nations both as a Committee Director and as the General
Secretary of this Society. It wouldnt be wrong to say that
we have raised this society like a child and since the
foundation was laid, a lot of people have put in their
efforts and dedication to ensure that it grows stronger
and better with time.
Now whatever efforts we have done or for that matter,
anyone has done for any MUN society or any other
society, what matters the most is our aim behind it and
what we achieve through it. We must know very clearly
that in the name of these conferences and events, we
promise to provide you with learning and that learning is
for the sake of enlightening you and making you capable
of using your own mind to make decisions regarding the knowledge that you have gained
for the betterment of the society and improvement of humanitarian values around the
globe. What we fail to realize is that none of the promised and aimed things is being
achieved through our efforts because neither our efforts are complete nor our intentions
pure.
We must realize that getting together, having fun, showing theatrics and dancing at the end,
is not the true purpose of such conferences. The true purpose is to sit together, learn from
each other, learn to be more civilized and improve ourselves and when we have achieved
this, at the end get together and enjoy our success in achieving these goals.
We must realize that we, the elite of the society, who can afford to go to such conferences,
who have the facilities by the grace of Allah to avail these opportunities, must and I repeat
MUST use this knowledge and blessing to the best of our abilities and understanding to
ensure that we first work for the prosperity and betterment of our country and make it a
model and on that model, we should do the same for the world.
Lets make this world, a better, more livable place, for us and everyone else to live in.
Because in the end what counts is the effort we did on our part and not the result.
There is a good human being inside all of us and we must find that person
DhoondtaPhirtahunaeIqbalapneaapko,
Aap hi goyamusaafir, aap hi manzilhunmai.
May Allah help you all and may the best delegate gets the award.
ABDUL SATTAR
Greetings, Delegates I, Abdul Sattar, along with the
charismatic Mohammad Waleed, will be your
committee
director
for
Disarmament
and
International Security Committee (DISEC). We will be
dealing with issues pertinent to world security and
politics. I am currently a freshman student at Institute
of Business Administration (IBA). I was introduced to
the idea of MUNs two years back and since then, I have
been utterly fond of it. I have attended 10 MUN
Conferences in varying capacities, but it is my fourth
as a part of the Secretariat. Let me provide you two
very important tips to survive, learn, and excel at
DISEC, KIETMUN 2014. Firstly, reading the guide
thoroughly, doing papers of external research and
knowing your country extremely well should be
considered mandatory. And secondly, it boils down to
the desire to speak. Regardless of your style, it is
highly recommended that you deliver your speeches without being intimidated. Also, come
with a desire to learn and with an open mind which will aid you in listening to alternative
opinions and help you decide the better outcome. Looking forward to seeing you this
coming September. Abdul Sattar Zahid,
Committee Director - DISEC, KIETMUN 2014.
INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE

Disarmament and International Security (DISEC) committee is the
First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (GA). It
includes all nations that are United Nations Member States. DISEC
deals with issues regarding world peace. The committee is designed
to deal with issues related to global arms and security. The Illicit
Small Arms Trade, Conflict Diamonds, Nuclear Proliferation, and the
security status of Refugees are all examples of issues that have been
discussed in the past at DISEC meetings; unfortunately they will
continue to be debated in the future. With the increase of weapons
and growing security threats, DISEC continues to grow in
importance and becomes a significant part of resolving international
crises.
TOPIC Area A:
ERADICATING DUAL STANDARDS IN
THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM
Terrorism as we all know is one of the
most pressing issues of the present times
and has been so, since the past decade
and a half. There are a lot of angles and
views from which one can see the
problem but before going in to the depth,
we need to understand what terrorism is
and for that we usually present a
collection of fearsome incidents and
actions and add them up to form a
definition of terrorism. Technically, any
and everything that incites terror in the
heart of the people is terrorism but then
we have set some standards and
according to those, we usually do not
quote a lot of terrorizing activities as acts
of terrorism, we rather call them unlawful
acts which are not meeting the scale of
terror to be qualified as terrorism.
We need to first define terrorism in the
frame of reference of our discussion
which is right now related to war against
terrorism and automatically leads to
different organizations labeled as
terrorist organizations around the world.
Now interestingly, the majority of both
national (Pakistani) and International
community knows about only a few
terrorist organizations most of which
claim to be Islamic radicals but a little
look in to the depth might very well lead
us to a whole new world we didnt know
about and there we will find a lot more
than the Al Qaeda and Talibans.
We also need to understand that these

different terrorist organizations around
the world are labeled terrorists by
different countries and different people as
the difference of opinion always sets
some in favor and some against the
organizations labeled terrorists.
WAR AGAINST TERRORISM:

The War on Terror (WOT), also known
as
the Global
War
on
Terrorism (GWOT) is a term which has
been applied to an international military
campaign that started after the 11
September 2001 terrorist attacks on the
United States. This resulted in an
international military campaign to
eliminate al-Qaeda and other militant
organizations. The United States and
many other NATO and non-NATO nations
such as Pakistan participated in the
conflict.
The phrase "War on Terror" was first
used by U.S. President George W. Bush on
20
September
2001.
The
Bush
administration
and
the western
media have since used the term to argue a
global military, political, lawful, and
conceptual
struggle
against
both
organizations designated as terrorist in
nature and regimes accused of supporting
them. It was originally used with a
particular focus on Muslim countries
associated
withIslamic
terrorism organizations, like al-Qaeda or
like-minded organizations.
Although the term is no longer officially

used by the administration of U.S.
President Barack Obama (which prefers
the
term Overseas
Contingency
Operation), it is still commonly used by
politicians, in the media and in some
official governmental aspects, as evident
in the U.S. military's Global War on
Terrorism Service Medal.
A little history of the war against
terrorism is as stated below,
In 1984, the Reagan Administration used
the term "war against terrorism" as part
of an effort to pass legislation that was
designed to freeze assets of terrorist
groups and marshal the forces of
government against them. Author Shane
Harris asserts this was a reaction to
the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing.
The concept of America at war with
terrorism may have begun on 11
September 2001 when Tom Brokaw,
having just witnessed the collapse of one
of the towers of the World Trade Center,
declared "Terrorists have declared war
on [America]."
On 16 September 2001, at Camp David,
President George W. Bush used the
phrase war on terrorism in an unscripted
and controversial comment when he said,
"This crusade this war on terrorism is
going to take a while, ... " Bush later
apologized for this remark due to the
negative
connotations
the
term crusade has to people, e.g. of Muslim
faith. The word crusade was not used
again. On 20 September 2001, during a
televised address to a joint session of

congress, Bush stated that, "(o)ur 'war on
terror' begins with al-Qaeda, but it does
not end there. It will not end until every
terrorist group of global reach has been
found, stopped and defeated." Bush did
not say when he expected this would be
achieved.
In April 2007 the British government
announced publicly that it was
abandoning the use of the phrase "War on
Terror" as they found it to be less than
helpful. This was explained more recently
by Lady Eliza Manningham-Buller. In her
2011 Reith lecture, the former head
of MI5 said that the 9/11 attacks were "a
crime, not an act of war." "So I never felt it
helpful to refer to a war on terror."
US President Barack Obama has rarely
used the term, but in his inaugural
address on 20 January 2009, he stated
"Our nation is at war, against a farreaching network of violence and
hatred." In March 2009 the Defense
Department officially changed the name
of operations from "Global War on
Terror" to "Overseas Contingency
Operation" (OCO). In March 2009,
the Obama
administration requested
that Pentagon staff members avoid use of
the term, instead using "Overseas
Contingency Operation". Basic objectives
of the Bush administration "war on
terror", such as targeting al Qaeda and
building international counterterrorism
alliances, remain in place. In December
2012, Jeh Johnson, the General Counsel of
the Department of Defense, stated that
the military fight will be replaced by a law

enforcement operation when speaking
atOxford University, predicting that al
Qaeda will be so weakened to be
ineffective, and has been "effectively
destroyed", and thus the conflict will not
be an armed conflict under international
law. In May 2013, Obama stated that the
goal is "to dismantle specific networks of
violent
extremists
that
threaten
America"; which coincided with the
US Office
of
Management
and
Budget having changed the wording from
"Overseas Contingency Operations" to
"Countering Violent Extremism" in 2010.
The Rhetorical War On Terror

Because the actions involved in the "war
on terrorism" are diffuse, and the criteria
for inclusion are unclear, political theorist
Richard Jackson has argued that "the 'war
on terrorism' therefore, is simultaneously
a set of actual practiceswars, covert
operations, agencies, and institutions
and an accompanying series of
assumptions, beliefs, justifications, and
narrativesit is an entire language or
discourse." Jackson cites among many
examples
a
statement
by John
Ashcroft that "the attacks of September
11 drew a bright line of demarcation
between
the
civil
and
the
savage". Administration officials also
described
"terrorists"
as
hateful,
treacherous, barbarous, mad, twisted,
perverted, without faith, parasitical,
inhuman,
and,
most
commonly,
evil. Americans,
in
contrast,
were
described as brave, loving, generous,

strong, resourceful, heroic, and respectful
of human rights.
Both the term and the policies it denotes
have been a source of ongoing
controversy, as critics argue it has been
used to justify unilateral preventive war,
human rights abuses and other violations
of international law.
(Wikipedia)
A Little Anomaly amidst the War

against Terrorism:
The famous US claim of being the torch
bearer in the endless efforts to corner Al
Qaeda becomes a little controversial
when the US is found openly supporting
the Al Nusrah of Syria against the Syrian
government. An article supporting this
controversy
is
as
follows.
Americans have been repeatedly told that
Al Qaeda under the helm of the late Osama
bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11
attacks.
Formulated in the wake of the tragic
events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. and
its allies launched a Global War on
Terrorism (GWOT) directed against the
numerous jihadist Al Qaeda affiliated
terror formations in the Middle East,
Africa, Central Asia and South East Asia.
The first stage of the Global War on
Terrorism was the bombing and invasion
of Afghanistan.
In the wake of 9/11, the Global War on

Terrorism served to obfuscate the real
economic and strategic objectives behind
the US-led wars in the Middle East and
Central Asia.
The Patriot legislation was implemented.
The national security doctrine stated
unequivocally
that
the
American
Homeland was to be protected against
Islamic terrorists.
For the last 13 years, war on terrorism
rhetoric
has
permeated
political
discourse at all levels of government. Al
Qaeda related threats and occurrences
are explained by politicians, the
corporate media, Hollywood and the
Washington think tanks under a single
blanket bad guys heading, in which Al
Qaeda (the outside enemy of America)
is casually and repeatedly pinpointed as
the cause of numerous terror events
around the World.
fighting force affiliated to al Qaeda,

largely composed of foreign mercenaries.
Tax dollars are relentlessly channeled to
the rebels. In turn, Secretary of State
John Kerry meets with rebel commanders
who oversee the Al Qaeda affiliated entity.
Is this part of a new normal: the unity of
opposites whereby terrorism and
counter-terrorism are merged into a
single foreign policy focus?
Is it politically correct for a US Senator
to mingle with leaders of a terrorist
organization, while at the same time
paying lip service to the Global War on
Terrorism?
While this may be business as usual for
the US Secretary of State, American
servicemen and women are now refusing
to fight a war in favor of terrorism under
the emblem of the Global War on
Terrorism.
But somehow, in the last few months, this

Al Qaeda paradigm has shifted. The
American public has become increasingly
skeptical regarding the validity of the
Global War on Terrorism
Channeling money and weapons to Al

Qaeda in Syria is carried out in the open,
via the US State Department and the
Pentagon rather than in the context of a
covert CIA operation.
In recent months, with the unfolding

events in Syria, something rather unusual
has occurred, which has had a profound
impact on the publics perception and
understanding of Obamas Global War on
Terrorism.
John McCain enters Syria illegally and

poses for photo ops with Al Qaeda
leaders.
The US government is actively and openly

supporting Syrias Al Nusrah, the main
Hawkish US Senator John McCain (C)

poses with infamous kidnapper in Syria,
Mohamed Nour (seen with his hand on
his chest and holding a camera)
Hawkish US Senator John McCain (C) poses with infamous kidnapper in Syria, Mohamed
Nour (seen with his hand on his chest and holding a camera)
The Movement within the US Armed
Forces
Forces. Were spreading democracy by

combating terrorism.
Needless to say, this mingling of

politicians and terrorists strikes at the
very foundations of the Global War on
Terrorism.
Yet in recent months, millions of

Americans have become aware of the fact
that the Obama administration is lying.
Despite the tide of media disinformation,

people are increasingly aware that these
US
sponsored
rebels
are
not
revolutionaries and that US military aid
is being channeled to the terror brigades.
A spontaneous movement on social media
networks has emerged involving active
members of the armed forces.
I will not fight for al Qaeda.
Obama, I will not fight for your al Qaeda
rebels in Syria.
Our government tells us that we are
fighting a war on terrorism. That is what
is taught to new recruits in the Armed
These are the rebels who, according to

CNN, have also been trained by Western
special forces in the use of chemical
weapons. And they have used chemical
weapons against innocent Syrian civilians.
US servicemen and women are adamant.
I did not join the army to fight for al
Qaeda.
The Al Nusrah brigades have performed
thousands of executions. A recently
released video reveals how two young
boys are executed following the reading
of a death sentence.In the video can be
seen a terrorist reading death sentence to
the boys, gunfire is heard, boys fall dead.
Supporting the Terrorists

Barack Obama and John Kerry are not
fighting terrorism. Quite the opposite:
They are actively supporting Al Qaeda
terrorists in Syria, who are responsible
for the most despicable crimes, killings
and atrocities directed against the civilian
population.
These crimes have been amply
documented. Beheadings, executions of
children. The most gruesome massacres.
Are these the people who are being
supported by the US government?
The terrorists are directly recruited by
the Western military alliance. They are
trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar in
liaison with the US and NATO.
We were recruited to wage a Global War

on Terrorism and now our government
is collaborating with Al Qaeda.
Congressman Dennis Kucinich said
striking Syria would make the U.S.
Military Al-Qaedas Air Force.
The concept which is spreading across the
land is that the Obama administration is
supporting Al Qaeda.
Its a bipartisan consensus: the
Republican leadership in the US Congress
and the Senate have endorsed support
and financial aid to the al Nusrah brigades
in Syria.
In the eyes of public opinion, the Global
War on Terrorism has, so to speak, fallen
flat.
Who is Supporting Whom? Who is
Waging a War of Aggression?
The spontaneous movement in the armed
forces is based on the notion that the US
government is supporting al Qaeda.
The corporate media has failed to reveal
the
nature
of the
longstanding
relationship between Al Qaeda and the US
government, which goes back to the

Soviet-Afghan war.
textbooks Made in America, developed

at the University of Nebraska
Al Qaeda the outside enemy of

America as well as the alleged architect
of the 9/11 attacks is a creation of the
CIA. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are often
referred to as intelligence assets
Al Qaeda is an intelligence asset which

serves the interests of the US
administration.
From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war

in the early 1980s, the US intelligence
apparatus has supported the formation of
Islamic brigades.
Propaganda purports to erase the history
of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and kill the
evidence on how this outside enemy
was fabricated and transformed into
Enemy Number One.
The Global War on Terrorism is not
geared towards curbing the Islamic
jihad. The significant development of
radical Islam in the wake of the Cold
War was consistent with Washingtons
hidden agenda. The latter consists in
sustaining rather than combating
international terrorism, with a view to
creating factional divisions within
countries and destabilizing national
societies.
The numerous al Qaeda affiliated entities
are routinely used in CIA covert
operations. They are recruited, trained
and indoctrinated under the supervision
of the CIA and its intelligence
counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,
Qatar and Israel. Unknown to the
American public, the US has spread the
teachings of the Islamic jihad in
With regard to Syria, the US government

is not supporting Al Qaeda Quite the
opposite, the Al Qaeda mercenaries in
Syria, recruited and trained in Saudi
Arabia and Qatar, are supporting the US
government. They are being used by the
US military intelligence apparatus. They
are paid killers.
Their actions are implemented as part of
a military agenda; they are the footsoldiers of the Western military alliance.
The atrocities committed by the terrorists
are the direct result of paramilitary
training and indoctrination. The US
government is behind this process.
Obama is responsible for the crimes
committed by the rebels against the
Syrian people.
Concluding Remarks
We are at an important crossroads. The
Global War on Terrorism constitutes the
cornerstone of war propaganda. Yet at the
same time the lies which uphold the
GWOT are no longer credible and the
thrust
and
effectiveness
of
the
propaganda campaign are threatened.
No one can reasonably believe in a war
on terrorism which consists in
channeling money and weapons to the
terrorists. Its a non sequitur.
Support to terrorists, portrayed as

revolutionaries cannot be heralded as
part of a foreign policy agenda which
officially consists in going after the
terrorists.
But Obama desperately needs to hold on
to the Global war on Terrorism. Its the
cornerstone of US military doctrine. Its a
worldwide crusade.
Without the Global War on Terrorism,
the Obama administration does not have
a leg to stand on: its military doctrine
collapses like a deck of cards.
Undermining the credibility of the Global
War on Terrorism is a powerful
instrument of counter-propaganda.
We call on people across the land:
Mobilize against Obamas war.
The war on Syria is illegal and criminal.
The President and Commander in Chiefs
decision to support Al Qaeda in Syria is in
violation of international law and US anti
terrorism legislation .
US and coalition troops have a moral and
legal obligation to refuse to fight in
Obamas humanitarian war on Syria,
which consists in supporting Al Qaeda
affiliated terrorists.
The President and Commander in Chief
has blatantly violated all tenets of
domestic and international law. So that
making an oath to obey orders from the
President is tantamount to violating
rather
than
defending
the
US
Constitution.
The moral and legal obligation is to the

U.S. Constitution and not to those who
would issue unlawful orders, especially if
those orders are in direct violation of the
Constitution and the UCMJ. (Mosqueda,
US troops have A Duty To Disobey all
Unlawful
orders. http://www.globalresearch.ca/a
rticles/MOS303A.html )
Refusing to fight an illegal war implies a
rejection of the legitimacy of the
Commander in Chief. It denies the Obama
administration the authority to conduct
an illegal and criminal war on behalf of
the American people.
And the American people must support
the US servicemen and women who
refuse to fight in an illegal war.
Obama is a war criminal. He is supporting
terrorists, who are his paid killers. Amply
documented Syrias rebels have been
trained in the use of chemical weapons
and they have used chemical weapons
against innocent civilians.
The Global War on Terrorism is a
fabrication and a lie.
War is an illegal undertaking.
According to Nuremberg jurisprudence,
the ultimate war crime consists in
starting a war. Obama and his European
counterparts including David Cameron
and Francois Hollande are responsible for
the supreme crime: the crime against
peace. This war is illegal irrespective of a
decision of the UN Security Council to
intervene in the internal affairs of a

sovereign state:
All Members shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat
or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of
any state, or in any other manner
inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations Nothing contained in
the present Charter shall authorize the
United Nations to intervene in matters
which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any state or
shall require the Members to submit such
matters to settlement under the present
Charter. UN Charter 1: Purposes and
Principles
The Lost War:

Many around the world including the US
and NATO military personnel believe that
the war they set out to win against
terrorism has not been a success and
against their expectations it has rather
ended up being a great loss. Supporting
this argument is this article.
The brazen attacks in Mosul and Karachi

are just the latest signs that the bad guys
are gaining momentum.
BY DAVID ROTHKOPF
JUNE 10, 2014
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

AL QAEDA
MIDDLE EAST
The ground truth about the spread of
terrorism will be a hard one for many
Americans to swallow after 13 costly
years of war. Terrorism is spreading
worldwide. Our enemies have sustained
our blows, adapted, and grown. Two
questions loom large as a consequence:
Where did we go wrong and what do we
do now?
Recent headlines and new studies
support the conclusion that global terror
trends are heading in an ever more
dangerous direction. In early June, the
Rand Corporation released a study that
detailed the growing threat. It reports
that in 2007, there were 28 Salafi-jihadist
groups like al Qaeda. As of last year, there
were 49. In 2007, these groups conducted
100 attacks. Last year, they conducted
950. The study estimates that there were
between 18,000 and 42,000 such

terrorists active seven years ago. The lowend estimate for last year, at 44,000, is
higher than the top estimate for 2007,
and the new high-end estimate is
105,000. The administration rightly
argues that "core al Qaeda" has sustained
"huge" damage. But "core al Qaeda" no
longer poses the principle threat to the
U.S. homeland. That comes, according to
the Rand report, from al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula. As Rand summarizes
the report: "Since 2010, there has been a
58 percent increase in the number of
jihadist groups, a doubling of jihadist
fighters and a tripling of attacks by Al
Qaeda affiliates. The most significant
threat to the United States, the report
concludes, comes from terrorist groups
operating in Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan
and Pakistan."
As legitimate as the questions that have
emerged in the Bowe Bergdahl case may
be,
they
are
secondary to
the
deteriorating situation associated with
the war the recently released prisoner
went to Afghanistan to fight. There is no

denying that the contempt for Congress
shown in failing to inform it of the deal -even as perhaps 100 in the administration
knew of it -- starkly reveals the cynicism
behind last year's faux deferral to
Congress on Syria. But it would be far
more cynical to continue with the Obama
team's variation on the "mission
accomplished" misrepresentations of his
predecessor. The war in Iraq was not over
or won when we said it was. Nor is the
war on terror won or the threat it poses
resolved simply by no longer using the
term or suggesting our goal was merely to
inflict damage on the tiny fraction of
terrorists who were associated with the
9/11 attacks. The reality is that we are
still fighting the last war on terror even as
a new set of risks loom and are made
worse by our minimizing their
implications for political purposes.
In its recent assessment, "Country
Reports on Terrorism 2013," the State
Department acknowledged the trend. It
observes that last year attacks worldwide
increased almost by half, from 6,700 to
9,700. Nearly 18,000 people died and
nearly 33,000 were injured. While the
report hails allied forces for making
progress combating al Qaeda's core in the
AfPak region, it also notes that the
group's affiliates are becoming more
dangerous. The report takes particular
note of the threat posed by foreign
extremists in Syria, which has become a
kind of petri dish in which a growing
global terror threat is being cultivated.
Estimates on the number of such fighters
range from 7,000 to over 20,000. The

news that one recent suicide bomber in
Syria was an American and that one of the
attackers behind the recent shooting at
the Jewish Museum of Belgium spent time
in Syriasuggests how this threat may
evolve over time. It's not unlikely that, if
left
unchecked,
the
long-term
consequences of a cadre of fighters
trained in Syria who will soon return to
their home countries will be one of the
darkest legacies of that war -- a legacy
that may well echo the long-term costs
associated with training jihadists in the
battle against the Russians in Afghanistan
in the 1980s, among whom, of course, was
Osama bin Laden.
Sleepwalking Into a Trap
On just one day this week, Pakistani
Taliban claimed credit for an attack on
Karachi's international airport that killed
30 people, while in Baluchistan 23 Shiite
pilgrims were killed in gun and bomb
attacks. (A follow-up attack on the
Karachi airport's security academy
occurred less than 48 hours later.) That
same day, 52 people were killed in
bombings in Baghdad. Elsewhere that day
a female suicide bomber attacked a
barracks in Nigeria. Scores more died in
the fighting in Syria -- many at the hands
of the government, to be sure, but many
also as victims of extremists.
Such attacks pass with little more than
perfunctory comment from our
leaders or the media. Yet we are
numbed to such attacks at our peril.
Such attacks pass with little more than

perfunctory comment from our leaders or
the media. Yet we are numbed to such
attacks at our peril. We compound the
risk associated with such numbing by
rationalizing them away. The Rand report
notes that the number of "near abroad"
attacks is up while the number of "far
abroad" attacks has gone down. This is a
way of saying that the threat to the U.S.
homeland appears to be less from these
fragmented, decentralized groups. The
report also suggests that such groups are
more easily defeated or turned against
one another. The State Department
presented its report with comments from
its spokesperson that "the numbers [of
attacks] against Americans have been
very low for a long time and have
continued to go down."
That fewer Americans are being killed
and fewer terrorists are seeking to hit
targets on U.S. soil is no doubt a very good
thing. Much credit for producing such an
outcome is due to the U.S. intelligence
community and our military for reducing
those risks to our homeland security
establishment and the private sector
organizations with which they must
collaborate to be successful. But it would
be as dangerous today to interpret
current trends as being positive because
one particular past enemy is in decline or
because at the moment the risk to
Americans at home is lower as it was for
top officials to underappreciate the threat
posed by bin Laden immediately before
the 9/11 attacks.
That's the dangerous trap into which we

risk falling. By overly focusing on
narrowly
addressing
the
threats
identified with the attacks 13 years ago,
we risk creating precisely the same
conditions that led to those attacks... and
ignoring other, perhaps more serious,
emerging threats.
For example, serious threats exist to U.S.
interests that are not threats to the
homeland. The disintegration of Syria is
such a threat. The creation of a failed
state bordering Israel, Lebanon, Jordan,
Turkey, and Iraq poses deep and lasting
risks to the region. One manifestation of
how such a threat can spread is visible
right now in Iraq, where ISIS (the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant), a group that
cut its teeth in the Syria conflict, has just
seized control of much of Iraq's second
largest city, Mosul.
This compounds ISIS gains in Fallujah and
across Anbar province. Should the Iraqi
government fail to regain control of this
region, the consequences of an extremist
rump state on Jordan's eastern border
and of conflict with Kurds in the north are
grave. Such a scenario is quite possible, in
fact; 11 years after the United States went
to war with Iraq we could be on the verge
of seeing it fracture into an extremist
Sunni state in the west and an Iranian
puppet state in the east -- perhaps the
worst possible outcome we could have
envisioned. It raises the question: What is
the opposite of "mission accomplished?"
And another: Who lost Iraq? (That the
destabilization that caused this was
triggered by an Afghan-based extremist's

group attack on the United States is
illustrative of how unpredictable,
convoluted,
and
widespread
the
aftershocks of terror attacks can be.)
This last point in turn should lead to the
recognition that the cultivation of
extremist threats within failed states like
Syria or weak states like Iraq, Yemen, or
Libya or those in sub-Saharan Africa
seems certain to produce a new
generation of jihadists who will soon pose
a threat worldwide. That such groups
have gained important footholds in Libya,
Mali, Nigeria, and in the Horn of Africa
should be very worrying to us. While they
seem like distant places and the damage
is not now being visited on Americans,
what will be the cost in terms regional
stability, access to vital resources, flows of
immigrants and refugees to new
countries that can ill-afford to house
them, etc.?
The Risks
Narcissism
Posed
by
National
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks we had a

number of reactions to the trauma it
caused. Some were natural -- like seeking
to exact a punishment on those behind
the attacks. Some were sound national
security policy -- like seeking to keep the
attackers from ever attacking us again,
and increasing the tools we have to
anticipate or mitigate future risks. Some
were dangerously ill-considered -- like
invading Iraq. Some were damaging to
our national standing -- like surveillance
overreach or the use of torture. Today, we
are learning the lessons of this period of

reaction, this era in which so many of our
initiatives seemed to be driven by fear of
a future attack. That is why it would be
both ironic and perilous for us to fail to
learn one of the first lessons of what
happened on 9/11, which is that in
today's
globalized,
technologically
empowered world, there is no such thing
as a distant problem. All can make their
way to our doorstep with lightning
speed.
This does not mean we must intervene
everywhere against everyone. The first
War on Terror was clearly mismanaged in
many sometimes profoundly damaging
ways. Indeed, some of our best antidotes
to the risk posed by terror are not war at
all but good intelligence, good police
work, and a renewed focus on economic,
social, and institutional development.
Certainly, invading and destabilizing
extraneous countries only makes matters
worse.
One of the most pervasive problems
behind the first War on Terror was
national narcissism -- the sense that now
that this problem that had afflicted so
many for so long had taken a big enough
toll on us, it was all about us, entirely up
to us to handle in whatever way we saw
fit, the laws of nations and the
international community be damned. But
there is another insidious consequence of
such nationalism. It is the mistaken belief
-- the one that afflicted us prior to 9/11
and was one of its proximate causes -that if such problems did not impact our
shores and our people, they never would;

they weren't our concern. We can't let
such a view delude us into complacency
now.
As Seth Jones, the author of the Rand
report, has said, "Based on these threats,
the United States cannot afford to
withdraw or remain disengaged from key
parts of North Africa, the Middle East and
South Asia. After more than a decade of
war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it may be
tempting for the U.S. to turn its attention
elsewhere
and
scale
back
on
counterterrorism efforts. But [our]
research indicates that the struggle is far
from over."
We dare not drop our guard. And we must
find ways to work even more vigorously
with the international community, with
our
allies,
with
stable
regional
governments upon which we can depend
and with whom we can collaborate, to do
whatever we can to reverse this
disturbing recent trend. President Barack
Obama's West Point speech -- which
suggested that we could now safely start
to hand off such issues to partners on the
ground -- has, in the case of Pakistan and
Iraq, been debunked within the last few
days. We cannot put this effort on
autopilot and forget about it. Instead we
must develop new strategies and new
active and committed alliances -- like
finding ways to work more closely with
the Chinese, who face a similar threat at
home, reinvigorating how the Atlantic
Alliance works together on such issues,
and working more closely with the more
moderate Sunni states in the Middle East.

Our new efforts will require more aid
(and unlike with some of our Syria
promises, aid that is swiftly delivered
when it can make a difference). They will
mean more technical assistance and
training. More shared intelligence. More
military support and, yes, action when it
is the only and best available option. And
above all it will mean instilling the sense
of urgency that should be associated with
any endeavor, like this one to protect our
citizens and interests, in which we are so
clearly losing ground.
Terrorist Organizations:
The following tables represent some
alleged terrorist organizations and also
clearly
explain
how
different
organizations are believed to be terrorists
by different countries which also, to a
great extent, lay the basis for our
discussion of double standards.
(Due to the difference in format and size
of the tables they are not included here so
go to this link to see these tables)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_des
ignated_terrorist_organizations)
The Double Standards:
Now the most important part of the guide
is to know about the double standards
that we are going to try to understand
and resolve. Talking about examples
would be the best way to understand
what double standards we wish to
address.
We see United States of America creating

and supporting the Talibans in the war
against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan
and then later on these same people are
called terrorists by the same USA. Many
believe this to be double standards so we
will be looking at the matter in its depth
and find out whether the claim is right or
in fact these are not double standards but
different treatment due to different
reasons.
Our goal in the committee would be to

discuss, understand and then redefine the
standards and try to come to consensus
on new standards which will serve as a
basis to avoid any double standards so
that all countries and organizations will
be judged based on the same criteria to
define who is and who is not a terrorist.
Taking example of Al Qaeda, Iran believes

Al Qaeda to be a terrorist organization but
at the same time supports Hamas in
Palestine and believes it is not a terrorist
organization. USA believes Al Qaeda to be
a terrorist organization meanwhile
supporting Al Nusra front in Syria and as
a reaction to this as seen above the
people, both military and civilians, are
raising questions against the government
asking them what they actually want.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/whathappened-to-the-global-war-onterrorism-the-u-s-is-fighting-for-alqaeda-in-syria/5348210
Pakistan believes that Tehreek e Taliban

Pakistan is a terrorist organization but is
confused about Al Qaeda and Afghan
Taliban meanwhile presenting no stance
about the Haqqani network and
supporting the Kashmiri mujahideen.
Indians believing the Maoist rebels and
Khalistani separation movements to be
terrorists while supporting the BLA in
Pakistan.
USA believes that Hamas is a terrorist
organization but stands by all the actions
of the State of Israel.
And the list of these ambiguous stances
and confused definitions goes on.
REFERENCES:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_
Terror
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article
s/2014/06/10/we_are_losing_the_war_
on_terror_mosul_karachi_9_11
Topic Area B:
DISCUSSING MEASURES TO CURB ISIS
On June 10, 2014, Mosul, the second
largest city in Iraq and the capital of
Ninawa province, fell to the Salafi-Jihadi
organization, the Islamic State of Iraq and
al-Sham (ISIS). The fall of Mosul and the
subsequent blitz with which ISIS took
over other Sunni majority cities shocked
Washington and Baghdad. However, the
leaderships of the two countries have
entertained different visions as to how to
deal with this surging threat to regional
and international stability. This has only
added another layer of misconception
about ISIS and its future military and
religiopolitical program in the Middle
East. ISIS has achieved what Al Qaeda
failed to accomplish. A recent statement
by ISIS in which it rebranded itself as the
Islamic
State,
declaring
the
establishment of an Islamic Caliphate in
Iraq and Syria, led by its leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, as Caliph Ibrahim, shows
both the astuteness of its military
command and ingenuity of its ideologues.
The Islamic State also known as
the Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (ISIL) and the Islamic State of Iraq
and Syria (ISIS) is a jihadist group, widely
regarded as a terrorist organization. In its
self-proclaimed status as a caliphate, it
claims
religious
authority
over
all Muslims across the world and aspires
to bring much of the Muslim-inhabited
regions of the world under its direct
political control, beginning with territory
in
the Levantregion,
which
includes Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebanon
Cyprus,
and
an
area
in
southern Turkey that
includes Hatay
province. The group has been officially
designated as a foreign terrorist
organization by many states worldwide.
History and Origin of Movement:
Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia prime minister of
Iraq, has been unable or unwilling to
reach out to Sunni parts of the country
partly because his major electoral
opposition in Iraq's sectarian politics
comes from more extreme Shia factions.
The United States left behind an informal
militia of anti-al-Qaeda tribal chiefs
known as the Sahwa, or Awakening,
movement. But Mr. Maliki saw them as
hostile to him politically and reduced the
salaries the Americans were paying them,
making them gradually more and more
alienated. Al-Qaeda played on Sunni
disillusionment
with
the
Maliki
administration. Saddam Hussein was
Sunni and for Mr. Maliki, it was too easy
to portray them as remnants of the
Saddam regime, but many had genuine
grievances.
Without some local support, it would
have been impossible for ISIS to achieve
what it did in Iraq. But the great spur has
been the money and recruits that its
operations in Syria have won it. For many
Sunni sympathizers, particularly in the
Gulf, ISIS represents the front line in a
long war between Sunni Islam and what
they regard as linked heresies Shia
Islam in Iraq and its backer Iran, and the
Alawism of the Assad regime.
About Organization:
The group has had a number of different

names since its formation in early 2004 as
"The Organization of Monotheism and
Jihad"
(JTJ).
These
names
are
underscored in the following paragraphs.
In October 2004, the group's leader Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi swore loyalty to Osama
bin Laden and changed the name of the
group "The Organization of Jihad's Base in
the Country of the Two Rivers", more
commonly known as "Al-Qaeda in Iraq"
(AQI).Although the group has never called
itself "Al-Qaeda in Iraq", this name has
frequently been used to describe it
through its various incarnations.
In January 2006, AQI merged with several
smaller Iraqi insurgent groups under an
umbrella
organization
called
the
"MujahideenShura Council". This was
little more than a media exercise and an
attempt to give the group a more Iraqi
flavor and perhaps to distance al-Qaeda
from some of al-Zarqawi's tactical errors,
notably the 2005 bombings by AQI of
three hotels in Amman.Al-Zarqawi was
killed in June 2006, after which the
group's direction shifted again.
On
12
October
2006,
the
MujahideenShura Council joined four
more insurgent factions and the
representatives of a number of Iraqi Arab
tribes, and together they swore the
traditional Arab oath of allegiance known
as "Oath of the Scented Ones".During the
ceremony, the participants swore to free
Iraq's Sunnis from what they described as
Shia and foreign oppression, and to
further the name of Allah and restore
Islam to glory.
On 13 October 2006, the establishment of

the Dawlat-Iraq-al-Islamia "Islamic State
of Iraq" (ISI) was announced. A cabinet
was formed and Abu Abdullah al-Rashid
al-Baghdadi became ISI's figurehead emir,
with the real power residing with the
Egyptian Abu
Ayyub
al-Masri. The
declaration was met with hostile
criticism, not only from ISI's jihadist
rivals in Iraq, but from leading jihadist
ideologues outside the country.AlBaghdadi and al-Masri were both killed in
a USIraqi operation in April 2010. The
next leader of the ISI was Abu Bakr alBaghdadi, the current leader of ISIS.
On 9 April 2013, having expanded into
Syria, the group adopted the name
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant", also
known as "Islamic State of Iraq and alSham". The name is abbreviated as ISIS or
alternately ISIL. The final "S" in the
acronym
ISIS
stems
from
the Arabic word Sham which refers to
Syria. ISIS was also known as alDawlah ("the State"), or Dawlah al
Islamia("the Islamic State"). These are
short-forms of the Arabic name for the
"Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham"; it is
similar to calling "the United States of
America" "the States".
ISIS's detractors, particularly in Syria,
refer to the group using the Arabic
acronym "DAESH" a term which it
considers derogatory.
ISIS took control of the eastern rebel-held
city of Raqqa in 2012 and expanded along
the border with Turkey. Foreign fighters
flocked to Syria to join it. As ISISs name
suggests, the interests of the group and its
current leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi go
beyond Syria. Its members believe that

the world's Muslims should live under
one Islamic state ruled by sharia law. War
and instability in Syria and Iraq have
given it an opportunity to attempt to
build a proto-state in the adjacent Sunnimajority areas of these two countries,
before spreading further. Its 7,000 or so
fighters in Syria have expended as much
energy on consolidating the groups rule
in towns and cities behind rebel lines as
fighting the regime.
On 29 June 2014, the establishment of a
new caliphate was announced, with Abu
Bakr al -Baghdadi named as its caliph, and
the group formally changed its name to
the "Islamic State"
Ideology and Beliefs:

ISIS originated as an al-Qaeda offshoot in
Iraq. ISIS is a violent extremist group that
follows al-Qaeda's hardline ideology and
adheres to global jihadist principles. Like
al-Qaeda and many other modern-day
jihadist groups, ISIS emerged from the
ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, the
worlds first Islamist group dating back to
the late 1920s in Egypt. ISIS's ideology
originates in the branch of modern Islam
that aims to return to the early days of
Islam, and to regain the place in world
Muslims have lost. Basically ISIS follows
strict Salafi ideology. The ISIS also does
not allow any opposing views or role
players in areas conquered.
CLASHES WITH OTHER ISLAMIC AND
REBEL GROUPS ASSOCIATIONS:
The ISIS is operating independently and
in opposition to other jihadist groups
such as the Jabhat al-Nusra (JN) and the

Islamic Front as well as the Free Syrian
Army (FSA) as seen in clashes with these
groups in both Iraq and Syria. During July
2013, a commander of the Free Syrian
Army (FSA) was reportedly shot dead by
ISIS fighters in the coastal province of
Lattakia. Discord with the FSA was also
seen in deadly clashes between the two
groups in the north-western province of
Idlib. There has also been friction with
other groups with the ISIS being accused
of killing a prominent member of the
Syrian Islamist rebel group Ahrar alSham.
CAPACITY:
The ISIS has extensive financial resources
(mostly derived from alleged organized
crime activities in areas of control as well
as diaspora funds and unidentified
financial sponsors from within Gulf
States) as well as human capital that
enable operations in various locations. In
mid-2014, Iraqi intelligence extracted
information from an ISIS operative which
revealed that the organization had assets
worth US$2 billion, making it the richest
jihadist group in the world. This is seen
in attacks executed in areas regarded as
primarily Shia areas in Iraq, such as
Najaf, Karbala, Kut and Wasit as well as
bombings in Baghdad (Iraq). These
attacks also reflected sophistication both
in terms of execution and diverse tactics.
More recent skirmishes with Iraqi
government forces are evidence of an
extensive ISIS capacity. Both Iran and
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki have
accused Saudi
Arabia and Qatar of
funding ISIS, although there is reportedly

no evidence that this is the case.
Military Equipment:
ISIS has been able to strengthen its
military capability by capturing large
quantities of weaponry from both Iraq
and Syria. These weapons seizures have
improved the group's capacity to carry
out successful subsequent operations and
obtain more equipment. Weaponry that
ISIS has reportedly captured and
employed
include SA-7and
Stinger
surface-to-air
missiles, M79
Osa, HJ8 and AT-4
Spigotanti-tank
weapons, Type 59 field guns and M198
howitzers, Humvees, T-54/55 and T72main
battle
tanks,
truck
mounted D5hK guns, ZU-23-2 antiaircraft guns, BM-21 Grad multiple rocket
launchers and at least one Scud missile.
When ISIS captured Mosul Airport in June
2014, it seized a number of UH-60
Blackhawk helicopters
and cargo
planes that
were
stationed
there.
However, according to Peter Beaumont
of The Guardian, it seemed unlikely that

ISIS would be able to deploy them.
ISIS
captured
nuclear
materials
from Mosul University in July 2014. In a
letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Kimoon, Iraq's UN Ambassador Mohamed

Ali Alhakim said that the materials had
been kept at the university and "can be
used in manufacturing weapons of mass
destruction". Nuclear experts regarded
the threat as insignificant. International
Atomic Energy Agency spokeswoman Gill
Tudor said that the seized materials were
"low grade and would not present a
significant safety, security or nuclear
proliferation risk"
OBJECTIVE/GOAL:
The ISIS's objective is the establishment
of a worldwide Caliphate, reflected in
frequent media reports by means of
images of the world united under a ISIS
banner. Although it has perpetrated many
terrorist acts since its formation in 2006,
especially against Shia and Christian
civilians, ISI/ISIS/ISIL has been especially
active in late 2012 and 2013, claiming
responsibility for killing and wounding
hundreds of people through suicide
bombings. Its principal targets are U.S.

military and Shia and Christian civilians.
ISIS LEADERSHIP:
The ISIS leadership structure and leaders
are:
ISIS in Middle Eastern Region:

Areas of Operation in Iraq:
Anbar province:
The ISIS stronghold is in the Anbar
province, as seen in the operation of
training camps coupled with attacks on
Government security personnel, a case in
in areas of Ramadi and Fallujah, following

the withdrawal of the Iraqi army due to
widespread Sunni rejection of attempts to
dismantle the Ramadi camp protest site.
Their presence in these areas were also
seen in Anbar with mortar attacks at the
Sahwa leader Abu Rishas estate and
fighting with security forces in various
Anbar urban locations, such as the alMalab quarter in Ramadi and the alKhaldiya area near Fallujah.
Mosul, Baiji, Babil, and Baghdad:
point being various suicide bomb attacks

in a single day targeting local police in
Rawa. In addition, the ISIS gained control
Beyond Anbar, the group has enacted

frequent attacks on the Iraqi army in
various districts of Mosul as well as target
specific bomb attacks in the Baiji area of

Salah ad-Din province, Jurf al-Sakhr in
northern Babil province (just south of
Baghdad), and the Tarmiya area of
northern Baghdad province, where
assaults have been launched on Sahwa
forces, resulting in incidents such as the
execution of 18 Sunnis suspected of being
Sahwa militia during November 2013.
Kurdistan:
During 2013, ISIS operations expanded to
Iraqi Kurdistan, as seen in the Arbil
bombings in September 2013, that ISIS
referred to as retaliation due to the
Kurdistan Regional Governments alleged
support for the PKK in Syria.
ISIS IN SYRIA:
In April 2013, ISIS attempted to morph
into the creation of the Islamic State of

Iraq and the Levant (ISIS/ISIL) but the
formation of a new group was rejected by
the al-Nusra Front. ISIS's leader, Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, known as Abu Dua,
nevertheless
pressed
ahead
with
expanding its operations into Syria. In
August 2013, US intelligence assessed
that he was based in Syria and
commanded as many 5,000 fighters, many
of them foreign jihadists. The group is
active mostly in northern and eastern
provinces of Syria. It has assumed joint
control of municipalities in Aleppo, Idlib
and Raqqa provinces. In November
2013 Al-Qaeda chief Ayman al-Zawahiri
ordered the disbanding of the main
jihadist faction in Syria, the ISIL, in an
audio message aired on Al-Jazeera. The
tape appeared to confirm a letter posted
by Al-Jazeera in June 2013, claimed to
have been written by Zawahiri and
addressed to the leaders of Al-Qaeda
factions in both countries. The head of AlQaeda also stressed that the Al-Nusra
Front was the branch of the global jihadist

group in Syria.ISIL's extremism has
resulted in the deaths of more than 1,000
rebels in the last 3-4 weeks alone.
Isis in Lebanon:
The ISIS reach into Lebanon is seen in the
following most recent developments:
On 3 January 2014, a leader in the
Jordanian Salafi movement said the ISIS
has decided officially to infiltrate Lebanon
militarily, by stating that the leader of alNusra Front Abu Muhammad al-Goulani
and the prince of ISIL Abu Baker alBaghdadi have decided to enter Lebanon
militarily.
The ISIS claimed credit for the suicide
bombing HaretHreik in the southern
suburb of Beirut on 22 January 2014,
which killed 5 people. In the statement
released via Twitter, the ISIS stated that
the group has the capacity to violate
Hezbollah security measures and that the
suicide bombing is "a first small payment
from the heavy account that is awaiting
those criminals."
The above announcement was followed
by the Lebanon-focused A'isha Media
Center announcement of an online
campaign to support the ISIS in the
conflict with Syrian militant factions.
On 25 January 2013 a video recording
declared the creation of a Lebanese
division for the ISIS. In the recording, Abu
Sayyaf
al-Ansari
(further
details
unknown) swears allegiance to Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, the Iraqi leader of ISIS. He
also called on Sunnis to abandon the
Lebanese crusader" army, supportive of
continued allegations by Sunni Islamists
that the armed forces are "backed by
Hezbollah." The recording surfaced amid
escalating tensions in Lebanon linked to
the war in neighboring Syria. While the
Lebanon's Shiite Hezbollah has deployed
troops to Syria to back President Bashar

al-Assad, many Sunnis are opposed to
Assad and any support to his government.
In the five-minute recording (refer to
Video section of this profile), al-Ansari
indicated that "a spokesman for ISIS in
Lebanon" identified as Abu Omar alMuhajir would soon make a statement of
his own.
ISIS in Gaza and West Bank:

During February 2014, the ISIS released a
video that showed ISIS fighters
announcing plans to wage a jihad in Gaza.
A spokesperson in the video announced
that DAESH (ISIS) now has "lions and
armies in the environs of Jerusalem" and
called on Muslims to support the group in
their jihad against the enemies of Islam
and "Arab tyrants." The ISIS regards
Hamas as to moderate and not committed
in the fight against Israel. The ISIS
announcement is the first indication of
presence within Gaza Strip/West Bank as
well as a direct challenge to the
Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas.
Future Plans:
ISIS core aim is to establish worldwide
Islamic caliphate. Following is the map
showing their area of interest and their
plans for upcoming years.
ISIS and International World:

ISIS has been declared terrorist
organization by many countries including
USA, KSA, Indonesia, UK and Canada.
Russia has been supporting Iraqi
government by supplying them military
support.
IRAQ:
The nation with the largest Muslim
population in the world has officially
banned support for the terrorist group
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS),
which is responsible for mass killings of
religious minorities in Iraq that has
forced the U.S. government to respond
with air strikes.
INDONESIA:
Indonesia, whose citizens comprise over
10 percent of the global Islamic
population, recently announced the ISIS
ban in response to ISIS recruiting efforts.
Coordinating Political, Legal and Security
Affairs Minister DjokoSuyanto said in a
statement that ISIS, also known as ISIL,
posed a threat to the nation's religious
and cultural diversity.
SYRIA:
Isis is still steadily advancing in Syria,
most recently in the Aleppo countryside.
It has eliminated any possibility of a

coordinated war against it in territories
under control while advancing in areas
such as Aleppo, where the rebels cannot
dedicate all their resources to fighting it
as they are fighting the regime. But the
rebels still outnumber Isis and
communities in some areas are deeply
angered by Isis's random killings.
TURKEY:
Isis has controlled many villages near the
Turkish border and is soon expected to
control key border crossings, posing
profound
challenges
for
Turkish
authorities, whom Isis consider unIslamic. This may prompt Turkey, a NATO
member, to take steps towards closing its
borders from the Syrian side.
USA:
President Obama announced on Thursday
that he had authorized the US military to
launch air strikes against ISIS militants in
Iraq if they threatened the Kurdish capital
of Erbil or the thousands of Yazidi
minority civilians trapped on Mount
Sinjar, both in northern Iraq. "When many
thousands of innocent civilians are in
danger of being wiped out, and we have
the capacity to help, we will take action,"
he said. Those strikes began early on
Friday.
Obama also announced that the US would
airlift emergency humanitarian assistance
into parts of the country. Why now? What
in Iraq has led Obama to this point?
The key reason is that the Islamic State,
the militant group better known as ISIS,
has made major advances in northern
Iraq in the past week. ISIS has swept into
territory it had previously barely

approached, posing a serious threat to
American interests in Iraq and creating a
major humanitarian crisis. Here's a guide
to what happened, and why it's
prompting American air strikes now
IRAN:
Iranian officials have shown concern over
the recent victories of insurgents in
Northern Iraq. As the Islamic State of Iraq
and al-Sham (ISIS), in coordination with
former Baathists, take control over more
territory in Nineveh province, Iranian
officials have expressed their readiness to
help Iraq combat terrorism. Right-wing
media outlets and officials have placed
the blame directly on Western and Arab
countries for supporting ISIS and other
extremist groups.
The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS),
now threatening Baghdad, was funded for
years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar,
and Saudi Arabia, three U.S. allies that
have dual agendas in the war on terror.
Question a Resolution Must Answer
(QARMA):
1. How to deal with insurgents getting
into power?
2. Defining role of UN in this kind
scenario.
3. How to bring peace and stability in the
region.
4. How to assure neighboring countries
from being threatened.
5. Role of international community in
order to prevent such organizations to be
formed in future.
Reference & Further Reading:

http://www.almonitor.com/pulse/tr/security/2013/11
/syria-islamic-state-iraq-shamgrowth.html#
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201
4/jun/11/isis-too-extreme-al-qaidaterror-jihadi
http://www.trackingterrorism.org/group
/islamic-state-iraq-islamic-state-iraqand-sham-isis
http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2014
/06/world/maps-iraq
unrest/http://edition.cnn.com/interactiv
e/2014/06/world/maps-iraq-unrest/
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101785233
http://www.vox.com/cards/thingsabout-isis-you-need-to-know/what-is-isis
http://www.economist.com/blogs/econo
mist-explains/2014/01/economistexplains-12
http://www.aymennjawad.org/14151/th
e-islamic-state-of-iraq-and-al-sham
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/06/26
/iraq-isis-execution-site-located
http://www.cfr.org/iraq/islamic-stateiraq-syria/p14811
http://rbth.com/business/2014/07/07/
moscow_to_support_baghdad_with_aircra
ft_as_isis_advances_37989.html
http://www.breitbart.com/BigPeace/2014/07/01/ISIS-Releases-Mapof-5-Year-Plan-to-Spread-from-Spain-toChina

DISEC Disarmament &amp; International Security, KIETMUN 2014

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

DISEC Disarmament &amp; International Security, KIETMUN 2014

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

1. Message from the Committee Directors

Discussing Measures to Curb ISIS

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

1. MESSAGE FROM THE COMMITTEE DIRECTORS

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

INTRODUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

We also need to understand that these

WAR AGAINST TERRORISM:

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

Although the term is no longer officially

televised address to a joint session of

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

the military fight will be replaced by a law

The Rhetorical War On Terror

described as brave, loving, generous,

A Little Anomaly amidst the War

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

In the wake of 9/11, the Global War on

fighting force affiliated to al Qaeda,

But somehow, in the last few months, this

Channeling money and weapons to Al

In recent months, with the unfolding

John McCain enters Syria illegally and

The US government is actively and openly

Hawkish US Senator John McCain (C)

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

Forces. Were spreading democracy by

Needless to say, this mingling of

Yet in recent months, millions of

Despite the tide of media disinformation,

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

These are the rebels who, according to

Supporting the Terrorists

We were recruited to wage a Global War

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

government, which goes back to the

textbooks Made in America, developed

Al Qaeda the outside enemy of

Al Qaeda is an intelligence asset which

From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war

With regard to Syria, the US government

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

Support to terrorists, portrayed as

The moral and legal obligation is to the

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

intervene in the internal affairs of a

The Lost War:

The brazen attacks in Mosul and Karachi

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

U.S. FOREIGN POLICY

between 18,000 and 42,000 such

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

went to Afghanistan to fight. There is no

range from 7,000 to over 20,000. The

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

Such attacks pass with little more than

That's the dangerous trap into which we

Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

triggered by an Afghan-based extremist's

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks we had a

DISEC Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014

DISEC Disarmament & International Security, KIETMUN 2014