Category: News

  • More ISIS Atrocities Surface: 250 Women Executed for Refusing ‘Sexual Jihad’

    More ISIS Atrocities Surface: 250 Women Executed for Refusing ‘Sexual Jihad’

  • The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Islamic State

    The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Islamic State

    I met Abu Samou when he pulled over to the side of the road in his small Foton truck in Al-Bab, a lifeless city with mostly empty streets northeast of Aleppo controlled by the so-called Islamic State. I was heading for the Turkish border with the aim of settling in Turkey, but since the Islamic State bans everyone except traders from leaving its caliphate, I only had two options. I could try walking out of Islamic State territory via smuggling routes that pass through mine fields, or I could try to find a truck driver kind enough to help me. Hitchhiking seemed like the better bet.

    I knew hitchhiking would involve crossing the dangerous front line between the “caliphate” and rebel-held territory. What I didn’t realize is that the journey would also include a harrowing, first-hand education in the workings of the contemporary Syrian economy.

    I was advised to approach the men who drive oil across northern Syria, in the hope of finding someone who would be OK with my posing as an “assistant” at Islamic State checkpoints. So I set myself up at the Aleppo-bound side of the Hazwan traffic junction on the outskirts of Al-Bab, and after hiding my bag behind a rock, I waited.

    FBI Paid at Least .3 Million to Break Into Apple iPhone
    Bureau chief Jim Comey said the exploit cost more than he will make during the remainder of his tenure.

    1“I’ll signal 20 trucks before I give up,” I told myself.

    Twenty trucks passed by in an hour or so. None stopped for me. But I couldn’t bear the thought of returning home, so I resolved to test my luck a little while longer.

    After three hours of waiting helplessly, Abu Samou pulled over. A middle-aged man with a red keffiyeh wrapped around his head and fingers stained with mazut, Abu Samou’s wide, cheerful face made him seem trustworthy and kind. He quickly agreed to take me to his hometown of Marea, a rebel-controlled area that is nonetheless surrounded by the Islamic State on three sides. From there, I could easily reach the border, which is only a short drive away.

    After hopping into his truck, I learned Abu Samou is one of hundreds of oil traders who cross the muddy fields that link Islamic State territories to the rebel-held ones. He buys his diesel oil in Al-Bab, the town in the eastern countryside of Aleppo province, and sells it in Marea or Azaz.

    Al-Bab is the Islamic State’s gateway to the outside world: Here, oil produced in Islamic State-controlled fields is transported to rebel-held towns, while goods, which come across the Turkish border, travel in the other direction, providing a lifeline for the population residing under the militant group’s rule.

    Even while war rages between the many factions struggling for control in Syria, economic life continues between the country’s fractured territories. The Islamic State uses the sale of oil to finance its wars, while for the civilians and anti-Assad armed groups that inhabit the region, buying Islamic State-produced oil is the only way that they can get their hands on enough fuel to make their cities habitable.

    Men like Abu Samou — who is not a member of the Islamic State, but a civilian trying to earn a living — are the middlemen who make this possible.

    Men like Abu Samou — who is not a member of the Islamic State, but a civilian trying to earn a living — are the middlemen who make this possible.While Turkey is widely blamed for buying Islamic State oil, most of the group’s output is actually consumed locally in Syria. As the Financial Times detailed in an investigation most recently updated in February, the group charges between $25 and $45 per barrel of oil, selling the fuel to independent traders who then transport it to rebel- and Kurdish-held territory in Syria. Oil sales are a major source of revenue for the group: The Islamic State produced up to 40,000 barrels a day from its fields in the eastern province of Deir Ezzor in October, according to the same investigation.

    It’s not hard to set yourself up as an oil dealer in northern Syria. You can start your own business with no more than $5,000 — the cost of a Chinese-made truck and supplies. Abu Samou had even less when he began: He started with a little more than $2,000, and in a few months, he was able to pay off the cost of his truck in installments. Right now, he carries 10 oil barrels at a time, earning $100 for each trip — equal to a month’s salary for an average worker in the region.

    But Abu Samou risks his life every time he makes the trek. Russian warplanes have started bombing the trucks selling goods in this area — a fact made clear by the charred vehicles lying by the side of the road during our journey. “It’s now more lucrative because of what you see here,” he said.

    Before the Russian campaign, Abu Samou made $25 a trip. This is the inflation of risking one’s life.

    “Every journey I make since the Russians started to bomb the crossroads, targeting specifically oil trucks, I say to myself, ‘That’s enough,’” he told me. “But I need to save money so I can start another business.”

    Even if Abu Samou is lucky enough not to end up like the other charred wrecks along the highway, he must navigate the perilous roads. In the absence of a government to maintain them, these vital roads remain hollowed out by bombs and shells in some parts and by asphalt erosion in others, which become inaccessible when it rains. But the worst is the closure of the road at the front line. For a few miles, trucks draw their way through agricultural fields. Abu Samou uses his keen driving skills to follow the solid track carved out by tires on unsound terrain so he avoids getting stuck in the mud, or else he will end up paying half of his pay on a tractor to pull him out.

    The Russian Air Force claims to be targeting oil sales when it bombs this trade route, but civilian traders carrying basic goods are getting caught in the crossfire. Footage released by the Russian Defense Ministry in December 2015 shows vehicles burning in the aftermath of airstrikes. The caption says that these trucks “carry oil,” but I could clearly see, in my travels, that the hit trucks are laden with goods of all kinds.

    While Abu Samou concentrated on driving and the treacherous passage, my eyes widened at the destruction.

    While Abu Samou concentrated on driving and the treacherous passage, my eyes widened at the destruction. One truck was loaded with chicken cages, with some live chickens and some dead, clearly generous meals for starving dogs to feast on. One truck carried scorched oranges that were strewn along the road, which were nevertheless still picked up and eaten by passersby. Another, blocking the road, carried hundreds of Turkish steel bars for construction.Trade not only links Islamic State- and rebel-controlled areas, but it also extends to Afrin, the Kurdish canton that is controlled and run by the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). And when the battle lines in this war shift, economic agreements have to be renegotiated as well.

    On Jan. 3, the Syrian army — backed by foreign Shiite militias and supported from the air by Russian fighter jets — broke the rebels’ siege on the Shiite villages of Nubul and Zahraa. This meant that the only oil supply route to rebel-held areas in Aleppo from the northern countryside was cut off. This line had been supplying the rebels’ territory with diesel and gasoline, as well as crude, for years. The rebels soon found themselves at the mercy of their enemy, the SDF, to allow oil trucks to supply the northern provinces of Aleppo and Idlib.

    Mustafa, the pseudonym of an Ahrar al-Sham fighter, later told me that his group, along with the other rebels, had “reached a temporary alternative solution,” in which oil trucks were allowed to transport oil so the fuel could reach these rebel-held territories.

    “They [the SDF] are taxing oil transporters a lot of money,” Mustafa said. “They struck a deal, and they are benefitting from that.”

    According to Aleppo Media Center activist Mohammad Basbous, the SDF taxes oil trucks 2,000 Syrian pounds — or roughly $4 — per barrel. While eager to turn a profit, the forces in Afrin also need the oil to keep coming: The Kurdish canton “depends entirely on the oil coming from Azaz and, before that, from Islamic State oil fields,” an SDF-affiliated reporter told me.

    When it suits them, however, each side uses the oil trade as a weapon of war. Every time fighting between the SDF and rebels erupts, roads get cut off, and thus their territories suffer shortages of oil, which drive up fuel prices. “The area is hostage to different ideological agendas and different backers’ strategies,” Mustafa said. And for that, civilians pay the price.

    Last June, while I was in Aleppo, the fighting between rebel forces and the Islamic State stopped the oil trade between their territories. The blockade lasted for nearly a month, and it cost the rebels and people living under them dearly. Gasoline prices jumped to $4 a liter, and diesel vanished from the markets; as a result, most cars stopped moving.

    The Islamic State’s leaders were well-aware that their enemies’ dependence on oil grants them an important weapon. As the fighting continued, the Islamic State emir of Al-Bab threatened his enemies on the other side of the front: “I swear by God we’ll make you trail your tanks and vehicles by donkeys.” But as long as the Islamic State is itself dependent on oil revenues, that threat will never be very credible.

    In Marea, Abu Samou refused to take the money I offered him for the ride. “I do this to help people who need to leave Islamic State-held territory,” he insisted. “I never do it for money.” Left unspoken was that he didn’t include himself among such people. In two or three days, as I continued my journey, Abu Samou was going to make the return trip back into Islamic State territory. He would have an empty truck and a full wallet.

    Image credit: JOHN MOORE/Getty Images

  • Trump’s foreign policy advisor thinks Turkey is conspiring with Native Americans to build nukes

    Trump’s foreign policy advisor thinks Turkey is conspiring with Native Americans to build nukes

    Travis Gettys
    20 Apr 2016 at 12:42 ET

    Donald Trump is the frontrunner in the race to become the Republican presidential nominee (AFP Photo/Timothy A. Clary)

    One of Donald Trump’s top foreign policy advisors is trying to wrest control of a Montana dam from two Native American tribes as part of a bizarre anti-Muslim campaign.

    Joseph Schmitz, an attorney and former Pentagon inspector general, was tapped as one of Trump’s five foreign policy advisors last month, along with a bewildering mix of conspiracy theorists and “third-rate people.”

    Schmitz served as co-counsel in a lawsuit filed last year on behalf of Montana State Senator Bob Keenan (R-Bigfork) and former state Senator Verdell Jackson (R-Kalispell) asking a court to block the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes from taking over management of the former Kerr Dam, reported the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights.

    The dam, which was built in the 1930s on tribal land, was renamed the Seli’š Ksanka Qlispe’ dam when the tribally owned Energy Keepers, Inc., paid nearly $18.3 million to NorthWestern Energy to acquire it.

    That’s when things got weird.

    Schmitz, who’s an “insider” with the right-wing Newsmax website and senior fellow at the virulently anti-Islam Center for Security Policy, and fellow co-counsel Lawrence Kogan filed a lawsuit seeking to block the transfer — which they argued posed a national security threat from Turkey.

    The attorneys claimed the dam transfer would allow the Turkish government and terrorists to obtain nuclear materials, although they were unable to provide any factual evidence of their claims.

    Turkey is an American ally and member of NATO, and the U.S. State Department considers the nation a key partner in its counterterrorism efforts in the Middle East.

    “The nonprofit Nuclear Threat Initiative says Turkey is active in nuclear proliferation prevention efforts and is a member of all major treaties governing the acquisition and use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons,” reported the Associated Press.

    The claims are based on conspiracy theories about the Turkish Coalition of America, a nonprofit lobbying group that has been working to establish an agricultural trade relationship with Native American tribes.

    Schmitz and Kogan, who boasts ties to the right-wing Citizens Equal Rights Alliance, warned that Turkey may be trying to “promote their brand of Islam” on reservations and produce yellowcake uranium using tribal resources.

    “It is quite possible that the Turkish government, sponsored Turkish business enterprises, and affiliated terrorist groups or members may be seeking access to such expertise for possible acquisition and use of incendiary devices to compromise Kerr dam and/or other off-reservation targets,” the lawsuit claims.

    Schmitz and Kogan voluntarily withdrew the lawsuit in October after they were unable to provide evidence of their claims about a terrorist alliance with Native Americans.

    The lawsuit, and Trump’s embrace of Schmitz, highlights the links between anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists and efforts to strip Native Americans of their rights, property and heritage.

    CERA, which essentially challenges Native American rights as unconstitutional, and its longtime leader Elaine Willman are part of a continuum of bigoted crackpots who promote white supremacist and other extremist fringe views through Tea Party organizations and on right-wing websites.

    That’s the mindset Trump is bringing onto his foreign policy team.

    Schmitz himself has written frequently about his fears of sharia law, multiculturalism and political correctness — all personal bugaboos for Trump — and has argued that Americans who receive public assistance should be barred from voting.

    “Multiculturalism, political correctness, misguided notions of tolerance and sheer willful blindness have combined to create an atmosphere of confusion and denial in America about the current threat confronting the nation,” Schmitz wrote.

    Trump’s anti-Muslims views are well known, but he doesn’t much like Native Americans, either.

    He’s fought against the right of tribes to establish casinos under the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and he’s complained for years about his competitors in that business using racist remarks.

    Trump, of course, is a huge fan of the Washington NFL team’s racist nickname.

    “I know Indians that are extremely proud of that name,” he said. “They think it’s a positive.”

  • The Resurgence of ‘Strongmen’ Like Trump Threatens Our Liberal World Order

      • Thomas Weber Author and Professor at the University of Aberdeen

        berggruen

        Hitler-centered historical comparisons with the new “strongmen” of the world are dangerous. They are perilous not so much because they tend to miss their target by a wide margin, but rather because they act as a smokescreen. They obscure the very worrying parallels between the great crisis of liberalism of the post-1873 world that lasted at least for three generations and the current crisis of liberalism. It is these parallels that should be the source of grave concern for the future of a liberal world order, as it was the post-1873 crisis of liberalism that was the root cause for the darkest chapters of the history of the last century.

        Neither any of the new or aspiring strongmen and women — be they Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Donald Trump or Marine Le Pen — are reincarnated Hitlers. Yet the fact that we do not have to fear the emergence of a new Auschwitz or Hitler-style world war should be no cause for complacency. The conditions in Europe after 1873 that gave rise to Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin look eerily similar to the conditions that have brought the strongmen of today to the fore.

        Prior to 1873, liberalism and old-style conservatism had competed for dominance all over Europe and the Western world. Yet for all their differences, the interaction of liberals and conservatives had been of a dialectic nature. Despite all the noise that their struggle had produced, all European countries had moved slowly, often painstakingly so, towards a more liberal order. Furthermore, there had been awareness both within states and between states that polities as well as the international system could only be governed if all players accepted the rules of the game. The pre-1873 world had been full of flaws, to be sure. Yet in comparison to the more than a century that followed, it had been a world that had worked.

        The conditions in Europe after 1873 that gave rise to Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin look eerily similar to the conditions that have brought the ‘strongmen’ of today to the fore.

        The crash of the Vienna stock market of 1873 heralded a new age, in which the losers, imagined and real, of the ensuing great depression and of industrialization abandoned the promises of liberal democracy and of conservatism alike. They flocked to left-wing and right-wing protest movements instead. By the end of the First World War, the struggle between liberalism, the old order and the new protest movements had metamorphosed to devastating effects into a three-way world war of ideologies between liberal democracy and right-wing and left-wing collectivism.

        In recent years, just as a century ago, it has been the losers, imagined and real, of liberalism — in our case marked by globalization, the move towards a new economy and a liberal world order based around ideas of free trade and pooled sovereignty — that has given rise to right-wing and left-wing populism.

        It is these forces that have fueled the rise of new and aspiring strongmen and women in the Americas, Europe and parts of Asia and Africa. Their rise does not imply that the kind of wars and kind of polities that the world experienced between 1914 and 1945 are awaiting us in front of our doorsteps. Unlike a century ago, we do not live in an age of disintegrating empires and social Darwinism. Nor are we experiencing the transformation of the fundamental organizing principles of the states in which we live akin to the transformation of multi-ethnic dynastic empires into nation states that the world witnessed between the early 19th and mid-20th century.

        Yet if we peel away the differences between the world of a century ago and of today from their similarities and focus on fitting historical analogies, the emergence of a new world order comes into sight that, while different from the world of Hitler and Stalin, should worry us all. If we do not manage to stem the flow of the new populism and the rise of new strongmen in today’s age of globalization, we are likely to witness a breakdown of the liberal world order that has at least five elements.

        The emergence of a new world order, while different from the world of Hitler and Stalin, should worry us all.

        Domestically, we will witness the electoral erosion of liberal democracy, as we did in the age of revolutions preceding and following the First World War. This has already happened in several countries in Eastern, Central and Southern Europe. Yet alarming signs abound even in stable, affluent countries such as Germany. For instance, 42.6 percent of voters in the state of Saxony-Anhalt recently cast their votes for right-wing and left-wing populist or radical parties. Anybody who has ever dared publicly to criticize Putin, Erdogan or Hugo Chavez when he was still alive will need no further elaboration about the grave consequences of the rise of illiberal democracy or outright authoritarianism for the fate of liberty and our ability to determine our own lives.

        Second, despite the many ills of a liberal economic order, no alternative economic order has produced comparable levels of wealth (and social welfare). A pursuit of illiberal and isolationist economic policies driven by a belief in autarky, rather than of reformed liberal policies, by the new strongmen would likely result in economic collapse, as it did in the past. The ensuing result would be a fanning of further political radicalization, hence triggering a vicious and self-reinforcing cycle of political, social and economic disintegration. It is thus very troubling indeed to see African news outlets making the case for autarky, sometimes even invoking the example of how Hitler’s turn to autarky reduced levels of unemployment in Germany.

        Third, just as then, we are now experiencing an alarming rise of xenophobia and racism in all countries that have experienced the rise of new strongmen. It is a hallmark of the strongmen of both the past and the present to blame the problems members of their core constituency experience on people not belonging to their own tribe. We do not need images of Auschwitz to foresee that a further rise in populism will thus have dire consequences.

        Trump speaks during a rally at JetSmart Aviation Services on April 10 in Rochester, N.Y. (AP/Mike Groll)

        Fourth, the rise of aspiring strongmen and of populist movements in Europe makes it well nigh impossible to strengthen common institutions and to coordinate policies at a time at which most of Europe’s periphery stands in flames and in which half of Europe is in dire straits itself. Due to ill-designed institutions, Europe had already been in crisis and in urgent need of fundamental reform prior to the rise of the new populism.

        Yet just as in the pre-1873 world, there had been, despite all the European Union’s problems, a rough agreement about the rules of the games and the common purpose of the EU. With the emergence of illiberal democracy in the Visegrad states, the rise of economic radicalism in parts of Southern Europe, the flourishing of isolationist nationalism in Western and Northern Europe, a revival of a belief in autarky in parts of Europe, the resurgence of parochialism on the British Isles and federalists in defensive rather than in innovative reformist mode, there is no longer any agreement over the rules of the game, let alone about the future of Europe.

        Fifth, and most worrying of all, the rise of populism and of new strongmen fatally undermines functioning global governance. Putin, Erdogan and Trump share a contempt for international organizations, formalized rules and formalized systems of collective security. Their rejection of common liberal institutions and formalized rules would not be quite as grave if they at least shared common informal rules.

        We should fear the return of the world of Barbary piracy after the decline of the Ottoman Empire or of Europe after the fall of Rome.

        Yet the contempt displayed by the new strongmen of a G20-style system of global governance rivals that to their rejection of the UN and NATO. Putin, Erdogan and many others have been driven by short-termism in their pursuit of political goals. They have engineered conflicts that bring them short-term political advantages that they have been unable to consolidate and control. In doing so, they have opened Pandora’s box. Furthermore, they have been unwilling to use a formal or informal system of global governance to contain the forces flowing from Pandora’s box.

        The EU, meanwhile, has been in a state of near foreign and security policy paralysis, while the U.S. has allowed red lines to be drawn and crossed without consequences. The result of all this has been a mushrooming of ungoverned spaces — in other words a Somalification of parts of the world. It is thus not a renaissance of Hitler’s world order that we have to fear. Rather it is a return of the world of Barbary piracy in the wake of the decline of the Ottoman Empire or of Europe after the fall of Rome.

        Whether or not the rise of populism and the emergence of new strongmen will succeed in destroying our liberal world order will depend on all of us. It will depend on our ability to reform liberalism and to innovate our systems of domestic and global governance rather than to limit ourselves to pouring contempt over the supporters of populist movements. By timidly defending the status quo, we will be fighting a losing battle, not least since many criticisms of the liberal world order by left-wing and right-wing populists are well on target, even if their proposed alternative remedies are a recipe for disaster.

        slide 468528 6362828 free
        Donald Trump Protest
  • Who asks for regime change in Turkey?

    Who asks for regime change in Turkey?

    Two boys standing in a puddle at a makeshift camp for migrants and refugees at the Greek-Macedonian border near the village of Idomeni.

    Two boys standing in a puddle at a makeshift camp for migrants and refugees at the Greek-Macedonian border near the village of Idomeni.

    Merve Şebnem Oruç MERVE ŞEBNEM ORUÇ

    The biggest threat to U.S. interests is no longer communism. It is others, leaders like Erdoğan who put a premium on their country’s independence, listen to the others of the world, like Muslims, refugees or the poor

    For example, Mort Abramowitz and Eric Edelman, both former U.S. ambassadors to Turkey and co-chairs of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) Turkey Initiative, recently penned an op-ed for the Washington Post calling on Erdoğan to reform or resign. Both names echo back to the days of the 1997 military memorandum as they were involved in coup scenarios to push then Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan of the Welfare Party to resign and end his coalition government. It was not the first article from the two. A previous Washington Post piece in 2014 by both and another lobbyist, Blaise Misztal, who is the director of National Security at the BPC, asked for regime change in Turkey and called on U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration to overthrow the Turkish government.

    Then Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and another committed neocon, manifested his sympathy for a coup in Turkey last week. In an article that was originally published on the American Enterprise Institute’s website that then found a platform in Newsweek, Rubin openly encouraged the Turkish military to carry out an intervention, stating that the U.S. government would work with the new regime if that happens. Again, the piece was not the one and only hostile piece written by Rubin on Turkish politics. He tried to intimidate the Turkish public last summer before the last elections in another hysterical article, asking: “Is Turkey heading to partition?” Accusing Erdoğan of almost everything bad that happens in Turkey and the Middle East, he was quick to put the blame of the outlawed PKK’s ending the cease-fire on Erdoğan and to welcome the partition of Turkey.

    I do not remember how many similar pieces we have read in the last three years, although the real intentions are declared explicitly and boldly in the abovementioned ones. The basic structure in all these articles is common, easy and catchy. First, demonize Erdoğan as much as possible and say he is a threat to democracy and U.S. interests; two, sort complicated issues like press freedoms, the Syrian civil war, constitutional debates and the war with the PKK in a row and do not forget to link all to Erdoğan, ignoring fact checking since the first obligation is not telling the truth; three, call on him to go or call on others – the public, military or the U.S. – to dispose of him; four, push the Turkish people to hate, anger and polarization; five, go back to square one and declare once again that he is a dictator or a despot, adding the results and reiterate that he is a great threat to democracy, Western values and U.S. interests.

    If it were the first time the international media had carried out a smear campaign against a leader and a country, we would fall into the trap. Brazil, Iran, Egypt, India, Russia and China, the international mainstream media has deliberately and systematically targeted all who do not bow down to the hegemony and the greatness of the U.S. in a similar way for years.

    But what is more troubling than that is that the mainstream media is often covertly and secretly engaged with U.S. government institutions like the CIA. Carl Bernstein, one of the reporters who covered the Watergate scandal, spent six months investigating the relationship between the CIA and the press and published his findings in Rolling Stone in 1977. Bernstein says the CIA’s dealings with the press began during the earliest stages of the Cold War. “American publishers, like so many other corporate and institutional leaders at the time, were willing to commit the resources of their companies to the struggle against ‘global Communism,’ ” he states. The CIA used many journalists, and those had the reputation of being among the best in the business.

    Today, the biggest threat to U.S. interests is no longer communism. It is others, leaders like Erdoğan who puts a premium on his country’s independence, listens to the others of the world like Muslims, refugees or the poor and dares to take a stand against the deep elites of the U.S. or powerful lobbyists. The methods once used against communism are now being used against leaders like Erdoğan. As days pass, and they cannot get rid of him, they push harder and openly ask for regime change or a military coup. But it is not only about Erdoğan, it is about the future of a people, the Turkish people. It is about sovereignty and the independence of an aged country. Turkish people will not give up on him, as they are fully aware of what they are forced to do.

  • Pentagon orders military families out of Turkey due to ISIS threat

    Pentagon orders military families out of Turkey due to ISIS threat

    Turkey's year of turmoil

    Turkey’s year of turmoil 02:13

    Story highlights

    • About 670 family members remain at facilities in Incirlik, Izmir and Mugla
    • The base is the permanent home to units of the Turkish Air Force and the U.S. Air Force’s 39th Air Base Wing
    Washington (CNN)The U.S. military has ordered military family members to evacuate southern Turkey, primarily from Incirlik Air Base, due to security concerns, the Pentagon said Tuesday.
    Family members will also be evacuated from facilities in Izmir and Mugla, according to a Pentagon statement.
    “The decision to move our families and civilians was made in consultation with the Government of Turkey, our State Department, and our Secretary of Defense,” Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, commander of U.S. European Command, said in the statement.
    A U.S. defense official told CNN that the base had been placed under Force Protection Condition Delta for weeks, the highest level of force protection for U.S. military bases. Delta level means that either a terrorist attack has just taken place in the immediate vicinity or “intelligence has been received that terrorist action against a specific location or person is imminent,” according to military guidelines.
    A U.S. official said the evacuation decision was made because of the ongoing threats concerning possible ISIS attacks.
    RELATED: ISIS terrorizes Europe but loses ground at home
    The State Department is also ordering the departure of family members of staff at the U.S. consulate in Adana, except for family members who also work at the diplomatic post.
    “The safety and security of U.S. citizens living abroad are top priorities, and we take very seriously the responsibility for ensuring the security of members of the entire official American community,” a State Department spokesman said. “In close coordination with the Department of Defense, we will continue to evaluate our security posture in Turkey and worldwide.”
    In addition, the State Department re-issued its travel warning for Turkey, stating that, “The U.S. Department of State warns U.S. citizens of increased threats from terrorist groups throughout Turkey and to avoid travel to southeastern Turkey.”
    The State Department has also now restricted official travel by staff in Turkey to “mission-critical” movement only.
    State Department spokesman John Kirby said Tuesday afternoon that the decision to order dependents out of Adana was not related to a specific threat but rather a “running analysis of the security threat” in the area over the last several weeks.
    He did not specify the number of family members leaving but said it was a “small number.”
    Secretary of State John Kerry informed his Turkish counterpart of the step during their meeting Monday.
    Kirby disputed the notion that the decision was deliberately announced while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was visiting for the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington.
    He said the process was carried out “with deep consideration and careful thought” given the threat level, and the measure was taken with significant interagency communication.
    “This is not the kind of decision we take lightly,” Kirby said.

    Four killed in suicide bombing

    Four killed in suicide bombing 02:00
    Nearly 100 people have been killed in Turkey in five separate terrorist attacks since the start of 2016. Two of these attacks were attributed to ISIS while the others were carried out by Kurdish separatists.
    About 670 U.S. family members remain at facilities in Incirlik, Izmir and Mugla, according to the official.
    The same official said the military had already closed the base’s Department of Defense School for children for weeks, with assignments being sent to children at home.
    “We understand this is disruptive to our military families, but we must keep them safe and ensure the combat effectiveness of our forces to support our strong ally Turkey in the fight against terrorism,” Breedlove said.
    In addition, 287 pets from military families are also leaving Turkey.
    In September, the State Department and Pentagon authorized the voluntary departure of the 900 family members of personnel stationed at Incirlik and at the U.S. consulate in Adana, Turkey.
    At the time, Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said the move was done “out of an abundance of caution.”
    That decision did not apply to family members of military or civilian personnel in other cities, including Ankara, Istanbul and Izmir.
    The base is the permanent home to units of the Turkish Air Force and the U.S. Air Force’s 39th Air Base Wing, which includes about 1,500 American service personnel, according to the base’s website.
    After months of negotiations, the U.S. military population grew significantly after Turkey agreed to open up the base to U.S. war planes participating in airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
    Incirlik is strategically vital to the counter-ISIS campaign, as it’s located about 100 miles from the Syrian border.
    The U.S. began using Incirlik during the 1950s, and its proximity to the Soviet Union made it a key installation during the Cold War.
    The base has supported numerous U.S. operations in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan over its long history.
    RELATED: Mapping ISIS attacks worldwide
    Turkey, for its part, has seen plenty of violent spillover from neighboring Iraq and Syria, where ISIS has employed terrorist and other tactics against civilians and military foes alike.
    Bloodshed in southern Turkey blamed on ISIS includes a suicide bombing last July in Suruc that killed more than 30 people.
    The Islamist extremist group has also shown a willingness to strike in some of Turkey’s biggest cities — like a suicide blast earlier this month in a busy tourist area in central Istanbul.
    Yet ISIS isn’t the only group behind recent terror in Turkey.
    On March 13, the Kurdistan Freedom Falcons, or TAK — a militant offshoot of the Kurdish separatist group, PKK — boasted of its part in a car bombing that ripped through a busy square in Ankara, killing 37 people. Turkey and the United States consider both the TAK and PAK terrorist organizations.
    The attack took place a month after the same group claimed another deadly bombing in the Turkish capital and threatened more violence — warning foreigners, especially, to stay away from Turkey.
    “Tourism is one of the important sources feeding the dirty and special war, so it is a major target we aim to destroy,” the TAK said then.
    A ceasefire between the PKK and Turkey fell apart last summer. That was followed by Turkish forces’ bombing of the terror group’s positions in northern Iraq while also imposing curfews in crackdowns on heavily Kurdish areas in southeastern Turkey.
    There have been many more such actions in southern Turkey in more recent months, especially on the heels of terrorist attacks.