khorosan

As we found ourselves recently shocked by reality — that grown men would intentionally decapitate innocent others in the name of their so-called religion — most of us have begun paying increased attention to terror in the Middle East. Not since the unspeakable wake of 9/11 have we consistently been so alarmed. With this renewed attention, we’ve learned some new terms: ISIS, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — and ISIL, the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. (The Levant is a larger Middle Eastern area that includes Lebanon and Jordan in addition to Syria.) Just last week, a new term arose: “the Khorosan group.” [or “Khorasan”]

Now let me immediately acknowledge that the Intramuralist is by no means aware of all geopolitical terminology. Many things fly over, under, and/or right through my desired, observant radar. But I found it odd that all of a sudden the United States was conducting airstrikes against “the Khorosan group” — and far more than this semi-humble observer had never heard the phrase before.

I began asking questions. I found it odd that still early this week, the definition of “Khorosan” in Wikipedia was nothing short of ambiguous, offering only six, brief potential meanings, from a historic region to a wheat variety.

I searched ample sites… liberal, conservative, factual, subjective. I repeatedly read the narrative of Khorosan being “a little-known terror network” (very little, apparently). I found a few who suggest an active, existent sect. I found still more repeaters of indeterminate talking points. I found one more perspective that scared me. Note: I don’t know if this is true…

Andrew C. McCarthy is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York — the same position once held respectively by Louis Freeh and Rudy Giuliani. McCarthy is most known for the conviction of Islamic terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and the 11 other defendants of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (according to Wikipedia, which had far more information on him, I might add). While McCarthy embraces conservative politics, he is respected across partisan lines because of his noteworthy background in terrorism prosecution; he is knowledgeable. He believes the Khorosan group is fictitious.

McCarthy’s opinion is certainly not widespread nor unanimous. He acknowledges the historic region definition, but adds that the name is one “the administration came up with, calculating that Khorosan — the Iranian-Afghan border region — had sufficient connection to jihadist lore that no one would call the president on it.”

McCarthy argues that Pres. Obama has repeatedly boasted that al-Qaeda has been decimated under his watch, often substantiating the claim by the killing of bin Laden. McCarthy continues by saying Obama has routinely dismissed any serious rise of al-Qaeda, blaming the current threat on all things other than mistakes in his discernment or decision-making. Obama diminishes any perspective contrary to his desired rhetoric of strong leadership. And in perhaps his most poignant criticism, McCarthy adds: “Obama is not the manner of man who can say, ‘I was wrong: It turns out that al-Qaeda is actually on the rise, its Islamic State faction is overwhelming the region, and American interests — perhaps even American territory — are profoundly threatened.’ So instead . . . you got ‘the Khorosan Group.’ ”

Let me be very clear: I hope Andrew McCarthy is wrong. Many believe he is. Many believe he’s wrong in that the group is not fictitious, but that Khorosan is not an accurate representation of the entire picture, as it’s merely a small terrorist cell; in other words, the group may not be fictitious, but it may be overhyped.

The part that concerns this observer most is this administration’s tendency to embrace hyperbole in attempts to seemingly manipulate the public narrative… “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor…” “not even a smidgen of corruption” in the IRS. These are untrue. While manipulative rhetoric is certainly not indigenous to this administration, it greatly concerns this observer that the truth is so ambiguous.

Respectfully…

AR