Wednesday July 1, 2009
The Bolivarian-Islamist Narrative of Asymmetrical Warfare
Yesterday I participated in a Hudson Institute event on Populism, Islamism and "Indigenism" versus Democracy in Latin America. What came into focus there was the joint narrative of the Bolivarian populist governments (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua) and radical Islamists, led by Iran.
It is hard, on the surface, to imagine what a secular revolution that allows women on the beach in bikinis, salsa music, racy soap operas and rum has in common with a theocracy that tolerates none of those things and believes that divine law should rule the world.
One of the primary unifying threads in the joint narrative is the utopian vision that a human system can be devised that will bring justice and peace. Hence, from this vision, both groups construct a narrative of heroic battling against the earthly forces of evil and corruption, and both have chosen the United States as its primary enemy, followed closely by other liberal democracies that, in their view, have failed to live up to the utopian ideals.
This is where, as I have written about before, the joint fascination with asymmetrical warfare and its desirability meshes with the larger story line. Both sides view themselves as small powers taking on vast world powers, a David and Goliath narrative that imbues a sense of inevitable ultimate victory with the need to find the weapons that will lead to the defeat of enemy.
The keynote speaker at the Hudson event, Spanish parliamentarian Gustavo de ArÃstegui, has written that those in this alliance, whether secular or religious, view themselves as "legitimate soldiers in an heroic battle within the context of an asymmetrical war of liberation. It is a theory that justifies any kind of violence, including terrorism, if it is used against the most powerful countries, the repressive forces of the West."
This view of the heroism of the actions is in part what gives such a dangerously romantic view of suicide bombings, as espoused in the book Chavez has adopted as official military doctrine: Peripheral Warfare and Revolutionary Islam: Origins, Rules and Ethics of Asymmetrical Warfare (Guerra Periferica y el Islam
Revolucionario: OrÃgenes, Reglas y Ética de la Guerra Asimétrica) by the Spanish politician and ideologue Jorge Verstrynge. I have written about that more extensively in a previous post.
There is little doubt that this tactical alliance would shatter if either side were to gain significant ground. The Islamists have shown, particularly in the Iranian revolution that was viewed initially by many as triumph of secular, reformist forces, that it will eat the young revolutionaries for lunch.
But for now, the common view of the struggle against the West, bound by a narrative both can offer as an explanation for their actions, is sufficient. The common enemy is there, and the weapons for the struggle can be obtained.
One of the dangers of this narrative is not just the seduction it holds for messianic leaders like Chavez in Venezuela and Ahmadinejad in Iran, but the lure it holds for non-state armed groups like the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), who increasingly find themselves isolated and without a coherent reason to continue the revolution.
Chavez's willingness to embrace and help write this narrative means that he has shared with his allies in the FARC, and why his pro forma protestations of not supporting the revolutionary cause are meaningless, and will remain so. The FARC needs to articulate a reason for its continuation in the armed struggle. The narrative not only offers that, but well-trained allies (Hezbollah particularly) who can help them advance once a common agenda is established. And that is truly alarming.
It is hard, on the surface, to imagine what a secular revolution that allows women on the beach in bikinis, salsa music, racy soap operas and rum has in common with a theocracy that tolerates none of those things and believes that divine law should rule the world.
One of the primary unifying threads in the joint narrative is the utopian vision that a human system can be devised that will bring justice and peace. Hence, from this vision, both groups construct a narrative of heroic battling against the earthly forces of evil and corruption, and both have chosen the United States as its primary enemy, followed closely by other liberal democracies that, in their view, have failed to live up to the utopian ideals.
This is where, as I have written about before, the joint fascination with asymmetrical warfare and its desirability meshes with the larger story line. Both sides view themselves as small powers taking on vast world powers, a David and Goliath narrative that imbues a sense of inevitable ultimate victory with the need to find the weapons that will lead to the defeat of enemy.
The keynote speaker at the Hudson event, Spanish parliamentarian Gustavo de ArÃstegui, has written that those in this alliance, whether secular or religious, view themselves as "legitimate soldiers in an heroic battle within the context of an asymmetrical war of liberation. It is a theory that justifies any kind of violence, including terrorism, if it is used against the most powerful countries, the repressive forces of the West."
This view of the heroism of the actions is in part what gives such a dangerously romantic view of suicide bombings, as espoused in the book Chavez has adopted as official military doctrine: Peripheral Warfare and Revolutionary Islam: Origins, Rules and Ethics of Asymmetrical Warfare (Guerra Periferica y el Islam
Revolucionario: OrÃgenes, Reglas y Ética de la Guerra Asimétrica) by the Spanish politician and ideologue Jorge Verstrynge. I have written about that more extensively in a previous post.
There is little doubt that this tactical alliance would shatter if either side were to gain significant ground. The Islamists have shown, particularly in the Iranian revolution that was viewed initially by many as triumph of secular, reformist forces, that it will eat the young revolutionaries for lunch.
But for now, the common view of the struggle against the West, bound by a narrative both can offer as an explanation for their actions, is sufficient. The common enemy is there, and the weapons for the struggle can be obtained.
One of the dangers of this narrative is not just the seduction it holds for messianic leaders like Chavez in Venezuela and Ahmadinejad in Iran, but the lure it holds for non-state armed groups like the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), who increasingly find themselves isolated and without a coherent reason to continue the revolution.
Chavez's willingness to embrace and help write this narrative means that he has shared with his allies in the FARC, and why his pro forma protestations of not supporting the revolutionary cause are meaningless, and will remain so. The FARC needs to articulate a reason for its continuation in the armed struggle. The narrative not only offers that, but well-trained allies (Hezbollah particularly) who can help them advance once a common agenda is established. And that is truly alarming.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Wednesday June 24, 2009
West Africa in the New Cocaine Pipeline
Yesterday the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Africaheld what Chairman Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) a wake up call on the growing threat of cocaine trafficking through West Africa.
I testified there on the ties of the emerging groups in West Africa to the FARC and my fellow CTB contributor Michael Braun testified as well.
I think it is a tremendously important development because, in the end, there are two major consequences for the United States: the money from that trade will strengthen the criminal pipelines in our hemisphere because most of the money comes back here and; the human cost of putting that much new money into the existing criminal pipelines in a region where there has already been horrendous violence surrounding far less valuable commodities.
The amount of money in play here is enormous, particularly given the weak state of governments, civil society, law enforcement, the judiciary etc. There is little that can be done to avert the wholesale implosion of the region.
One of the reasons for this is the dismal state of governance in West Africa is that since the early 1990s the region has suffered a series of conflicts centered on natural resources, particularly diamonds, timber, oil, and gold. Profits from these "honey pot" wars fueled the rise of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone with its child soldiers and unspeakable atrocities; fed the wars sustained by Liberia's Charles Taylor; and contributed to the rampant corruption and weak or failed institutions in almost every country. These natural resources, while valuable, pale in comparison to the money the cocaine trade generates. For example, at the height of the "blood diamond" trade in Sierra Leone and Liberia, the total value of the diamonds being smuggled out was less than $200 million. The potential to fuel conflicts over the cocaine pipeline, the most lucrative commodity so far and one whose profits are several orders of magnitude larger than diamonds, is truly frightening.
Given Hezbollah's long-established presence on the ground in the region and the closeness of its operatives to that community, it is also reasonable to assume that Hezbollah and the drug traffickers, operating in the same permissive environment, will cross paths. It is precisely this type of environment that allows for the otherwise unthinkable alliances to emerge. Most are short-lived, centering on specific opportunities and operations that can benefit both groups, but others are longer lasting and more dangerous.
More worrisome is the recent evidence of Chávez's direct support for Hezbollah, including the June 18, 2008 OFAC designations of two Venezuelan citizens, including a senior diplomat, as terrorist supporters for working with the armed group. Several businesses also were sanctioned. Among the things the two are alleged to have been conducting on behalf of Hezbollah were coordinating possible terrorist attacks and building Hezbollah-sponsored community centers in Venezuela.
Given Iran's ties to Hezbollah and Venezuela, Venezuela's ties Iran and the FARC, the FARC's history of building alliances with other armed groups, and the presence of Hezbollah and other armed Islamist groups in Latin America and on the ground in West Africa, it would be dangerous and imprudent to dismiss the possibility of an alliance of these actors. The history of these groups indicates that they will take advantage of the ungoverned spaces and corrupt and weak states of West Africa to get to know each other, work together, learn from each other and exploit areas of mutual interest. Unfortunately, the primary area of mutual interest is a hatred of the United States.
I testified there on the ties of the emerging groups in West Africa to the FARC and my fellow CTB contributor Michael Braun testified as well.
I think it is a tremendously important development because, in the end, there are two major consequences for the United States: the money from that trade will strengthen the criminal pipelines in our hemisphere because most of the money comes back here and; the human cost of putting that much new money into the existing criminal pipelines in a region where there has already been horrendous violence surrounding far less valuable commodities.
The amount of money in play here is enormous, particularly given the weak state of governments, civil society, law enforcement, the judiciary etc. There is little that can be done to avert the wholesale implosion of the region.
One of the reasons for this is the dismal state of governance in West Africa is that since the early 1990s the region has suffered a series of conflicts centered on natural resources, particularly diamonds, timber, oil, and gold. Profits from these "honey pot" wars fueled the rise of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone with its child soldiers and unspeakable atrocities; fed the wars sustained by Liberia's Charles Taylor; and contributed to the rampant corruption and weak or failed institutions in almost every country. These natural resources, while valuable, pale in comparison to the money the cocaine trade generates. For example, at the height of the "blood diamond" trade in Sierra Leone and Liberia, the total value of the diamonds being smuggled out was less than $200 million. The potential to fuel conflicts over the cocaine pipeline, the most lucrative commodity so far and one whose profits are several orders of magnitude larger than diamonds, is truly frightening.
Given Hezbollah's long-established presence on the ground in the region and the closeness of its operatives to that community, it is also reasonable to assume that Hezbollah and the drug traffickers, operating in the same permissive environment, will cross paths. It is precisely this type of environment that allows for the otherwise unthinkable alliances to emerge. Most are short-lived, centering on specific opportunities and operations that can benefit both groups, but others are longer lasting and more dangerous.
More worrisome is the recent evidence of Chávez's direct support for Hezbollah, including the June 18, 2008 OFAC designations of two Venezuelan citizens, including a senior diplomat, as terrorist supporters for working with the armed group. Several businesses also were sanctioned. Among the things the two are alleged to have been conducting on behalf of Hezbollah were coordinating possible terrorist attacks and building Hezbollah-sponsored community centers in Venezuela.
Given Iran's ties to Hezbollah and Venezuela, Venezuela's ties Iran and the FARC, the FARC's history of building alliances with other armed groups, and the presence of Hezbollah and other armed Islamist groups in Latin America and on the ground in West Africa, it would be dangerous and imprudent to dismiss the possibility of an alliance of these actors. The history of these groups indicates that they will take advantage of the ungoverned spaces and corrupt and weak states of West Africa to get to know each other, work together, learn from each other and exploit areas of mutual interest. Unfortunately, the primary area of mutual interest is a hatred of the United States.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Thursday June 18, 2009
New Paper on Bolivia: Into the Abyss
The International Assessment and Strategy Center has just published a paper I wrote on the rapidly-deteriorating situation in Bolivia: Into the Abyss: Bolivia Under Morales and the MAS.
The study outlines several of the more dangerous elements of the Morales government and his ties to Venezuela and Iran. Among them are:
o The systematic de-institutionalization of the nation's fragile democratic structures, including the judiciary and independent auditing agencies;
o A complete restructuring of the military patterned after the Venezuelan model of integrating the armed forces into a host of civic and traditionally civilian roles;
o A radical restructuring of the military doctrine, endorsing the asymmetrical warfare tactics embraced and employed by radical Islamist groups and formally adopted by Hugo Chávez and the Venezuelan military;
o A complete restructuring of the nation's intelligence apparatus, advised by Cuban and Venezuelan experts on internal security;
o Growing ties to the FARC and other armed groups in Latin America;
o Permanent confrontation, insults and attacks-verbal and physical-on members of the press, leading to numerous international expressions of concern.
Of greatest concern is the little-discussed endorsement of Chavez of the a doctrine of asymmetrical warfare against the United States based on the principles pioneered by radical Islamist groups.
Since 2005 Chávez has rewritten Venezuela's security doctrine to scrub it of all outside, "imperialist" influences. To replace the old doctrine, Chávez and the Venezuelan military leadership have focused on developing a doctrine centered on asymmetrical warfare, in the belief that the primary threat to Venezuelan security is a U.S. invasion. One of the main books he has adopted is Peripheral Warfare and Revolutionary Islam: Origins, Rules and Ethics of Asymmetrical Warfare (Guerra Periferica y el Islam
Revolucionario: OrÃgenes, Reglas y Ética de la Guerra Asimétrica) by the Spanish politician and ideologue Jorge Verstrynge. Although he is not a Muslim, and the book was not written
directly in relation to the Venezuelan experience, Verstrynge's book lauds radical Islam (as well as past terrorists like Ilich RamÃrez Sánchez, better known as Carlos the Jackal)104 for helping to
expand the parameters of what irregular warfare should encompass -- including the use of biological and nuclear weapons, along with the correlated civilian casualties among the enemy. Central to Verstrynge's idealized view of terrorists is the belief that it involves fighters willing tosacrifice their lives in pursuit of their goals. Before writing extensively on how to make chemical weapons and listing helpful places to find information on the manufacture of rudimentary
nuclear bombs that "someone with a high school education could make," Verstrynge writes:
We already know it is incorrect to limit asymmetrical warfare to guerrilla warfare, but it is important. However, it is not a mistake to also use things that are classified as terrorism and use them in asymmetrical warfare. And we have super terrorism, divided into chemical terrorism, bioterrorism (which uses biological and bacteriological methods), and nuclear terrorism, which
means "the type of terrorism uses the threat of nuclear attack to achieve its goals."
Based on this book, Verstrynge was invited by Chávez to give keynote address to military leaders in a 2005 conference titled "First Military Forum on Fourth Generation Warfare and
Asymmetric Conflict" held at the military academy. Following the conference Gen. Raúl Baduel, the army commander and Chávez confidant ordered a special pocket size edition of the book to be printed up and distributed throughout the officer corps with explicit orders that it be studied cover to cover. In a December 12, 2008 interview with Venezuelan state television Verstynge lauded Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda for creating a new type of warfare that is "deterritorialized, de-stateized and de-nationalized," a war where suicide bombers act as "atomic bombs for the poor." Given the level of training Venezuelan military institutions are giving their Bolivian counterparts and the level of on the ground Venezuelan leadership and advising in Bolivia, it is highly likely that this doctrine is being transmitted from one military to the other.
The study outlines several of the more dangerous elements of the Morales government and his ties to Venezuela and Iran. Among them are:
o The systematic de-institutionalization of the nation's fragile democratic structures, including the judiciary and independent auditing agencies;
o A complete restructuring of the military patterned after the Venezuelan model of integrating the armed forces into a host of civic and traditionally civilian roles;
o A radical restructuring of the military doctrine, endorsing the asymmetrical warfare tactics embraced and employed by radical Islamist groups and formally adopted by Hugo Chávez and the Venezuelan military;
o A complete restructuring of the nation's intelligence apparatus, advised by Cuban and Venezuelan experts on internal security;
o Growing ties to the FARC and other armed groups in Latin America;
o Permanent confrontation, insults and attacks-verbal and physical-on members of the press, leading to numerous international expressions of concern.
Of greatest concern is the little-discussed endorsement of Chavez of the a doctrine of asymmetrical warfare against the United States based on the principles pioneered by radical Islamist groups.
Since 2005 Chávez has rewritten Venezuela's security doctrine to scrub it of all outside, "imperialist" influences. To replace the old doctrine, Chávez and the Venezuelan military leadership have focused on developing a doctrine centered on asymmetrical warfare, in the belief that the primary threat to Venezuelan security is a U.S. invasion. One of the main books he has adopted is Peripheral Warfare and Revolutionary Islam: Origins, Rules and Ethics of Asymmetrical Warfare (Guerra Periferica y el Islam
Revolucionario: OrÃgenes, Reglas y Ética de la Guerra Asimétrica) by the Spanish politician and ideologue Jorge Verstrynge. Although he is not a Muslim, and the book was not written
directly in relation to the Venezuelan experience, Verstrynge's book lauds radical Islam (as well as past terrorists like Ilich RamÃrez Sánchez, better known as Carlos the Jackal)104 for helping to
expand the parameters of what irregular warfare should encompass -- including the use of biological and nuclear weapons, along with the correlated civilian casualties among the enemy. Central to Verstrynge's idealized view of terrorists is the belief that it involves fighters willing tosacrifice their lives in pursuit of their goals. Before writing extensively on how to make chemical weapons and listing helpful places to find information on the manufacture of rudimentary
nuclear bombs that "someone with a high school education could make," Verstrynge writes:
We already know it is incorrect to limit asymmetrical warfare to guerrilla warfare, but it is important. However, it is not a mistake to also use things that are classified as terrorism and use them in asymmetrical warfare. And we have super terrorism, divided into chemical terrorism, bioterrorism (which uses biological and bacteriological methods), and nuclear terrorism, which
means "the type of terrorism uses the threat of nuclear attack to achieve its goals."
Based on this book, Verstrynge was invited by Chávez to give keynote address to military leaders in a 2005 conference titled "First Military Forum on Fourth Generation Warfare and
Asymmetric Conflict" held at the military academy. Following the conference Gen. Raúl Baduel, the army commander and Chávez confidant ordered a special pocket size edition of the book to be printed up and distributed throughout the officer corps with explicit orders that it be studied cover to cover. In a December 12, 2008 interview with Venezuelan state television Verstynge lauded Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda for creating a new type of warfare that is "deterritorialized, de-stateized and de-nationalized," a war where suicide bombers act as "atomic bombs for the poor." Given the level of training Venezuelan military institutions are giving their Bolivian counterparts and the level of on the ground Venezuelan leadership and advising in Bolivia, it is highly likely that this doctrine is being transmitted from one military to the other.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Tuesday June 16, 2009
Rep. Wolf Takes on CAIR, and the US MB-Hamas Tie
Two interesting notes regarding the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood-linked groups in the United States over the weekend.
First, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va), took the unusual and courageous step of directly tackling CAIR on the floor of the House last Friday. In his speech, also available on Youtube, Wolf laid out CAIR's history in some detail and asked the FBI and the main Justice Department to clarify the status of their relationships with CAIR.
After reviewing the group's history, Wolf identified one of their most effective tactics and why it is so dangerous:
Given CAIR’s genesis, its associations with known terrorist entities and individuals, and its tactics—namely attempting to discredit anyone who dares to speak out against its organization—their cries of victimization and accusations of religious bigotry appear disingenuous.
Wolf further noted that:
In a federal court filing from December 2007, federal prosecutors described CAIR as "having conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists." The government also stated that "proof that the conspirators used deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists was introduced" in the Holy Land Foundation trial.
In a footnote government prosecutors points out: "(F)rom its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists…"
Other elected officials, including Democrats like Charles Schumer and Dick Durbin and Republicans like Jon Kyle and Tom Coburn, have taken on CAIR, but Wolf's call to the FBI and other U.S. government agencies to keep a healthy distance from the organization is both timely and important, as CAIR and other MB-linked organizations seek to influence the Obama administration.
The ties of some of these groups to Hamas is shown by this note in the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report (free subscription required)
The posting notes that:
In a response to the recent President Obama speech to the Muslim world, Islamic convert Robert Crane makes the interesting admission that he is a "principal adviser" to Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef. In an article in the American Muslim, Dr Crane writes:
"The best approach was taken by Dr. Ahmed Yousef, for whom I served in the 1990s as Managing Editor of his scholarly Middle East Affairs Journal and for whom I have long been a principal adviser. As the Deputy Foreign Minister in Palestine’s legally elected government, and as one of the two intellectual founders in 1983 of the Palestinian Hamas, Dr. Yousef has authority as perhaps the world’s leading Islamist in the search for peace, prosperity, and freedom through compassionate justice".
Youssef serves as Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the dissolved government in Gaza but is usually described by the western media as a political adviser to Ismail Haniya, senior political leader of Hamas and one of two disputed Prime Ministers of the Palestinian National Authority. His Middle East Affairs Journal is published by the United Association for Studies and Research (USAR), part of the Palestine Committee of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and generally thought to be part of the Hamas infrastructure in the U.S.
Dr. Crane, who was very briefly U.S. ambassador to the UAE in 1981 and who converted to Islam in Bahrain during that year, has been a board member of the USAR as well as holding positions with the American Muslim Council and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, both also part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. In 1998, Dr. Crane wrote that he had a "structure for Islamizing America."
Shortly after 911, Dr. Crane published an article blaming the terrorist attacks solely on the U.S, and specifically on "active U.S. support of secularized and xenophobic Zionism"
In 2007 wrote that he looked forward to the collapse of the "American Empire" which he said would come about "only with the help of Muslims":
The American Empire must eventually collapse, as John Whitehead predicts, and as all empires have. The challenge is to transform America so that it is no longer an empire and therefore can serve the intent of its founders to be a moral model for the world based on the universal wisdom of all the world religions. This transformation can come only with the help of Muslims who are pursuing the mission of educating their fellow Muslims for the good of America.
Crane's public acknowledgement of being a principal advisor to a leader of Hamas, as the GMBDR notes, may be a violation of U.S. law regarding the provision of material support for designated terrorist organizations, which is what Hamas is. At the least, it shows the ties between the legacy MB groups in the US and Hamas remain strong.
First, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va), took the unusual and courageous step of directly tackling CAIR on the floor of the House last Friday. In his speech, also available on Youtube, Wolf laid out CAIR's history in some detail and asked the FBI and the main Justice Department to clarify the status of their relationships with CAIR.
After reviewing the group's history, Wolf identified one of their most effective tactics and why it is so dangerous:
Given CAIR’s genesis, its associations with known terrorist entities and individuals, and its tactics—namely attempting to discredit anyone who dares to speak out against its organization—their cries of victimization and accusations of religious bigotry appear disingenuous.
Wolf further noted that:
In a federal court filing from December 2007, federal prosecutors described CAIR as "having conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists." The government also stated that "proof that the conspirators used deception to conceal from the American public their connections to terrorists was introduced" in the Holy Land Foundation trial.
In a footnote government prosecutors points out: "(F)rom its founding by Muslim Brotherhood leaders, CAIR conspired with other affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood to support terrorists…"
Other elected officials, including Democrats like Charles Schumer and Dick Durbin and Republicans like Jon Kyle and Tom Coburn, have taken on CAIR, but Wolf's call to the FBI and other U.S. government agencies to keep a healthy distance from the organization is both timely and important, as CAIR and other MB-linked organizations seek to influence the Obama administration.
The ties of some of these groups to Hamas is shown by this note in the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report (free subscription required)
The posting notes that:
In a response to the recent President Obama speech to the Muslim world, Islamic convert Robert Crane makes the interesting admission that he is a "principal adviser" to Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef. In an article in the American Muslim, Dr Crane writes:
"The best approach was taken by Dr. Ahmed Yousef, for whom I served in the 1990s as Managing Editor of his scholarly Middle East Affairs Journal and for whom I have long been a principal adviser. As the Deputy Foreign Minister in Palestine’s legally elected government, and as one of the two intellectual founders in 1983 of the Palestinian Hamas, Dr. Yousef has authority as perhaps the world’s leading Islamist in the search for peace, prosperity, and freedom through compassionate justice".
Youssef serves as Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the dissolved government in Gaza but is usually described by the western media as a political adviser to Ismail Haniya, senior political leader of Hamas and one of two disputed Prime Ministers of the Palestinian National Authority. His Middle East Affairs Journal is published by the United Association for Studies and Research (USAR), part of the Palestine Committee of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood and generally thought to be part of the Hamas infrastructure in the U.S.
Dr. Crane, who was very briefly U.S. ambassador to the UAE in 1981 and who converted to Islam in Bahrain during that year, has been a board member of the USAR as well as holding positions with the American Muslim Council and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, both also part of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. In 1998, Dr. Crane wrote that he had a "structure for Islamizing America."
Shortly after 911, Dr. Crane published an article blaming the terrorist attacks solely on the U.S, and specifically on "active U.S. support of secularized and xenophobic Zionism"
In 2007 wrote that he looked forward to the collapse of the "American Empire" which he said would come about "only with the help of Muslims":
The American Empire must eventually collapse, as John Whitehead predicts, and as all empires have. The challenge is to transform America so that it is no longer an empire and therefore can serve the intent of its founders to be a moral model for the world based on the universal wisdom of all the world religions. This transformation can come only with the help of Muslims who are pursuing the mission of educating their fellow Muslims for the good of America.
Crane's public acknowledgement of being a principal advisor to a leader of Hamas, as the GMBDR notes, may be a violation of U.S. law regarding the provision of material support for designated terrorist organizations, which is what Hamas is. At the least, it shows the ties between the legacy MB groups in the US and Hamas remain strong.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Friday May 29, 2009
The Taliban's Continuing Foreign Support
Little noticed in the discussion of the Pakistan/Afghanistan Taliban issues are the points raised recently by Gen. David Petraeus about the continued use of charities and other external support for the radical Islamist group.
While there has been considerable attention paid to the revenue generated from opium trafficking in the Taliban's financial structure, little has been relatively little attention paid to the continuing role of charities in skimming off money that benefits the Taliban and others.
"You have funds generated locally, funds that come in from the outside, and funds that come from the illegal narcotics business," he said. "It's a hotly debated topic as to which is the most significant and it may be that they are all roughly around the same level."
Gen. Petraeus estimated that the Taliban raise a total of "hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars" each year from the three sources, and said the U.S. doesn't have precise figures.
Charities, as we learned right after 9/11 are not only valuable for the money they can raise and distribute virtually undetected, but for the identification cards and travel facilities they offer radical operatives to move around with official cover.
(This was shown by both the Benevolence International trial and the recent Holy Land Foundation trial, where principals received stiff sentences because of their charitable support for Hamas.)
This points to one of the fundamental conundrums in dealing with the Taliban-the drug trafficking ties have shown been impossible to sever. And there is enough support for the jihadist movement to insure that, even if that revenue stream were cut off, that charities and other private donors could allow the group to continue to operate financially.
Charities are particularly difficult to deal with for a variety of reasons. Often they do provide legitimate humanitarian aid, while diverting a small percentage of the proceeds to the terrorists. Shutting the charity down does, in fact, hurt people on the ground . This means that by cutting off those funds one almost always antagonizes a significant group of people in need of aid.
So it is a win-win for the Taliban. The charities they have access to give them political and religious credibility among the local population. Shutting them down doesn't hurt the Taliban, but furthers their story line that the West is out to hurt Muslims, no matter who or where they are.
Verification of charitable activities is not only time consuming but often futile. If someone claims to have bought 7,000 bricks for a clinic, but only purchased 5,000 and the remaining funds given to the Taliban, who would know? Who should know?
These are not easy questions. Islamist charities in this country, which has some capacity to enforce record keeping and transparency, were able to funnel millions of dollars to terrorist organizations. Pakistan or UAE has neither the capacity nor the will try to enforce even minimal standards.
The financial structure is adaptable. I find it hard to accept Petraeus's premise that perhaps all three of the funding pools are equal. Opium can generate more than all the charities combined. How much the Taliban actually gets is a matter of debate, but I think it far outweighs the internal and charitable contributions.
But it does show just how difficult it is to hit the moving target of terror financing.
While there has been considerable attention paid to the revenue generated from opium trafficking in the Taliban's financial structure, little has been relatively little attention paid to the continuing role of charities in skimming off money that benefits the Taliban and others.
"You have funds generated locally, funds that come in from the outside, and funds that come from the illegal narcotics business," he said. "It's a hotly debated topic as to which is the most significant and it may be that they are all roughly around the same level."
Gen. Petraeus estimated that the Taliban raise a total of "hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars" each year from the three sources, and said the U.S. doesn't have precise figures.
Charities, as we learned right after 9/11 are not only valuable for the money they can raise and distribute virtually undetected, but for the identification cards and travel facilities they offer radical operatives to move around with official cover.
(This was shown by both the Benevolence International trial and the recent Holy Land Foundation trial, where principals received stiff sentences because of their charitable support for Hamas.)
This points to one of the fundamental conundrums in dealing with the Taliban-the drug trafficking ties have shown been impossible to sever. And there is enough support for the jihadist movement to insure that, even if that revenue stream were cut off, that charities and other private donors could allow the group to continue to operate financially.
Charities are particularly difficult to deal with for a variety of reasons. Often they do provide legitimate humanitarian aid, while diverting a small percentage of the proceeds to the terrorists. Shutting the charity down does, in fact, hurt people on the ground . This means that by cutting off those funds one almost always antagonizes a significant group of people in need of aid.
So it is a win-win for the Taliban. The charities they have access to give them political and religious credibility among the local population. Shutting them down doesn't hurt the Taliban, but furthers their story line that the West is out to hurt Muslims, no matter who or where they are.
Verification of charitable activities is not only time consuming but often futile. If someone claims to have bought 7,000 bricks for a clinic, but only purchased 5,000 and the remaining funds given to the Taliban, who would know? Who should know?
These are not easy questions. Islamist charities in this country, which has some capacity to enforce record keeping and transparency, were able to funnel millions of dollars to terrorist organizations. Pakistan or UAE has neither the capacity nor the will try to enforce even minimal standards.
The financial structure is adaptable. I find it hard to accept Petraeus's premise that perhaps all three of the funding pools are equal. Opium can generate more than all the charities combined. How much the Taliban actually gets is a matter of debate, but I think it far outweighs the internal and charitable contributions.
But it does show just how difficult it is to hit the moving target of terror financing.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH