Friday July 27, 2007
The Growing Saudi Conundrum
Well, six years after 9/11, the Saudis continue to be a major obstacle in the fighting radical Islam, while remaining a necessary partner because of the oil reserves.
Two recent stories shed a clear light on the huge damage the Saudi royal family and business elite continue to do in hindering meaningful progress is shutting down the hate speech, bigotry and twisted theology that drive the _jihadist_ movement, financed by these actors.
The first was in the Wall Street Journal by Glenn Simpson, outlining the role of the al Rajhi family and banking institutions in funding radical Islamists, and what the U.S. knew about the activities.
In every case when U.S. officials could and should have been raising the issue publicly to force action, the administration opted for "quiet diplomacy," resulting in nothing.
While there is only circumstantial evidence the Al Rajhi network directly aided terrorists, it is clear that Islamic banks, while mostly doing legitimate business, are the institutions extremists rely on. Why? In part because they are _sharia_ compliant, and in part because the Islamic banks are largely exempt from Western (pagan) banking regulations, and have virtually no transparency requirements.
The article drops another interesting tidbit in the middle: That Saudi Arabia has never set up the commission, promised several years ago, to oversee Saudi charities, the lifeblood of many Islamist groups.
And, my sources tell me, they never set up the Financial Intelligence Unit either, and there has been virtually no cooperation on the financial side at all.
In essence, we still have the rivers of money flowing to spread _wahhabism_ around the world, with no control, oversight or interest in stopping the spread of that venom. Hardly bolsters the claim of the Saudis being a "strong partner in the war on terror." I wonder what a weak partner would look like.
The second shoe to drop is the splits with the Saudis over Iraq-a mess to be sure, and one with no easy answers. As the International Herald Tribune reports, the Saudis are intent on crippling the Shi'ite led government there and trying to use apparently forged documents with U.S. diplomats to convince them it is all an Iranian plot, let by the prime minister.
And perhaps it is, the waters are murky enough for many interpretations.
But aside from using apparently-forged documents to go after prime minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki (and there is plenty to go after there), the most interesting thing is the number of Saudis still making their way to Iraq to fight U.S. troops. And, of course, the very little effort the Saudis put into stopping them.
This goes back to the first point-no controls on the spread of _wahhabism,_ so how can one try to control or punish the behavior this teaching so strongly encourages? The short answer is one doesn't, and the Saudis don't. They have learned that talking, especially if done in very good English, will buy them all the time they need to play their lethal double game. Six years have proven them to be correct.
Two recent stories shed a clear light on the huge damage the Saudi royal family and business elite continue to do in hindering meaningful progress is shutting down the hate speech, bigotry and twisted theology that drive the _jihadist_ movement, financed by these actors.
The first was in the Wall Street Journal by Glenn Simpson, outlining the role of the al Rajhi family and banking institutions in funding radical Islamists, and what the U.S. knew about the activities.
In every case when U.S. officials could and should have been raising the issue publicly to force action, the administration opted for "quiet diplomacy," resulting in nothing.
While there is only circumstantial evidence the Al Rajhi network directly aided terrorists, it is clear that Islamic banks, while mostly doing legitimate business, are the institutions extremists rely on. Why? In part because they are _sharia_ compliant, and in part because the Islamic banks are largely exempt from Western (pagan) banking regulations, and have virtually no transparency requirements.
The article drops another interesting tidbit in the middle: That Saudi Arabia has never set up the commission, promised several years ago, to oversee Saudi charities, the lifeblood of many Islamist groups.
And, my sources tell me, they never set up the Financial Intelligence Unit either, and there has been virtually no cooperation on the financial side at all.
In essence, we still have the rivers of money flowing to spread _wahhabism_ around the world, with no control, oversight or interest in stopping the spread of that venom. Hardly bolsters the claim of the Saudis being a "strong partner in the war on terror." I wonder what a weak partner would look like.
The second shoe to drop is the splits with the Saudis over Iraq-a mess to be sure, and one with no easy answers. As the International Herald Tribune reports, the Saudis are intent on crippling the Shi'ite led government there and trying to use apparently forged documents with U.S. diplomats to convince them it is all an Iranian plot, let by the prime minister.
And perhaps it is, the waters are murky enough for many interpretations.
But aside from using apparently-forged documents to go after prime minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki (and there is plenty to go after there), the most interesting thing is the number of Saudis still making their way to Iraq to fight U.S. troops. And, of course, the very little effort the Saudis put into stopping them.
This goes back to the first point-no controls on the spread of _wahhabism,_ so how can one try to control or punish the behavior this teaching so strongly encourages? The short answer is one doesn't, and the Saudis don't. They have learned that talking, especially if done in very good English, will buy them all the time they need to play their lethal double game. Six years have proven them to be correct.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Thursday July 26, 2007
Somalia Still Slowly Bleeds
Somalia is still bleeding, and in critical condition. My sources working the region say the Union of Islamic Courts leadership is safely operating from bases in Eritrea. They are being armed by Russian planes with Ukrainian or Tajik crews, flying from Moldova (sound vaguely familiar??) and preparing a major offensive.
The transitional government has proven to be almost completely incapable of moving toward true reconciliation, and the inability to control the sporadic violence in the capital, while simultaneously failing to provide the basic services the Islamists were providing, is a corrosive combination.
The dependence on the Ethiopians has further weakened its position, as has the almost complete lack of interest in trying to construct a true, new national government that includes most of the clans and sub-clans.
So, we (the broader international community) is giving a defeated Islamist force the chance to regroup and wreak havoc and not holding the facilitating governments accountable at all.
While many of the alliances that make up the UIC are clan based rather than a shared endorsement of radical Islamism, the Islamists get to drive the bus because they provide the infrastructure and ideological coherence that drive the movement.
Does this sound anything like another place where the radical Islamists and allies were defeated militarily, allowed to seek sanctuary in a neighboring country and regroup, and come back to bleed almost to death the internationally-supported government? (Hint, it is not Iraq, it is the other war we have almost abandoned).
What is so distressing is the seeming inability to learn the hard lessons, even though those lessons were learned at great cost. These groups, fighting in part because they believe it is their divine destiny, don't just go away. They will regroup, re-finance and find shelter wherever it can be taken or purchased.
States like Eritrea and Pakistan who harbor them have to called to account. Eritrea, it seems, offers the Islamists sanctuary largely because its president, Isaias Afworki, not a radical Muslim, wants to settle personal scores in Ethiopia and Somalia. But the safe haven, separated from Somalia by a little water and the tiny Djibouti, is a vital lifeline. As are the tribal areas in Pakistan.
It is an old formula for non-state armed groups, to create rearguard areas from which to expand, train and supply their troops. Without those rearguard areas, the groups simply cannot regroup and move forward. It is time to start holding the countries that provide this vital tool accountable for their actions.
The transitional government has proven to be almost completely incapable of moving toward true reconciliation, and the inability to control the sporadic violence in the capital, while simultaneously failing to provide the basic services the Islamists were providing, is a corrosive combination.
The dependence on the Ethiopians has further weakened its position, as has the almost complete lack of interest in trying to construct a true, new national government that includes most of the clans and sub-clans.
So, we (the broader international community) is giving a defeated Islamist force the chance to regroup and wreak havoc and not holding the facilitating governments accountable at all.
While many of the alliances that make up the UIC are clan based rather than a shared endorsement of radical Islamism, the Islamists get to drive the bus because they provide the infrastructure and ideological coherence that drive the movement.
Does this sound anything like another place where the radical Islamists and allies were defeated militarily, allowed to seek sanctuary in a neighboring country and regroup, and come back to bleed almost to death the internationally-supported government? (Hint, it is not Iraq, it is the other war we have almost abandoned).
What is so distressing is the seeming inability to learn the hard lessons, even though those lessons were learned at great cost. These groups, fighting in part because they believe it is their divine destiny, don't just go away. They will regroup, re-finance and find shelter wherever it can be taken or purchased.
States like Eritrea and Pakistan who harbor them have to called to account. Eritrea, it seems, offers the Islamists sanctuary largely because its president, Isaias Afworki, not a radical Muslim, wants to settle personal scores in Ethiopia and Somalia. But the safe haven, separated from Somalia by a little water and the tiny Djibouti, is a vital lifeline. As are the tribal areas in Pakistan.
It is an old formula for non-state armed groups, to create rearguard areas from which to expand, train and supply their troops. Without those rearguard areas, the groups simply cannot regroup and move forward. It is time to start holding the countries that provide this vital tool accountable for their actions.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Tuesday July 24, 2007
The U.S. Moves (Slowly) on Hezbollah Financial Structure
The U.S. Treasury Department today announced the sanctioning of Hezbollah-funding organizations, including one with a branch operating inside the United States.
The first is the Martyrs Foundation, including the Goodwill Charitable Organization in Dearborn, Michigan. The Treasury statement says the GCO is a "fundraising office established by the Martyrs Foundation...a Hezbollah front organization that reports directly to the leadership of the Martyrs Foundation in Lebanon."
The second is the Al-Qard al-Hassan, described as "cover to manage (Hezbollah) financial activity," and a conduit to the international banking system.
What is ironic about the sanctions is that they come as one of Hezbollah's leading theologians, in an article written for the Washington Post web site, offers an unapologetic and straightforward defense of violent _jihad._
"Jihad in Islam (The violent confrontation of the enemy) is the fighting movement that aims at preventing the enemy from forcing its hegemony over the land and the people by means of violence that confiscates freedom, kills the people, usurps the wealth and prevents the people's rights in self-determination and running their own affairs," writes Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a grand ayatollah. "Therefore, Jihad is confronting violence by means of violence and force by force, which makes it of a defensive nature at times and a preventive one at others."
So, there you have it. The leading Shi'ite intellectual in Lebanon mincing no words as to what he believes, which is in many way more admirable than the groups who come forward believing the same thing but trying to soften the language to disguise the true meaning.
But Fadlallah is not entirely unambiguous.
The key phrase is the use of "defensive jihad," as opposed to "offensive jihad." Does the defensive nature of it justify taking back the land that once belonged to the Caliphate, from Spain to Southeast Asia and northern Africa?
That interpretation is one of the key contributions of Qutb and others in the Muslim Brotherhood, and shared by the jihadist movement around the world. It is not clear if it is shared here.
Finally, one point that always strikes me in these writings: what about Darfur, a genocide perpetrated by an Islamist regime, yet facing no sanction from Islamic countries or clerics. Here is what Fadlallah wrote:
"There is also the case of defending the downtrodden who are prosecuted by the arrogant and who have no means of defending themselves. Muslims have to defend these people if they ask them to. The humanitarian content of Islam makes it responsible for facing the injustice the downtrodden are subjected to by freeing them of this injustice."
Perhaps not if it is an overtly Islamist state using Islam as a weapon? I often wonder what the outcry would be if the Vatican or some other avowedly religious, non-Muslim state were hosting genocide. Or maybe those in Darfur simply do not qualify as downtrodden victims of injustice.
The first is the Martyrs Foundation, including the Goodwill Charitable Organization in Dearborn, Michigan. The Treasury statement says the GCO is a "fundraising office established by the Martyrs Foundation...a Hezbollah front organization that reports directly to the leadership of the Martyrs Foundation in Lebanon."
The second is the Al-Qard al-Hassan, described as "cover to manage (Hezbollah) financial activity," and a conduit to the international banking system.
What is ironic about the sanctions is that they come as one of Hezbollah's leading theologians, in an article written for the Washington Post web site, offers an unapologetic and straightforward defense of violent _jihad._
"Jihad in Islam (The violent confrontation of the enemy) is the fighting movement that aims at preventing the enemy from forcing its hegemony over the land and the people by means of violence that confiscates freedom, kills the people, usurps the wealth and prevents the people's rights in self-determination and running their own affairs," writes Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a grand ayatollah. "Therefore, Jihad is confronting violence by means of violence and force by force, which makes it of a defensive nature at times and a preventive one at others."
So, there you have it. The leading Shi'ite intellectual in Lebanon mincing no words as to what he believes, which is in many way more admirable than the groups who come forward believing the same thing but trying to soften the language to disguise the true meaning.
But Fadlallah is not entirely unambiguous.
The key phrase is the use of "defensive jihad," as opposed to "offensive jihad." Does the defensive nature of it justify taking back the land that once belonged to the Caliphate, from Spain to Southeast Asia and northern Africa?
That interpretation is one of the key contributions of Qutb and others in the Muslim Brotherhood, and shared by the jihadist movement around the world. It is not clear if it is shared here.
Finally, one point that always strikes me in these writings: what about Darfur, a genocide perpetrated by an Islamist regime, yet facing no sanction from Islamic countries or clerics. Here is what Fadlallah wrote:
"There is also the case of defending the downtrodden who are prosecuted by the arrogant and who have no means of defending themselves. Muslims have to defend these people if they ask them to. The humanitarian content of Islam makes it responsible for facing the injustice the downtrodden are subjected to by freeing them of this injustice."
Perhaps not if it is an overtly Islamist state using Islam as a weapon? I often wonder what the outcry would be if the Vatican or some other avowedly religious, non-Muslim state were hosting genocide. Or maybe those in Darfur simply do not qualify as downtrodden victims of injustice.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Monday July 23, 2007
What is Missing in the Current Debate on Islam
It has become quite fashionable now to give a relatively small group of Muslim scholars free rein to talk, unchallenged, about what Islam does and does not teach. In the Sunday Washington Post, the Outlook section devoted most of this week's pages to letting Muslims of different viewpoints speak out. Newsweek Magazine and the Post have a joint inter-faith dialogue, Georgetown University has given Tariq Ramadan more time than anyone could reasonably used, and the list goes on.
What is strikingly missing in reading through these pages is any recognition that there are significant push factors that are extremely important in the radicalization of many of today's _jihadis._
While it may be true that U.S. foreign policy has contributed to some radicalization, and poverty and racism have their place, what of the billions of dollars the Saudis and others, often through mosques controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, used to teach people how to hate us? Might that not be a factor as well?
It is a topic that only rarely is raised by all these voices claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. One can (and a few do) argue for a radical reinterpretation of the texts that promote violence, jihad and hatred. But no one getting all the free space and time talks about what the children in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE etc. etc. are actually being taught, and have been for the past decades or centuries.
That is, in many cases, that Allah requires one to reject the world and all those in it who are not Muslims. The textbooks explicitly teach that Jews and Christians are pigs and monkeys, and that the closer one is to Allah, the more the rotten nature of the world will become manifest, and that this wretched condition must be fought.
This, in large part, was the role of "Milestones," and why it still stands, while other texts have fallen by the wayside. It gives a strong theological justification for violent jihad against a world that is in utter darkness and beyond salvation except by the sword of Islam.
These are push factors in mosques across the Arab Peninsula, Europe and the United States that help answer the question people so often like to ask: Why do they hate us?
In part the answer is simply that that is what they are taught. It is not a mystery. Catholic missionaries used to brag that if they had a child to the age of 5, they had a Catholic forever. That indoctrination at that age is powerful, powerful tool that is being wielded through BILLIONS of dollars in teaching and preaching to those most vulnerable to accepting it.
But we prefer to blame outside circumstances, ourselves, our society etc. There may be some truth to all of those. But the central fault lies in the teachings, by Muslims to Muslims, that the world is against them, violence is an accepted remedy and that, beyond being acceptable, it is in fact what Allah calls them to.
I do not object to real interfaith dialogue, or allowing people to discuss their theology. I do object when the blame is entirely placed on factors that pull those who radicalize, rather than Muslim assuming responsibility for the push factors that should also be a major part of the debate.
What is strikingly missing in reading through these pages is any recognition that there are significant push factors that are extremely important in the radicalization of many of today's _jihadis._
While it may be true that U.S. foreign policy has contributed to some radicalization, and poverty and racism have their place, what of the billions of dollars the Saudis and others, often through mosques controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, used to teach people how to hate us? Might that not be a factor as well?
It is a topic that only rarely is raised by all these voices claiming that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. One can (and a few do) argue for a radical reinterpretation of the texts that promote violence, jihad and hatred. But no one getting all the free space and time talks about what the children in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE etc. etc. are actually being taught, and have been for the past decades or centuries.
That is, in many cases, that Allah requires one to reject the world and all those in it who are not Muslims. The textbooks explicitly teach that Jews and Christians are pigs and monkeys, and that the closer one is to Allah, the more the rotten nature of the world will become manifest, and that this wretched condition must be fought.
This, in large part, was the role of "Milestones," and why it still stands, while other texts have fallen by the wayside. It gives a strong theological justification for violent jihad against a world that is in utter darkness and beyond salvation except by the sword of Islam.
These are push factors in mosques across the Arab Peninsula, Europe and the United States that help answer the question people so often like to ask: Why do they hate us?
In part the answer is simply that that is what they are taught. It is not a mystery. Catholic missionaries used to brag that if they had a child to the age of 5, they had a Catholic forever. That indoctrination at that age is powerful, powerful tool that is being wielded through BILLIONS of dollars in teaching and preaching to those most vulnerable to accepting it.
But we prefer to blame outside circumstances, ourselves, our society etc. There may be some truth to all of those. But the central fault lies in the teachings, by Muslims to Muslims, that the world is against them, violence is an accepted remedy and that, beyond being acceptable, it is in fact what Allah calls them to.
I do not object to real interfaith dialogue, or allowing people to discuss their theology. I do object when the blame is entirely placed on factors that pull those who radicalize, rather than Muslim assuming responsibility for the push factors that should also be a major part of the debate.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH
Saturday July 21, 2007
Viktor Bout's Planes Still at It
The Times of London has just outed another aircraft tied to Viktor Bout by U.N. reports, to arming Islamist radicals in the Horn of Africa.
The undercover sting operation by the newspaper found that a Russian, Alexander Radionov, whose Antonov 8 aircraft in Sharjah was already identified as a Bout aircraft, was willing to fly a load of weapons to the Islamic Court Union forces in Somalia, even though Somalia is still under a U.N. arms embargo.
It is worth remembering that the ICU is the radical Islamist organization that was imposing _sharia_ law in Somalia before being driven out last December by Ethiopian troops, who acted with the support of the United States.
Not only does the embargo exist on paper, but the journalist posing as an arms purchaser specifically stated the flights would not be declared, and that they would be dropped in an area clearly controlled by the Islamists.
As the Times noted, "The offer to hire out an aircraft and provide parachutes for the mission to Somalia, which is under a United Nations arms embargo, demonstrates how easy it is to flout the efforts of western governments to stop illegal arms trafficking."
This, years after the problems with Bout and his aircraft have been known, exposed and written about.
Pardon my plug for my book, but that is exactly what my new book, Merchant of Death, with Steve Braun, is about. It also describes how Bout has flown for other Islamist groups, including the Taliban, Islamists in Bosnia etc., as well as his flights for non-Islamist terrorist groups like the FARC in Colombia etc.
A sidenote: If you read the reviews of the book on Amazon you will find that someone, with all the grammatical, syntax and style errors of Bout's associate Richard Chichakli, is trashing the book under the name of Virginia Cook. Either Ms. Cook shares the same manic drive, penchant for telling the same falsehoods and tortured grammar as Mr. Chichakli, or someone is unwilling to put their name to their postings, which are riddled with factual errors, slander and tripe. I understand why one would hide one's name from that, but still...
But, back to the real story. The London Times piece comes just before the reported a major bribery investigation into the operations of KBR, the giant contractor, for the flights it hired into Iraq and Afghanistan. (KBR were among those who hired Viktor Bout's aircraft to fly to those destinations.)
As the NYT reports, "a former Houston-based executive for an air-freight carrier hired by KBR pleaded guilty in federal district court to dispensing bribes and then lying to federal investigators. The executive, Kevin Andre Smoot, 43, of The Woodlands, Tex., served as a managing director for Eagle Global Logistics Incorporated, a carrier that received a subcontract from KBR to ship the freight." And who did KBR and its contractors then subcontract to?
Great to see your tax dollars at work sometimes.
The undercover sting operation by the newspaper found that a Russian, Alexander Radionov, whose Antonov 8 aircraft in Sharjah was already identified as a Bout aircraft, was willing to fly a load of weapons to the Islamic Court Union forces in Somalia, even though Somalia is still under a U.N. arms embargo.
It is worth remembering that the ICU is the radical Islamist organization that was imposing _sharia_ law in Somalia before being driven out last December by Ethiopian troops, who acted with the support of the United States.
Not only does the embargo exist on paper, but the journalist posing as an arms purchaser specifically stated the flights would not be declared, and that they would be dropped in an area clearly controlled by the Islamists.
As the Times noted, "The offer to hire out an aircraft and provide parachutes for the mission to Somalia, which is under a United Nations arms embargo, demonstrates how easy it is to flout the efforts of western governments to stop illegal arms trafficking."
This, years after the problems with Bout and his aircraft have been known, exposed and written about.
Pardon my plug for my book, but that is exactly what my new book, Merchant of Death, with Steve Braun, is about. It also describes how Bout has flown for other Islamist groups, including the Taliban, Islamists in Bosnia etc., as well as his flights for non-Islamist terrorist groups like the FARC in Colombia etc.
A sidenote: If you read the reviews of the book on Amazon you will find that someone, with all the grammatical, syntax and style errors of Bout's associate Richard Chichakli, is trashing the book under the name of Virginia Cook. Either Ms. Cook shares the same manic drive, penchant for telling the same falsehoods and tortured grammar as Mr. Chichakli, or someone is unwilling to put their name to their postings, which are riddled with factual errors, slander and tripe. I understand why one would hide one's name from that, but still...
But, back to the real story. The London Times piece comes just before the reported a major bribery investigation into the operations of KBR, the giant contractor, for the flights it hired into Iraq and Afghanistan. (KBR were among those who hired Viktor Bout's aircraft to fly to those destinations.)
As the NYT reports, "a former Houston-based executive for an air-freight carrier hired by KBR pleaded guilty in federal district court to dispensing bribes and then lying to federal investigators. The executive, Kevin Andre Smoot, 43, of The Woodlands, Tex., served as a managing director for Eagle Global Logistics Incorporated, a carrier that received a subcontract from KBR to ship the freight." And who did KBR and its contractors then subcontract to?
Great to see your tax dollars at work sometimes.
POSTED BY DOUGLAS FARAH