Yes, it is true that without the ten trillion dollars in oil (and gas) revenues since 1973, the Arab and Muslim states would have far less power, and certainly little claim on our attention. But it is wrong of James Woolsey to limit his discussion to "terror" for two reasons.
The first is that much homegrown "terror" does not require a lot of money. Those responsible for bombings in Madrid and London, and Moscow and Beslan and Amsterdam and a dozen other cities in the West, actually had little need of "failed states" (whatever that phrase means) -- that is, the kind of places that the Bush Administration thinks need to be permanently patrolled lest, all of a sudden, they be bristling with highly efficient Al Qaeda camps. And those could not possibly be established anywhere else, or even done without, given the template about "Al Qaeda terror camps in Afghanistan" that has been permanently imprinted on the brains of so many who cannot conceive of leaving Afghanistan to its own hopeless devices, with Western powers intervening only intermittently, with swift raids wherever possible, from afar and mainly from the air, to destroy whatever camps or weapons project might require destroying.
Instead, NATO troops and aid groups are engaged in a costly, misguided effort to somehow construct out of Afghanistan a new society. Yet despite the fact that the present Afghan society owes its miserable condition largely to Islam, Islam itself is not to be touched, not even to be attacked, but treated by those NATO troops with respect at all times.
If the venture in Afghanistan has largely continued without opposition, it is mainly because by comparison with the tremendous squandering in Iraq, what goes in Afghanistan appears to exhibit a kind of good sense -- but only comparatively. It is true that before the Americans attacked Afghanistan in late 2001, Al Qaeda had the freedom to use parts of Afghanistan as a base for training camps. It does not follow, however, that such camps, or such training and planning, can only go on in such camps, nor that such camps can only be created in Afghanistan. They can be established right outside London or even within London, or for that matter in Paris or Washington, D.C. It is folly to require a huge NATO presence when, with advances in spy satellites and drones, it is possible to keep Afghanistan under observation, and to intervene as the occasion warrants without a permanent presence -- and certainly without that attempt at a makeover of Afghani political and social institutions that reflects the same kind of naive hopes, and incomprehension of Islam, that the policy in Iraq reflects.
What James Woolsey should have gone on to say is that Arab and Muslim nations have received ten trillion dollars since 1973, and that much of that money has helped to spread Islam. It has paid for mosques and madrasas all over the Western world, not only the buildings but the permanent upkeep. Such money also goes into buying vast quantities of weaponry for Arab and Muslim armories, and pays for the weapons-of-mass-destruction projects of Pakistan, Iran, and other Muslim countries -- projects which cannot be permitted to continue to the point of producing such weapons or, in the case of Pakistan, of acquiring the means of effective undetectable delivery.
He might have said that when you fill up your tank, you are helping to pay for the vast army of Western hirelings, including former diplomats and even C.I.A. agents. He could mention Edward Wilson, and Raymond Close, and describe their post-retirement activities. He might have also mentioned that you’re paying as well as for "Centers of Islamic Studies" and well-endowed chairs, hither and yon, designed to create a network within universities -- see "MESA Nostra" -- so that Western students would be forced to learn about Islam, and all subjects related to Islam (such as the various Lesser Jihads against Israel, India, and now even within Western Europe) from Muslim apologists and their non-Muslim collaborators.
Woolsey might have started to talk about the Money Weapon, started to talk about it as the critical instrument of Jihad, along with Da'wa and demographic conquest. And that would have furthered understanding a bit more than he was apparently willing, or able, at this time, to do.
It is Woolsey, after all, who was a great enthusiast for the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-nations Project in Iraq, and he, like Bernard Lewis, owes himself, and those he presumes to influence, a reckoning: what was it, exactly, that Woolsey did not understand about Islam, and what was it he did not understand about sectarian and ethnic divisions in Iraq, that had he understood, would have led him to have been far less of an enthusiast?
http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/companies.php
Without the ten trillion dollars in oil and gas revenue few Arab Muslims would ever have made their way to the US in the first place and Africa or even Latin America would be higher on our foreign policy ledger than the Middle East.
Without the oil embargoes and the terror attacks in Europe and the US, Israel wouldn't have to wonder if the US will continue to support it.
Afghanistan was a terrorist training ground but terrorists still need targets and opportunities to hit them. We give them both every time we let one enter the country or board a plane or boat headed here.
Once they're here they have little trouble setting up their own training compounds, as JW has amply documented. If they need specialized training we have countless technical schools and universities ready and willing to provide it.
Much is made of the US turning Iraq into the new terrorist training camp, but the US provides more than enough training opportunities, as Mohammed Atta and his band clearly demonstrated. As long as you have money you can get what you want in America. The Arabs have it in abundance. Welcome to America.
No, "homegrown" terror doesn't take huge amounts of money. Where the huge amounts of money come in is in the bribing of the governments they attack to not respond.
The Bushes would not give the time of day to a motley bunch of destitute Bedouins. They will, and are, giveing our country to the royal family.
Infidel makes a good point re money buying political influence. Here are some suggested results of the oil money to Islam:
1) Sophisticated weapons purchases.
2) Vast political influence on elites via soft and hard bribes.
3) Worldwide propaganda and education.
4) Influence via charity and welfare.
5) Militia funding.
6) Global economic power.
7) Targeted mosque development.
..just some of it. Money can't buy everything, but it sure helps.
It begins and ends with MONEY.
Buy off local officials and you get approval for a new mosque.
Buy off state officials and you get footbaths in a university.
Buy off federal officials and you get relaxed travel regulations.
Buy off technocrats and consultants and you get foundations devoted to spreading the good word about how friendly the Arab nations are and how misunderstood they are.
Money buys almost anything. Bring your money to America and you can buy the American government.
Of course none of this is bribery because cash doesn't change hands. You just get laws and regulations making it easier for you to set up jihad networks and the other party gets a job for his wife or family member, or business for his consulting firm or for a major contributor in his state or district. America is a welcoming place, Washington, DC even more so. All you need is money. Those without spreading-around money need not come.
Hugh -
I don't disagree with anything you are saying.
However, that also does not discount the validity of what was reported by CJN as to Woolsey's speech on oil dependency as fueling Islamic terrorism.
The oil dependency issue is one where many are afraid to take a meaningful stand, and I think that is a big mistake for the anti-Jihad forces.
One of the strength's of Robert Spencer's books has been the repeated calling for a Manhattan project for energy independence and a repeated recognition of America's energy insecurity to empowerment of foreign Jihadists.
An issue that some anti-Jihadists are not taking on directly, however, are energy conservation measures in the interim.
I believe in putting my money where my mouth is on this issue. So months after the 9/11 attacks, I obtained a hybrid automobile to replace my existing car, and I have exclusively been driving hybrid automobiles for the past 5 years (when I am not using public transportation).
I also created a web site to inform the public on such matters:
http://www.driving-out-terrorists.com
While we are waiting for the Manhattan Project for energy independence (and we should be making this a priority with our political viewpoints), we as individuals against Jihad can do something about it in the meantime. And of course, there is also ethanol options, electric vehicles, public transportation, etc.
I think those who are leaders in the anti-Jihadist movement should be aggressively speaking out on America's oil dependency, and more importantly, setting an example for others. It is important that the American public does not forget that our failed energy policy is also a contributor to global jihadism.
We need more people in power and influence to stand up and speak out on this issue. And that also means expecting tough choices from our leaders. In my mind, I can't correlate being anti-Jihadist and anti-Islamist with tolerance of gas-guzzling in America. And I have personally done something about it myself. Now if we could only get many millions of other Americans to take a step on this....
But I think it is important that anti-Jihadist leaders take a strong (and admittedly unpopular) stand on this.
Jeffrey Imm
UnitedStatesAction.com
Driving-Out-Terrorists.com
What Woolsey MIGHT have drawn attention to as well is the European Union's long-standing practice of investing in the Middle East. And now there is China emerging as an investment engine in this part of the world. Both Europe and China still fancy themselves as counterweights to American power even with regards to the problem of global jihad.
Has anyone here read Bat Ye'or's "EURABIA" ? If not, they should.
The problem of the financing of Islam's global jihad has now clearly gone beyond petro-dollars. Islam has been using Europe as a bank (behind the Americans' backs) for many years. (Note that Yasser Arafat's wife lives in regal splendour in a chateau in the Parisian suburbs.) Note, too, that Europeans demonstrated in favor of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship during the US-led invasion of Iraq. Europe is a spoiler in getting money out of the Muslim world. The EU has billions of Euros invested in the Islamosphere. It may decide to keep them there.
Eliminating petro-dollars is a major and critical step in ratcheting down Islam's global jihad. But now America will have to deal with getting the Europeans to disinvest in the region--if they can. While Europe is now more amenable to the US than it has been in decades and that is a good sign it does not mean they automatically will disinvest from the Muslim world at out behest. we do not know at the moment how much of Europe's trans-Atlantic thaw will last and whether or not most of it is sincerely motivated.
And there are now reports that China is investing in the Middle East and not only in petroleum I might add. China is presently assisting Iran and Syria in the Iraq insurgency against the western nations stationed there. I don't expect much help from China in the disinvestment of petro dollars from the Islamosphere. The Chinese are demonstrating they are NOT on our side with this problem. And come to think of it neither is Russia.
The western powers should have taken this approach a long time ago. Has anyone been to Abu Dhabi or DUbai for example? It wasn't ONLY petro-dollars that built these glitzy oases of luxury in the Middle east. There were plenty of Euros going into the region over the past few decades as may be seen in the economies of Muslim countries like the UAE. And now there is money from newly developed nations like China and probably India arriving there.
Hugh said
I agree wholeheartedly about this strategy in regards to Iraq (especially), or Iran, or Sudan, or elsewhere. But to me, Afghanistan is different. The Taliban was actively involved in a major attack on civilians in our country. In Afghanistan, it goes beyond just destroying camps and weapons, in my opinion.
I would have liked to see a larger Coalition force there, pursuing the Al Qaeda and Taliban forces all the way to the Pakistani border, and then without a moment's hesitation, beyond. I would have liked to see our forces terminate every single one of the Talibani and Al Qaeda forces, with no mercy whatsoever. If the Waziristani's had picked up arms to protect their friends and allies, then they could have joined in their fate. I will never understand how our mission there turned into helping the Afghanis and letting the Taliban and Al Qaeda escape into Pakistan. I will never understand why the war was started in Iraq and was ended in Afghanistan. (Actually, I can. Talibanized Afghanistan: no threat to Saudi Arabia. Saddam Hussein's Iraq: big threat to Saudi Arabia).
Not that Afghanistan is the nexus of the jihad, or the biggest financial supporter of the jihad. Not that the money weapon shouldn't be fought financially, and the demographic weapon shouldn't be fought with effective immigration policy, and all the other non-military jihad weapons shouldn't be fought non-militarily. But no-one should be able to come into our country and kill our citizens in large numbers, and then continue to breathe on this earth as OBL and Ayman al-Zawahr do, to this day.
Afghanistan is different.
Special Guest
I respectfully disagree with your disagreement re treatment of Afghanistan.
What is the difference between the jihadists in Afghanisatan and one in Indonesia, Phillipines and Sudan, and other locations? That they were successful in having their effect us in the U.S.? Should that be the criteria for deviating from a plan of "Western powers intervening only intermittently, with swift raids wherever possible, from afar and mainly from the air, to destroy whatever camps or weapons project might require destroying."
Who knows what the future brings re: attacks in the US. What if other state sponsors of jihadists are successful in attacking U.S. interests. I'd rather see a more consistent policy. Not one segregating between successful jihadist organizations and jihadists organizations that just haven't been as successful in striking U.S. interests.
In addition, our mission is not just chasing the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghan. We are supporting the government and military until they can support and defend themselves so that this democracy project will also succeed. We should not make project democracy an obligation of our mission for every country that we may attack with the type of swift raids that Hugh describes. Destroy what needs to be destroyed and exit.
Sorry- clicked the "post" before the "preview" button
Special Guest
I respectfully disagree (re: your disagreement) on the treatment of Afghanistan.
What is the difference between jihadists in Afghanisatan and jihadists in Indonesia, Phillipines and Sudan, and other locations? That they were successful in having attacking the U.S.? Should that be the criteria for deviating from a plan of "Western powers intervening only intermittently, with swift raids wherever possible, from afar and mainly from the air, to destroy whatever camps or weapons project might require destroying."
Who knows what the future brings re: attacks in the US. What if other state sponsors of jihadists are successful in attacking U.S. interests. I'd rather see a more consistent policy. Not one segregating between successful jihadist organizations and jihadists organizations that just haven't been as successful.
In addition, our mission is not just chasing the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghan. We are supporting the government and military until they can support and defend themselves so that this democracy project will also succeed. We should not make project democracy an obligation of our mission for every country that we may attack with the type of swift raids that Hugh describes. Destroy what needs to be destroyed and exit.