Bitterlemons-international

| Home |

Edition 8 Volume 4 - March 02, 2006

State involvement in Islamist militant organizations

• Chickens coming home to roost - Irfan Husain
The free hand enjoyed by these religious groups would indicate that they have received a wink and a nod from intelligence agencies.

• Victims of group-think - Laurie Mylroie
It is possible that one or more terrorist states have penetrated their ranks.

• What constitutes terrorism? - an interview withNawaf Obaid
Saudi Arabia can never stop giving aid abroad. To give money and aid to poorer Muslim countries is one of the major principles upon which the country is founded.

• Let them starve - Mark Perry
While the US has described the policy of withholding the American allowance from the Middle East's naughty children "a great victory", the results are eerily reminiscent of Jefferson's miserable failure.

Chickens coming home to roost
Irfan Husain

Both terrorist organizations and guerrilla movements (the two are often interchangeable) require popular support to succeed. But even more crucially, they need a base in a neighboring country. The Viet Cong in Vietnam and the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan had both, and are outstanding examples of victorious struggles in the modern era.

Today, a number of active Islamic movements base their military tactics on terrorist actions and, to varying degrees, enjoy support from individuals, "charitable" NGOs and sympathetic elements in governments. Often states themselves provide overt or covert financial, logistical and diplomatic support.

After 9/11, much has been made of the large number of al-Qaeda operatives caught or killed in Pakistan. But the question that needs to be asked is what they were doing in the country in the first place. Clearly, before 9/11, both al-Qaeda and the Taliban enjoyed Islamabad's tacit approval as Pakistan's ambitious generals pursued the chimera of "strategic depth" in Afghanistan to counter their perceived geographical disadvantage against India. To gain control over their neighbor through their Afghan proxies, they aided and abetted them in their fight against the Northern Alliance.

But even after President Pervez Musharaf executed his overnight U-turn under American pressure in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, it is unclear whether Pakistan's major intelligence outfit, the ISI, completely severed its links with Bin Laden. The fact remains that over the years, a number of Arab and Central Asian adherents of the al-Qaeda philosophy have made Pakistan's remote Tribal Areas their home. And despite the large amounts of head money offered by the Americans, Pushtun tribal laws of hospitality have largely shielded these dangerous terrorists.

Under the Pakistani constitution, the Tribal Areas enjoy considerable autonomy. Due to the problems of terrain, as well as the tough resistance faced by the Pakistani army from well-armed tribal fighters, progress against al-Qaeda has been slow. The Taliban routinely use Pakistani soil to launch attacks against targets in Afghanistan.

The other set of Islamic terrorists harbored by Pakistan in the past have been those active in Indian Kashmir. Although Islamabad has consistently denied its support for these elements, it is an open secret that they have set up camps in Pakistani Kashmir and elsewhere in Pakistan, and are helped to cross the ceasefire line by army units that often fire artillery barrages to provide a distraction. A few months ago, a Pakistani monthly magazine published photographs and addresses of training camps.

In both Afghanistan and Kashmir, legitimacy, funds and training have been provided by Islamic parties that are active in raising money for their fighters. Every once in a while Musharaf bans some of these parties under American pressure, but they quickly resurface after changing their names. Leaders are arrested, but soon released. This casual approach toward containing these terrorists would seem to indicate a degree of tacit complicity with elements in the establishment.

Reports have surfaced from time to time about Pakistani fighters operating as far away as Bosnia, Chechnya and even in western China. While Islamabad maintains plausible deniability, these men could hardly be acting on their own. Almost certainly, Islamic parties within Pakistan have backed them. While the state's role here is a subject for speculation, the free hand enjoyed by these religious groups would seem to indicate that they have received a wink and a nod from intelligence agencies.

In terms of danger to Pakistan, the support Kashmiri terrorists have received far surpasses any other adventure the military has engaged in. In 2002, the Indian and Pakistani armies were eyeball-to-eyeball when Kashmiri militants attacked Parliament buildings in New Delhi. A couple of years earlier, a serving Pakistani general was reported as asking: "Why should we stop cross-border infiltration? A few hundred militants have tied down five Indian divisions in Kashmir. It only makes sense to turn off the tap if the Indians make concessions."

So clearly, these holy warriors have been used to fight Islamabad's proxy wars in the region. But the army has to realize that the damage caused by these tactics within Pakistan has been devastating. Ever since these elements were used against the Soviets in Afghanistan, they have steadily increased their legitimacy and political clout within Pakistan.

Those zealous Pakistanis who demonstrate to protest American strikes against al-Qaeda targets in the Tribal Areas are aiding and abetting Bin Laden and his gang. The nexus between Pakistan's religious parties, the Taliban and al-Qaeda is a close one, based as it is on extreme Wahabi/Salafi ideology and an instinctive hatred of the secular democracies of the West. And given the close links between Pakistan's Islamic parties, its army and its intelligence agencies, it should come as no surprise that extremist organizations of various stripes enjoy covert state support.

For close observers of the Pakistani scene with its growing sectarian violence, this is a case of chickens coming home to roost.- Published 2/3/2006 © bitterlemons-international.org

Irfan Husain writes two columns a week for Dawn, Pakistan's widest circulating and most influential daily. After a career in the civil service spanning 30 years, he was president of a university in Pakistan for five years.

Victims of group-think
Laurie Mylroie

A new concept entered our understanding of Middle Eastern terrorism in the 1990s: the jihadi networks, loosely organized Islamic militants whose hostile activities are not supported by any terrorist state. Their first major attack is said to be the 1993 bombing of New York's World Trade Center and their most lethal manifestation is said to be al-Qaeda. Since the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, they occupy no clear territory, yet they are said to represent America's most dangerous foe.

This is a strange understanding of a major enemy; it appears almost ghost-like. However, the jihadis do not live in a hermetically sealed environment. It is at least possible that one or more terrorist states have penetrated their ranks and the current foe is less novel than many believe.

A senior Iraqi politician recently told a small group of Americans that Damascus played a crucial role in the terrorist attacks claimed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Militants were recruited into Syria, passing through the country under the watchful eye of Syrian intelligence, which trained them using figures from Afghanistan before sending them into Iraq. The militants did not even realize they were part of a Syrian intelligence operation.

The United States has millions of captured Iraqi documents, only a small fraction of which have been translated. Nonetheless, these suggest that after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Baghdad began to recruit and train terrorists from a wide variety of Arab countries. Other documents hint at Baghdad's continued support for terrorists following the brief war that expelled Iraq from Kuwait. One 1993 Iraqi intelligence document, addressed to Saddam Hussein, suggests using "Arab Islamic elements that were fighting in Afghanistan and now have no place to go." Later documents reveal that in 1999, Iraq began training some 2,000 terrorists a year and that this continued through 2002.

The view that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing represents a new kind of stateless terrorism is particularly problematic. That attack is commonly attributed to the blind cleric, Sheikh Omar Abdul Rahman, who headed Egypt's "Islamic Group." Yet Sheikh Omar had little to do with the Trade Center bombing. His trial and conviction arose out of political pressures in New York and the Clinton administration's approach to terrorism, namely to treat it as a law enforcement issue.

US conspiracy law generates far-reaching liability. The prosecution has significant leeway in defining a conspiracy, and all members of a conspiracy are responsible for the actions of all other members, whether or not they know of those actions in advance or even know the individuals who commit them.

Sheikh Omar had little to do with Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the Trade Center bombing, but was nonetheless legally responsible for Yousef's actions, because as the prosecution maintained, they were both part of the "Jihad Organization" (no such organization existed in reality; it was simply a name the prosecution used to facilitate Sheikh Omar's prosecution.)

Moreover, whether Yousef was the highly trained agent of a terrorist state that penetrated the local militants was irrelevant to the trial of Sheikh Omar et al. (Senior figures in New York FBI suspected Iraq was behind the attack; Yousef entered the United States on an Iraqi passport and was known in New York as "Rashid, the Iraqi".)

Yousef was arrested following an aborted 1995 plot to bomb a dozen US airliners in the Philippines, in which another significant figure, Khalid Shaykh Mohammed (KSM), was also involved. US authorities believe that KSM, who would go on to mastermind the 9/11 attacks, is Yousef's uncle. Two of Yousef's brothers are also considered terrorist masterminds. One was captured in the summer of 2004, as authorities uncovered a major plot against US financial centers. Another of KSM's nephews, Ammar al-Baluchi, served as KSM's "right-hand man" according to US authorities.

We fixate on Islamic figures like Sheikh Omar and Osama bin Laden, but pay scant attention to the individuals who represent the source of expertise for these major attacks. These individuals claim to be a family, but there is no precedent for a family to be at the heart of a major terrorist organization. Possibly, they have assumed false identities and are lying about the nature of their relationship to one another.

The existence of this "family" of terrorist masterminds provides an alternative explanation for some of the more dramatic and lethal terrorist attacks, including the 9/11 strikes. This "family" may represent a more capable terrorist entity, such as a terrorist state that penetrated the Islamic militants, helping them to carry out far more lethal assaults than they were capable of conducting on their own. In turn, the militants provided a cover to that state.

This explanation is arguably more cogent than the notion that shadowy, elusive networks constitute the greatest national security threat to the United States. Yet it is given scant consideration, a sign more of the prevailing group-think than the scenario's inherent implausibility.- Published 2/3/2006 © bitterlemons-international.org

Laurie Mylroie is an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of Study of Revenge: The First World Trade Center Attack and Saddam Hussein's War Against America.

What constitutes terrorism?
an interview with Nawaf Obaid

BI: Saudi Arabia came under a lot of scrutiny after 9/11 from Washington. What was the pressure and what the reality?

Obaid: The pressure was the belief by elements within the Bush administration--some of whom still believe this today--that there was direct funding by Saudi government institutions to organizations that are known to have carried out terrorist activities, such as Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda.

This is where there was a major point of disagreement between the Saudi government and the Bush administration. The Saudi government's position was that there had been unintentional flows of money that had ended up in the wrong hands. This, in subsequent years, has been proven true. But there was never an intentional direct linkage whereby Saudi institutions purposely funded organizations that are involved in terrorist activities.

The other major point of disagreement is the definition of what constitutes terrorism. This was seen most recently a couple of days ago when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came to Riyadh to ask the Saudi government to stop funding Hamas, because according to the US, Hamas is a terrorist organization. From the Saudi perspective, Hamas is not a terrorist organization. On the contrary it is a freedom fighting organization, and this was put very clearly to Secretary Rice. Her request for Saudi Arabia to stop funding and put on hold the new aid package to the Palestinian Authority leadership was therefore denied.

BI: In general, is Saudi aid primarily state-funded or private?

Obaid: Saudi aid flows from different sources. There is the official government aid, and the official government charity aid. Then there are private charities and then there are individual donations. This is basically how Saudi aid is dispersed worldwide.

Washington's pressure illuminated a big shortcoming on the Saudi side with regard to ensuring where the money ended up. Compounding that shortcoming was the issue of culture, whereby when you give aid you don't ask where the money is going, because it is seen as impolite and disrespectful in Islamic culture. These were the two main reasons why at the time there was such a weak follow-up mechanism of checks and balances in this whole industry of giving.

BI: And this has since been addressed?

Obaid: Absolutely. There has been the creation of the National Commission for Charitable Works Abroad, which is headed by Prince Saud al-Faisal, the current foreign minister. And within the new bylaws of this aid industry there are now very specific criteria for how aid can leave Saudi Arabia. These involve specific bank accounts that are always monitored by the central bank; a mechanism to clarify what are the intents of projects funded; and the establishment of credible offices in the receiving countries to follow-up and make sure where the money is ending up. That part of giving has been very much tightened. And we've seen the results. There has been a reduction in aid to poor Muslim countries in order for that mechanism to be put in place and to be working.

Yet, it's not perfect, and because of the whole culture of giving, this system will never be perfect. There will always be some monies that will end up in the wrong hands. But the reduction in that has been monumental.

BI: Saudi Arabia is the biggest donor country to other Muslim countries. What are the figures?

Obaid: On average, over the last 30 years, Saudi Arabia gives anywhere between one to $1.5 billion a year to countries around the world. That number changes depending on the economic situation in the country and the price of oil.

BI: There was a lot of focus on Saudi sponsorship in Afghanistan, with the Mujahedeen (fighting the Soviet Union), the Taliban and then al-Qaeda. Was this a kind of natural historical development?

Obaid: The support of the Mujahedeen was a call for all Muslims, and as Saudi Arabia has a unique responsibility through having the two holy mosques here, Saudi Arabia could not help but be the center for such aid. Then, you had the official government, private sector, official and private charities. Everyone was giving, as were other countries.

Another example was Bosnia, where Saudi Arabia was by far the largest donor to the Bosnian resistance. Again, the Saudi government could not but agree to do it. This was a calling. Muslims were being massacred and Saudi Arabia had to step in. This was mainly done through Saudi charities and individuals.

BI: Yet, it was only after 9/11 that such disbursement came under greater scrutiny?

Obaid: Yes.

BI: So, to a large degree that was a political decision?

Obaid: Yes, it was a political decision, but the political decision can only go so far in reducing it for a certain period of time. The reality is that Saudi Arabia can never stop giving aid abroad. To give money and aid to poorer Muslim countries is one of the major principles upon which the country is founded. This is strengthened by the fact that Saudi Arabia has such large oil reserves. Politically, it would be extremely difficult for the Saudi leadership not to give aid, in all forms, whether as oil or money, to poorer Muslim countries. Hence we now see Saudi Arabia trying to give the same amount, in fact even more, but in a more structured way to ensure the money will end up going to the projects they are intended for.

BI: So it is a very important political objective for Saudi Arabia right now to find a modus vivendi with the US, with all the political pressure after 9/11, whereby Saudi Arabia can continue to give this aid?

Obaid: Absolutely. And slowly it will move to a mechanism by which money is given to the major financial institutions--such as the Islamic Development Bank, such as the World Bank--so they can use Saudi aid to fund necessary projects. Giving to these institutions lessens the chance of waste or the chance that money will not go to the intended projects.

BI: In this context, Saudi aid to Hamas must be quite a politically contentious issue between Washington and Riyadh?

Obaid: It is obviously a very tenuous issue, but the fact is Saudi Arabia does not recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization. Saudi Arabia will continue funding the PA, no matter who is in charge of the PA. Saudi Arabia has a unique relationship with the PA, it is the largest single donor, and it will continue to meet these obligations.

It is a source of disagreement [between Washington and Riyadh], though not a conflict. There is much Washington can influence Riyadh on and much Riyadh can influence Washington on. This is yet another issue where both sides have to agree to disagree.- Published 2/3/2006 © bitterlemons-international.org

Nawaf Obaid is senior fellow at King Faisal Center for Research & Islamic Studies in Riyadh.

Let them starve
Mark Perry

In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the US government put in place sweeping new laws and regulations "aimed at identifying criminals and terrorist financiers and their networks across borders in order to disrupt and dismantle their organizations." According to the Bush administration the program has worked beautifully: the US has seized over $150 million in assets designated for terrorist organizations, blocked tens of millions of dollars in terrorist financial transactions, and gained the support of the Saudi government for greater accountability of that government's support for terrorist groups.

The hectoring come-out-with-your-hands-up-or-I'll-cut-off-your-money foreign policy of this government has a long history. Angry with the British for "their intemperate behavior", Thomas Jefferson slapped them with an embargo. The British were not impressed. Nor were Jefferson's fellow Americans. While our third president never missed a meal, his embargo threw thousands out of work, led to illegal searches and seizures of Boston businesses, and sparked the War of 1812--during which Washington was razed to the ground. Unbowed, the slaveholding Jefferson (who wrote "all men are created equal") retired to his mansion muttering that his political enemies had conspired against him. They thought otherwise, calling his policy a "miserable and mischievous failure".

While the US has described the policy of withholding the American allowance from the Middle East's naughty children "a great victory", the results are eerily reminiscent of Jefferson's miserable failure. A lawsuit against a group of Saudi government officials accused of financing the 9/11 attacks was dismissed in January of 2005, and two proscribed "terrorist" organizations--Hizballah and Hamas--have recently entered their respective governments through the subversive practice of actually winning parliamentary seats in free elections.

"Money is the lifeblood of terrorist operations," President Bush said in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. He was so right: in 2004, CBS News reported that Halliburton, Conoco-Philips and General Electric were operating "offshore subsidiaries" doing business with "rogue countries". Halliburton, CBS reported, "sells about $40 million worth of oil field services to the Iranian government".

The most embarrassing failure of the administration's policy, however, came on January 25, when Hamas out-polled Fateh in the Palestinian parliamentary elections. Their victory was all the more surprising because the US had trumpeted the success of its program to end Saudi funding for the group--a subject that George Bush confronted then Crown Prince Abdullah with in a discussion at his Texas ranch in April of 2002. By August of 2003 terrorism experts confirmed that Saudi funding for Hamas programs had in fact been significantly cut. Still, the administration was not satisfied, so produced millions of dollars in funding for Fateh candidates in the weeks prior to the recent Palestinian vote. Details of the program were leaked to The Washington Post by administration officials--in the apparent belief that the US is so beloved by everyday Palestinians that when they learned who Washington wanted them to vote for they would slavishly pull the right levers. A Hamas official got it right: "The Post article could not have come at a better time," he said. "It gave us more votes."

Enraged that Palestinians might consider foreign funding of the Fateh campaign as undue interference in their electoral process--and oblivious to claims that such support made Fateh candidates look like America's lickspittle puppies--Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice launched a lecture tour of Middle East capitals seeking a cutoff of funds to the Palestinian government. She was backed by a chorus of Washington Middle East experts who called the Hamas victory a "democratic coup", while portentously intoning that Hamas "must face the consequences of its actions". In case the Hamas leadership didn't take this hint, one former diplomat reminded them that, "Israel supplies Palestinian electricity and water, and it collects taxes and customs revenues that provide much of the money needed for the Palestinian administration." That seems plain enough: we don't care if you're elected, if you don't recognize Israel you can drink from the puddles of your stinking refugee camps. Is this what George Bush intended--foreign policy by blackmail?

Columnist Charles Krauthammer, that great humanitarian, that lover of western "values", was even more blunt. Hamas must be cut off completely, he wrote, with "no recognition, no negotiation, no aid, nothing. And not just assistance to a Hamas government but all assistance." That is to say: let them starve.

Yeah, sure, that'll teach 'em.- Published 2/3/2006 © bitterlemons-international.org

Mark Perry is an author and foreign policy, military and intelligence analyst based in Washington, DC.

Notice Board