"Why We Can't Nab Bin Laden: ...Third, not all US intelligence and law enforcement resources are being devoted to the effort. DEA, for example, has some remarkable intelligence capabilities. They also have an incredible informant network and face significant challenges in Afghanistan, which has become the largest heroin exporter in the world. Drug sales can fund terrorist operations. Yet, DEA is not part of the CIA/DOD effort to find, capture, or kill Bin Laden." (link)yeah - that's true. drug sales can fund terrorist operations. of course. but it totally fucking misses the point. tee-shirt sales could also finance terrorist operations.
here's the thing: terrorist operations don't cost anything. 911 apparently cost $500k. london and madrid both cost something in the order of $10k. successful drug operations make *millions* of dollars.
the drug/terrorism link might be legitimate - but it sure as hell isn't a financing link. think about it - i tried to raise some money for a poll to ask whether the stupid president should be impeached - and we raised $10k in a few days and had to close the fund before our cup over-filleth.
terrorismists don't need a drug network to finance their goals. that idea falls apart at first glance. it's possible that drug money finances the iraqi resistance, for example - but thats a completely different issue.
to the extent that my argument is valid - should we ignore the nexus of terrorismistism and drugs? not necessarily - but as best as i can tell, the link isnt that drugs finance terrorism - that just sounds stupid on its face. as best as i can tell, the best link between drugs and
i've heard it said that the smartest way to smuggle a nuke into the US is to wrap it in a bale of marijuana. funny, but probably true. the implications are kinda mindboggling.
(see the comments for clarification)
4 comments:
Lukery I have to disagree with you here when you say:
"the drug/terrorism link might be legitimate - but it sure as hell isn't a financing link...terrorists don't need a drug network to finance their goals..."
You may be making the fundamental mistake that former head of the Bin Laden Unit at the CIA, Michael Scheuer, accuses most U.S. policymakers of making- thinking of al-Qaeda as merely a "terrorist organization". In fact, Scheuer makes a strong case that al-Qaeda is actually a global Muslim insurgency. Think about it- Bin Laden was training al Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan primarily for guerillla warfare in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Indonesia, the Phillipines, Saudi Arabia and many other places. Terrorist operations were actually a small part of the whole plan, according to Scheuer, who says that operatives like Mohammed Atta would be the al-Qaeda equivalent of a Special Forces unit in the U.S. Army. The vast majority of al-Qaeda were not training for these special terror operations, but in asymmetrical warfare against conventional armies across the globe.
Taken together, al-Qaeda was a massive operation (we can debate later whether it still exists or not). Guerillas had to be clothed, fed, transported and supplied with arms. This costs money- and lots of it. No Islamic charity in the world would have enough funds to finance this global jihad. Besides, since Bin Laden was trying to overthrow the government of Saudi Arabia, financing from Saudi princes was probably more difficult than it was when Bin Laden was helping to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
In fact, I will make the opposite argument you make: that the heroin trade did not provide enough money to fund all of al-Qaeda's needs. Which is why this Muslim insurgent group was also apparently involved in the blood diamond trade in Africa, a fact which was also denied by the 9-11 Commission but was all but confirmed by NBC Dateline last year.
That being said, we should not make the mistake of thinking that al-Qaeda "controlled" the heroin trade in Afghanistan. It was a complex picture with many players- the Taliban, local gangs, couriers, international mafia and corrupt government officials from Uzbekistan to the United States. Al-Qaeda, if they were involved, got their slice of the pie. But even if that slice of the pie was only, let's say, 1%, we are still talking about a big chunk of money.
Good point about drug funds being used to fund support structure.
There is another school of thought that suggests Al Qaeda is managed by intelligence agencies...ie...CIA, ISI and MI6...and is used as both muscle and patsy. Atta, according people such as Daniel Hopsicker, was an asset of Western intelligence agencies.
My last comment was not accurate. Hopsicker claims that Atta was in no way an Islamic fundamentalist...ie...allegations that Atta was into strip bars, drugs and gambling. I'm not sure if he believes Atta was working with intelligence agencies or was an actual agent of an intelligence agency.
mike - good points again.
i probably over-reached a little in my post - but i stand by my main point. it doesn't cost anything to launch a terrorist attack, and therefore it seems (to me) that drawing a direct line between terrorism and drugs is misleading. i tried to separate out the issues that you mention about financing wars and insurgencies and whatnot.
yep - terrorist organisations do have overhead and infrastructure costs such as training and travel - but these costs are dwarfed by the magnitude of dollars that are available through multinational drug networks.
i wasnt trying to argue that AlQ doesn't deal in drugs, nor that such drug dealing doesn't finance resistance movements.
i was also trying to explore the drug/arms nexus - i was a little 'inartful' in my choice of words, too. when i said "as best as i can tell, the best link between drugs and terrorismistism is that they use the same distribution channels." i was actually referring to the link between drugs and arms smuggling, not terrorism - and it's my guess that this is where we see players like richard perle and douggie feith fitting into the picture.
Post a Comment