reflectivepundit

Is Money the Oxygen of Terrorism?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Shortly after 9/11, when the Bush administration intensified efforts to interrupt the flow of money to known terrorist groups, the President and then Secretary Colin Powell said that money is the oxygen of terrorism. While there is no doubt that terrorists need money to finance their operations, they have at all times found ways to support themselves and their violent deeds, often by committing crimes--from drug smuggling to bank robberies to extortion. And whereas terrorists and, even more important, the supporters of terror organizations have used the formal banking system for money transfers, they have also utilized informal fund transfers, namely the so-called hawala system. For years it was not a secret that the United States, many other countries, and the United Nations made great efforts to prevent the formal transfer of money for the benefit of terrorists.

Who Needs Newscasts? Hyped Infotainment Will Do

By Brigitte L. Nacos

As the New York Times reported this morning, Dan Abrams, a "40-Year-Old Virgin Executive" without management experience will try to boost the rating ills of hapless MSNBC television. While working as legal analyst in the past, Abrams hosted more recently "The Abrams Show" at MSNBC and competed (albeit in another time slot) with Greta van Susteren on Fox News and Nancy Grace on CNN's Headline News in hyping up crime and trial cases into long-running soap operas. Seems that Greta and Nancy are proving more durable than Dan--unless he determines as new boss that he can manage MSNBC off the air and infotain on the air as well.
And how will he manage MSNBC into a better future?

Fabricated WMD Evidence

By Brigitte L. Nacos

The Washington Post reported today that a crucial intelligence source fabricated information about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and that the CIA was aware of his made up stories before then Secretary of State Colin Powell presented powerful "evidence" of Iraq's WMD at the United Nations. It is troublesome to learn from yet another CIA source that the official number one justification for invading Iraq was based on cooked up intelligence and that highest officials in the administration knew it. This story is also a reminder that in the months leading up to the Iraq War major news organizations, including The Washington Post and The New York Times, knew better as well. Still, they reported frequently and prominently on sources that were sure of Iraqi WMD while covering contrary voices rarely and on some inside pages. As media critic Michael Massing wrote in Now They Tell Us: The American Press and Iraq: "Some maintain that the many analysts who've spoken out since the end of the war were mute before. But that's not true. Beginning in the summer of 2002, the intelligence community war rent by bitter disputes over how Bush officials were using the data on Iray. Many journalists knew about this, yet few chose to write about it."

.

Why Disappointment over U.S. Soccer Team?

By Brigitte L. Nacos

As I follow the moaning and groaning over the failure of the American soccer team at the World Cup in the media, I wonder how sports writers could have been blinded by the fact that FIFA put the team in fifth place in the world ranking. Surely, this decision had something to do with the team's miracle performance four years ago. Why, one askes, can Americans be disappointed, when they do not support professional soccer as most other nations do?

$500 Mill. for 9/11 Memorial--Not a Dime for Grund Zero Workers

By Brigitte L. Nacos

After plenty of bickering over the Ground Zero Memorial in New York, Governor George Pataki and Mayor Michael Bloomberg introduced recently a scaled back design. While the new version is supposed to cost "merely" $500 Mill, down from $1 billion, there is no doubt that the actual construction will overrun the latest cost projections. But at minimum we will pay half-a-billion to honor the dead but not a dime to take care of thousands of Ground Zero workers who paid with their health for performing exemplary during their rescue and recovery and clean-up efforts. What a disgrace in the midst of what politicians and the media have hyped into a selective Ground Zero grief cult.

Truth Twisters' Myth about Parties Being Soft and Tough on Terrorism

By Brigitte L. Nacos

When Karl Rove in his recent speech in New Hampshire attacked critics of the administration's Iraq policy as once again opting for "cutting and running," he revealed a central theme in his party's election year tactic: Democrats are soft on terrorism. Implicit here is the notion that Democrats embolden terrorists. This is actually an old charge that goes back to the Iran Hostage Crises and the 1980 presidential campaign, when Pres. Carter's alleged 'do nothing" stance and the failed rescue mission were exploited by the Reagan campaign. Once in office, Pres. Reagan warned terrorists that on his watch there would be swift retribution for terror strikes. Ever since Republicans have claimed that they, contrary to Democrats, are tough on terrorism. And implicit here is the idea that Republicans discourage terrorism. Incredibly, nobody seems to challenge these claims--although they are contradicted by the history of anti-American terrorism in the last 25 years.

The Patriotism Police Regains Strength

By Brigitte L. Nacos

In a disgraceful display of election year politics, members of both Houses of Congress used the Iraq war and the very real terrorist threat to position themselves for their respective campaign battles. While members' focus on their constituents in red and blue states assured that neither the Republican majority nor the Democrats' minority was united on a future course of action in Iraq, Republicans used their majority status to push resolutions that allowed them to attack Democrats as cut-and-run defeatists and as siding with Al Qaeda and thus with terrorists. In a revival of the Swift-Boat tactics during the 2004 presidential campaign that maligned the decorated Vietnam veteran Senator John Kerry as traitor, this time around one of the targets was John  Murtha (D-Pennsylvania), another decorated Vietnam veteran and strong supporter of the U.S. military who, according to Charlie Norwood (R-Georgia) is said to be against America and for Al Qaeda--because of his opposition to the administration's post-invasion Iraq management."Many, but not all, on the other side of the aisle lack the will to win, he said. "The American people need to know precisely who they are. It is time to stand up and vote. Is it Al Qaeda or America?"

More, Not Less Terrorism Likely After al-Zarqawi's Death

By Brigitte L. Nacos

What happens to terrorist organizations or hate groups that incite political violence when their leaders die, are killed, put behind bars, or are driven into hiding places? More specifically, what are the likely consequences of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death for terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere?

Strong leaders that control all aspects of their groups tend to be irreplaceable by hand-picked successors or winners in foughts for succession. You cut the head off and you successfully kill the beast. Thus, when Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were driven into safe havens in the 1980s and lost control of their respective organizations, their Palestinian terrorist groups faded away. When William Pierce, hands-on leader of the White Supremacy/neo-Nazi National Alliance and inspirer of the Oklahoma City bomber, died, a fight for succession reduced his organization to a mere shadow of its former strength.

Contrary to hierarchically organized terrorist and hate groups, al-Zarqawi's Al Qaeda in Iraq is unlikely to suffer an existential blow after his death. To be sure, when al-Zarqawi was "neutralized," this was a symbolic victory for the U.S. But the idea that the demise of one of the most brutal terrorists was a decisive victory in the "war on terrorism," is as far-fetched as the suggestion that the caputure or death of bin Laden would be a fatal blow to his Al Qaeda. Since bin Laden and his alter ego al-Zawahiri were driven out of their headquarters in Afghanistan, they have been unable to exercise day-to-day control over whatever may be left of the original organization.

Bin Laden Must Be Smiling

By Brigitte L. Nacos

Bin Laden must be smiling in his hiding place somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan or Afghanistan as he follows how U.S. politicians fight publicly for their cities, communities, and states to be recognized as likely terrorism target and the federal antiterrorism funds that come along with this status. The spectacle was caused by another astounding round in the politics of counterterrorism policymaking in Washington--this time around by the Department of Homeland Security as it slashed the 2006 urban antiterrorism grants for the 9/11 targets New York City and Washington, D.C., by 40% each while increasing the funds for comparably remote places.