CSIA Foundation

Analyst's note:  I ask the readers to read and carefully consider our current state of national security if we have not yet understood who our enemies are in this time of war.  Ask yourself, how long can you survive in a street fight against a gang intent on killing you by simply swinging wildly with your eyes closed?

Mr. Huessy makes the case that "If the threat of “terrorism” is not primarily loose bands of “jihadis”, but state sponsors of terror, the implications for US policy are serious. Iran, Pakistan, Syria and others seek to create their own “empires”, whether it is masters of a region, the Middle East or the Islamic world. Their accomplices, including China, Russia, and Venezuela seek power and riches, and are willing to use whatever means necessary to do so."

It is a necessarily a long piece, but extremely well organized in delivery.  Thus I share with the primarily opening and the closing.  Please go to the original source for the supportive "meat in between this sandwich." It is good to remember as you read this that, "Diplomacy without the threat of force is but prayer”, said former Senator Malcolm Wallop, in his farewell Senate address, October 1994.  absolute


What are the choices America faces in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do we pursue victory or do we leave as soon as possible? Is Iraq in fact "a war of choice" and a terrible mistake? Is Afghanistan, although linked to 9/11, a war not worth pursuing?
I am going to argue today that we are facing mortal enemies that seek our destruction. Our enemies are states such as Iran, Syria, and Venezuela; they are allies or subsidiaries of those states-- such as Hezbollah, FARC, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and Hamas; and their many accomplices, strategically located in state entities in Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, and Pakistan, such as the ISI.

[....] Of particular concern today is the ISI of Pakistan. They are giving support to terror group sanctuaries in Pakistan who are working to develop chemical and biological weapons according to Robert Woodward's new book "Obama's War". In addition, they are working to recruit terrorists from countries not needing visas to enter the US, a parallel effort that echoes the abuse of the Visa Express program as a prelude to the attacks of 9/11.
[....] In short, we still face a poisonous coalition of state terror masters, intelligence services, terror groups, individual terrorists, wealthy financiers, arms dealers and bomb makers.
At best, today we clearly recognize only parts of this coalition landscape. Why? Well, because we have, unfortunately, remained fixated on two false narratives: (1) we again think terrorism is primarily a law enforcement issue. We nab the perps, try 'em and fry 'em; and (2) We think much of the terrorism we face has been brought about by our own failures in foreign policy, and our supposed sinful behavior toward the Muslim world, especially the Palestinians.

Khobar Towers, June 25, 1996


[....] Indeed, much of the Moslem world argues that the absence of a Palestinian state is the reason behind much of the terrorism we face. The conventional wisdom in Europe holds similar beliefs. Academia, Hollywood and the drive-by media here in America echo these views.

I call this the "grievance" theory of terrorism. It is a very useful and convenient cudgel with which to beat the US over the head. For example, the Soros funded "J Street Project" asserts "Israeli settlements in the occupied territories have for over 40 years been an obstacle to peace." And further: "Real friends of Israel oppose retaliatory rocket attacks by the IDF". And even more: "We object to further sanctions against Iran".  


Now, terrorism is not a new problem, though it has grown in scale and scope. And differing analyses of the problem are not new either.
[....] Secretary of Defense Robert Gates begin_of_the_skype_highlighting     end_of_the_skype_highligh underlines this conclusion in his 1996 book "From the Shadows". He concludes that Reagan, Haig and Casey, if anything, underestimated the huge role the former Soviet Union played in promoting terrorism -- in creating terror groups, and providing them sanctuary, weapons, and money.
Unfortunately, Clinton and the foreign policy establishment still have their feet solidly implanted in the intellectual cement of the "peace process". They are fixated on the “grievance theory” of terrorism, whose primary conclusion is the need for a Palestinian state established on its own terms. They have discarded any notion that historical envy, religious messianic beliefs, lust for power, empire-building and old-fashioned "revenge" play any part in the terrorism of today. And they particularly reject the role of state sponsors in promoting terrorism.
[....] Did state sponsorship of terrorism suddenly vanish with the end of the Cold War? Throughout the decade leading up to the World Trade Center attack of September 2001, it became apparent that the Clinton administration was simply unwilling to deal with the implications of state sponsors of terrorism – and therefore chose to disregard the evidence. Although Iraq and Sudan were officially added to the list of official "state sponsors of terrorism", the administration never moved to act on the implications of such findings. In fact, four different books relate that, when confronted with evidence of states being behind terrorism, the former President said simply: "That is too hard to do".
Andy McCarthy, the US prosecutor of Sheikh Omar, the cleric indicted for inciting violence, reveals in Willful Blindness the consequences of this mind-set. While the US government believed terrorism was primarily a law enforcement problem, and was successful in rounding up loose bands of terrorist jihadis, the master mind of 1993 got away to plot more attacks against the U.S. We as a country did not recognize we were in the midst of an ongoing war in which states, terror groups, and others formed a poisonous coalition to fight the United States.
This new definition of terrorism fit neatly into the worldview of the left in America. Our foreign policy -- our arrogance, our treatment of former colonies, and especially our alliance with Israel -- "causes" people to fight us, especially in the Muslim world. [....]


Only by turning a blind eye to the massive evidence of Saddam’s systematic support for terrorism – through both direct funding, arming and running training camps — can we conclude that Iraq was a "war of choice" rather than necessity.
Because the Taliban gave sanctuary to Al Qaeda, Afghanistan was designated, in contrast, the "necessary war," because we were taking down a "state sponsor of terrorism". But support for the war in Afghanistan has by now seriously deteriorated, as US leaders remain unclear as to why we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, what the nature of the war is, and why it matters.
State sponsorship is still the main address of terrorism. The government of Iraq has bitterly complained that Syria is supporting those attacking Iraq's cities, with sanctuary and training. What has been our response? That this is a diplomatic issue between Syria and Iraq.
What do the recent Wiki leaks papers show? At least two things. First, that Iran was "orchestrating one side of the Iraqi insurgency" with assistance from Hezbollah. Robert McGinnis summarizes: "The leaked documents demonstrate Tehran routinely equipped and trained Iraqi militia, and Iranian agents and soldiers operated inside Iraq killing American forces."
And second, as former Prime Minister Blair relates in his new memoirs, the Bush administration repeatedly said that Syria was training and arming terrorists attacking Iraq. And what do the Wiki leak papers show? Extensive Syrian involvement in the arming, training and recruitment of terrorists attacking Iraq.
Once we recognize that terrorism is a tool being used by governments -- intelligence services, militaries and other state entities -- we can see Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Abu Sayyaf, FARC, the FMLN and the rest as tools of our mortal enemies, rather than as reform-seeking jihadis or guerillas looking to redress historical grievances. Terrorism is the most convenient weapon for governments precisely because it breaks the string of attribution that would otherwise make retaliation and deterrence possible.
While these state connections to terrorism are not all proven, they underline the folly of ruling out the possibility of state sponsorship on arbitrary grounds. State activities in support of terrorism are by definition murky, because people are making an effort to conceal them. That is their value as enemy tactics.
What is remarkable today is the avalanche of material connecting states to terrorism. For example, the IBD published an excellent editorial on October 21, 2010 regarding a new addition to the state sponsors of terrorism--(this is not yet the view accepted by Foggy Bottom). Chavez of Venezuela is planning two 1200 Megawatt nuclear reactors 1400 miles from our shores--the exact range of the Iranian shahab missiles. A spokesperson said the US believes Chavez will act responsibly in buying these reactors from Russia's Putin, who is also completing the fuel loadings in the Iranian nuclear reactor in Bushehr.  


[....] A full and unblinking look at state terrorism indicates a broad array of necessary national policies. Let us look at the policies we urgently need -- divestment, serious economic sanctions, nuclear forensics, DTRA and Nunn-Lugar, missile defense, border and maritime security, the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), and immigration reform, to name the most obvious.
[....] In light of these facts, why do our state pension funds and retirement funds on Wall Street, and the endowments of our major universities and college have upwards of $1,400 billion in stocks owed by companies that do business with Iran and Syria, including these Chinese companies? Seventeen US states have some form of divestment policies adopted. Maryland has eliminated hundreds of millions in suspect investments.

"Al Qaeda…was just one element in a ‘poisonous coalition’” that included "Pakistani and Arab intelligence agencies; impoverished young students bused to their deaths as volunteer fighters from Pakistani religious schools; exiled Central Asian Islamic radicals; ... and wealthy sheikhs and preachers who jetted in from the Persian Gulf.” On September 9, 2001 he was murdered by terrorists. We indeed today face a similar poisonous coalition.
Now imagine. The year is 2015. It is late January. The Iranian mullahs provide Hezbollah operatives a nuclear device. The device was designed in China, and reworked by the Pakistan-based Khan network with help from North Korean technicians.
From Tehran to Damascus and then to Caracas it is shipped, on one of the special twice-monthly "Axis of Evil Express" that shuttles "passengers" between Iran, Syria and Venezuela -- with occasional stops in Lebanon says Peter Brooks of the Heritage Foundation.  
A freighter, outfitted with a Scud-derivative missile, now solid fueled, is loaded in the port of Mirabella, Venezuela. It steams for three days. It reaches its destination, some 350 kilometers off the coast of North Carolina. On February 1, the 36th anniversary of the arrival in Tehran of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the rocket is launched. At an altitude 30 miles above Washington, D.C., its nuclear warhead is detonated. An EMP, an electromagnetic pulse, fries every computer and computer chip. Everything from New York to Atlanta stops working. Water, sewerage, electricity, traffic, flights, ports, cars, financial networks, and computers.


Conclusion and Implications

If the threat of “terrorism” is not primarily loose bands of “jihadis”, but state sponsors of terror, the implications for US policy are serious. Iran, Pakistan, Syria and others seek to create their own “empires”, whether it is masters of a region, the Middle East or the Islamic world. Their accomplices, including China, Russia, and Venezuela seek power and riches, and are willing to use whatever means necessary to do so.
The Russians see the energy resources of the Caspian as their “patrimony”. China seeks to “lock-up” energy supplies for its 1.3 billion people and is willing to seek partnership with nuclear armed states to do so, whether Iran or Pakistan. Venezuela and its “Marxist” allies in the Americas seek partnerships with drug cartels, terror groups and others to do America harm and do Russia and Iran's bidding.
Indeed, is this anything but a new "poisonous coalition"?



  • 12th imam
  • 8 signs
  • 9/11
  • Absentee
  • absolutely
  • Achilles Heel
  • al-Awlaki
  • Al-Qaeda
  • Alinsky
  • Ammo
  • Amnesty
  • Awlaki
  • AWOL
  • Baby
  • Bailout
  • Bankrupt
  • Battle
  • Benghazi
  • bin Talal
  • Bio
  • Birth certificate
  • Black Panther
  • Budget
  • Bulb
  • CAIR
  • Caliph
  • Caliphate
  • Cartel
  • Census
  • China
  • Chinese
  • Christian
  • Cloward
  • Club-K
  • COIN
  • Condell
  • Constitution
  • Contractor
  • Conyers
  • Cordoba
  • Correctness
  • Corsi
  • Debt
  • Deficit
  • Deradicalization
  • Detention
  • Dhimmi
  • DHS Homeland
  • Dialog: East Coast - West Coast
  • Domestic
  • Earth
  • Economic
  • Economy
  • Egypt
  • Electoral College
  • Electromagnetic Pulse
  • eligibility
  • Executive Orders
  • Farrakhan
  • Fast and Furious
  • FBI
  • Federal Reserve
  • Food
  • Fraud
  • Gas
  • Gaubatz
  • Global
  • Global economy
  • Governor
  • Grover Norquist
  • Guardians
  • Gulen
  • Gun control
  • Hagmann
  • Hawala
  • Healthcare
  • Hezbollah
  • Hillsdale College
  • Hizb ut-Tahrir
  • HLF
  • Holy Land Foundation
  • Homegrown
  • homosexual
  • Immigration
  • Implant
  • Information Warfare
  • Iran
  • Iranian Revolutionary Guards
  • IslamBerg
  • Islamist
  • Jekyll
  • Jew
  • jihad
  • Libya
  • like to know
  • Mafia
  • Manipulating Perceptions
  • Marriage
  • Marxist
  • Mexico
  • Military
  • Missile
  • Moderate Muslim
  • Money laundering
  • Muslim Brotherhood
  • must read
  • Myrick
  • Nazi
  • net neutrality
  • Nuclear
  • Oath Keepers
  • oil
  • Open Society
  • Operation Fast and Furious
  • Panther
  • Patriot
  • PFLP
  • Phares
  • pitchfork
  • Policy
  • political correctness
  • Politicians
  • Power
  • Progressive
  • Rare earth minerals
  • Responsibility to Protect
  • Reza Kahlili
  • ROE
  • Root
  • Roy Beck
  • Rules of Engagement
  • Russia
  • Salafists
  • Schools
  • Scout
  • Semper Fidelis
  • sharia
  • Shoebat
  • Sibel
  • social justice
  • Social Security Number
  • Socialist
  • Soros
  • Spending
  • Spies
  • Strategic
  • Stuxnet
  • Submarine
  • Sunni
  • Super-sized
  • survival
  • SWAT
  • Taliban
  • Taqiyya
  • Tawfik
  • Tax
  • Team B II
  • Treason
  • troubling
  • Truth
  • TSA
  • Unemployment
  • Uplift
  • USMC
  • Vallely
  • Vieira
  • Vote
  • Voter fraud
  • War
  • Weather Underground
  • WMD
  • Zero