Ex-CIA Expert Wrong on Terror Motives

The former head of the CIA’s bin Laden Unit, Michael Scheuer, has carved out a niche for himself as an author, television news terrorism expert, and designated bitter former intelligence officer turned U.S. government basher. As such he is the darling of liberal media outlets, and he is a frequent and welcomed guest. His writings and commentary are consistently filled with dire warnings to western governments that they do not understand the motives of Islamic terrorists and thus cannot win the War on Terror. Scheuer may have held prominent positions within the CIA, but that apparently did not insulate him from adopting a sympathetic view of what he believes are the motives behind Islamic terrorism.

Speaking in Sydney, Australia earlier this week, Scheuer blasted the U.S. and its allies for failure in the War on Terror, but I want readers to focus on a few key arguments Scheuer put forth to explain why he believes the West will lose the War on Terror. I will then counter Scheuer’s description of Islamic terror motives with the words of an actual radical Islamist who paints a very different portrait of Islamic motives. First, Scheuer’s “blame the West for terrorism” argument, excerpted from Australia’s The Age:

"We in the West are fighting an enemy we have woefully chosen to misunderstand and to whom we are losing hands down and on every front," he said.

Mr. Scheuer said there was no hope of bringing democracy to Iraq or Afghanistan without a much greater commitment to defeat insurgents.

He said the West's biggest mistake in the war on terror was to ignore the grievances of Islamic insurgents.

He said Western politicians, including Prime Minister John Howard, deceived the public by suggesting that terrorists were motivated only by hatred for freedoms enjoyed in the West.

Mr. Howard had "warbled" the "wildly inaccurate ditty" that the London bombers were motivated by a hatred of Western culture, Mr. Scheuer said.

He said Al-Qaeda was motivated by anger towards US foreign policy in the Middle East rather than by hatred for Western culture.

That included the US military presence in the region, its backing of tyrannical Arab regimes and "unqualified" support for Israel.

Scheuer accuses Western governments of misunderstanding the enemy, and based on my own experience I would agree that understanding of radical Islam is in short supply within our government agencies. The federal government is far too influenced by groups like CAIR and not influenced enough by those who actively track Islamist extremist activity, like Jihad Watch. However, Scheuer should engage in serious introspection to examine whether he likewise possesses only a shallow knowledge of terror motives. After a long career with the CIA studying and combating Islamic terrorism, it is remarkable that Scheuer ascribes political rather than religious or cultural motives to Islamic terrorists. Everything I have learned about Islamic terrorists leads me to a very different conclusion about their motives: radical Islamists seek nothing short of total global Islamic rule, with Sharia law as the established behavioral code for all mankind.

If that sounds like a radical conclusion, it is, but perhaps the words of former Islamic radical Hassan Butt published by the UK Daily Mail, will help readers distinguish the true terror motive from propaganda arguments incessantly regurgitated by Islamists and Western liberals alike that the West could somehow pacify these terrorists by changing our foreign policies:

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

…And as with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy.

For example, on Saturday on Radio 4's Today programme, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."

…I left the British Jihadi Network in February 2006 because I realised that its members had simply become mindless killers. But if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again.

…And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.

There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.

Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.

For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).

Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.

Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.

Scheuer and Western governments, liberal or conservative, need look no further than Butt’s phrase, “creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice,” to gain a realistic understanding of Islamic terrorists’ motives. There is nothing complicated contained in this radical theology. It is not based on our oil interests, or our “occupation” of Iraq, or our support of Israel’s “occupation” of Palestine. It is based on crystal clear distinctions between good (Islam) and evil (unbelievers) and the assurance that any action taken to hasten the dawning of a global Islamic state, no matter how violent, is justified and fulfills Islamic scriptural prophecy. We are merely the largest and most formidable obstacle to this quest for global Islamic domination.

Only when Western governments and media terror “experts” like Scheuer acknowledge the true motive of the enemy in the War on Terror will the formulation of effective strategies to win that war be possible. America and her allies united in WWII to prevent the establishment of a global totalitarian Nazi state. Preventing the establishment of a global Islamic state under Sharia law will require a similar and likely longer-term unity and commitment to victory.

If the divisions among us exposed by the Iraq War and the War on Terror are any indication, such unity of purpose between our two political parties may already be impossible. When presidential candidates from both parties echo Scheuer’s flawed argument that America causes terrorism through its foreign policies (Ron Paul-R and all Democratic candidates), or claim that the War on Terror is merely a Bush bumper sticker slogan (John Edwards), it is clear that ignorance of our enemy’s motives is endemic at the highest levels of Western government and media institutions.

Technorati Tags:
Michael Scheuer, CIA, Terrorism Expert, Hassan Butt, Radical Islam, Islamic State, War on Terror, Jihad, Foreign Policy

American Muslims Rising in Defense of '24' but Offer No Rival to CAIR

Spy the News! makes a conscious effort to avoid commenting on celebrity news, as in fact I do not consider celebrity behavior to be news. There are more critical matters worthy of reading time and attention than what individual entertainers do or what they think about politics. However, Hollywood's influence on American culture is considerable and thus Hollywood as an institution must be criticized when it distorts truth or attempts to sanitize truth in the name of political correctness. It should also be praised when it bucks the trend of political correctness and presents story lines that unite Americans in a common cause rather than divide us by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or economic status. The Fox program "24" is stirring controversy for its portrayal of terrorists as Arab Muslim terrorists, but it is simultaneously receiving increasing praise for precisely the same reason.

I admit that a few seasons ago I stopped watching the program, mainly due to plots involving wildly exaggerated internal U.S. Government conspiracies in which the main character, Jack Bauer, appeared to be in more danger from our government than from terrorists. It seemed then (and continues to) that Jack's only hope of thwarting terrorists and saving the world was to work completely outside of all government strategy and existing tactics and he spent an inordinate amount of time protecting himself from elements within the U.S. Government bent on murdering him. Fortunately somewhere along the way it appears the producers of "24" have returned to the plots and realities that made the show unique and compelling in its earlier years. The plots once again involve Islamic terrorists working zealously to kill as many Americans as possible through bombings and other attacks, to include a spectacular detonation of a terrorist nuclear device in Los Angeles in this season's plot line.

That depiction of Los Angeles under a mushroom cloud has generated loud objections from CAIR, an organization that wields far too much influence over Islamic sensitivity training programs inexplicably embraced by U.S. Government departments and agencies. CAIR claims that portrayals of terrorists as Muslim will incite violence against Arab-Americans and contributes to stereotypes of all Muslims as terrorists. Of course reality justifies America's fear of Islamic terrorism, but CAIR is not concerned with reality as it sits on the government's shoulder and whispers sweet nothings about Islam into Uncle Sam's ear.

Regular Spy the News! readers routinely scroll the left column for daily news headlines and notable columns, and hopefully followed the link to the Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal today, which contained a piece written by Arab-American Emilio Kareem Dabul. In this article, "In Defense of '24'" Dabul expresses what Americans hope is a growing sentiment among Arab-Americans. Particularly welcome was the following statement:

"In the meantime, the next time a journalist decides to report on Arab-American concerns about shows like "24," maybe he could actually talk to someone other than CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, and seek out Arab-Americans with a different point of view. We actually do exist."

In a similar but even more blunt assessment of what Arab-Americans should be doing to fight terrorism within their own religion, M. Zuhdi Jasser, founder of American Islamic Forum for Democracy, contributed a wonderful articleto National Review Online last week. Jasser defended the plot line of "24" and declared that Muslims need to unite and defeat the true enemy, which he explicitly identified as Islamism. Jasser, a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, made the following call to arms to fellow American Muslims:

"It’s time for hundreds of thousands of Muslims to be not only private but public in their outrage — and to commit themselves to specific, verbal engagement of the militants and their Islamism. We, as American Muslims, should be training and encouraging our Muslim-community youth to become the future Jack Bauers of America. What better way to dispel stereotypes than to create hundreds of new, real images of Muslims who are publicly leading this war on the battlefield and in the domestic and foreign media against the militant Islamists. Condemnations by press release and vague fatwas are not enough. We need to create organizations — high-profile, well-funded national organizations and think tanks — which are not afraid to identify al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah by name, and by their mission as the enemies of America. If Muslim organizations and the American Muslim leadership were seen publicly as creating a national, generational plan to fight Islamism — rather than searching for reasons to claim victimhood — then the issues and complaints surrounding such TV shows would disappear. The way to fight the realities of 24 is to create a Muslim CTU, a deep Muslim counterterrorism ideology and a national action plan for our security."[emphasis added]

As one who has suffered through CAIR Muslim sensitivity training, I echo Jasser's recommendations and encourage Arab-Americans to establish an organization that, unlike CAIR, has no ties to known terrorists and that promotes Muslim cooperation with terrorist investigations conducted to preserve national security. What troubles many within the intelligence/national security community is the absence of any Arab-American organization to rival CAIR. Occasionally brave dissenters like Dabul and Jasser raise their voices to reassure Americans that our neighbors are not terrorists, but compared to the orchestrated and well-funded machinations of CAIR, such reassurances have only minimal effect on public perception. It is frequently stated that Islamic terrorism can only be eliminated through reform within Islam itself. Well-intentioned reassurances, regardless of frequency, are not reform. Jasser's call for a Muslim CTU is intriguing but currently problematic due to the embarrassingly small number of Arab-Americans and Arabic translators serving within intelligence, law enforcement, and military agencies.

Spy the News! applauds the producers of "24" for not cowering before CAIR. If a War on Terror will ever succeed, it will do so only when enemies are clearly identified, isolated so as to eliminate their ability to recruit, and destroyed. For this to occur, the faithful and courageous assistance of Muslims throughout the world will be necessary. Do they share Dabul and Jasser's desire to reform Islam? That is the question on which the War on Terror hinges.

Why You Should Care About CAIR's Role As Islamic Advisor to Government

Imagine that you are the leader of a counter-terrorist or SWAT team that has received credible corroborated intelligence pinpointing the residence of a suspected Islamic terrorist in your city. You obtain an arrest warrant for the terrorist and a search warrant for the residence, and you meticulously plan a tactical raid designed to surprise and quickly subdue the suspect, thus minimizing risk to other occupants of the residence. As you are about to enter the briefing room to address your team prior to the raid, a high-ranking supervisor pulls you aside and asks, “Have your team members received the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) Muslim cultural sensitivity training, and are you incorporating CAIR’s demands into your tactical plan?”

You realize you haven’t included any CAIR demands because they will get your team injured or killed since they fly in the face of established law enforcement tactics. You recently attended a Muslim sensitivity training session for the law enforcement/intelligence community sponsored by CAIR and the US Department of Justice, and pressure is increasing to formulate different operational plans for Muslim suspects than those in place for suspects of other faiths. You confidently assure the top brass supervisor you are in complete compliance with CAIR, and in the pre-raid briefing you tell your team the following:

1. Rapid entry violates the dignity of a Muslim home, so despite the suspect’s history of violence and weapons possession, you must stand on the porch knocking and hoping someone will open the door for you. Sure, rapid entry maintains the element of surprise and is far safer for the raid team, but those are unimportant when a Muslim house in involved.

2. Protective shoes or tactical boots should be removed prior to entry into the home. Don’t step on the prayer rug either. If you must breach the door, do so with dignity, and instead of the dynamic entry tactics we’ve drilled into you for your safety, stop in the doorway (also known as the fatal funnel) and remove those shoes/boots. Enter the home and make the arrest in your socks. Please don’t step on sharp objects, broken glass, syringes, or any of the other hazards you wear boots for in the first place.

3. Don’t look at women in the home and give them the opportunity to dress and cover their heads. Yes I know it is a fatal mistake to take your eyes off of anyone in the home until they and the residence have been secured and swept for weapons, but we don’t want to embarrass them, so avert your eyes and pray they don’t kill you while your back is turned.

4. To preserve dignity, don’t enter any occupied bedrooms or bathrooms, even if that is where the suspect is located. Stay in another room and call for the terrorist, relying on his/her willingness to come into the living room and submit to an arrest. If the terrorist is sleeping, don’t enter the room to wake him/her, just wait until he/she awakens.

5. K9 teams must not enter the home because this would be a desecration. Yes, I am aware that K9 teams are invaluable in detecting materials used to construct IEDs and other munitions, some of which may be present in an IED the suspect may have placed in the home specifically to kill an entire team such as ours, but you will have to find these materials without K9 assistance. Sorry.

6. Don’t use cameras or camcorders to document the raid due to the risk of filming individuals in varying states of dress. Of course I am familiar with the phrase “a picture is worth a thousand words,” but in a Muslim home we should not photograph the evidence or anything else.

7. Prayers must not be disturbed. If the suspect is praying when the raid occurs, he/she must be allowed to finish praying. Of course the terrorist may have concealed a weapon under the prayer rug or on his/her person, but you will stand there awkwardly and halt your standard procedures to secure the residence and assure officer/agent safety until the terrorist stops praying and gets off the prayer rug.

8. If you are not Muslim, don’t touch any holy books, Korans or religious
artifacts without asking the suspect’s permission. Of course, the terrorist will not give that permission, so we have to hope nothing dangerous or of value as evidence is hidden in those books or artifacts.

9. If the suspect flees to the local mosque, the same rules above apply, only we will be outnumbered 100 to 1, so be ready to retreat in your socks and don’t trip over those shoes you took off when you entered!

If the above scenario seems exaggerated or ludicrous to you, then you should empathize with intelligence/law enforcement personnel who are receiving increasing pressure to implement such Islamic “cultural sensitivity” in daily operational planning. All of the above rules were actually recommended by CAIR at a “Muslim cultural sensitivity” training I attended in 2004. Americans should be questioning why any government departments rely on CAIR for “cultural sensitivity” training, particularly given CAIR’s long suspected and well documented associations with known terrorists and terrorist networks. At least three major departments tasked with fighting and investigating terrorism utilize CAIR as their primary advisor on Islamic issues, and think nothing of taking CAIR leaders on tours of security operations at American airports. What does CAIR contribute to investigative efforts in return for this preferential treatment? CAIR opposes the Patriot Act, and joined the lawsuit against the NSA’s domestic anti-terrorist surveillance program. It is easy to understand that group’s objections to those anti-terror measures, since they both assure that the relationships between CAIR and terrorist organizations can be more closely monitored. Surely there is a better organization available to represent the views of America's Muslims than the highly controversial CAIR.

The CAIR-DOJ training session I attended in 2004 was fascinating; not for any cultural understanding obtained, but for the pure suspense of wondering whether the intelligence/law enforcement personnel would rush the stage and throttle the CAIR representative. As each of the above listed CAIR demands were presented to the audience, the tension in the auditorium became increasingly palpable. From an operational and agent/officer safety perspective, none of the CAIR demands were acceptable. Yet, the attendees were told that complying with those demands was the only way Muslims would cooperate with investigations in their communities. One local police officer in attendance, who visibly could not stand another minute of the “cultural sensitivity” training rather heatedly asked the CAIR representative the following question: “You’ve given us a list of demands that will get us killed, but what are YOU doing to get the Muslim communities to turn in the terrorists living among them? Is this a religion of peace or not?” The CAIR representative had no response and stood glaring at the officer for what seemed like an eternity with obvious disdain for law enforcement on her face. The tension was broken only when the DOJ host stepped in and called for an early lunch.

Senator Barbara Boxer, D-CA, has now joined the ranks in Washington who are wondering why CAIR seems to be the preferred Muslim group advising the Federal government and many state and local governments throughout the nation. To her credit, Senator Boxer, who was reportedly preparing to bestow an accomplishment award on a CAIR official, received complaints from law enforcement and intelligence personnel and listened to their criticisms of CAIR. She asked staff to research CAIR and after this scrutiny came to the conclusion that the Federal government had embraced CAIR with good intentions, namely to provide more Islamic cultural awareness within government, but that this was a mistake because of CAIR’s numerous associations with terrorists. Senator Boxer then rescinded the award to be presented to the CAIR official.

The “cultural sensitivity” training offered by CAIR and DOJ raises the important issue of the much-adored by the left “separation of church and state.” I have never seen any offered cultural awareness training for dealing with Catholic, Mormon, Buddhist, or Hindu suspects or how to behave when I enter homes where those are the declared religions. Why is Islam singled out for special treatment and consideration as a “culture” rather than a religion? If the government wants to make its intelligence/law enforcement personnel more aware of one religion’s beliefs, then it should offer a full spectrum of religious awareness and sensitivity courses including all religions, not just the one that complains loudest when investigated, justifiably, for terrorist activity. Requiring law enforcement to adopt separate rules and tactics to “maintain the dignity” of only one religion is a more blatant violation of the alleged separation of church and state than prayer in school. At least prayer in school can be non-denominational and voluntary. Workplace cultural sensitivity training is neither. It benefits only one religion and is mandatory.

If government agencies continue to rely on CAIR for understanding Islam in America, we will see a continued effort to render the intelligence and law enforcement communities impotent to investigate terrorism effectively in the very communities where terrorists are embedded. The United Kingdom is experiencing this same challenge at an even faster pace. Thus despite the London Subway bombings in July 2005 and several foiled plots involving home-grown terrorists, our British colleagues are facing pressure to abide by similar demands as those set forth by CAIR.

Infiltrating, identifying, locating, and investigating/eliminating terrorists are critical and dangerous duties. We should keep our shoes and boots on and our guard up when facing a determined and underestimated enemy, rather than caring so much about CAIR’s self-interested counsel.

Technorati Tags: Council on American-Islamic Relations Department of Justice Barbara Boxer Patriot Act London Subway Bombings cultural sensitivity NSA terrorism Religion of Peace Islamic Extremist CAIR