Now, Hezbollah Joins The Narcos--Why Not?

Sue Myrick (R. NC-9) is a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It may be recalled that she garnered more than a little notoriety when she wrote the forward for the book Muslim Mafia last year. This book accused the Council On American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) of being a subversive entity. (It is interesting in this regard that CAIR during ensuing litigation did not charge the book's authors or publisher with libel or defamation but rather with having acquired certain documents by illegal methods.)

Alarmed by the book's allegations that CAIR had planted espionage agents within committees charged with national security duties, Ms Myrick, joined by other Republican Members of Congress, demanded the Sergeant At Arms investigate to determine whether or not interns appointed with CAIR backing had served in this sinister role. Later she, again with other Republicans, requested the Internal Revenue Service investigate as to whether CAIR had violated its tax-exempt status by lobbying efforts.

It is without surprise that CAIR and other pro-Islam groups including the Islamic Society of North America and the Muslim American Society as well as Democratic Party heavyweights, most notably, John Conyers and Mike Honda, pushed back--hard. Weakening the push back efforts was the undeniable linkage of CAIR with officially identified Muslim terrorist groups as an unindicted co-conspirator in the controversial Holy Land Foundation trial.

Ms Myrick has written another letter recently. This time the recipient was Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. The subject: Investigate the possible linkage of Hezbollah and Mexican narcotrafficking cartels.

The letter is a fine example of unspecified "former intelligence officers," and "well trained officials," and "some authorities." Ms Myrick's missive rests additionally on some well known and unpleasant realities deep south of the border such as the cooperation between Iranian capo Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan supremo Chavez, the long established presence of Hezbollah operatives in the drug smuggling region of the Tri-border between Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina, the skill shown by Hezbollah in digging tunnels, and, as a bit of a stretch, the similarity of terrain between that of the southwest US-Mexican border and the border between Israel and Lebanon.

In Ms Myrick's estimate, the probable current or near-term partnership between Hezbollah and the assorted smuggling cartels operating on the US-Mexico border constitutes a definite national security threat. As such, the matter deserves, at the least, the establishment of a task force which "could explore all these issues."

It is the wishy-washy nature of the Myrick request which undermines her argument that the US may soon be experiencing "Israel like car bombings of Mexican/USA border personnel or National Guard units in the border regions." Get a grip, Congresswoman Myrick!

Either the US does face a growing threat from a partnership between Hezbollah (or Hamas or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and the cartels or it does not. If the potential for such exists to the degree you appear to believe, then action beyond the formation of a "taskforce (which) could explore all these issues," is necessary.

The use of the resources, personnel, and knowledge of the smuggling cartels would be of great utility to an entity such as Hezbollah or an adverse state like Iran. However, the potential utility of such an alliance would be eroded significantly if employed for petty efforts such as "Israel-like car bombings." The killing or wounding of a few Border Patrol agents or National Guardsmen would be a frittering away of a capacity with much greater potential.

The current dynamics of global politics makes the use of the smuggling cartels an attractive option. Of course, this option would not be either cheap or risk free, so it seems reasonable that any partnership would have as its goal operations far more damaging to the US than the sound of VBIEDs in the desert air.

Ms Myrick would be well advised to reform her letter, its arguments, and the sketchy evidence supporting her contentions to an appropriate level. Not to be unduly alarmist, but taking into account the strong probability that Iran will have the capacity to take two Hiroshima sized bombs off the shelf within eighteen to twenty-four months, a legitimate level of threat is that of a WMD attack using either nuclear or biological munitions.

The capabilities of the smuggling cartels, their human resources, their collective knowledge are up to the task of introducing agents and equipment into the US. This capability should be understood not as simply dumping the martyrdom seekers and munitions across the Great Fence of the Southwest but delivering them well into the interior of the US.

The complex, well-organized, and highly redundant delivery system developed and constantly improved upon by the cartels provides a ready capacity for delivering a devastating attack on the US at any time. All that is necessary is the formation of a partnership between one or more cartels and either Iran or one of its proxies.

This takes time. The cartels are run by men who are even tougher of mind than the mullahs and their stooges. It will take more than a slight amount of effort to persuade the cartel chiefs that what is in the deal more than offsets the risks of American response. It will take careful playing off of one cartel with the others as well as meticulous manipulation of relevant and receptive Mexican police, military, and government officials.

None of this is made easier by the arrogant xenophobia which has been well noted by those foreigners--even other Muslims--who have had dealings with Iran or Iranian proxies. Nor does the assistance of Hugo Chavez ease the path to partnership.

Chavez enjoys no particularly high standing in the estimate of the cartels. He has even lower standing with members of the Mexican elite both in and out of government. Any Chavez involvement will be obvious since that is the only way Hugo, The Mouth Of The South, knows how to operate. The evident participation of Hugo will make any deal with Mexican officials all the more difficult given the nationalism which is always present in their makeup along with greed.

The culture gap between Islamist jihadi and Latin American narcotrafficker is wide and deep. It will not be bridged quickly and easily--if at all. This ground truth is far more relevant in considering the potential of an emerging threat on the border than is the presence of a few jail tattoos in Farsi.

Ms Myrick is correct in being concerned. The growth of an alliance between Iran or its proxies and the elaborate smuggling networks of LatAm is a real threat in the longer term. But, the right way to go about countering this potential is not in the writing of politically expedient letters.

The right way is that of careful monitoring of developments and their disruption whenever possible. And the options for disruption are manifold given the nature of the relationship between Islamists and traffickers. Not to simplify the matter, time is on the side of the US in this area of threat assessment and abatement.

In short, Ms Myrick should put her word processor on stand-by. Unless the intelligence community has become significantly more incompetent in recent months (not impossible but highly unlikely), the Iranian-smuggling connection is already on the radar screens. As a rule of thumb, if we hear nothing about it, the matter is being handled properly and effectively.

Finally! A Couple of Moderate Muslims

Being reasonably familiar with the Quran and other basic written materials of Islam as well as the sweep of Islamic history, the Geek has been unconvinced by the repeated assertions on the part of the United States Government as well as the legions of politically correct, high-minded journalists, academics and their ilk that there existed such a person as a "moderate" Muslim. The Geek is quite willing to acknowledge that the vast majority of Muslims are more concerned with the problems of living and securing a better life for their children than striving for mirages such as a Global Caliphate or A New World Under Sharia.

Even with that large caveat, the Geek has been far more impressed with the sheer bloody mindedness and "Death to---!" orientation of so many in the Muslim population of the world than he has been with expressions of something as ambiguous as "moderation." This is why is was impressed with and commends to your attention two writings from opposite ends of the globe.

The first is from Pakistan, a country which, as has been posted previously here, is far more a part of the problem than a portion of the solution. The writer is Farooq Sulehria and his article appears today at http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=118852.

His theme includes some features which are notable. Sulehria argues powerfully that the time has come for Muslims to stop blaming others such as the West, the US, the Jews, the Christians, for the problems which best Muslim dominated societies and states.

When all else fails, "Jews" and "Christian" West are there to lay the blame for all our ills. Conspiracy theories instead of scientific, rational thought holds sway across much of the Muslim world. And every time a rights abuse is highlighted in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, a typical Muslim answer is: Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Chechnya. True, imperialism and Zionism have a hand in our predicament. However, there are many wounds one can only describe as self-inflicted. Take, for instance, the Iran-Iraq war, one of the last century's bloodiest conflicts. There is no denying the fact that the United States backed the Saddam regime. But it was the Arab sheikhdoms, panicked at the Iranian revolution, that stoked the flames of war. And, ironically, now in the post-Saddam era when the "Christian" West has written off Iraq's Saddam-era debt worth $66 billion, Iraq's Arab brothers refuse to write off that country's $67 billion loans.

How is that for a gale of honesty! But, wait. There's more.

Similarly, last century's bloodiest Muslim genocide was not carried out by Serbs, Israelis, Americans, Europeans or Hindus. It was Pakistan's military that refused to respect a democratic verdict and plunged East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, into an ocean of blood. Millions were killed, maimed, raped and rendered homeless. Luckily, Pakistan has a "Hindu" neighbour. "Hindus are born enemies of Islam'. Hence, Pakistani children are now taught that a Bengali traitor (revered by Bengalis as founder of Bangladesh), in connivance with our "Hindu" neighbour, dismembered Pakistan. Ironically, of all her South Asian neighbours, Pakistan enjoys most cordial relations with the world's only Hindu state, Nepal. The other big genocide was perpetrated by Indonesia. The target was: its own citizens who were members of the Communist Party.

That defines "telling it like it is!

A second point is tellingly made. Islamic countries are at best pathetic in their guarding of human rights. Using a twisted reading of the internally contradictory injunctions within the Quran and hadith, Muslim dominated states run rampant and roughshod over the rights that do (or should at the very least) belong to all of us in possession of a navel. Consider,

The Amnesty International report on human rights for the year 2007 is out. The Muslim world constitutes, as usual, bleakest chapter. Every single country across the Muslim world has been pointed out by the Amnesty International either for executions and torture or discrimination against women and ethnic and religious minorities. Punishments never handed down even during the Stone Age, have been awarded in 21st century Muslim world. In one case, two Saudi nationals were awarded 7,000 lashes. Yes, 7,000. And executions? Well, 335 in Iran, 158 in Saudi Arabia and 135 in Pakistan. Violation of human rights, it seems, is the only thing that unites the otherwise divided Muslim world. The report is no exception. The Muslim world cuts a sorry figure every time a global watchdog releases its findings. Freedom of expression here remains curtailed, Reporters Sans Frontieres annually reports. Regarding freedom of expression, there is a joke often told in Arab world. At a meeting, a US journalist says: "We have complete freedom of expression in the US. We can criticise the US president as much as we like." The Arab journalist replies. "We also have complete freedom of expression in Arab world. We can also criticise the US president as much as we like."

If the Geek had written that factual statement, here in the United States, an entity such as CAIR (The Council on American-Islamic Relations) would have screamed, "Islamophobe! Hate criminal!"

Sulehria adds a grace note which might be overlooked in the thundering symphony of condemnation he composed. It shouldn't be. It strikes right to the heart of the matter. Right to the heart of why so much of the Islamic population is condemned to life-long servitude and no hope for a better future.

Similarly, it is either Bangladesh or Pakistan or Nigeria which is on top of Transparency International's corruption indexes. However, when Nobel laureates gather in Stockholm every December, Muslim scientists and writers are conspicuous by their absence.

There can be no real hope of a better today without governments which are open, transparent in their operations and honest in their dealings. Can anyone imagine a corruption investigation of a Muslim head of government such as that which has been underway in Israel?

There can be no real hope of a better tomorrow without talented, free-thinking and creative scientists. Not only are Muslims conspicuous by their absence when the Nobel prizes are passed out, they aren't to be found in the peer-reviewed literature unless they are living in non-Muslim states.

The Geek can't help but wonder when (not if) some Islamist/jihadist cave dweller will take it in his mind to kill the apostate. Likewise the Geek can't help but wonder how diligently the Pakistani authorities will seek to prevent the success of the assassin.

With that cheery thought in mind, let's switch to the Netherlands. The writer of this post hides behind a pseudonym out of fear. The fear that may silence so many others who share her views or those of Farooq Sulehria.

Take a look at, http://ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/ayaanhirsiali/2008/06/muslims-show-so.html.

The author is described as an educated Dutch Muslim. That demands the question, "What is her nativity, ancestry?" The article does not make clear if she is a Muslim by birth or by conversion although that distinction would do much to put the thoughts in a proper context.

She raises an issue which is very important not simply to the Dutch but to all of us in the West. The issue is simple: Why do Muslims demand what they will not grant--respect for other cultures, religions, ways of living?

The writer ascribes the responsibility for the Muslim unwillingness to offer reciprocity of respect to their historical tradition of "arrogance." In her words, "It is time that we Muslims let go of our feeling of superiority, hypocrisy and ignorance."

She backs her contention with a brief account of her understanding of Islamic history, which, in the Geeks' professional estimate is fundamentally correct.

Muslim history writers wrote with pride about what they saw as successful heroic deeds. And we still live under the delusion that the quality of the lives of indigenous people is improved by replacing their temples and churches by mosques, and that we conquer their hearts by doing so. But nothing is further from the truth and why the Dutch say 'our culture is disappearing as we do see mosques everywhere' when yet another church is transformed into a mosque.

Leaving aside some translation problems, her understanding is correct and is certainly backed by Islamic writings including those of Muslim historians of the the classic period. If one adds the necessary comment that Mohammad was a political leader using a religious doctrine for the political purpose of establishing a regime and that his successors of all stripes were political figures seeking to expand or maintain authority employing the same religious doctrine, her assessment becomes all the more convincing.

A very brave woman who acknowledges that "with the support of my parents" she both studied and thought long and hard about Islam levels a key indictment. Consider it--and its source.

The present time: consider the decapitation of non-Muslims in Iraq and Pakistan. Those so-called heroic deeds are perpetrated in name of Allah. What is our response to this? Do we condemn this? No, we look on silently, but do demonstrate on streets when an insulting cartoon is published in a newspaper and we threaten politicians with their murder. Embassies of non-Muslim countries are attacked, and numbers of murders are committed out of our passion for heroic martyrdom.

That's asking for a bomb on your bus, a knife across your throat or a bullet in the back. After all the Heroic Warriors of Islam seem to get far more jollies out of killing a woman than a man.

The lady asks a question which every self-proclaimed Islamic "moderate" ought to be shouting throughout the US, the West and even the Islamic states. See if you agree--

Why don't we show respect in the Netherlands where we adhere to few rules and civic norms, and where we perpetrate senseless violence - while we make use of their medical facilities, ask for special attention of teachers and community-workers, complain a lot while expecting non-Muslims to take account of us?

Non-Muslims ought to asking the same question of CAIR and similar groups as well as other apologists for the "Religion of Peace and Tolerance." It's our world, our countries too.

We Americans are an accepting bunch. We have welcomed all sorts of people and beliefs. We continue to do so. In the past we have expected that religious beliefs would be primarily private, and certainly not imposed on others. We have expected that a live-and-let-live attitude would govern our attitudes and behaviors regarding each other's beliefs (or lack thereof.)

In spite of occasional and lamentable excursions into policy accommodation of religious values, our easy going approach has worked and worked well. We must insist that it continue today.

This means that the use of Islam qua Islam as a basis for demanding accommodation or being forgiven criminal trespass or silencing the voices of those unliked is totally unacceptable. We the People should and must show the same level of courage as the anonymous lady in Holland and the Pakistani Rebel With A Cause, Farooq Sulehria