For me, the highlight of last weekend’s Libertarian Conference in London was the after-dinner talk delivered by Richard Miniter.
Richard is one of those people who has a resume so chocked full of impressive achievements that it leaves one wondering how he manages to fit it all into one life. As well as being an award-winning business journalist he is also an expert on security matters and will shortly be publishing a book on America’s terror war with Al-Qaeda.
He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Centre for the New Europe.
His presentation was utterly captivating, not just because of the breadth and depth of his knowledge but also due to his style of delivery which makes every person in the room feel as if he is talking to them personally. During the hour that he spoke, I heard not one cough, nor saw one fidget, nor even one yawn stifled.
So fascinating and important were Richard’s insights that they are worth replication here, if only in a précised form. There is no way I can do the presentation full justice, nor replicate it in its entirety. I was far too interested in what was being said to bother with the distracting and unseemly practice of taking notes.
The subject of the address was the War on Terror in general and its connection with Iraq. In particular it provided salutary answers to those who have been complaining that the impending attack on Saddam had nothing to do with, or was a distraction from, the wider war on Al-Qaeda and the terror gangs. Saddam’s regime has everything to do with the Al-Qaeda.
The connection goes back to the early 1990’s when Osama Bin Laden and his network were ensconced in Sudan and a seething Hussein was looking for an opportunity to exact revenge on the US and Britain for the humiliation he suffered during the Gulf War.
Osama was eventually forced out of Sudan through a combination of pressure from the US and financial ruin; he had been soaked of his fortune by the Sudanese government who had used his money to fund various building projects. An impecunious and redundant Osama was precisely the foil required by Hussein who needed a proxy ‘army’ to help him execute his revenge.
From a combination of intelligence sources, including captured Al-Qaeda operatives and satellite images, the US government now knows that while Osama was hiding out in the Hindu Kush, he was visited by the Iraqi Ambassador to Turkey who handed over two suitcases containing several million dollars. Al-Qaeda, an army for hire and franchise operation, had been bought and paid for.
Al-Qaeda provides the perfect cover for Saddam. Whilst he can finance and direct their operations against the US, he can also plausibly deny any involvement in atrocities like the 9/11 attacks; a deniability that seems to have some currency among many in the West. But the truth is out there. One only needs to look at the training base of Salman Pak, just south of Baghdad, where the fuselage of a Boeing 707 is kept on the runway. Almost certainly this is used to train hijackers. Whilst the 9/11 hijackers did not come from Salman Pak, the men who trained them probably did.
As for the 9/11 hijackers, they were recruited by Al-Qaeda who seek fresh blood chiefly among the clans of the Arabian Peninsula. All of the 9/11 hijackers were recruited from two clans based mostly in the Yemen and provided with fake passports by the Iraqi secret police.
In order to understand fully the nature of the threat to the West, it is necessary to understand the clan-based nature of Arab society. It is the reason why taking out Saddam will not be an end to the war and why the threat of further terrorist atrocities may continue for many years.
The very existence and seemingly unstoppable spread of pluralist Western society is a mortal threat to clan-based societies that rely on the control of women for their continued existence. The practice of the Arab clans is to arrange marriages for their womenfolk, usually to second or third cousins, to ensure that the integrity of the clan is maintained. Under no circumstances can women be allowed to fraternise with men from outside their clan or strangers. Hence the practice of ‘Burqa’; women have to remain hidden, lest they attract the attention of passing strangers in streets or marketplaces.
The open nature of Westernised societies, where anyone can just meet and marry anyone else from anywhere else is, as far as the clansmen concerned, a lethal toxin that would unravel their own, closed societies if it was allowed to take hold and spread.
This attitude can best be seen in men such as Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian who is regarded as having been one of the most influential voices of ‘Radical Islam’. Qutb went to America in the 1950’s and recoiled in horror at the sight of ‘men and women dancing together’ and women in ‘immodest garb’ apparently free to consort with any such men as they pleased.
Such things cannot be allowed to pass in the world of Qutb and the Islamist movement he helped spawn in order to combat the spread of Western ideals. Their methodology consists of the adoption of the terrorist techniques first developed by European Marxists in the 19th Century (since updated and refined) and exploitation of the ready recruiting ground of the Arab clans where Islam is, in any event, the dominant ideology.
Removing Saddam’s funding and support is essential in order to cripple Al-Qaeda but that will not, of itself, prove to be an end to the war. The clans that have gone bad will stay bad and remain a living, breathing danger because, just as with the Sicilian ‘Mafia’ clans, ties of blood are the strongest ties of all and nobody fights harder or more tenaciously or with greater loyalty for each other than family for family.
The US and its allies will continue to fight the war against the Islamic terrorists but victory will be a long time in coming and may not come at all.
So there it is, after a fashion, because as hard as I might try, I cannot but weakly imitate Richard Miniter’s persuasive, incisive clarity. I only hope that I have not misrepresented him in any way, shape or form. I do not believe I have and any inconsistency is purely accidental.
I can say that, when he got up to speak, Richard was facing a large room full of hard-core libertarians, many of whom had expressed bitter opposition to the US governments actions in the War on Terror. Sixty minutes later, they stopped just short of giving him a standing ovation.
This makes sense – it provides a credible framework for the events as well as many ‘unrelated’ details, of the whole War on Terror, Islam, Arabs, cultural war, terrorism, Iraq etc.
Great piece, David. I hope and trust that libertarians like Jim Henley, who argue that all we need to do is merely contain and deter Saddam, read this piece. It seems to me that no matter how much evidence piles up that Iraq has been backing terrorism, the evidence is not enough to convince the doubters. In fact, their expressions of doubt are starting to sound a tad desperate. If that makes me a “neo-libertarian” rather than a hard-core Raimondo type, I can live with it.
It is also worth noting the link to effectivly two families in Southern Saudi Arabia, who constitute the majority of the hard core of “Al Quaida”.
It appears that these two “tribes” of the desert having been kicking up trouble for the Yemani and Saudi governments for decades and it is their agenda of twisted hard core “Islam” that the organisation is trying to further.
Brother Bin resurfaces the same week that Iraq is trying to wriggle out of the UN resolution. Coincidence? Bin laden railing on tape threatening Europe with mayhem whilst Saddam works to try to undermine the coalition diplomatically coincidence? Odai Hussein threatens military retalliation on the US while Bin Laden threatens terrorism in Europe coincidence? Terrorist ‘chatter’ increases when Iraq is backed into a diplomatic corner coincidence?
Yet another great piece David and a real scoop too…but
I have a problem with this post which has been bugging me since I first read it this morning. As far as I know, this is the first time that a direct link has been publicly substantiated between Al-Qaeda and Saddam.
I can remember Andrew Marr, the BBC’s Political Correspondent saying, when the UK Government released its assessment on Iraq’s WMD capabilities a couple of months ago, that the security and intelligence services had been hunting high and low for a direct link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. He went on to point out that we could “bet our bottom dollar” that if they had found one, they would have told us. I know I’m naive but what better way to bring public opinion decisively behind the imminent war against Iraq?
Now, it’s not that I don’t believe that there is a link and I’m equally sure it has been there for some time. Frankly, I don’t need the link to believe in the need to destroy both. It’s not even that the link seems to have been established at a very useful time – just as weapons inspectors are about to return to Iraq and Saddam needs all the encouragement he can get to convince him that the US threat is terribly real. It’s that the intelligence services seem to have been known about it for some but it has only emerged now.
On one level, I am tempted to think of a slogan of the day last week about a good cause being ineptly defended. On another, the timing is suspiciously helpful and on a third, whilst I’m not generally a conspiracy theorist, I can’t help wondering why the conference last weekend and Samizdata.net should (I repeat “as far as I know”) be the first places for this momentous revelation to appear…
Oh, we are certainly not the first to be ‘revealed’ this information. I am sure the publisher of Mr Miniter’s book has been given some clues…
You seem to forget that Mr Miniter is certainly not important enough to be used as a ‘tool’ by the dark forces (read state security forces) to ‘reveal certain information’ at just the ‘right time’.
BBC is far from a credible source of analysis, Andrew Marr can say whatever he likes and I personally can’t see how his opinion that we ‘can bet our bottom dollar’ that if the government found a link, they would have told us, is worth the paper it’s written on. How naïve of him! Public opinion is fickle at best of times and I can’t see why the government would jeopardise its information sources by compromising it in a report that was not going to sway anybody. It doesn’t take a degree in politics to see that that wasn’t the report’s purpose anyway.
So I fail to understand what bugs you. Perhaps you are still struggling with the fact that the media is not a reliable source of information and that individual sources have a much better chance at hitting the truth…
Tim
Good question but I regret to say that the answer is that I simply don’t know.
Why should a well-attended but nonetheless entirely unofficial conference of libertarians in London get the ‘skinny’ but not the major media outlets? Beats me
Perhaps they have been given this info but have chosen to ignore or skim over it because the whole story cannot easily be broken down into soundbites. Who knows?
I suppose we’re all just going to have to make of this what we will
The Cluetrain Manifesto, the internet bible suggests, amongst other things, that the truly transforming power of the internet is the way it allows people to talk to each other in a way that mass media and communication have, over the last 100 or so years, severely limited.
Whether the story was deliberately planted or not is perhaps secondary to the potential viral effect blogging could therefore have on public opinion.
I would just hate to think of blogging in general and Samizdata.net in particular being used in this way. As Adriana suggests, other forms of media are unreliable where the truth is concerned and it would be sad indeed if we had to exercise similar scepticism when reading a blog as when reading the papers or watching the TV news.
PS. There is a “cake and eat it” attitude working here of course… Samizdata.net wants to create a positive viral effect (and more) for libertarianism but that’s our ball and I don’t like the idea of others playing with it.
Tim:
Have you read Saddam’s utterances like, for instance, his letter of “acceptance” to Kofi (extracted and linked on Andrew Sullivan’s blog) ?
He and Osama are absolutely identical in their retoric (and mentality) as far as their love for the West and libertarianism is concerned. So where’s the big scoop when you hear they collaborate ? The spymasters have failed to supply proof ? Why do you need their proof ? Don’t you read – not reports – but Saddam’s own words ? What more proof is needed ?
Jacob,
I don’t need proof. To quote myself: “Frankly, I don’t need the link to believe in the need to destroy both.”
My original point was surprise that the link has only now been disclosed although it has evidently been known about for some time.
My subsequent point was suspicion that blogs may be hijacked as a way of spreading “viral PR”.
My present thought is that blog hijacking should not have surprised me – Adriana’s “dark forces” (if such it was) aren’t going to pass up a weapon like blogging.
It’s a loss of innocence thing – the mildly sad thought that I have to be as cynical reading Samizdata as anything else.
Tim,
If it is of any comfort to you, I can assure you that Richard Miniter had no idea I was going to ‘blog’ his speech. I did ask his permission but only after he had spoken.
Also, when he was booked to give the talk there is no way he could have known that there were even going to be any bloggers in attendance.
Hopefully, that should allay your palpable suspicion that this story has been ‘planted’ via me. I’m afraid that’s a conspiracy-theory too far.
David,
Suspicious, moi?
Yes, David, I couldn’t agree more! Tim, oh, pwease, a storm in a teacup. The link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda makes sense, as it also makes more sense that we haven’t heard about it (security, protection of sources etc), than if we have, especially via the normal channels. I have always known that the media reporting is only marginally concerned with reality and would be alarmed if the only effective intelligence the West has were compromised unnecessarily.
Not a conspiracy theory, but a simple fact based on experience in politics tells me that things are not what they seem and one thing we can know for certain is that we don’t know the whole story.
Blogging can also be unreliable as a source of information (shock! horror!) but you know what you are getting – opinions of individuals. You make up your own mind. Of course you have to be sceptical about what you read, but perhaps in a different way. There is no higher authority on the truth, no one is going to reveal it from the above and make you sleep well at night coz you know what’s going on…
Tim,
So you suspect that the dark forces of state spymasters have used an ingenious and sinister method of disseminating through the bloggosphere an item of information (or disinformation) ?
And what is that item ? The proof of a fact that everybody already knew.
Adriana,
Of course it’s a storm in a tea cup – a 13 long string of comments leading in ever decreasing circles is almost always so.
But I disagree that “it makes sense” that we haven’t heard about the link before – of course sources need to be protected but we are often told by governments not to trouble ourselves with the facts, only their conclusions. Can we agree to disagree on that?
And I accept David’s belief that nothing was planted – I was merely pondering the prospect that blogs might become more than just the opinions of individuals. Can we also agree on that?
Pwease say yes…
Tim,
Yes.
And I just wish to add that, if blogging does become a means whereby various ‘dark forces’ try to disseminate information, then perforce it has become a medium to be taken seriously and I shall be rather chuffed about that!
David,
I agree wholeheartedly.
Two suitcases of cash, from the Iraqi ambassador — this is a “smoking gun”.
I don’t believe the US intelligence services have enough credible evidence to state this “fact”.
It has the feeling of a true, but unconfirmed, report.
But the problem of belief in the truthfulness or not is very, very real — I can almost believe there will be MORE false evidence if this is a false manipulation, than there will be true real evidence if it really happened.
And I am afraid of false evidence being added to insufficient real evidence in order to make a stronger case for PR purposes.
I’m sure that much of the most important truth can never be historically known due to the desires of those who know to keep it unknown.
But blogs are still under the radar screen of most media analysis.
Interesting to note that someone can come up with a connection to support what they think.
Flimsy at best.