Via the BBC we have some good news and some bad news: Al-Qaeda ‘faces funding crisis’.
First, the good news:
Al-Qaeda is in its worst financial state for many years while the Taliban’s funding is flourishing, according to the US Treasury.
[...]
The influence of the network - damaged by US efforts to choke funding - is waning, [Senior Treasury official David Cohen] said.
Certainly since al Qaeda is the actor in this context most likely to attempt a direct attack on US territory, this is good news.
However, there is also bad news:
The Taliban, meanwhile, are in better financial shape, bolstered by Afghanistan’s booming trade in drugs.
Indeed, the following handy map illustrates the situation:
As such, the ability of the Taliban to fund its fight against the US and against Pakistan is going to continue unbated. Indeed, I think I read something about this just recently…
Sphere: Related ContentThe views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Lets remember that the Taliban isn’t a threat to the US–never have been.
On Al Quaeda, this is great news. One thing that will help us defeat Islamic extremism generally is to ween our economies off of oil–which is why it is weird that so many “national security” legislators also happen to be the same ones who are against climate and renewable energy legislation.
October 13th, 2009 at 9:36 am
This idea that you can decrease our dependence on foreign oil to defund terrorists is just so much bunk. If we shoot ourselves in the fossil fuel foot, we are inviting the rest of the world to buy cheaper oil, which will still go, theoretically, to terrorist coffers. Even if it didn’t, I’m not sure how immiserating the Middle East is likely to yield fewer terrorists, but whatever. Now, if we have some cost-effective magic bullet for energy/cars, then splendid. I won’t hold my breath, though.
October 13th, 2009 at 10:31 am
Even if it didn’t, I’m not sure how immiserating the Middle East is likely to yield fewer terrorists, but whatever.
Just look at somewhere like, say, Liberia or Burundi–when was the last time the US has been seriously threatened by them? They are amongst the poorest countries in the world. I am sure there are people there who have greivances against the US, but they have no capacity to really do anything about it.
Al Quaeda grievances against the US were pretty clear–and widely stated–prior to 9/11. They were pissed about US troops in Saudi Arabia–the only reason we were there was because our national interests were tied to oil exports from the region.
Bin Laden, of course, built his entire capacity to strike with oil money.
Even if other countries–like China and India, for instance–fill the void as the West de-carbonizes its economy, tensions between those countries may be subject to terrorism, but it won’t really be our problem.
The only reason we give a damn about Al Quaeda–and they give a damn about us is our strategic interest in middle east oil. Remove that from the equation and the tension goes down markedly.
It’s international relations 101.
October 13th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I find it hard to believe that FBI efforts to cut off al-Qaeda’s funding has been successful. This is typical of a 9/10 mentality that law enforcement can be used to stop terrorism. This is clearly a trick on the part of bin Laden and if we want to stop it, we need to invade Iran today.