Axis of Appeasement – The Inconvenient Truth

David J. Jonsson
August 23, 2006

On January 20, 2002, President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address stated:
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
Today, we are seeing the allies of the United States possible becoming the “The Axis of Appeasement.” The question remains to see if the allies joined for freedom and liberty will support a battle against the forces of evil.
In any war, the critical elements of success are:
Who is the enemy?
What are their goals?
What is the definition of success, and finally
What will the world be like if we lose?
Up to the time of the Munich Agreement in 1938, these questions were not answered. The West faces the same situation following the cease-fire in Lebanon in 2006. The West better decide on the answers to the questions or be prepared to live under Shariah Law in a totalitarian Islamic state. The question that has to be answered is: Would you choose appeasement and wind up as a lampshade in a palace or fight for Western democracy, freedom and liberty?
Funding Terror
An Inconvenient Truth
The Reality of the Inconvenient Truth
Islamists Recognize the Value of Joining with the Leftist Movement
The Cease-Fire in Lebanon is Reminisant of Munich in 1938
Founding of the Green Party
How it all Began
Fischer: A self-justification
Al Qaeda Forges the links with the Leftist/Marxist Alliance
Al-Qaeda Issues An ‘Invitation’
Complications on the Issue of Profiling
Joe Lieberman vs. Ted Lamont
August 12, 2006 Anti-War Demonstrations
The US and Israel Stand Alone
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Role of Hezbollah in the Middle East
Islamist Sunni-Shia Convergence
Following the Strategies Laid Out by The Muslim Brotherhood
The Project and the Protocols of Zion
Al-Qaeda Book on Managing Savagery
The Underlying Cause Driving the Axis of Appeasement

Funding Terror

I led a recent round-table on current affairs on the campus of a major university, the subject was funding terror and how to reduce the threat of terror by eliminating funding—and if that was possible. Naturally, a logical portion of the discussion dealt with the role that energy plays in providing the funding. But more important to the subject is: What other ways funding is provided?

The first question raised by one of the participants was: How do I know that the organizations that I support are not supporting terror? In my opinion, we are not just fighting a war on terror, but witnessing a war between those who wish to impose an Islamist totalitarian form of government verses Western democracy, capitalism, freedom and liberty. In many cases it may be the extension of the same battle that tore Europe apart during most of the twentieth century that has now spread to the Muslim world. The current clash also includes the added dimension of a battle for the control of oil. The West no longer has control of oil resources to provide energy security. See also my earlier article: Give Me Energy Security And I Will Give You A Foreign Policy.

The discussion evolved. Funding of terror really involves many aspects; it can take the form of direct monetary transfer to terrorist organizations, it can include providing labor in the form of organizing demonstrations which promote ideologies which are anti-American, anti-Semitic, and anti-Western democracy, and it can also take the form of supporting causes which prevent the development of energy self-sufficiency thus making the U.S. dependent for our energy supplies from countries supporting terrorism. Jihad should not be considered exclusively a terrorist action, such as blowing up planes and trains; it may take the form of economic jihad such as financing Islamist projects, white-collar jihad—influencing the media, promoting Islamist ideologies in schools and universities or just plain participating in a demonstration or peaceful march. However the goal remains the same, to bring about the Islamic kingdom of God on Earth and to impose Shariah law.

Which leads us the main question, which organizations and/or action of individuals promote anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism, etc. I believe that the well-known statement: “If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, eats like a duck, it probably is a duck.” How would one apply this comment to the present situation? Some of the organizations mentioned in this study are leaders of protest marches preaching these ideologies. The spokespersons for the organizations have made speeches espousing the ideologies; the funding (eating) includes organizations espousing similar beliefs. I would have to add that certainly not all and possibly most of the organizations do not have all the characteristics, however they do have association through their sponsorship of the events, interlocking of funding and interlocking of boards. I might add, that just like the duck that provides excellent food and delicious pate and other useful products; terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas also have two sides. On the one hand, they provide schools, hospitals, and support for the poor and food. Environmental organizations raise our awareness of need to protect our environment for current and future generations. The goal is therefore is sort out their multiple functions and goals. The Islamists recognized this dual role and therefore have utilized these organizations in their strategy. The strategy is laid out in the sections on “The Project” and “Managing Savagery.”

The “The Project” an ambitious strategy intended “to establish the kingdom of God over the whole world recommends “to study the local and world centers of authority, and the possibilities of placing them under influence,” “to enter in contact with all new movements engaged in the jihad wherever that it is on planet, to create cells of the jihad,” and “to nourish the feeling of rancor with regard to the Jews.” The document describes the strategy planned to ensure a growing influence of the Brotherhood on the Muslim world. It is stipulated there that the Muslim Brothers “should not act in the name of the Brotherhood, but infiltrate in the existing organizations. Their existence will not be located, and then neutralized.”

If the pattern and actions of the organizations appear to be consistent with the strategy laid out by the Islamists, then one must pay special attention.

If you spend some nights and weekends at a whorehouse, your spouse has every right to assume the reason for spending time there is not for the purpose of playing tennis.
In the document below are presented from newspaper accounts and other sources the association of organizations behind the statements, protests and actions. The Islamist strategy has recently been made public through the publication of translated documents. It is for the reader to further explore the links.

Think about it; check it out. Are you naively funding terror? Because we still have freedom and do not live under a totalitarian government we must respect the rights of others to express their opinions and enter into dialog. However just the participation in an elected form of government and/or economic development does not necessarily lead to freedom, liberty and elimination of terror. Suggested reading: Promoting Democracy and Fighting Terror by Thomas Carothers from Foreign Affairs, January/February 2003 and Development and Democracy by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George W. Downs From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2005.
The Islamist strategy of infiltrating in the existing organizations, NGOs and foundations, many of which perform apparently valuable services is extremely valuable to the cause of establishing a totalitarian form of government. The existence of Muslims with an Islamist agenda and supporters of their cause are not easily located and then neutralized.

An Inconvenient Truth

As Jagdish Bhagwati commented in an article on August 16 in the Financial Times Al Gore has been busy returning global warming to center stage with terrifying warnings of disaster with his best-selling book, An Inconvenient Truth, and the popular companion documentary. Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, has joined – even led – the renewed focus on global warming, charging Sir Nicholas Stern, the economist, with solving the problem. Alongside his successful initiative on Africa, this is to be his sure-fire international legacy as he ends his last term in office.
One has to ask: Which is more important in the near term the preservation of democracy, liberty and freedom or global warming?

Khamenei—the supreme religious authority to Hezbollah followers—said. “With God's help you (Hezbollah) were able to prove that military superiority is not (measured) in the number (of soldiers), planes, warships and tanks. Rather, it depends on the power of faith and holy war,”
Just as the Iranian soccer fans hold photos of Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, during the Iran and Syria Asian Cup 2007 qualifying soccer match in Tehran on Wednesday Aug. 16, 2006, anti-war demonstrators at protest marches on August 12 demonstrations in the Stop the US Israeli War rally in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington D.C. and worldwide held up signs in support of the Hezbollah and Hamas. The enemy within has reached America’s shores.

The Reality of the Inconvenient Truth

In reality, the Inconvenient Truth represents a much broader significance. The environmental movement represented by Al Gore plays a significant role in the “The Axis of Appeasement” and is directly linked to the formation of Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance.
The Inconvenient Truth is that many of the environmental, social justice, anti-war, leftist, and Islamic groups have in common senior personnel, members of advisory and director boards and in some cases common supporters and funding including foundations and corporations. The organizations in many cases have interlinking of the boards. In many cases these organizations are the cosponsors of the rallies and protests we are seeing occur on a global scale. This is in no way to say that all supporters of some of these causes are not sincere in their desire for a better world. As a conservative environmentalist we all need to support environmental action that is also critical for your future. However, support of the organizations naively or otherwise can be contributing to support of organizations that are against liberty and freedom and seek to establish a global totalitarian government.

The war against the Islamists will not be won with military might and the war on terror; the battle must also be waged in the media, the schools, the NGOs, and the board rooms of corporations.

The Islmists are following the plan laid out by the Muslim Brotherhood as described and documented in numerous places. The West is falling into line with the plan and strategy.
Islamists Recognize the Value of Joining with the Leftist Movement
The Islmists recognized early on that alliance with these groups provided the grass root support and manpower locally in the West to impact the media, education, and ultimately political elections. Hence the Islamist slogan “from the schoolhouse to the White House.” The Islamist goal remains—world domination and the establishment of the totalitarian Islamic kingdom of God on Earth. It is this cabal, which I refer to as the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance which is making up the “The Axis of Appeasement.”

The “unholy alliance” of the leftist with the Islamists cannot last; liberalism cannot survive under the rule of a totalitarian regime imposing Shariah law. At some point one side will decide that this must end. Victor Davis Hanson in his article in National Review Online Hope Amid Despair? commented: In an amorphous war of self-induced Western restraint, like the present one, truth and moral clarity are as important as military force. This past month, the world of the fascist jihadist and those who tolerate him was once again on display for civilization to fathom. Even the most timid and prone to appeasement in the West are beginning to see that it is becoming a question of “the Islamists or us.”

The Islamist is willing to die for their cause. Many liberals may die because of the support of their cause.

The Cease-Fire in Lebanon is Reminisant of Munich in 1938

The perceived victory of the Hezbollah in Lebanon followed by the cease-fire agreement may be the pivotal moment in the creation of a new world order.

It is pivotal in the same sense that the Munich agreement between Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain was pivotal in an earlier battle against the enemies of freedom. The accord in October 1938 revealed to the world that the solidarity of the Western allies was a sham, and that the balance of power had shifted to the fascist dictators.

As reported in the article Iran praises Islam ‘victory’ August 17, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme religious authority to Hezbollah followers, in a message to Hezbollah head Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, described the militant group's clashes with Israel as a “victory” for Islam.

“Your unprecedented holy war and steadfastness are beyond the limits of my description. It's a divine victory. It is a victory of Islam,” Khamenei said in the message read by an announcer on Hezbollah's Al-Manar television.

Hezbollah is heavily financed and backed by Iran's Shiite Muslim theocracy.
“With God's help you were able to prove that military superiority is not (measured) in the number (of soldiers), planes, warships and tanks. Rather, it depends on the power of faith and holy war,” Khamenei said.

“You have ridiculed the myth that the Zionist army is invincible,” he said.
Khamenei said Israeli attacks that killed Lebanese civilians and destroyed much of the country's infrastructure have exposed “the real face of America and some European countries, side-by-side with the hated and repugnant Zionist face.”

“They (Israeli attacks) have also uncovered the level of falsehood surrounding the hollow slogans ... about human rights and democracy,” Khamenei said.

He lashed out at President Bush for declaring that the Israeli assault in Lebanon was self-defense and had defeated the Shiite guerrillas.

Resolution 1701 shows that, for the time being at least, the balance has likewise shifted to the terrorists and their state sponsors. Like Munich, it marks the triumph of the principle of putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today. Like Munich, it will mean not peace in our time, but a bigger war in our future.

“We have passed an awful milestone in our history,” Winston Churchill said after the Munich agreement was signed. “Do not suppose this is the end… This is only the first sip, the first foretaste, of a bitter cup that will be proffered to us year by year.” Despite the failure of appeasement, Churchill still believed the Western democracies would make the “supreme recovery” and take up the banner for freedom again.

The United States and the forces of democracy will recover from this debacle—even with a Democratic Congress in 2006 and a Democratic president in 2008. The reason will not be because Bush's opponents—“The Axis of Appeasement” have a better strategy, or a clearer vision, or even a Winston Churchill waiting in the wings. It will be because the Islamists will give us no choice.

Less than a year after Munich, Nazi panzers rolled into Poland. Instead of fighting a short, limited war over Czechoslovakia, the Western democracies ended up fighting a world war, the most destructive in history. The war with the Islamists is coming. It is only a question of whether it will be at a time or on a ground of our choosing, or theirs—and whether it is fought
within the shadow of a mushroom cloud.

Without the background of history as a guide, it is difficult to understand the present.

Founding of the Green Party

In January of 2005, Germany's Greens, now the strongest Green Party in the world turned 25. There won't be any grand parties or brouhaha. They did a bit of that in 2004 to fete the unofficial 25-year anniversary. Since then, they have strayed from their sunflower-laced ideals, which over the years included pulling Germany out of NATO and instigating super high gas prices. Still, it is worth taking a moment to raise a glass to a party that began as a scruffy band of pacifist idealists and has evolved into one of Germany’s biggest power players. Many of the Greens' early devotees were members of the famous '68 generation, a group of left-wing radicals who wanted to change the world. Others were Trotskyites and Maoists. They sailed into the German conscience on the wave of post-World War II memories and experiences. That wave remains powerful even today and continues to influence the Greens' and other parties' policies.

How it all began

The founding of the Green Party was hardly done in a flurry to civilize the nation in 1968 and the years that followed, at the height of the Cold War, Berlin and other German cities saw pitched battles against police in protest against the Vietnam War and “Nazi” influences in postwar West Germany.
.
They, themselves, never thought of it that way. For them, the important thing was changing, not bettering, the system. They produced a newspaper called “APO Press” - APO standing for Extra-Parliamentary Opposition - to spread the '68ers revolutionary message: against war, against US “imperialism” and against the alleged “fascist” tendencies of West German politics, especially the police.

“People know that the Sixties changed Germany.” And the Sixties changed the world. In many cases it is the same players and political ideologies that are leading the “Axis of Appeasement.”
The '68 movement made a fatal mistake, when Ulrike Meinhof and Andreas Baader co-founded the Baader-Meinhof Gang, and sought to justify the use of terrorist methods to try to bring down the West German state.

“The resort to terrorism killed the protest movement.”

Today, it uses the media, the Internet, education and politics to change the world. The goal remains the same—political power to impose their ideology. The Islamists using the same techniques are gaining political power globally.

Success in the “War on Terror” may win a battle, but will not win the war against the Islamists. With the Leftists against the War on Terror as put forward in the Wall Street Journal article on August 16 by George Soros: A Self-Defeating War, the effort to even win the battle becomes more difficult. The article in the U.K based Socialist Worker further supports the position of George Soros: Who are the true terrorists? “The only way to stop Islamist terrorism is to end the domination of the Middle East by Western imperialism. This won’t happen overnight. But by continuing to build a united and dynamic mass movement against the “war on terrorism”, we can show that there is a better way of opposing the crimes committed by our government.” In the interview presented below of Jimmy Carter, the same theme is put forward about the crimes of the United States.

Fischer: A self-justification

Joschka Fischer attended lectures on Marxism at Frankfurt University, though he was not officially enrolled. The self-taught Marxist became a leading figure in a group called “Revolutionary Struggle”, getting a job in a car factory to stir up revolutionary ideas among the workers.

He has frankly acknowledged his mistake as a young man in succumbing then to the lure of revolutionary violence. But he firmly maintains that the '68 movement was essential to German democracy.

In a speech in London in January 2005, Fischer said the protest movement had given birth to his party, the Greens.

And that, he said, had brought about “the integration of radical left-wing groups - Leninist, Trotskykist, anarchist, feminist or whatever - into the democratic process.”

“It is very important,” he added, “to rethink the process of the '80s.” That was the decade when Fischer abandoned direct action and entered politics, and the Greens built up their support in preparation for their current role in government. His conclusion: “So it can be very productive.”
The creation of the Green Party did, however, manage to civilize one group of Germans –the scrappy band of disillusioned rebels—many of who were the children of bourgeois, the children of privilege or even Nazi families—who nonetheless gravitated to what they called “alternative scenes.” For many of these radicals, the Green Party came too late. For them, the best solution came in the form of the terrorist group the Red Army Faction, which was founded in the late 1960s and was dedicated to obliterating class differences through violence. At the height of its power in the 1970s, the RAF—founded by, among others, Ulrike Meinhof—was Europe's most feared terror organization and is responsible for the death of dozens. The RAF disbanded in 1998, the same year the Greens got their first taste of federal power. Hardly a coincidence.
Not that the Greens have similarity with the RAF. Naturally, oceans of difference separate the two and politically they have nothing in common. But many of their members began in the same idealistic place. In 1998, the split was complete: the political status of each group arrived at wholly different realities.

But will the Greens’ success continue or will they simply be a phenomenon of one generation? It's a question debated by many. No party better understands how to play the media game than the Greens. And no party leader does his job better than Joschka Fisher, the Moses of the movement. The use of the media has been key factor in promoting the agenda of both the Greens and the Islamists.

Abandoning the hard line of “boots on the ground” and combining with and the embracing of environmental movement with Leftist/Marxist ideologies and the anti-War ideologies provided a powerful base for the alliance with Islamists.

The Greens gained financial support and the willingness of a cadre of people willing to die for a cause and the Islamists gained the credibility and most important the access to the manpower and halls of power.

Al Qaeda Forges the links with the Leftist/Marxist Alliance

It was al Qaeda’s number two man—Aymen-al-Zawahiri—who first advocated a Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance against Western democracies. In August 2002, he urged al Qaeda sympathizers to seek alliance with “any movement that opposes America, even atheists.” The strategy of penetrating and joining existing organizations was put forward in “The Project,” to be discussed below.

Like Joschka Fischer before them, al Qaeda recognized that they could utilize the media and political action to accomplish their goals. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt followed the lead.

According to Susanne Koelbl writing on August 17 in Spiegel Online: Terrorists are becoming increasingly adept at producing high-quality videos. DVDs depicting bloody beheadings are now available at markets in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They're also on the Web.

That the Internet has become a communication platform for terrorists—as well as for their supporters and their adversaries—is nothing new. These days, though, a close monitoring of the Web reveals the increasing brutality of the international jihadist movement. The radicals' isolation and desperation is also on full display. The images, though, also document the vulnerability of Western armies in the remote mountainous regions of Afghanistan and Iraq, together with the challenges they face in dealing with the realities of the countries in which they operate.

Intelligence services believe that the Pakistani city of Quetta is home to what is probably the most professional media workshop of terror. The city, in the state of Beluchistan in the Pashtun border region, is considered a Taliban stronghold. And it plays host to al-Qaeda's propaganda headquarters, the “Foundation for Islamic Media Production,” or “Al-Sahab.”

The most important statements issued by the godfather of terror Osama bin Laden, his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the head of al- Qaeda's Iraq division until he was killed in June, were edited and processed here. What began as an amateur operation producing poor-quality videos has since turned into a highly professional outfit.

Al-Qaeda Issues An ‘Invitation’

In February 2005, Jane's Defense Weekly wrote with concern about what it called “significant developments” in the composition of jihadist terror cells, including “an increase in the number of members who have 'joined' and were no longer 'recruited.'”

An Arabic pamphlet circulating on Islamist Web sites at about the same time, titled “How can I become a member of al- Qaeda?” seems to confirm that the path to al-Qaeda & Co. is growing ever shorter. The pamphlet's response to its own question, according to a translation provided by the Washington based institute SITE, is as follows:
Al-Qaida is no longer merely an organization fighting Jews and crusaders alone. Today the al-Qaeda issues an ‘invitation’ that asks all Muslims to rise up in support of God's religion. ... Whoever answers this call is seen as part of al-Qaeda, whether or not you wish this to happen. But if you are a true Muslim, you have no other choice but to heed this call.
With this approach, al-Qaeda is attracting instant mujahedeen who like the London bus and subway bombers, essentially recruit themselves within a breathtakingly short amount of time. As a result, they are far more unpredictable and difficult to recognize than Afghanistan veterans.
Complications on the Issue of Profiling

The debate over profiling airline passengers revived after the thwarted Islamist plot to bomb 10 airplanes in London on Aug. 10. The sad fact is, through inertia, denial, cowardice, and political correctness, Western airport security services — with the notable exception of Israel's — search primarily for the implements of terrorism, while largely ignoring passengers.
The profiling techniques such as Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT, now operating in twelve U.S. airports did discover passengers with forged visas, fake IDs, stolen airline tickets, and various forms of contraband — its utility for counter-terrorism is dubious. Terrorists trained to answer questions convincingly, avoid sweating, and control stress should easily be able to evade the system.

The fact that the Muslims are recruiting themselves for al-Qaeda complicates the issue of profiling. As reported in a UPI article on August 16, a number of prominent persons such as the former Metropolitan Police Chief Lord John Stevens has lent his support to profiling at all airports, saying Islamic terrorism in the West has been 'universally carried out by young Muslim men,' usually traveling alone or in small groups.

Meanwhile Times of London columnist Martin Samuel scoffed at arguments that terrorists rarely fit a certain profile.

In the event of racial profiling, there will be no Mid-Surrey branch of al-Qaida forming on the hoof. As for cunning disguises, we know them. There are two looks: beard on and beard off,' he wrote.

Evidently neither Lord Stevens or Samuel have ever attended a meeting of the outlawed militant group al-Muhajiroun, which counts numerous young men, women and even children of white and black British descent among its members.

When this UPI journalist went undercover into a London meeting of the group last year, she was shocked to meet a significant number of white British converts to this radical interpretation of Islam, many of whom were young women from middle class families in rural counties such as Dorset, Somerset and yes, even Surrey.

Like their dark-skinned, bearded associates, they too swore allegiance to Osama bin Laden and pledged to raise their children to become suicide bombers, with no apparent concern that they did not fit the usual profile of a potential terrorist.

A similarly flagrant disregard for stereotypes was displayed by July 7 bomber Germaine Lindsay, of Jamaican origin, and the white British Muslim convert suspected in last week`s airline plot, from the genteel Buckinghamshire town of High Wycombe.

One can be sure that should Osama bin Laden get wind that airport officials are focusing their search on young men of Asian appearance, individuals like these will be the first he turns to carry out his next plot.

Likewise, the assumption that all citizens of the Arab and Muslim world are of one appearance is mistaken. Throughout the Middle East, particularly in countries such as Syria, Lebanon and Iran, there are millions of individuals with fair coloring who would be indistinguishable from their European or American counterparts.

As the Association of Chief Police Officers rightly warns, stereotyping terror suspects will 'create a gap' in policing for terrorists to exploit. Start looking for dark-haired individuals and one can be certain that Al Qaeda will put aside its contempt for western values and start reaching for the peroxide, if it furthers their cause.

Three conclusions emerge from this discussion. First, because Islamist terrorists are all Muslims, there does need to be a focus on Muslims. Second, such notions as "Muslim-only lines" at airports are infeasible; rather, intelligence must drive efforts to root out Muslims with an Islamist agenda.

Daniel pipes in his article Time to Profile Airline Passengers? in the New York Sun on August 22, commented: Noting the limited impact that losing 3,000 lives had in 2001 and building on my "education by murder" hypothesis — that people wake up to the problem of radical Islam only when blood is flowing in the streets — I predict that effective profiling will only come into effect when many more Western lives, say 100,000, have been lost.

Joe Lieberman vs. Ted Lamont

When antiwar activist and atheist Ned Lamont, the heir of the Lamont family fortune and its vast political clout announced he would seek to unseat an incumbent Democratic Senator, all of Lieberman's Democratic colleagues in the US Senate quickly distanced themselves from Joe, stating that it would not be right for them to side with either candidate during the August primary race, adding that—whichever one won—they would solidly support the winner of the August 9 primary. There was no doubt in the minds of any of them that the winner would be Ned Lamont. However, as election eve approached, Lieberman cut Lamont's double-digit lead of 13 points down to 6—51 to 46 and then, 4 points.

On the eve of the election, it was anyone's ball game. So, late in the 9th inning, Connecticut's senior Senator Christopher Dodd [D] showed up for a pre-balloting photo op with Lieberman. So did New York's Chuck Schumer [D]. So did Massachusetts' Edward Kennedy and so did Delaware's Joe Biden. None were 100% sure that Lamont would win. If Lieberman won the nomination, he would be reelected. If he was reelected, his colleagues within the Democratic Party needed to make sure Joe was not mad at the party—or those colleagues who would have to count on his vote. The night before the balloting it was clear that the election would be decided by voter turnout. But, the moment the count was tallied; all of them ran to embrace Lamont as the winner.

As the Lieberman Campaign worked to get voters to the polls, hackers stepped in. With the primary boiling down to how the candidates used the means at their disposal to provide transport for voters, or directions to polling places, the Lieberman camp discovered their website had been hacked and knocked out of cyberspace. Lieberman supporters who needed a ride to the polls could not access the Lieberman for US Senate website to contact the Campaign for ride share information. Lieberman told reporters that:

“...[s]omething outrageous happened to our website today. It's been hacked and sabotaged and knocked down. We don't know that it's my opponent's campaign—but who else would have the motivation to hack into and knock down our website on primary day?”

This showed the power of the Internet and its role in political movements. These events are not unnoticed by Al-Qaeda, as we will see below.

Lamont forces, of course, denied they had anything to do with the sabotage—and, they probably didn't. There were enough anti-war, anti-American George Soros MoveOn.org people around to do the dirty work. Asked by the media if his people sabotaged Lieberman's website, Lamont called it “just another scurrilous charge” by Lieberman as he denied tampering with the website. Lamont offered to send a technician to fix it. But having Lieberman's website down during peak voting hours may have given Lamont just the edge he needed to eek out a primary victory.
The anti-war contingent of the Axis of Appeasement plays a role in U.S. elections. Jon C. Ryter in his article When The Invisible Power Chooses To Be Seen commented: This is a significant and sad step in the Democrats’ transformation from serious political party to mouthpiece for the anti-war, anti-capitalist, “Blame America First” crowd. No longer merely the lunatic fringe, the far left—best represented by Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, various Hollywood half-wits, and MoveOn.org, funded by billionaires like George Soros and Peter Lewis—now openly control one of the two major political parties in America. This race has shown that there is no longer any place for moderation or alternative points of view in the party ranks. Though not all Democrat voters are left-wing radicals, not even in deep-blue Connecticut, any potential nominee for office must gain the approval of that group. Not even a long-time favorite like Joe Lieberman can represent the Democrats if he expresses a conflicting point of view on a major issue like Iraq.
This is the group the Islamists and their supporters have apparently hitched their wagon to—at least temporarily. The Internet is also the choice of the Islamists.

The Internet
Widely recognized as the indispensable tool of anti-war activists, the Internet has indeed revolutionized the organization of social movements in general. As a low cost, global tool for communicating and disseminating information, the Internet works below the radar of the mainstream media, providing a wide variety of information websites, on-line petitions, and up-to-date schedules of events.

MoveOn exemplifies the modern activist organization, skilled at Internet communication for the purposes of petition-signing, on-line fundraising, and gathering the masses for street protests. Founded to promote civic action and democracy, MoveOn has rapidly become one of the best-known Internet-based organizations involved in the Anti-War Movement. Wes Boyd, MoveOn founder, said his organization was designed to “connect with those who do not support the war but who aren’t always comfortable with showing their feelings by taking to the streets”. Following the October 2002 protests, MoveOn decided that the anti-war rally was “all over the map politically and not very appealing to a mainstream perspective”, so they discussed forming a more ‘mainstream, patriotic coalition’ that would be more “welcoming to mainstream constituencies”.

Since then, MoveOn has leveraged the Internet to create a new kind of organization with the ability to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars and move tens of thousands of people to action within hours. On March 11, 2003, MoveOn delivered a petition to the fifteen members of the United Nations Security Council with more than one million signatures collected from around the world in less than five days. In another effort, MoveOn collected more than $400 000 US to finance anti-war television advertisements. The money funded a re-made version of the “Daisy” ad, originally aired in the 1960s, which shows a girl plucking petals from a daisy, contrasted with a missile launch countdown and nuclear mushroom clouds. MoveOn’s most recent activities include the organization of a global candlelight vigil (vigils were organised in more than seven thousand communities around the world), as well as petitioning, emailing policy makers, raising and distributing money, as well as other forms of direct activism and grassroots media buying.
The organization currently has more than 750 000 members in the US alone, and is both active and supported worldwide. One of MoveOn’s organizers, Eli Pariser, suggests reasons for MoveOn’s success: “In a sense, part of MoveOn’s attraction is that it aims for normal people, not just activists, and it engages them successfully…Part of its appeal is that it serves as a ‘direct line to god’. There is no big bureaucracy. You make a contribution, you sign something, and you get immediate action.” MoveOn is also a member of the Win Without War coalition.

August 12, 2006 Anti-War Demonstrations

More then 30,000 demonstrators filled the streets around the White House chanting, “Stop the US-Israeli war against Lebanon and Palestine” in Washington, D.C. Similar demonstrations were held in other major cities across the country and worldwide. The A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation and the National Council of Arab Americans initiated the demonstration.

As reported on the A.N.S.W.E.R website: “Speakers at the Washington D.C. demonstration included, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark; Mahdi Bray the Executive Director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation; Mara Verheyden-Hilliard an attorney and co-founder of the Partnership for Civil Justice; Brian Becker the National Coordinator of the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition; Dr. Mounzer Sleiman of the National Council of Arab Americans; Osama Siblani Publisher at Arab American News; Peta Lindsay Howard University student and Coordinator ANSWER Student and Youth; and Dr. Clovis Maksoud the Former ambassador from the Arab League to the U.N, Arab-American Anti Discrimination Committee (ADC), and others.”

To get some image of the Stop the US Israeli War rally in San Francisco, August 12, 2006, you may view the photos of the flags of the Hezbollah and Hamas.

The article posted on the ADL website: ANSWER, Antiwar Rallies and Support for Terror Organizations provides interesting background on the organization. The ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Coalition, which has organized scores of antiwar demonstrations in the U.S. since its founding by the New York-based International Action Center (IAC) in 2001, has played a key role in inserting anti-Israel sentiment into the antiwar movement.

ANSWER’s National Coordinator Brian Becker described the march as the first national protest against “the new U.S.-Israeli war” that is “killing the people of Lebanon and Palestine.” During a recent appearance on FOX News, Becker said, “The acts of the Israeli government, the Israeli Air Force, with U.S.-supplied weapons and U.S. taxpayer money are acts of terrorism against civilians.” He later added, “Do I consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization?” “The answer is no.”

Becker’s view of Hezbollah is no surprise. ANSWER, which considers Israel a capitalist outpost for Western powers, has supported anyone that counters the spread of capitalism around the world, including genocidal dictators such as Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosovic. This worldview has been apparent at many ANSWER rallies that have included support of Palestinian terrorist leaders over the past few years.

The August 12 march follows many rallies organized by ANSWER, IAC and other anti-Israel groups across the country since the start of the current Middle East conflict in June. These rallies have promoted a very harsh and unapologetic message denouncing Israel and U.S. foreign policy. They have also included a proliferation of anti-Semitic expression and support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

March 20, 2004: ANSWER organized major antiwar demonstrations in New York City and San Francisco to coincide with antiwar rallies against the war in Iraq across the United States and the world. Other antiwar groups led by United for Peace and Justice, the other major protest organizer, initially intended to focus solely on the situation in Iraq, but ANSWER organized a coalition of anti-Israel groups who petitioned United for Peace and Justice to include an anti-Zionist message at there events. United for Peace and Justice eventually acceded and anti-Israel messages pervaded the demonstrations.

Sojourners is a member organization of the Win Without War and United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalitions. Giving voice to Sojourners' intense anti-Americanism, Jim Wallis called the U.S. “… the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs.” Please note, as a coalition of organizations, UFPJ does not have individual members. Individuals are encouraged to join a local group in their community. For the list of national and international member groups see: United for Peace and Justice. Truly an astounding list brings together the Green Party, anti-war groups, Greenpeace, Code Pink and socialist and communist party organizations.
In New York, Al-Awda, the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and other pro-Palestinian groups waved Palestinian flags, while some chanted “Intifada Intifada, Long Live the Intifada.” The anti-Israel presence was even more dominant at the nearly 10,000-strong rally in San Francisco. Signs and messages included “No blood for Israel,” “I want you to die for Israel. Israel Sings: Onward Christian Soldiers” and a model Israeli tank with dollars dripping blood and the sign, “Paid for with US tax dollars.” Another sign read, “I Love NYC even more without the World Trade Center.”

Many conspiracy theorists attended the New York City and San Francisco protests. A group called the 9/11 Truth Alliance [A member group of United for Peace and Justice.], which contends that the Bush administration staged the attacks, distributed signs saying “Stop the 9-11 Cover-Up” at both rallies. It also handed out “deception dollars,” large replicas of paper currency covered with links to conspiracy and also anti-Israel and anti-Semitic Web sites.
December 2003: At the Second International Cairo Conference, ANSWER representatives met with Hamas leader Osama Hamdan. Hamdan, who heads Hamas in Lebanon and openly supports suicide bombing, was invited to the conference by the event’s sponsors, the International Campaign Against U.S. and Zionist Occupations, a movement co-founded by the IAC. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who heads the IAC, co-director Sara Flounders, and Elias Rashmawi of ANSWER all served as organizers for the conference. This conference is described in my article The Origins of the Next Great War are Visible.
To understand the magnitude of impact of the Anti-War Movement and the list of the organizations interlinked it is suggested that you read: THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT WAGING PEACE ON THE BRINK OF WAR Geneva, March 2003 –Centre for Applied Studies in International Negotiations (CASIN).

The US and Israel Stand Alone

In the Spiegel Interview with Jimmy Carter on August 12, 2006, he is quoted as follows:
SPIEGEL: You also mentioned the hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world which has ensued as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Given this circumstance, does it come as any surprise that Washington's call for democracy in the Middle East has been discredited?
Carter: No, as a matter of fact, the concerns I exposed have gotten even worse now with the United States supporting and encouraging Israel in its unjustified attack on Lebanon.
SPIEGEL: But wasn't Israel the first to get attacked?

Carter: I don't think that Israel has any legal or moral justification for their massive bombing of the entire nation of Lebanon. What happened is that Israel is holding almost 10,000 prisoners, so when the militants in Lebanon or in Gaza take one or two soldiers, Israel looks upon this as a justification for an attack on the civilian population of Lebanon and Gaza. I do not think that's justified, no.

SPIEGEL: One main points of your book is the rather strange coalition between Christian fundamentalists and the Republican Party. How can such a coalition of the pious lead to moral catastrophes like the Iraqi prison scandal in Abu Ghraib and torture in Guantanamo?
Carter: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases – as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world – it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them – which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Role of Hezbollah in the Middle East

According to report on August 17, 2006 by the GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE BRIEF Strategic Forecasting, Inc. “Organizations like Hezbollah are needed in Egypt, Iraq and Jordan to assist Muslims in continuing their campaigns against Israel, leading Sunni religious scholar, Qatar-based Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi [Spiritual leader if Muslim Brotherhood.], said during a speech at Cairo University, Egyptian daily al-Masri al-Youm reported.”

Recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood has worldwide influence through its offshoots in the U.S. and on college campuses.

As reported by the AFP on August 17, 2006 Leading Islamist calls for holy war on Israel. The prominent Islamist preacher Sheikh Youssef Al Qaradawi has called for a holy war against Israel, an Egyptian newspaper reported Wednesday. [Note the parallel call: Ayatollah Ali Khamemenei also called for ‘holy war’.]

“Muslims must carry out jihad to liberate all the land of Islam. Palestine does not belong only to the Palestinians but to all Muslims,” Qaradawi was quoted as saying by the Al-Masri Al-Yom independent daily. [This is a very significant statement, thus promoting the concept of the ummah, the Islamic kingdom of God on Earth—one world without borders.]
The Egyptian-born cleric, best known for his regular appearances on the Qatari satellite channel, Al Jazeera, said that the Islamic world “needs men like those of Hezbollah: in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and everywhere.” [Qaradawi is bridging the gap between the Sunni and Shia—a common enemy is Israel and the U.S.]

“There isn't even an Arab willingness to fight Israel,” he complained at a seminar at the University of Cairo, adding: “The peace that the Arab leaders are calling for is in fact a capitulation.”

Qaradawi, who now lives in Qatar and has close links to the opposition Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, said that Islamic law, or Shariah, dictated, “if a land of Islam is occupied, the entire population must resist and start jihad.”

The 78-year-old achieved star status with his appearances on Al Jazeera's weekly religious affairs program “Al Sharia wa Al Haya” (Islamic Law and Life) and has consistently defended Palestinian suicide attacks against Israel. Qaradawi is a brilliant and very influential scholar of Islam and has a huge following not only among Muslim countries, but throughout the world.

Islamist Sunni-Shia Convergence

On Wednesday 16 August 2006 From Ikhwan’s official website we learn of the Islamist Sunni-Shia convergence occurring in Lebanon: Lebanese Ikhwan announces it will join Hezbollah in reconstruction.

On August 21, 2006, President Bush pledges the United States will increase its humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Lebanon to $230 million to help the country recover after weeks of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah.

Speaking at the White House August 21, Bush said the funds would help the Lebanese people return to their communities and rebuild their homes, restore infrastructure such as bridges and roads and rehabilitate schools in time for the beginning of the fall school year.

“Our nation is wasting no time in helping the people of Lebanon,” he said. “America is making a long-term commitment to help the people of Lebanon because we believe every person … deserves to live in a free, open society that respects the rights of all.”

Islamists have wasted no time moving in to gain support. In these critical first days after the war, Hezbollah and its financial backers in Tehran have seized the moment. They are appeasing those who might have been expected to denounce Hezbollah from the wreckage of their homes. And they are entrenching their support among a growing army of sympathizers.

Iran’s money is crucial. Estimates vary widely, but one Hezbollah source said as much as $1 billion had been made available by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president; another that the Iranian leader had placed no limit on the money pouring in.

After the UN-brokered ceasefire solidified, the Lebanese Islamists announced that they will be a partner in reconstruction operations. In an exclusive statement to Ikhwanweb, Deputy Chairman of the Lebanese Jama’a Islamia (The Muslim Brotherhood offshoot in Lebanon) said that the reconstruction process requires strenuous efforts especially financial ones to restore or rebuild the war ravaged areas.” The reconstruction process requires astronomical sums of money, and of course our group cannot afford such hefty funds, so we intend to share with our utmost financial and other relief works, especially that we took part in so many relief activities during the war, opening our institutes and schools before the displaced citizens and provided them with all available accommodation”, he said, adding that it is Hezbollah which has a plan for the reconstruction of the south. He quoted Hezbollah Chairman Hassan Nasrullah in his recent address as pledging to reconstruct the south and pay one -year rent for the war-hit families pending the end of the reconstruction plan and their return to their homes, adding that Iran could provide financial aid for the Hezbollah’s reconstruction plan

Following the Strategies Laid Out by The Muslim Brotherhood

On October 28, 2005, President George W. Bush denounced IslamoFascist movements that call for a “violent and political vision: the establishment, by terrorism, subversion and insurgency, of a totalitarian empire that denies all political and religious freedom.”

The Muslim Brotherhood (Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimun) also known as the Ikhwan is a good example of what the President described and what he must protect us against.
The Muslim Brotherhood (“MB”) organization describes itself as a political and social revolutionary movement; it was founded in March 1928 in Egypt by Hassan al-Banna, who objected to Western influence and called for return to an original Islam.

The Brotherhood is an expansive and secretive society with followers in more than 70 countries, dedicated to creating a global Islamic order that would isolate women and punish nonbelievers. Its members and supporters founded al Qaeda, as well as one “of the largest college student groups in the United States.”

Quoting from my latest book: Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad - The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance.

Al-Banna had connections to Sufism, and he used the sufi-tariqa model for organizing the Brotherhood while rejecting Sufi “superstitions.” At first, the Muslim Brotherhood concentrated mainly on moral and social reforms, establishing educational and welfare programs. Then, following its rapid growth, it became more politically active and founded a secret military arm. It developed a tightly knit organization with a network of branches, subdivided into secret cell groups, with a missionary network that spread into Syria, Palestine and the Sudan. Members were recruited from rural and lower class backgrounds, as well as from the urban middle classes, and they received intensive ideological and physical training.

Al-Banna outlined a gradualist strategy in three stages: the Propaganda (preparation) Stage, the Organization Stage (aimed at educating the people), and finally, the Action Stage. While tactics might change, the strategic objectives of the Brotherhood remain unchanged: to receive explicit political recognition so as to be able to operate freely in the social, economic and political arena, and to implement Shariah in an Islamic state.

The strategy of al-Banna has and is being implemented today in Europe and the rest of the world. We are witnessing the effect of the final stages in Europe. He could only have dreamed of the success we are seeing today.

The Project and the Protocols of Zion

According to Sylvain Besson, an investigative journalist for the daily newspaper, Time, in Geneva, in his book of “La conquete de L’Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes“ (The conquest of the occident: The secret project of the Islamists), Swiss authorities made a worrying discovery at the time of a searching carried out in the villa of Egyptian banker Youssef Nada in Lugano in November 2001. Swiss investigators discovered “The Project,” an ambitious strategy intended “to establish the kingdom of God over the whole world.”

“The Project” is a fourteen-page leaflet, dated December 1982, calling for the Muslim Brotherhood’s conquest of the world. It is a detailed roadmap to attain this objective. The Muslim Brothers must infiltrate existing institutions, rather than create their own. It calls for a guerilla war against Israel in the Palestinian territories and support to diverse armed Muslim groups from Bosnia to the Philippines. Swiss investigators confirm that the Project is the proof of the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in supporting and inspiring the “worldwide jihad.”

Nada was the manager of the “Al-Taqwa” bank, suspected by the Americans of supporting terrorism. However, Nada, who has denied any ties with terrorism, has admitted being in the past one of the principal leaders of the international branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Nada denied to have written “The Project,” as it was simply kept during twenty years. The Time article explained why “Islamic researchers” wrote this document, but it does not represent an official position of the Muslim Brotherhood. The identity of its author, for example, remains unknown. (al-Qaradawi was a director of Al-Taqwa bank and the intellectual guide of the European Council for Fatwa and Research.)

The document also recommends “to study the local and world centers of authority, and the possibilities of placing them under influence,” “to enter in contact with all new movements engaged in the jihad wherever that it is on planet, to create cells of the jihad in Palestine,” and “to nourish the feeling of rancor with regard to the Jews.” The document describes the strategy planned to ensure a growing influence of the Brotherhood on the Muslim world. It is stipulated there that the Muslim Brothers “should not act in the name of the Brotherhood, but infiltrate in the existing organizations. Their existence will not be located, and then neutralized.”

Accordingly, the Project could play a part in creation by the Muslim Brothers and their heirs to a network of religious, educational and charitable institutions in Europe and in the United States.
The Project indeed recommends “to build institutions—social, economic, scientific and medical, and to penetrate the field of the social services to be in liaison with the people.” Some of the most successful strategies leading to conversion and ultimate membership in jihadist organizations have been through social organizations, including daycare centers and nurseries.
The importance of the Project is due as much to its history, and that of the men who surround it, than with its contents. Its intellectual origins go back to the years 1960, when Sa’id Ramadan, the “theorist as a chief” of the Muslim Brotherhood, found refuge in Geneva. In September 1964, its newspaper, El Muslimoun, published a text inviting it to launch an “ideological war” against the Occident. It was then a question of answering the creation of the State of Israel, considered by the Islamists as an element of a vast plot against the Islamic religion and its faithful: “This is why we are convinced that this elaborate ideological plan must be countered by an ideological plan quite as elaborate, and that it is necessary to answer its ideological attacks, with its ideological war, by an ideological war.” The article explicitly refers to the “Protocol of Elders of Zion,” a document manufactured by the Tsarist police force that describes an alleged Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world. Although it is a forgery, this text’s anti-Semitism is taken seriously in the Islamist media.

In August 2004, the Wall Street Journal revealed that the “Protocol” was quoted during a recent meeting of he European Council for Fatwa and Research (CEFR). According to a participant in the meeting, the Protocol of the Elders showed the existence of a Jewish plot intended to destroy the values morals of the Muslim families. It is understood that to such ideas, the Islamists wanted to react by developing their own “Project.”

Al-Qaradawi’s ideas fall into line with some of the ideas of the Project. Thus, in a text published in 1990, the CEFR proposed to develop the presence of the Islamic Movement within the “groups of Jihad” in order “to eliminate all the foreign influences from the grounds of Islam, from Morocco to Indonesia.”

Just as a side, for most European secret services, Tariq Ramadan, the new advisor on terrorism to British Prime Minister Blair, is the unofficial head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe. It looks as if the infiltration is working fine! It is not every day that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in 2004 revokes a visa issued to a Swiss-national scholar scheduled to teach at one of America’s premier universities. But this has just happened, and it is a good thing. The Swiss scholar is Tariq Ramadan. He is Islamist royalty—his maternal grandfather, Hasan al-Banna, founded the Muslim Brotherhood in 1928. Tariq is a Swiss citizen because his father, Sa‘id Ramadan, also a leading Islamist, fled from Egypt in 1954 following a crackdown on the Brotherhood. Sa‘id reached Geneva in 1958, where Tariq was born in 1962.

Thanks to his pedigree and his talents, Ramadan has emerged as a significant force in his own right. Symbolic of this, Time magazine in April 2004 named him one of the world’s top hundred scientists and thinkers. And so when Notre Dame University went looking for a Henry R. Luce professor of religion, conflict and peace-building, it unsurprisingly settled on Mr. Ramadan. As Lee Smith writes in The American Prospect, he is “a cold-blooded Islamist, whose cry of death to the West is a quieter and gentler jihad, but it’s still jihad.”

Al-Qaeda Book on Managing Savagery

Also contributing to the West’s understanding of the Islamist’s strategy for world domination is the book The Management of Savagery. Stephen Ulph describes the content of this book as the thinking of an al-Qaeda strategist on the next stages of the struggle. Posted on the al-Ikhlas jihadi forum [http://ekhlas.com/forum] the work is entitled Idarat al-Tawahhush, “The Management of Barbarism,” further defined as “the phase of transition to the Islamic state.” Due to the strategic importance of the document, Terrorism Focus of the Jamestown Foundation has undertaken an in-depth examination of the Arabic text.

Published by the Center of Islamic Studies and Research (an al-Qaeda affiliate), the 113-page work ‘Management of Barbarism’ aims to map out the progressive stages of establishing an Islamic state, from early beginnings in defined areas in the Arabian Peninsula, or Nigeria, Jordan, the Maghreb, Pakistan or Yemen, and its subsequent global expansion. The author is Abu Bakr Naji, a name familiar from his contributions to the Sawt al-Jihad online magazine (which are republished at the end of this book).

By “Management of Barbarism” the author refers to the period just after the collapse of a superpower, the period of “savage chaos”. It appears pointedly to be a method of not repeating the experience of Afghanistan prior to the rule of the Taliban, and of improving controls over the periods experienced, for instance, in Somalia after the fall of Siad Barre.

Jihadi strategy.

The ‘Path of Empowerment’ theme constitutes the strategy of the mujahideen. In this the author further sub-divides into three distinct phases:
1) The Disruption and Exhaustion phase
2) The Management of Barbarism [Savagery] phase
3) The Empowerment phase
In the first “Disruption and Exhaustion” phase, the mujahideen are to a) exhaust the enemy's forces by stretching them through dispersal of targets and b) “attract the youth through exemplary targeting such as occurred at Bali, Al-Muhayya and Djerba.”
At the “Management of Barbarism phase”, the mujahideen are to “establish internal security, ensure food and medical supplies, defend the zone from external attack, establish Shariah justice, an armed force, an intelligence service, provide economic sufficiency, defend against [public] hypocrisy and deviant opinions and ensure obedience, and the establishment of alliances with neighboring elements that are yet to give total conformity to the Management, and improve management structures.”

The “Empowerment” phase is an extension of the above. The policy is to continue Disruption and Exhaustion activities, at the same time establishing logistic links with the various Management zones. A conspicuous example of this phase is the series of events leading up to the September 11 attacks on the United States, which “destroyed the peoples' awe of America and of the lesser ranking Apostate armies.” The fall of Afghanistan, the author explains, was either planned to happen, or was due to happen even without the September 11 events, and had as the result the multiplication of jihadi groups bent on revenge.

[As shown above, the result of the Lebanon war was the destruction of awe of the Israeli military might.]
As for future targeting, this should be variegated “in all parts of the Islamic world and beyond it. For instance, in striking at tourist resorts frequented by Crusaders, all tourist resorts will have to be secured,” with all the dispersal of energy and costs [economic jihad] this involves. The same goes for Crusader banks in Turkey employing interest, or petrol installations near Aden, which will subsequently oblige security hikes for refineries, pipelines and shipping. “If two apostate authors are simultaneously liquidated in two different countries, it will require the security for thousands of writers in the Islamic world.” [The Islamist terrorist plot against the airlines in London resulting increased security and flight delays.]

An important feature of this phase is the attention to be given to media and propaganda strategy, both for winning support and recruitment, and for deterring opposition. [The extensive Iranian propaganda claiming victory for the Hezbollah in Lebanon, resulting in increased support for the Islamists throughout the region and possibly the world. Thus the events and subsequent cease-fire agreement empowered further the anti-war movement.] The media strategy should ‘target in depth middle ranking officers in the armed forces [of Muslim nations] to push them to join the jihad.’ It should ‘aim at every stage to justify operations to the populous legally and intellectually … given that, assuming that our long struggle will require half a million mujahideen, getting such a number from a nation of millions is easier than from the ranks of the Islamic movement.’ [Thus the linking with the leftist’s anti-war movement.]

Jihadi Tactic

The third theme, “The Most Important Principles and Policies,” gives details on tactics. After discussing the necessity of establishing a proper chain of command, in both the doctrinal and military fields, the author outlines important military principles (“striking with the heaviest force at the weakest point; a superior enemy is defeated by economic and military attrition”). He further suggests four major reference sources: “The Encyclopedia of Jihad (prepared by the mujahideen in Afghanistan) [The Encyclopedia of Jihad is now available on the web. See: AL-QAIDA'S ONLINE UNIVERSITY - Jihad 101 for Would-Be Terrorists], the al-Battar magazine; the writings of Abu Ubayd al-Qurashi in the al-Ansar magazine, along with other works on the al-Uswa website; general works on military science, particularly on guerrilla warfare, provided the student rectifies the errors in them respective to Islamic law.

In the sub-section “The Application of Vehemence” subtitled “The Policy of Paying the Price,” Abu Bakr Naji warns against the dangers of anything other than maximum violence as a deterrent, or as a response, even if the response should take years. The response, the author states, “is best done by other groups and in other countries than those suffering the act of enmity … to give the enemy the sense of being surrounded and his interests exposed … and to confuse him.” An example of this method would be, say, in response to the Egyptians' imprisonment of mujahideen, an attack by mujahideen upon an Egyptian embassy in the Arabian Peninsula or the Maghreb, or the kidnapping of Egyptian diplomats, who should be “liquidated horrifically” if the mujahideen's demands are not met.

Stress is then laid upon the need to understand how international politics work. In the sub-section “Understanding the Rules of the Political Game” Abu Bakr Naji highlights how mujahid groups that refused to soil their hands with profane political calculations paid the price. The difficulty of reconciling Islamic legal propriety with pragmatic military interest is resolved, in the author's eyes, by recourse to the example set by [the 14th century jurist] Ibn Qayyim, who set Prophetic precedent as a preference, but not an obligation.

An important feature of this game, Naji illustrates, is the manipulation of the international media, and ensuring that the message gets through to the target, in its widest sense, and not just to the minority elite. “We must therefore set up an association whose purpose is to ensure the communication of our demands to people, even if this should expose them to dangers akin to the perils of combat … such as the taking of a hostage. After raising the hullabaloo concerning him we demand that media correspondents publish our demands in full in return for his release … Our demand might be a statement of warning or justification for an operation.” An effective response to government media's demonization of mujahid actions is to prepare the ground by first demonizing the target as something Islamically forbidden or serving the economic interests of the enemy. Naji then gives an imaginary scenario of an attempt to adjust oil prices in favor of the people where a deadline is issued and an oil engineer or manager or journalist is kidnapped to ensure that the demand is fully publicized.

Points of weakness

The fourth major theme in the work covers “The Most Pressing Difficulties and Obstacles” that will face the mujahideen. These are listed as the diminution in the numbers of believers as casualties in war, the lack of sufficiently trained administrators (and the relative social distance many of these have from the rank and file) and the problems caused by over-enthusiasm in the behavior of some. Naji also highlights the problems that will be faced with old loyalties to other Islamist groups impeding administration in the new Management phases, or the threat of schism.

The Underlying Cause Driving the Axis of Appeasement

It appears to be lack of moral values corresponding to the Judeo-Christian ideologies and seeking economic gain at any cost further drives it. Some of the Fellows at Hoover Institute have published recent articles about the subject but do not seem to have the answer to counter the influence. The ideologies seem to go back the lack of understanding the risks dating to the 1930’s as noted by Victor Davis Hanson in his article The Brink of Madness and Thomas Sowell in his article Pacifists versus peace. It appears that this may have coalesced into the “The Axis of Appeasement.”

Man Seeking Consensus

Man by nature seeks consensus. But the means he manipulates for this end do not always serve the purpose. Human history is full of momentous events whereby certain individuals or groups have endeavored to effect an agreement but the consequences of these events have far exceeded the innocence of their initiators. Religions or belief systems have always occupied a significant place in man’s struggle for consensus. Some contemporary intellectuals have stressed the importance of inter-religious communication to the degree that without a factual understanding between the adherents of various world religions, they claim, the future of mankind will remain under threat. In seeking this consensus we are witnessing the rise of the ‘Axis of Appeasement’. The name that is commonly used for this new era is postmodernism.
Following in the footsteps of the pre-postmodern Nietzsche – God is dead, the intellectuals that were the philosophers of the Frankfurt School developed philosophies known as “Critical Theory’ or ‘Cultural Marxism’ thus promoted postmodernism to go after the hearts and minds of the population. The intellectual ‘reformers’ of Islam are utilizing these same successful tactics used to create the Postmodern Era and are now utilizing ‘Critical Islam’ as the guideline - the strategic weapon for communication with the adherents of other religions. Thus one of their slogans is ‘From The Schoolhouse To The White House’.

The uniformity of fundamental beliefs among believers of the same religion is no longer in intact, due to exposition to various propaganda influences of different cultural orientations. Easy access to the knowledge of alien cultures has caused considerable polarization among co-religionists, so much that difference of opinion between two members of a religion on essential matters may become greater than that may exist between members of two different religions. A good example of this is the discrepancy in respect of worldview between a traditional Muslim and a secular one. The former may feel that a practicing Christian is nearer to him than the secular Muslim as far as the similarity between their respective fundamental (metaphysical) beliefs is concerned. In such a situation it would be more befitting for a Muslim that is anxious to propagate his belief, to start with his coreligionist: the so-called secular-minded Muslim, rather than attempting to convert a Christian. It is also this ‘Moral Trade Deficit’ within the Christian church that provides the vacuum being filled by postmodernism and ‘Critical Islam’.
As we witnessed following the 3/11 terrorists attacks on the trains in Spain during run up to the election in 2004, the terrorists were able to control the election. The populous were more concerned with survival amidst chaos than with experiencing truth and significance. One more step toward achieving Osama bin Laden’s goal of returning Andalusia into the caliphate.


Bio: David J. Jonsson is the author of Clash of Ideologies –The Making of the Christian and Islamic Worlds, Xulon Press 2005. His new book: Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance (Salem Communications (May 30, 2006). He received his undergraduate and graduate degrees in physics. He worked for major corporations in the United States and Japan and with multilateral agencies that brought him to more that fifteen countries with significant or majority populations who are Muslim. These exposures provided insight into the basic tenants of Islam as a political, economic and religious system. He became proficient in Islamic law (Shariah) through contract negotiation and personal encounter. Jonsson may be reached at: djonsson2000@yahoo.co.uk

Col. Drake and the Age of Oil

by Byron King

for Whiskey & Gunpowder
Sign up here for a FREE subscription

THERE HE WAS, as big as life and looking quite good for a man who died in 1880. I was on a visit to the Drake Well Museum, just south of Titusville, Pa. I was walking into the museum compound, and whom should I encounter but Col. Edwin Drake, dressed in the period garb one is accustomed to seeing in the grainy old photos. “Well, hello, Col. Drake.”

OK. It was not the real Col. Drake. This fellow is an actor who has been playing the role of Col. Drake for about 10 years. He gives talks to museum visitors and appears in films or news articles that call for a Drake look-alike. He has read much of the literature available on the life and times of Drake, he dresses for the part, and he is just the plain old spitting image of the famous man, down to his bushy brown beard. He is as near as one can get to being in the company of the famous man, and his life and remarkable times.


The Oil of Titusville

“Let me make something clear,” said Drake. “It was not I who found the oil of Titusville fame. The area is one of many oil seeps, from which petroleum simply flows from the ground and then runs down into the creeks and streams. The Seneca Indians had been gathering oil from the local creeks for several centuries, and there is evidence that other more ancient tribes also gathered the oil of these parts even before then.”

Drake is referring to the archaeological evidence that goes back about 1,500 years indicating that people were digging oil pits and gathering Pennsylvania rock oil since A.D. 500 or so. In all likelihood, the oil was used as a patent medicine, as a body rub, and for purposes such as caulking canoes. There is documentary evidence that white settlers were shipping small quantities of Seneca oil south for sale in Pittsburgh as early as 1790.

“Before my arrival in 1858,” said Drake, “there was an immense amount of timber in these parts. One of the largest firms in the area was a sawmill working on Oil Creek. The operators of the sawmill knew also of the oil, and gathered it up when it formed pools on top of the water. They too used the oil as patent medicine, and in the course of things noted its very good lubricating properties on the moving parts of the sawmill machinery. This had much to do with my eventually being here.”

Drake continued: “For many years, people had performed simple experiments on the oil, such as boiling it and collecting the various fractions that condensed. They noted that the different fractions had different properties. One of the owners of the sawmill, Mr. Brewer, was acquainted with certain members of the scientific faculty of Dartmouth College. Mr. Brewer sent to that school a sample of the local rock oil. One of the professors at Dartmouth forwarded the sample to the famed chemist Benjamin Silliman of Yale.

“Professor Silliman evaluated the oil and determined that it had many useful properties. It was, of course, well known as a lubricant, but it also could be used for purposes of illumination by burning it in lamps. There was at that time a growing demand for some substance to burn in lamps for the purposes of illumination. Professor Silliman prepared a report on the Seneca oil for a banker and investor from Connecticut named Mr. Townsend. It was Mr. Townsend who hired me and sent me to Titusville. My job was to determine if we could extract oil in large quantities.”

Pits and Holes

Drake went on with his discussion. “My first effort to recover oil was simply to dig a large pit into the ground in an effort to gather the oil at the bottom. But after several feet of digging, the hole started to fill with water from the very shallow water table. We were, after all, right next to a creek. So I lined the pit with wood planks, but even that did not keep out the water. We tried to drain the pit, but the water entered faster than the pumps could remove it. A pit was not going to work.

“It was then that I began to travel to other places and observe how people were mining substances and harvesting the products of the Earth. Near the town of Tarentum, on the Allegheny River, I encountered salt drillers. They would pound down an iron pipe into the salt beds and pump out brine water. After evaporating the water, they were left with salt. But some wells also produced an oily residue with the salt, so it became apparent to me that the oil might be flowing underground with other fluids. I decided to adapt the use of the iron pipe in an effort to push down a hole for oil near Oil Creek.

“Also, I heard of men working near what is now Parkersburg, W.Va. (it was Virginia back then), who were pounding down holes into the ground with iron tools. I hired a tool smith, named ‘Uncle Billy’ Smith, appropriately, to obtain or manufacture for me such similar tools.

“When I returned to Titusville, I immediately set about to drive down a hole into the ground using the digging tools. Shortly after starting the hole, I lined its walls with an iron pipe that we pushed down along with our drilling tool. This kept the walls from caving down into the hole, and also served to keep out most of the water from the adjacent soil. Once we hit bedrock, we kept on pounding down our hole.

“On Aug. 27, 1859, from a depth of 69 feet, we lifted our first quantities of oil from the hole, about 25 barrels in total.

“Thus, my achievement was not really in discovering oil, because the oil was already there for the taking. Nor was it my idea to use the oil for whatever purpose, because there were others who came before me. It was not even my role in history to extract the oil by digging downward for it, because others were already attempting the same thing. But my most notable accomplishment was in applying the concept of using a conductor pipe to protect the walls of the drill hole on the way down to the oil-bearing formation. This technique is still in use today, and is the foundation of the technology upon which is built the modern oil industry.”

Why an Oil Age?

Col. Drake brings up many good points that serve to explain the origins of the oil age, if not the origins of modern history. Why do some things happen the way that they do? What makes history?

People had known about the oil of the Titusville region for at least many centuries, certainly long before it was called Titusville. Why did the Seneca Indians, or their more ancient forebears, not usher in the Age of Petroleum? In another part of the world, by comparison, starting in the 16th century, the Spanish were importing barrels of oil from what is now Trinidad and Tobago, as well as from Venezuela. The queen of Spain, among others, used the oil to treat various family ailments. Why did this not usher in the Age of Petroleum?

And people certainly knew about digging pits, if not making holes in the ground, as well, long before Col. Drake muddied his boots along the banks of Oil Creek. Again, why does the credit for ushering in the Age of Petroleum go to Col. Drake? At about the same time that Drake was drilling his well in Titusville, other people were drilling holes in the ground in what is now West Virginia and eastern Ohio and southern Ontario near Petrolia. Within a year of Drake’s well at Titusville, other people achieved similar results in extracting oil from the rocks of New Brunswick, and there were even oil wells put down in Romania and southern Russia.

Even the initial news of Drake’s well at Titusville was overshadowed by events just two months later, when abolitionist John Brown took over the U.S. federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Va. (now West Virginia). Most people had other things about which to think than some oil prospector driving down a hole in the backwoods of northwest Pennsylvania.

A Confluence of Events

What created the modern petroleum industry was a confluence of circumstances, and certainly of events. Col. Drake’s innovation in driving a hole into the earth was just one of many things along a long chain of events.

The oil, of course, had to be there, and Titusville was the right place with its relatively shallow oil-bearing rock formations. And one of the principal virtues of the Seneca oil was that it was (and is) devoid of asphaltic fractions. It is light, sweet, and even smells kind of good. But science also had to advance to the point at which there was a rational, if not economic, purpose behind the demand for what Col. Drake called “large amounts” of oil. Here is where Professor Silliman’s report to Mr. Townsend comes in, a scientific basis for an economic investment.

Backed by the Connecticut investors, Col. Drake perfected a means to extract oil by drilling a hole lined with conductor pipe. But Col. Drake may not have been the first person to do this either. There were similar attempts ongoing near Parkersburg, W.Va., and Petrolia, Ontario.

But after Drake’s well came even more wells in 1860, drilled into the Devonian bedrock of northwest Pennsylvania by Drake’s imitators, albeit with great caution and trepidation, because the Drake well may have been a fluke for all anyone really knew. By late 1860, the wells were starting to come in on a regular basis and oil drilling was becoming a relatively predictable business.

And then came the U.S. Civil War. U.S. federal expenditures skyrocketed, and the central government rapidly exhausted its reserves of gold and silver. The U.S. government resorted to issuing paper currency, the well-known “greenbacks.” These fiat dollars flooded the U.S. economy, causing a general inflation in price levels. People who understood the nature of inflation were keen to find some means of protecting their purchasing power. Then as now, money flowed into hard assets, and there are fewer assets harder than bedrock sandstone filled with oil.

The World’s First Oil Boom

Much of the federal spending for the Civil War would end up in the pockets of two classes of people: New York bankers and Pittsburgh industrialists. It was this mixture of capital and industry, building upon the presence of oil, a scientific use for the substance, and a novel means for extracting it, that sparked the world’s first true oil boom.

Even in the midst of a general Civil War, the New York money flowed to the iron mills of Pittsburgh to purchase pipe and other equipment to install in the oil patches of Titusville. The foundries of Pittsburgh could just as easily roll tubular goods for the oil fields as cast cannon for the Union Army. The equipment shops of western Pennsylvania could just as easily manufacture pumps and gear drives and sucker rods as any other implement of war. And so they did.

The federal spending boom sparked the classic wartime phenomenon of currency flooding the national economy. Much of this money found its way into speculation on oil leases, and then into the capital equipment for developing those leases. Had there been no Civil War, one can only wonder if there would have been the Pennsylvania oil boom of the 1860s.

As a necessary concomitant of the oil boom, the Civil War itself created a vast underground army of laborers for the oil fields. To be sure, the development of those fields required an immense amount of backbreaking labor. This labor force included deserters from combat on both sides of the fight, draft dodgers, immigrants from foreign shores, and freed slaves who were searching for work away from the sound of the guns.

Thus did the U.S. Civil War bring together a large amount of new money, invested in leaseholds in the oil country of Titusville, plus capital equipment and a ready supply of labor. Here was the confluence of events that sparked the modern petroleum industry.

As the oil wells came in, they sparked an oil boom in the mid-1860s. Production soared and prices crashed. Investment waned, and by the late 1860s, the price of oil was drifting upward again. There was another boom and another bust in the early 1870s. The industry was irrational from an economic perspective, and something had to happen.

Something did happen, in the form of a man who desired, and eventually acted, to bring some semblance of rationality to a chaotic industry. He was a businessman from Cleveland, Ohio, named John D. Rockefeller. He conceived a method of bringing a certain sense of standardization to the oil industry, and eventually did exactly that.

So this takes us from Col. Drake to Mr. Rockefeller. We will discuss Rockefeller in my next article in Whiskey & Gunpowder . Without Rockefeller’s effort, one wonders where the oil boom would have gone. Where would we be today? We are all both products and prisoners of history.

Until we meet again…
Byron W. King


Byron W. King is a practicing attorney in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with real clients and real law books on his shelves. After graduating from Harvard University more years ago than he cares to discuss, Byron worked as a geologist in the exploration and production division of a major international oil company. He has followed developments in the oil and gas industry for almost three decades. However, in the process of seeking more excitement than a man can safely obtain from flaring over-pressurized gas whipping out of a 21,000-foot well, Byron also served for many years in both the active and reserve components of the United States Navy.While in the sea service, Byron logged more flight time in tactical jet aircraft than George W. Bush, as well as 127 more carrier landings than the recently-re-elected commander in chief. Among other assignments, Byron has served as a field historian with the Navy.Byron looks at current events, economics, and politics through the lens of history. He brings to the table a unique perspective that incorporates many millions of years of the Earth’s geologic history, and blends its significance into the more recent, man-made kind of tale.

Nothing Like Business as Usual

by Byron King
for whiskey and Gunpowder
free subscription here

ALI SAMSAM BAKHTIARI is a retired “senior energy expert,” formerly employed by the National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) of Tehran, Iran. He has held a number of important positions with NIOC since 1971. He is currently attached to the director's office in the Corporate Planning Directorate of NIOC, and specializes in questions related to the global oil, gas and petrochemical industries. This alone ought to pique your interest because Bakhtiari has the ear of the most important decision-makers in Iran. What is he telling them?

Fortunately for us in the West, Bakhtiari is also an independent consultant who writes and speaks to a worldwide audience on the subject of oil depletion in general, and Peak Oil in particular. His tribal name, Bakhtiari, means “companions of good fortune,” and the story of his life is somewhat emblematic of that meaning. Based on what I have seen, Bakhtiari has a gift for understanding, and a unique ability to share this gift with others. There are few more qualified people in the world who can discuss Peak Oil. So when Bakhtiari talks, people ought to listen.

And as an aside, anyone within the Western diplomatic or military community who deals with Iranian issues at almost any level needs to understand what Bakhtiari has been telling the leadership of Iran. What do the mullahs know about oil that you may not know? It might just explain a few things about Iranian behavior.

Oil at $100-150 per Barrel

In a recent public address to the Senate of Australia, Bakhtiari stated that “I can see a range of $100-150 [per barrel of oil] not very far into the future.” He amplified this statement as follows:

“We are entering an era in which we know nothing much, where we have a brand-new set of rules…One of these new rules, in my opinion, is that there will be in the very near future nothing like business as usual. In my opinion, nothing is usual from now on for any of the countries involved. And the lower you are in the pile, the worse it is going to get.”

Bakhtiari believes that the world is at Peak Oil, producing about as much conventional oil on a daily basis as will ever be produced, now about 84 million barrels per day. From here on, the oil markets of the world will be dealing with the ongoing effects of oil field depletion and irreversible production decline. By 2025, Bakhtiari expects that the world’s daily production of conventional oil will fall to a level between 50-55 million barrels of oil per day. Bakhtiari counsels that the world’s governments, industries, and people accept the fact and begin to prepare. There is no time to lose.

Bakhtiari is pessimistic about the prospects for large-scale energy projects based on manufactured fuels, such as coal-to-oil and gas-to-oil projects. His reasons are many, ranging from the scale and cost of such projects to the raw environmental degradation they cause. In addition, much of the feedstock for these projects, for raw material and/or process heat, is supposed to come from natural gas. But natural gas supplies are about to “peak” worldwide and commence their own irreversible curve of decline, so this is not a long-term solution. Of the 30-million-barrel-per-day decline in conventional oil production that Bakhtiari envisions over the next 20 years, he anticipates that manufactured fuels will substitute for only about 5 million barrels per day. “This is a drop of water in the ocean,” says Bakhtiari.

In addition, Bakhtiari is pessimistic on the future of ethanol as an oil substitute, because it will pit the world’s food supply against the needs of the world’s built-up transportation system for liquid fuels. “People have to eat,” says Bakhtiari.

Four Phases of Decline

Bakhtiari views the future in terms of four phases of transition, or, as he puts it, T1, T2, T3, and T4. Fortunately for the world’s users of petroleum, the “hidden advantage” of Bakhtiari’s T1 is that worldwide oil supplies will remain almost constant during this initial phase. That is, new discoveries and production that is now coming on line will compensate for the production that is lost due to depletion. T2, T3, and T4 will be, as Bakhtiari puts it, “more turbulent phases.”

At the end of T1, Bakhtiari envisions “two major scales tilting.” There will be a supply of conventional oil, all of which will be subject to world demand. That is, there is not now, and will not be at the end of T1, any “swing” production, such as the cushion that Saudi Arabia provided during the past 40 years or so. Supply will dictate demand, and when the supply is gone, the demand will go unsatisfied. “In the end, it will be the total shift” to oil supply dictating demand. Rising prices will clear the market, and the prices will rise precipitously.

According to Bakhtiari, one of the key problems for the world in facing this ongoing T1 phase is that so-called “mega projects” for high-cost oil and other alternative fuels take 10-20 years to construct and come online. These mega projects include such things as large offshore oil developments in deep water, substitute oil industries that manufacture oil from natural gas or coal, or refineries capable of handling heavy oils or tar from tar sands. The problem is that rising oil prices, and spot shortages in the coming years, will trigger increases in prices for other commodities, like cement and steel.

Rising Costs and Risks for Capital Projects

One prominent example that illustrates Bakhtiari’s point was just announced by Shell Canada Ltd. Shell Canada recently announced that an expansion of its Athabasca oil sands project will cost as much as $12.8 billion, because relentless cost pressures are swelling its budget. This is nearly three times the cost per barrel that was originally planned, as recently as 2002. According the Shell Canada’s president, the economic environment has changed “quite substantially” in just a few years.

As recently as mid-2005, Shell Canada estimated that expanding its plant at Athabasca would cost about $200 per barrel per day of capital cost. Now the estimate is that the eventual cost will top $300 per barrel per day, and possibly approach $350 per barrel per day. That is, under these cost estimates, a facility capable of producing 10,000 barrels per day of oil equivalent product might cost as much as $3.5 billion just to build, let alone the future costs of to operating on an ongoing basis. And to construct facilities capable of producing 1 million barrels per day of oil equivalent will require a capital investment of about $350 billion.

At the same time, major companies that operate in the international environment are seeing their political risks rise along with the capital costs. Increasing exposure to large projects in problematic countries has taken much of the edge off the previous enthusiasm for expansion in such regions. For example, in Venezuela, the government of populist leader Hugo Chavez is tightening the terms of operating contracts, and imposing royalty and tax rates that are all but confiscatory.

Venezuela recently announced that it was reforming one of its production contracts with Chevron to create a “joint venture” between Chevron and Venezuela’s state-owned oil company. The net effect is to remove 90,000 barrels per day of oil production from the control of Chevron and place the oil under the control of the Venezuelan entity. In order to meet its own requirements for volumes of oil, Chevron will have to find other sources of petroleum. While Chevron has announced that it plans to remain in Venezuela, some other major Western oil firms are contemplating simply abandoning operations there.

In addition, many major capital projects are subject to damage from natural events, such as last year’s Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Chevron, for example, recently announced a $300 million charge against earnings for uninsured damage caused last year to its Gulf of Mexico operations during Hurricane Katrina.

Five Steps of Preparation

Bakhtiari has a “to-do list” of what he considers to be the most urgent steps for governments, businesses, and private individuals. His list is worth highlighting here:

(1) Reprogram the mind. That is, just throw out any previous business-as-usual thinking and similar rosy scenarios. Nothing will remain as usual, going forward. This also means that people should engage in as much lateral thinking as possible. Do not just come up with Plan B, but come up with Plans C, D, and E as well. People should challenge themselves, and their associates, not just to expect the unexpected, but to begin thinking the unthinkable.

(2) Reduce oil consumption, mercilessly. According to Bakhtiari, the normal 30% of wasted use should be shed offhand. Governments, businesses, and individuals should also pay down debt levels as swiftly as possible, because the effects of T1 will inevitably bring higher inflation and interest rates. Minimize travel of all sorts to economize use of oil-derived fuels, because it is going to happen in any case. Reduce all types of consumption and just plain get leaner and be ready for even bigger cuts. This is as close to where you live as revising home lighting and heating systems, and also includes reducing the size and number of automobiles as soon as possible.

(3) Reuse as much as possible. Many things are easily reusable, but it will require a mental focus to accomplish the effort. Whether it is plastic bags or retreaded tires or outdated appliances, it is important to adopt a new cultural mind-set toward the scarcity of manufactured goods and products. The most important thing to care for and husband may well be fresh water, which is already in short supply and will almost certainly be a precious commodity in the future. Bakhtiari even mentions wood as a future critical commodity.

(4) Recycle as much as possible. Bakhtiari believes that tomorrow’s industrial boom will be in recycling industries on a worldwide scale. Recycling much of what is now considered garbage should be made mandatory, as in Germany or a handful of U.S. cities, such as Seattle and Pittsburgh. Industrial production should design “recycling” into products from the time they are on the drawing board, as is now the case in some sectors of the automobile and computer industries, as well as some other business sectors.

(5) Reward people for their efforts. Bakhtiari urges using market incentives to reward people for reducing, reusing, or recycling. It is far better to make use of positive subsidies, instead of negative reinforcement. The implications of Peak Oil are negative enough even without the prospect of negative reinforcement.

Addicted to Oil and Cold Soup

“Whether we like it or not,” said Bakhtiari in a recent posting, “all developed societies are addicted to crude oil and its myriad derivatives.” However, he continues, “Many decision-makers are trying to park ‘Peak Oil’ in the farthest corner of their minds (praying it will go away), and remain in denial that there is no replacement for oil.” Bakhtiari amplified this comment in another discussion:

“Nobody likes the idea of Peak Oil. Firstly, you have the politicians. Naturally, a politician will never say that there is such a thing as Peak Oil. It is suicide to give bad news, so a politician will never do that…Secondly you have the media. The media do not like Peak Oil. Why? There is no sponsorship for Peak Oil. The oil companies do not like Peak Oil because you should not say that your soup is cold; you should always say that it is very hot and very tasty, yes? So nobody wants to hear of this phenomenon of Peak Oil.”

Where Do We Go From Here?

Bakhtiari is a prolific writer and speaker, and he has much more to say on the subject of Peak Oil. We will review his work in future Whiskey & Gunpowder articles. But for now, where should leaders in the government, business, and the private sectors be focusing their attentions? Here are a few ideas.

Governments and the private sector should make every effort to come up with projections of oil production and demand at local, regional, national, and international levels. Based on these projections, the next step is to assess the implications of reduced availability and dramatically higher prices for oil and related transportation fuel.

Governments and the private sector should also, at the same time, strive to reduce in absolute terms local, regional, and national demands for oil and oil-related products. The oil supply simply will not be there a few years hence. Thus, it is imperative to make energy policy that allows classical market mechanisms to work rapidly, in order to foreclose the future political urge during the next “crisis” to come up with some sort of top-down, command economy form of coercive policy.

Related to the foregoing, governments and the private sector should work to assess the potential of new sources of liquid fuel, and alternative transportation methods, to meet (or, preferably, substitute for) a significant share of respective national fuel demands. This must take into account technological developments and both short- and long-term environmental and economic costs.

There is something ironic here. The government of Iran is making trouble for many nations and people in this world, what with its nuclear program, sponsorship of international terrorism, dealings with North Korea, and other bills too lengthy to describe just now.

But for all of the trouble that many people in the West (and elsewhere, truth be told) think is being caused by the government of Iran, here is an Iranian among the most direct and sincere in identifying and proposing the elements of a solution to a profound energy dilemma.

Until we meet again…
Byron W. King

Byron W. King is a practicing attorney in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, with real clients and real law books on his shelves. After graduating from Harvard University more years ago than he cares to discuss, Byron worked as a geologist in the exploration and production division of a major international oil company. He has followed developments in the oil and gas industry for almost three decades. However, in the process of seeking more excitement than a man can safely obtain from flaring over-pressurized gas whipping out of a 21,000-foot well, Byron also served for many years in both the active and reserve components of the United States Navy.
While in the sea service, Byron logged more flight time in tactical jet aircraft than George W. Bush, as well as 127 more carrier landings than the recently-re-elected commander in chief. Among other assignments, Byron has served as a field historian with the Navy.
Byron looks at current events, economics, and politics through the lens of history. He brings to the table a unique perspective that incorporates many millions of years of the Earth’s geologic history, and blends its significance into the more recent, man-made kind of tale.