Self-financing of terror on the rise?

Self-financing of terror on the rise?

January 15, 2010 A column over at World Politics Review this week hits on similar points I’ve made about how cheap terrorism is today (and echoes my description of Ft. Hood’s Nidal Hasan’s only expense being guns and ammo).  But more interesting than that is what the column identified as a shift away from electronic transfers to fund terror toward increased “self-financing” of terrorism.
However, I can’t agree with that analysis entirely.  There may be some truth to it among Western jihadists and sleeper cell elements, but no plausible argument can be made that major organizations like Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Abu Sayyaf are funded by the individual wealth of their members.  These organizations are funded by traditional Koranic revenue streams:  massive zakat payments from Muslims worldwide, from the ushr in Afghanistan, from Iranian khums, and ransoms levied by Islamist groups.
Nonetheless, I welcome divergent points of view, so here’s a lengthy passage from the piece:

The financial war against terror and insurgent groups has played out quietly, behind the scenes, since before the 9/11 attacks. It’s a war that the U.S. and its allies seemed to be winning, until extremist groups — especially those in Iraq and Afghanistan — adapted to American tactics and reduced their operating costs.
The main U.S. effort had been directed at severing the electronic links between fraudulent charity groups, as well as other fundraising entities, and the “frontline” extremist financiers who disburse funds to fighters, bomb-making cells and suicide squads. That approach was largely successful in disrupting the easy flow of electronic funds across international borders.
In response, extremist groups abandoned electronic transfers, opting instead for hard cash — with porters literally hauling bags of money through porous border zones — and self-financing. The latter is an emerging trend that could particularly limit the effectiveness of counter-finance efforts in Yemen.
One self-financing tactic is for extremist groups to recruit new fighters on the Internet, and require them to pay a fee to join up. “We’ve seen cases where recruits are coming in from the West, [bringing] money with them to pay for training,” Paul Cruickshank, an expert in terror financing with the New York University Center on Law and Security, told World Politics Review. Cruickshank cited the example of a group of al-Qaida recruits from Belgium and France that paid $900 apiece to cover the cost of their own terror training.
Abdulmutallab, for one, came from a wealthy family and could presumably afford to pay for his trips to Yemen and to the United States — and possibly even for bomb-making materials.
“The new paradigm,” Cruickshank added, “is for [terror] groups to say, ‘Come and get training with us, by all means — you might even have to pay for it. And when you get back out there, do this, this and this to raise money.’” In one recent example, Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan-born Denver resident, used $50,000 in credit-card debt to finance a plot to detonate a homemade bomb in New York City. Zazi, who declared bankruptcy to avoid paying back the loans, reportedly traveled to Pakistan for training, apparently on his own dime. Zazi was arrested in New York in September, before he could advance his plans.
“You’ve got to remember, when it comes to terrorism, it’s not expensive,” Cruickshank said. He repeated the oft-cited statistic that the 9/11 attacks cost just $500,000, mostly for training and transportation. But many recent plots are planned at even lower cost. Aside from the expense of buying a legally acquired gun and ammunition, Hasan’s Fort Hood attack was essentially cost-free.
For terrorists, it’s increasingly important to operate cheaply, Cruickshank said. In addition to the crackdown on money transfers, an expanding backlash in Muslim communities against al-Qaida and other terror groups has made it harder and harder to raise significant funds for terror plots. Cheaper plots mean “you can’t prevent terrorism just by going after finances,” Cruickshank said. “You’ve got to go after individuals — that’s the most important thing.

Great point.  Going after the money and suspicious transactions themselves instead of individuals is like going screening for shampoo and toothpaste at airports rather than screening for terrorists.  D’oh!
But we need to take it even farther than individuals.  There is an ideology behind all the financial transactions, and behind all the individuals who self-finance.  It is that ideology that we must confront.
About these ads