In the never-ending quest to push myself to write, here is another entry in the book review category. As I told a friend recently, I use the reviews to hide behind, until I find the voice or courage to come out and say what I think. Maybe later...
Loretta Napoleoni, Terror Incorporated: Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror Networks (2005).
Simply put, what I like about this book is that it insists on following the money, rather than get distracted by ideologies, religions, or marketing.
First hint: read the 3-page Conclusion at the end of the book first. It presents her thesis wonderfully (and SHOULD have been at the front; it would have saved me a lot of time and energy). In the book, she analyzes the evolutionary growth of what she calls the 'New Economy of Terror.' "The principal stages have been the wars by proxy of the Cold War era, the foreign sponsorship of armed groups, the privatization of terror, the birth of state-shells, and the Modern Jihad" (225). Napoleoni, an economist first and journalist second, revels in the numeric details as only an economist can. She counts the dollars as they flow from one group to another, in one form and another (particularly arms, drugs, and dollars).
Things I did NOT know: Hey, it turns out that terror groups (Napoleoni shuns 'terrorist' because of the excess baggage the term has acquired) don't like to be beholden to sponsors. Who knew? One of the most interesting things I learned was that groups explicitly work to create stable, independent finances (by investing in legitimate companies, stock markets, and real estate) in order to wean themselves off of the often fickle sponsors. Freedom-fighter today can become terrorist tomorrow, depending on the politics and the narrative wrapper. So, groups evolved into investors with independent wealth and freedom to act. Naploeoni sees the power vacuum caused by the fall of the Soviet Union as one of the major opportunities for this shattering of sponsorship and flourishing of independent groups/organizations (since they have become full-fledged organizations IMHO). I was unexpectedly amused (by the image, not the fact) of collections of small terror groups working up presentations and proposals for Al-Qaeda, hoping for a grant of funding. [Dude, I see you brought your AK-47, but did you remember the projector and the PowerPoint presentation?]
While the detail in the book can become dizzying, Napoleoni does have something interesting to say about the nature of Capitalism and Terror. The fact that the Terror Economy is now woven into Western Capitalism in such a way as to be difficult (if not impossible) to remove safely makes me wonder about the 'morality' of Western Capitalism. We don't seem to care where the oil or money or products or labor comes from (as Western Consumers) as long as those things are abundant and within reach. We get hints of how global consumerism not only leads to the consumption of goods and services, but also the consumption of peoples and ecosystems. I am unpleasantly NOT surprised that terror groups have individuals intelligent enough to mimic or plug into the Western Capitalist model and use it to launder billions of dollars.
I was trained as a historian, and in Napoleoni's description of 'state-shells' (regions and areas that terror groups isolate, ravage and control), I was reminded of 'feudalism.' A lot of the actions and interactions of terror groups, local populations, and national and regional governments recalls Medieval Europe for me. Local armies/groups can provide security and infrastructure in ways that the distant government either cannot or will not. These local warlords (or simply 'lords' in European history) establish security, collect taxes, negotiate with other nearby warlords, and exert absolute control over their lands. I wonder if this economic model has, as Napoleoni implies, been overcome in the modern era by national governments only to resurface when those national governments weaken and contract. Or has the 'victory' of national governments, super-powers and modernism really only pushed 'feudalism' slightly under the surface of society? Aren't we local, even if we are told that we are 'national' or 'international'? I wonder.
Finally, it is interesting to see how the story needs to be controlled. Napoleoni says that she had to try to focus on economics in order to avoid terms with baggage. I think that might indicate a deeper dissatisfaction with the use of the terms in the media and in the rhetorical machine we call 'spin.' Who is a terrorist? Who is a freedom-fighter? Revolutionaries are good if they are led by George Washington, but not necessarily in other situations. Radical reform can get to the root of a problem, but being a radical is problematic. If a militia supported by a government murders villages full of locals, aren't the funders responsible on some level? Who is a white-hat? Who is a black-hat? Who is responsible?
I can see why Napoleoni tries so hard to stick to economics. Math often has answers.
Loretta Napoleoni, Terror Incorporated: Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror Networks (2005).
Simply put, what I like about this book is that it insists on following the money, rather than get distracted by ideologies, religions, or marketing.
First hint: read the 3-page Conclusion at the end of the book first. It presents her thesis wonderfully (and SHOULD have been at the front; it would have saved me a lot of time and energy). In the book, she analyzes the evolutionary growth of what she calls the 'New Economy of Terror.' "The principal stages have been the wars by proxy of the Cold War era, the foreign sponsorship of armed groups, the privatization of terror, the birth of state-shells, and the Modern Jihad" (225). Napoleoni, an economist first and journalist second, revels in the numeric details as only an economist can. She counts the dollars as they flow from one group to another, in one form and another (particularly arms, drugs, and dollars).
Things I did NOT know: Hey, it turns out that terror groups (Napoleoni shuns 'terrorist' because of the excess baggage the term has acquired) don't like to be beholden to sponsors. Who knew? One of the most interesting things I learned was that groups explicitly work to create stable, independent finances (by investing in legitimate companies, stock markets, and real estate) in order to wean themselves off of the often fickle sponsors. Freedom-fighter today can become terrorist tomorrow, depending on the politics and the narrative wrapper. So, groups evolved into investors with independent wealth and freedom to act. Naploeoni sees the power vacuum caused by the fall of the Soviet Union as one of the major opportunities for this shattering of sponsorship and flourishing of independent groups/organizations (since they have become full-fledged organizations IMHO). I was unexpectedly amused (by the image, not the fact) of collections of small terror groups working up presentations and proposals for Al-Qaeda, hoping for a grant of funding. [Dude, I see you brought your AK-47, but did you remember the projector and the PowerPoint presentation?]
While the detail in the book can become dizzying, Napoleoni does have something interesting to say about the nature of Capitalism and Terror. The fact that the Terror Economy is now woven into Western Capitalism in such a way as to be difficult (if not impossible) to remove safely makes me wonder about the 'morality' of Western Capitalism. We don't seem to care where the oil or money or products or labor comes from (as Western Consumers) as long as those things are abundant and within reach. We get hints of how global consumerism not only leads to the consumption of goods and services, but also the consumption of peoples and ecosystems. I am unpleasantly NOT surprised that terror groups have individuals intelligent enough to mimic or plug into the Western Capitalist model and use it to launder billions of dollars.
I was trained as a historian, and in Napoleoni's description of 'state-shells' (regions and areas that terror groups isolate, ravage and control), I was reminded of 'feudalism.' A lot of the actions and interactions of terror groups, local populations, and national and regional governments recalls Medieval Europe for me. Local armies/groups can provide security and infrastructure in ways that the distant government either cannot or will not. These local warlords (or simply 'lords' in European history) establish security, collect taxes, negotiate with other nearby warlords, and exert absolute control over their lands. I wonder if this economic model has, as Napoleoni implies, been overcome in the modern era by national governments only to resurface when those national governments weaken and contract. Or has the 'victory' of national governments, super-powers and modernism really only pushed 'feudalism' slightly under the surface of society? Aren't we local, even if we are told that we are 'national' or 'international'? I wonder.
Finally, it is interesting to see how the story needs to be controlled. Napoleoni says that she had to try to focus on economics in order to avoid terms with baggage. I think that might indicate a deeper dissatisfaction with the use of the terms in the media and in the rhetorical machine we call 'spin.' Who is a terrorist? Who is a freedom-fighter? Revolutionaries are good if they are led by George Washington, but not necessarily in other situations. Radical reform can get to the root of a problem, but being a radical is problematic. If a militia supported by a government murders villages full of locals, aren't the funders responsible on some level? Who is a white-hat? Who is a black-hat? Who is responsible?
I can see why Napoleoni tries so hard to stick to economics. Math often has answers.
No comments:
Post a Comment