Via Rod Dreher:
Islamic extremists embedded in the United States — posing as Hispanic nationals — are partnering with violent Mexican drug gangs to finance terror networks in the Middle East, according to a Drug Enforcement Administration report.
"Since drug traffickers and terrorists operate in a clandestine environment, both groups utilize similar methodologies to function ... all lend themselves to facilitation and are among the essential elements that may contribute to the successful conclusion of a catastrophic event by terrorists," said the confidential report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times.
The 2005 report outlines an ongoing scheme in which multiple Middle Eastern drug-trafficking and terrorist cells operating in the U.S. fund terror networks overseas, aided by established Mexican cartels with highly sophisticated trafficking routes.
These terrorist groups, or sleeper cells, include people who speak Arabic, Spanish and Hebrew and, for the most part, arouse no suspicion in their communities. (Sara Carter, Washington Times for August 8, 2007)
Now, some of us who have taken the measure of the jihad, perceiving in it the nature of an existential threat to the very substance of our civilization, albeit one which will require time to ripen, have contemplated this very possibility for some time. In fact, we might even asseverate that this possibility suggests itself upon consideration of the entities involved: it is in the nature of clandestine organizations, even those that, like some Islamic groups, observe a decentralized, "leaderless resistance" style of organization, that they not concern themselves overmuch with the objectives of partners. Provided that there is sufficient overlap at the point of meeting, and provided, further, that there exist no immediate and overt conflicts of aim, collaboration can occur. That some nationals of Islamic nations may easily pass themselves off as Latin Americans only adds to the synergy.
However, the more profound aspects of this little revelation (or, rather, confirmation) are to be located in the overall geopolitical environment. Grasping this necessitates a brief detour through the clouds of propaganda that surround the citadels of American policy. One of the once-potent rhetorical tropes of the Bush administration and its enablers was that "We are fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them here." Or, in the words of a T-shirt promoted on the website of the American Spectator,, "He's fighting them over there, so that they won't CUT OFF YOUR HEAD over here." In other words, we had to drain the swamps of authoritarian governance -in which we were complicit - which stifled the natural yearnings for freedom of the people of the Middle East, impelling them towards extremism as a perverse displacement of their desire for Western freedom and consumerism. Within their hearts and breasts burned the longing for liberty, the desire of every human heart, implanted there by God as a universal rule for political organization.
The hidden term of the "argument" for this policy was that the American strategy of openness would not be interrogated; global integration, inclusive of the free movement of people, would continue and intensify. The only remedy, therefore, for so-called "Islamofascism" could be the conversion of the Islamic world to our way of life, removing the ostensibly artificial and contingent differences which engendered such hostility, making possible the integrated, mobile, multicultural world order which was the final cause of history. The 'solution' to the problem of Islamic terror, of jihad, was not so much defense as a wider, evangelistic modernity.
Moreover, concurrent with the unfolding of the war on a military tactic of weaker powers, there came a determined push, on the part of the American establishment, to legitimize an immigration status-quo that embodied that fantasy of openness. The 'free movement of labour' was an integral element of that strategy of openness; global integration entailed not only the spread of the Western economic paradigm and the Western mode of political and cultural organization, but the movement of people, without which that economic paradigm could not function, without which Western elites would betray their belief in nondiscrimination and equality as regulative principles. So far from questioning the rationale for a "come as you are, however you get here" immigration policy, the establishment sought merely to retroactively legitimate a policy of chaos, because it was a policy of openness, which is very valuable, for a number of reasons.
The threat of Islamic terror could not prompt a questioning of immigration policy, because openness was deemed inviolable from the beginning. It was deemed holy. To touch it, in the sense of traducing it and advocating its revision, was akin to reaching out to touch the Ark of the Covenant: to turn from the glorious global future was to choose a sort of death, in the minds of these folks.
Now, the FBI concedes that the nemeses of these two strands of openness fetishization have converged; and the real meaning of that old rhetorical trope is disclosed: We fight them over there, because we will, indeed, must, have them over here; not having them here would be akin to them failing to emulate us over there, and so they simply must become like us, so that they will not fight us. We will succeed because we must. A failure to pursue openness would be unthinkable, unforgivable. We must succeed, and they must change, because we will not change.