Conservative Group Asks if Terrorists Caused Colorado Fires

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/96671942@N00/9020204491/in/photolist-eK5Ux6-eK3QTz-eK3Qf6-eK4GH5-eLjPFS-eL8ph6-eLjqKY-eLjrgy-eL81CV-9yZNNV-9yZP3F-eL7NiR-eLRzHR-ePgxKC-8p9Nks-8p9NcL-vY2WQ-eK3T4F-eKwsj4-8dXTHe-e2iCXd-3ezD1j-cK6Jcs-cK6QBL-cK6MVQ-eL7thV-ePgCaN-6TvaYo-77d7Bd-kbrpM-dFASoH-cX9seo-87ovsg-7d4eYo-8pDktW-9GiktK-543YeU-8JD5Bh-7NVxYv-4mMoja-eKTany-2PHUqe-eKUL8m-cUhcLJ-2V8s-bUJJ92-2PNkSo-79xNQ4-aLErBe-8BDhFd-abuogF">Phillip Stewart</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Authorities are still investigating what started Colorado’s record-breaking Black Forest fire. But Rachel Ehrenfeld, the director of the neoconservative think tank American Center for Democracy, unveiled a potential suspect in a blog post on Sunday: Al Qaeda. Or drug cartels. Or maybe illegal immigrants.

While many of the fires that have scorched millions of acres and destroyed thousands of homes in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and other states have been identified as arson, none have been publicly attributed to criminal or terrorist groups, despite the presence of Mexican gangs and large number of other illegals in our Western states … How many Tzarnaevs are hiding in Colorado’s woods?

Ehrenfeld, whose group includes Iraq War advocate Richard Perle and former CIA director R. James Woolsey, notes that Al Qaeda’s English-language magazine Inspire published a how-to guide for starting forest fires last year. The article singled out Montana as America’s most fire-attack-worthy state due its large number of citizens living near forests. A decade ago, an Al Qaeda detainee told the FBI about a potential plot to ignite several wildfires at once across the country, though the National Interagency Fire Center officials said at the time that they didn’t see it as a particularly credible threat.

Don Smurthwaite, a spokesman for the Bureau of Land Management, downplayed Ehhrenfeld’s worries, but he didn’t dismiss the notion outright. “We don’t have any hard evidence that any wildfires in the US were started by terrorists in recent years,” he said. “But is it a possibility? Certainly.” He added that wildfires were last weaponized in World War II, when Japanese forces sent incendiary balloons across the Pacific in hopes of starting damaging blazes in Western forests.

Last year, humans started 58,331 wildfires in the US, compared to fewer than 10,000 caused by lightning, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. But lightning fires burned 6.8 million acres, more than twice the amount consumed by human-caused flames. That’s because the latter tend to occur in much smaller areas, Smurthwaite said. Campfires, fireworks, and vehicle fires are to blame for most wildfires.

What ACD’s Ehrenfeld and other wildfire terrorism hand-wringers don’t seem interested in exploring is how much more devastating an attack could be if climate change continues unabated, with dry air, high winds, and low humidity making fires more frequent and ferocious. Even Inspire highlights the effects dry conditions and strong winds can have on blazes. The magazine’s first issue also featured a column on the need to address climate change that Osama bin Laden supposedly penned. (Bin Laden’s proposed solutions to climate change—boycotting US goods and killing American troops in the Middle East—are slightly outside the scientific mainstream, however.)

If the government does deem the threat of a terrorist wildfire to be credible, forest flammability could become yet another opportunity to reframe climate change as a matter of national security, along with issues like water shortages, energy security, and overseas disaster response. Until then, perhaps it’s time to get Smokey Bear’s drone fleet up and running.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate