AMERICAN FUTURE

My interpretation leans towards this being a sign of weakness. Given the timing for its release, it seems that AQ felt compelled to release something (anything) after what seems to have been a devastating attack, both in terms of actual losses and prestige. This smells like a quickie attempt at damage control. Get something out there so show that we still exist!

I’m curious why AQ didn’t release back in December. Are we looking at a rejected tape that was just laying around? They did get it to AJ pretty quickly.

When OBL considers Bush to be someone he can do business with (a la Chamberlain or UNSG Annan), it can only mean that we have a psychological edge on Al-Queda. It says much for our eventual success in winning this Global War of Terrorism when it is the terrorists who are afraid of us. I think we should make “Don’t mess with Texas” the unofficial motto of the United States.

I agree with Tom’s analysis but also consider this:

Is it not an indication of how things really are going for someone so violently opposed to the very concept of democracy to cite poll results, not only for the U.S. but for Muslim countries?

After all, they are following God’s or Allah’s or Mohammed’s will or whatever they call it this week, so the opinions of the lesser creatures carry no weight. That is, unless they are whupping you, but good.

I don’t interpret bin Laden’s message as a sign of weakness at all. In this debate I side with M. Scheuer who argues that as a muslim bin Laden is obliged to provide the enemies he seeks to attack a truce, or an alternative such as conversion to Islam before carrying out an attack to demonstrate that he tried to the very end to avoid such a course of action. That is, he can say after the attack, I offered them a way out and they rejected it, so now they must face the consequences. In so doing, he legitimizes the coming attack in the eyes of not only his followers but fellow muslims. The process works in much the same way ours does, where we go to the UN, impose sanctions and eventually give ultimatums going to war only as a last resort. I’m not saying Scheuer is correct, the reason I side with him on this is because we shouldn’t allow our “Hubris” to get in the way of understanding our enemy. Just because from our perspective we seem to be winning, that does not mean it is necessarily true. Scheuer provides us with a different perspective we would do well to keep in mind; never underestimate your enemy.

I’m not so sure quoting polls and the like is a sign of weakness on the part of OBL, after all if it shows anything, it is his understanding of his enemy. He is saying, “knowing how much you citizens of democracies believe in majority rule I quote your own polls to show your own dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq and against Islam in general.” Much like he did during the Presidential election, he is trying to use our own debates to find leverage for himself and his cause. After all, once he released the tape before the 04 election there were many commentators on both sides of the political spectrum saying that OBL had affected the outcome one way or the other (making Bush his favorite win, or trying to make Kerry his favorite win). He became a factor, because even now some argue that thanks to OBLs misguided attempt to get us to vote for Kerry, Bush got reelected, or that because Bush aided the cause of Islamists by the hatred Muslims felt for him, OBL wanted him to win. I’m not saying these are good arguments, or even the right ones, but by releasing the tape when he did back then, he left open room for the possibility of affecting yet another democratic election in a Western country (Spain being the first).

Here’s the relevant piece from the Jamestown Foundation:

Al-Qaeda’s Completed Warning Cycle – Ready to attack?

By Michael Scheuer
DCI Porter Goss’s testimony before Congress on February 16 that Soviet nuclear material could be in al-Qaeda’s hands is a troubling coda to speeches by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri in late 2004. Bin Laden’s October 30 speech was treated by the media as an attempt to influence the election. Most post-speech commentary also claimed the speech moved bin Laden away from war and toward political discourse. That the speech was directed to the American people is clear. What received little notice, however, is that the speech – and Zawahiri’s in November 2004 – completed a cycle of statements warning Americans, and preparing the Muslim world, for an al-Qaeda attack more severe than 9/11.

After 9/11, bin Laden received sharp criticisms from Islamist scholars that dealt with the al-Qaeda chief’s failure to satisfy several religious requirements pertinent to waging war. The critique focused on three items: (1) insufficient warning; (2) failure to offer Americans a chance to convert to Islam; and (3) inadequate religious authorization to kill so many people. Bin Laden accepted these criticisms and in mid-2002 began a series of speeches and actions to remedy the shortcomings and satisfy his Islamist critics before again attacking in the United States.

Bin Laden devoted most attention to warning Americans that, to prevent another 9/11-type attack, they had to elect leaders who would change U.S. policies toward the Islamic world. He focused especially on the U.S. presence in the Arabian Peninsula, Iraq, and Afghanistan, unqualified support for Israel, as well as support for Muslim tyrannies in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. Animosity toward these policies had long been a staple of bin Laden’s statements, but since 2002 he has spoken directly to Americans about what they – not their leaders – must do to avoid another attack.

In America’s democratic system, bin Laden said, U.S. leaders are elected by the people and stay in office only if the people support their policies. Arguing that the U.S. policies perceived by Muslims as attacks on Islam have been in place for decades, bin Laden said it is clear that the American people as a whole approve of anti-Islamic policies. “The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change their Government,” bin Laden said in October 2002, “yet time and again polls show that the American people support the policies of the elected Government.” On this basis, bin Laden warned Americans on four occasions between mid-2002 and October 2004 that they would be responsible for any military disaster that befell them if they did not elect leaders who would change the policy status quo. Indeed, bin Laden’s speech of 30 October 2004 appears to be an exceptionally explicit warning. It was largely devoid of the religious and historical allusions usually present in his speeches, as if he wanted to ensure that translators would get his warning to Americans quickly and clearly. (Al-Jazeera, 30 October, 12 Nov 02; Waaqiah.com, 26 Oct 02)

Parallel to the warnings, bin Laden on two occasions since 2002 asked Americans to convert to Islam as the means of terminating the war al-Qaeda is waging against the United States. “We call you to Islam,” bin Laden said on both occasions, addressing himself to President Bush – as the leader of the American people – and asking him to lead his countrymen to Islam. He also offered to serve as guide and teacher for the American people, urging them to “follow the right path” to Islam. “I am an honest adviser to you.” bin Laden concluded, “I urge you to seek the joy of life and the after life…. I urge you to become Muslims….” (Al-Jazeera 6 Oct 02; Waaqiah.com, 26 Oct 02)

To remedy the criticism of inadequate religious authorization for mass American casualties, bin Laden received the necessary sanction from a young, radical Saudi Shaykh named Hamid bin al-Fahd. In May 2003, al-Fahd published a fatwa on his website entitled “A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels.” (FBIS, May 23 2003) In this lengthy work, al-Fahd affirmatively answered the question of whether it was permissible under the four schools of Sunni Islam for the mujahideen to use nuclear weapons against the United States. Bin al-Fahd concluded that each school did permit the use of such weapons and that the mujahideen would be justified in inflicting millions of casualties in the United States. “Anyone who considers America’s aggression against Muslims and their lands during the last decade,” al-Fahd maintained, “will conclude that striking her is permissible merely on the rule of treating one as one has been treated. Some brothers have totaled the number of Muslims killed directly or indirectly by their [America’s] weapons and come up with the figure of nearly ten million.”

Thus, when bin Laden spoke to Americans in October 2004, he was tying up loose ends leftover from 9/11 and telling Americans again that changing the “policy of the White House … [is] the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan….” (Al-Jazeera 30 Oct 04) By then he had repeatedly warned Americans that al-Qaeda would attack unless U.S. policies were changed. Strange and even comic sounding to American and Western ears, bin Laden’s warnings and invitation to conversion are meant to satisfy Islamic scholars, and Muslims generally, that al-Qaeda has abided by the Prophet Muhammad’s instructions of offering a warning to the enemy before launching an attack. Likewise, Shaykh al-Fahd’s treatise attempts to overcome the lack of religious grounding for mass casualties for which Islamic scholars criticized the 9/11 attack, and will be used by bin Laden as such after his next attack against the United States.

In this overall context, the November 28 2004 speech by deputy al-Qaeda chief Zawahiri seems to have brought closure to the warning cycle begun by bin Laden in 2002. In his speech, Zawahiri spoke more in sorrow than anger when he gave Americans “a final piece of advice.” He said that Americans had again elected leaders who would keep the status quo in U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world. Noting that al-Qaeda had repeatedly warned against this course of action, Zawahiri implied that Americans would get no more warnings and that they would have only themselves to blame for future disasters. “The results of your elections don’t concern us,” Zawahiri said about the policy status quo, “What matters to us is the way in which the United States behaves toward Muslims.” (AFP, 30 November 2004)

Since November 2004, Zawahiri and bin Laden each have made two statements. They focused on Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the continuing threat of “The Crusaders”; none warned Americans or even specifically addressed the United States. These recent statements mirror the non-specific statements that were issued by bin Laden and Zawahiri before earlier attacks such as 9/11 (2001), The USS Cole (2000), and the East Africa Embassy bombings (1998) and suggest that bin Laden believes he has satisfied his post-9/11 critics. If Zawahiri’s November 28 speech did conclude al-Qaeda’s warning cycle, it probably means the group is ready to attack in the United States, a situation that makes DCI Goss’s statement that Soviet nuclear materials may be held by al-Qaeda all the more troubling.

Michael Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004. He served as the Chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the once anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and Through Our Enemies’ Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America.

The party that should be concerned every time OBL opens his mouth is the Republican Party. It’s another reminder that Bush took his eye off the ball in his “war on terror” and got sidetracked into a stupid proactive multibillion dollar mess in Iraq. Meanwhile – Iran was the country he should have been concerned with.

I wouldn’t discount Scheuer’s analytical abilities. He understands bin Laden and al Qaeda far better than anyone out there.

As for bin Laden using the same arguments as those who oppose the administration, he’s merely pandering and showing that he knows what is going on within the US. Again, getting into the debate makes either side (like you just did) that he influenced it one way or the other, regardless of which side wins. He either screwed the democrats, or screwed the GOP, that’s the sole purpose of his mentioning these things. Additionally, he cites things which many in the world dissaprove of, attacking our legitimacy and our claim to uphold human rights and freedom; classic insurgency tactic. The more legitimacy we loose the more legitimate our opposition looks.

Is Karl Rove paying bin Laden to come out with an audio tape every time Al Gore opens his mouth?

Are you implying that the administration is in cahoots with a man who murdered 3000 Americans?

Okay, that was unfair, but you left yourself open. That just goes to show how he can put himself in the middle of a debate about the future of our country, without actually being part of that debate, and then opening the door to the proposition that he affected the manner in which it was resolved.

He might be tied to a fundamentalist religious cause, might even be an idealist, but he isn’t stupid.

nykrindc,

Scheuer is undoubtedly able to internalize the ideology and motivations behind al Qaeda, maybe to the extent that he’s taken in by their self-perception of being an unstoppable force. I haven’t read Scheuer’s book but seen him numerous times on cable news shows and C-SPAN and he strikes him as defeatist and someone I’m glad is retired from government service. Think of all those CIA analysts who studied the great Soviet Union for years but were shocked when it collapsed. History is full of examples of determined men believing that they would conquer the world but I have yet to see an ideology that makes anyone bulletproof.

Regarding my Rove comment, I’m being facetious. Sometimes sarcasm doesn’t translate well. I’m making the point that there is a partisan divide in this country over the perceived seriousness of the terrorist threat. I am constantly being reminded that the Democratic Party, due to the influence of the Left, is dangerous to our national security. As someone who voted Democratic in the past, I’ve watched Gore and Pelosi on MLK day with bemusement, only to be reminded every time OBL sticks his head out of the mud that the Democrats can’t be allowed back into power until they wholeheartedly reject from their ranks the enablers of those who want to destroy us.

As for the relative intelligence of OBL, let’s not give him too much credit. A measure of intelligence is the ability to anticipate the consequences of one’s actions. Osama anticipated America to be a paper tiger. Clearly we’re not. He anticipated more popular support for his Caliphate but even the invasions of two Muslim countries by the Great Satan haven’t prompted a massive uprising. If nothing else, AQ is less popular now than before. Having so misread his enemy but his own people, how smart can he really be?

Devil’s Advocate—Are you suggesting that Aljazeera, which released the tape, is a puppet of the Bush Administration? Or are you suggesting that Bin Laden is a puppet of the Bush Administration? Or that the CIA is lying that the tape is real and won’t get caught in the lie? What’s your evidence? Why wouldn’t Bush wait until the election is nearer (it’s 10 months away).

Please explain—with facts, not conspiratorial assertions. I’m waiting for your answer.

Scheuer is undoubtedly able to internalize the ideology and motivations behind al Qaeda, maybe to the extent that he’s taken in by their self-perception of being an unstoppable force. I haven’t read Scheuer’s book but seen him numerous times on cable news shows and C-SPAN and he strikes him as defeatist and someone I’m glad is retired from government service.

Remember understanding does not mean empathy. As for Scheuer being a defeatist, I think you should read both his books. If anything, he is shermanesque in the manner in which he wants the US to prosecute this war. The only reason he says that we need to withdrawis because the people of the US have failed to make the sacrifices necessary to ensure our complete victory. Understanding that al Qaeda and OBL have nothing to loose but much to gain, he argues that unless we understand that, we will not be able to defeat them. In Through our Enemies’ Eyes he argues for two things, first having a debate in America about which American policies are worth keeping or discarding and how much they are worth to us, once we do that we can engage in a strategy that would make it as painful as possible for al Qaeda and its supporters to continue this war. That is since war is a contest of wills, unless we are completely committed to destroying our enemy’s will and ability to fight, then we should withdraw and abandon the petroleum resources of the Middles East. But this comes only after establishing what policies we currently have in place which we are willing to fight for and how much we are willing to give to maintain them.

Ditto on sarcasm not translating well, my sarcastic comment didn’t either.
On OBL, his mistake was a matter of calculating what it would take to divide the world into two camps, however, it was dependent to a large extent on our actions in response to his. In an insurgency, an insurgent hopes that his attacks illicit from the established authority a response which is so over the top, that it proves to the population how corrupt, and dictatorial the regime actually is thereby improving the populations perception of the insurgent organization. He also appeals to them by alluding to different times, and symbols within Islamic civilization and has to a certain extent been succesful in inciting more people to action, after all, in the years after 9/11 there have been more attacks against the US and its allies that in the previous decade.

nykrindc,

I’ll forego reading Scheuer’s books. From his television appearances, he strikes me as an old-fashioned Arabist and sees Al-Queda as being a reaction to specific US policies as opposed to a countervailing movement born of the modernity that they blame for keeping the Islamic World in its improvished state it is in.

This doesn’t indicate understanding but empathy. So much so that he has essentially advocated that we take AQ’s interest into mind when formulating US foreign policy. I think his empathy is so deep that he also sees America as a paper tiger, what we lack the political will to prosecute the war until there is a full mobilization a la WWII. I guess we won the Cold War by luck, huh. Not only doesn’t he understand AQ but he doesn’t understand his own country.

Anyone advocating that we relinquish our presence in the Middle East and our role to protect the flow of oil that fuels the international economy cannot be taken seriously. For the love of God, he’s appearing on Fox News. How low can you go? (That’s sarcasm, by the way)

Regarding OBL being unable to divide the world into two camps, I wonder if he realizes that people are not buying what he’s selling. After all al-Queda is killing more Muslims than Westerners. Not a winning strategy but then again, I’m not aiming to be the next Caliph. He’s hardly rocking the casbah.

[...] If Aljazeera is a Bush puppet, then the Karl Rove must be behind this! [...]

[...] Complacency isn’t confined to the general public. Joseph J. Ellis, a professor of history at Mount Holyoke College and the author of “His Excellency: George Washington” recently asked whether 9/11 deserves the historical significance it’s achieved. Here’s his answer: . . . where does Sept. 11 rank in the grand sweep of American history as a threat to national security? By my calculations it does not make the top tier of the list, which requires the threat to pose a serious challenge to the survival of the American republic. Here is my version of the top tier: the War for Independence, where defeat meant no United States of America; the War of 1812, when the national capital was burned to the ground; the Civil War, which threatened the survival of the Union; World War II, which represented a totalitarian threat to democracy and capitalism; the cold war, most specifically the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, which made nuclear annihilation a distinct possibility. Sept. 11 does not rise to that level of threat because, while it places lives and lifestyles at risk, it does not threaten the survival of the American republic, even though the terrorists would like us to believe so. Of course, as the threat from terrorism recedes in the public’s mind, it’s replaced by the concern that civil liberties are threatened by actions taken to prevent further terrorist attacks: In the summer of 2002, according to a CNN survey, only 11 percent of Americans thought President Bush’s war on terrorism had restricted civil liberties too much. Now, 38 percent say so– double the number that say he should restrict them more. In December 2001, 64 percent of Americans thought a wartime president should “have the authority to make changes in the rights usually guaranteed by the Constitution.” This month, it was only 36 percent. This swing in the security-versus-freedom pendulum stemming from a perceived lessening of the terrorist threat isn’t surprising; in fact, it’s exactly what should be expected. Memories of 9/11 have faded, so much so that the public now chooses to ignore a warning from Bin Laden that al-Qaeda is preparing a new attack on America: The new operations of al-Qaida has not happened not because we could not penetrate the security measures. It is being prepared and you’ll see it in your homeland very soon . . . This warning didn’t prevent Glenn Greenwald from issuing this specious comparison in a recent post: The total number of Americans killed by Islamic terrorists in the last 5 years — or 10 years — or 20 years — or ever — is roughly 3,500, the same number of deaths by suicide which occur in this country every month. If, in addition to looking backwards instead of forwards, the severity of the terrorist threat is judged by making a quantitative comparison such as this one, the following conclusion logically follows: This is the overarching threat around which we are constructing our entire foreign policy, changing the basic principles of our government, and fundamentally altering both our behavior in the world and the way in which we are perceived. Foremost among those “basic principles of our government” to which Greenwald refers are the NSA’s surveillance activities. [...]