Of course, there can be no truce with Al Qaeda. If he offers and accepts as much, a new more radical competiotor will emerge to take its place and harass us, our people, our overseas commercial enterprises, the free flow of oil, and other important interests. This is the chimera of these transnational organization; unlike grounded and physically identifiable nation-states, nothing can give the US any real security with respect to terrorists other than their elimination and the severe punishment of their weak link, nation-state sponsors.
One also most note a tone of desperation and weakness in his message. Bin Laden’s previous messages were varied, but most were cock-sure and threatening. Bin Laden’s March 1997 statement declaring war on the US said, “We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation. For this and other acts of aggression and injustice, we have declared jihad against the US, because in our religion it is our duty to make jihad so that God’s word is the one exalted to the heights and so that we drive the Americans away from all Muslim countries.”
Today, he says, almost sheepishly, “We do not object to a long-term truce with you on the basis of fair conditions that we respect. We are a nation to which God has disallowed treachery and lying. In this truce, both parties will enjoy security and stability and we will build Iraq and Afghanistan which were destroyed by the war.” While I don’t think the first person who offers to settle a dispute is always showing weakenss, this is a far cry from the we’ll run them out of town talk of years past. He is clearly concerned about US staying power in Iraq and Afghanistan, and one must also conclude that he must be concerned about his own organization’s failure to impose a major cost on us since 9/11. He’s either hedging his bets, making a mistake, or spreading some misinformation to compel us to lower our guard. His resort to “verbal terrorism” in the absence of real attacks suggests an organization less capable, less confident, and less threatening than before. It also suggests to me an organization in competition with other organization that feels obliged to shore up its support and prestige in the Arab world by showing that it’s still around and its leader is still on the lam. In that respect, the visual imagery of bin Laden addressing the US like and equal, and the substane of that address, are at odds with one another.
Subscribe To This Feed
I don’t know how al Qaeda offering “truce” to its mortal enemy and nemesis will “shore up its support and prestige in the Arab world.” Offering truce to Europe is one thing. But America? It’s like the Pope asking for truce with the Devil. I don’t see how it comes off as anything but a show of utter weakness.
I can hear Christopher Hitchens cheering gustily. This tape is truly some good news.
I dunno. I think OBL offering truce is worse for his image than him on tape giving a boilerplate “death to the infidels” speech, or even reciting a recipe for lamb stew. If I thought that America was the symbol of evil, why would I flock to a douche that is asking for truce?
I’m still trying to figure out where the strategic advantage is for him, either politically, culturally, or militarily. Offering truce to the Europeans made sense. If the point of this tape is to make sure everyone knows OBL is still alive, then they should have cut the truce part out and only given us the rest. But they didn’t. At best, it would seem they think that the American people want a “truce,” which is not the case.