Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Any nation that does not attack us will not be attacked.
This was widely seen as a plea for detente -- i.e., Osama begging us to cut him a break.
Putting it most clearly, Wretchard wrote: "It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out."
Indeed. And now, with this new tape, we begin to get an idea of what alternate path Bin Laden may have in mind for Al Qaeda....
An audio tape purportedly by Osama bin Laden praises gunmen who attacked a U.S. consulate in Saudi Arabia on Dec. 6 and warns Saudi rulers they could be toppled like the Shah of Iran. [...] The speaker on the tape blasted Saudi rulers as "corrupt Zionists" who were stooges of the United States and whose rule was "an extension of the crusader wars against Muslims."
He called for the ousting of the royal family as a precursor to any political change and derided efforts by the government to initiate reform a key demand by Washington.
This is not entirely unexpected. I'd call your attention to something about which I posted almost exactly one year ago. In Al Qaeda's magazine--yes, of course they have a magazine--The Voice of Jihad, Al Qaeda leaders discussed to an ongoing debate within Al Qaeda, synopsized as follows:
For the past several months, Al-Qa'ida operatives have been debating the organization's attacks in Saudi Arabia. There has been no dispute over striking American or Western targets around the world - only regarding attacks within the kingdom. Furthermore, while some favor striking only at "Crusader" namely American targets in Saudi Arabia, others are willing to include the Saudi regime and security forces as targets.
The opposition to attacks inside Saudi Arabia, and specifically against the country's regime and security forces, is not based on religious considerations. The arguments against these attacks focuses on tactical matters, such as the importance of Saudi society's identification with and funding of Al-Qa'ida and the implications of such attacks on the potential of recruiting new members from Saudi Arabia.
But....but....but Saudi Arabia supported the 9/11 attack against the US! They're our enemies! Surely, they must be on the side of Al Qaeda!
Well, no. As "Louis Attiya Allah (an alias), one of Al-Qa'ida's leading ideologues" notes....
"Al-Qa'ida is absolutely opposed to [being subjected to secular laws], and states: The world order must be removed from the region and defeated, first of all militarily. Then, the Islamic state must be reestablished, in accordance with the Islamic regime. This means that we will control our fate, rule over ourselves, and control our resources. More generally, we will rebuild our lives according to our foundations and our principles. The experience [of an Islamic state] is real, and it existed 1,300 years ago. The peoples of the East ruled themselves and lived according to their own rules long before the West was in the region. There is nothing to prevent the revival of these rules, which are based on the Koran and the Sunna
And, specifically, on Saudi Arabia...
"These countries ... were forced upon the Muslim peoples, and their survival is linked to the Western forces that created them. Therefore, the general aim of the Jihad and the Mujahideen is to strike at the foundations and infrastructure of the Western colonialist program or at the so-called world order ... Their defeat means, simply, the elimination of all forms of nation-states, such that all that remains is the natural existence familiar to Islam the regional entity under the great Islamic state." [...] "The Jihad movement in the Arabian Peninsula will not be stopped by the borders of the so-called Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, because the entity called by this name is an artificial entity that has no religious foundation."
One year ago, Al Qaeda believed they should work against the United States, rather than working to destabilize the Arab regimes. One year ago, Al Qaeda was focusing outward, rather than inward. One year ago, Al Qaeda believed in coexistence with the House of Saud.
One year ago, Al Qaeda believed the Caliphate could best be established by detente with the House of Saud, and War against the United States.
Today, Al Qaeda seeks detente with the US, and war against the House of Saud.
Today, Al Qaeda seeks detente with the US, and war against the House of Saud. What changed? And why now?
Can it be the military ass-whipping we gave them, not to mention the more far-reaching political ones we're dealing via free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq?
OK as far as it goes but isn't this really a case where Osama bin Laden is simply being his own press agent and speaking to current events. If there is a successful attack by the Crestians against the Russians and he thinks the Islamic world is talking about it, he will address this. If there is a successful action by Kasmiri terrorists and he thinks the Islamic world is talking about it, he will address this.
He has learned that the United States, despite its weak responses over the years to various attacks, its getting itself mired in legal arguments with itself about what actions it can take, its dependancy on world public opinion, its decadent (hedonistic?) lifestyle and often wishy-washy leadership, is not so decadent, so weak-willed, so incapable of robust response as to cave in to the threat of a terrorist attack. With enormous resources, the US can do quite a bit.
Even getting an appeaser into its chief office, wouldn't save Al Queda if they launched a destructive attack on the US.
The US no longer looks like a soft target, ripe for the plucking. He knows that he can hurt the US, but then the US will come looking to KILL him (and if he does enough damage, we WON'T CARE who gets in the way).
He has realized (a bit too late) that the US would have left him alone if he mostly left the US alone. Easier and possibly safer to try topple the Saudi Royal family.
What's wrong with you people? Offer the guy detente! In fact, have the "rogue" CIA go behind Bush's back to make a deal with UBL to off the House of Saud, and then off the MFer himself! No one even has to know... hell, we could use AQ against Iran. In their culture, enemies team up against a third enemy all the time. That's why they can't go anywhere. Too bad the CIA can't play the deception game with anyone except our own government...
Nothing changed. The emphasis, the propaganda, shifted slightly. But the old goals and the master strategy remain unchanged -- as you will realize if you read Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map (brilliant) and America's Secret War by Friedman.
I agree - nothing has changed in this last audiotape. It's "second verse, same as the first." Instituting an Islamist government in Saudi Arabia has always been pretty much at the top of OBL's list. See here, for example.
Yes, guys, I know that OBL has always seen Saudi Arabia as the logical, inevitable base of the Caliphate.
But he's changing his tactics, and advocating a strategy of more limited goals, focusing on Saudi Arabia, rather than reactionary attacks against the rest of the world.
Orbicular=circular=circumlocution="beating around the bush"
Is the AQ sheethead actually advocating a return to a 1300 year-old culture? This all points to the theory that I read somewhere that Islam has a gargantuan case of "Western envy." That is, they know that they once were a cultured, intelligent people, but are now little more than cave-dwelling third-worlders. They refuse to acknowledge that it is that selfsame culture (i.e. Islam, itself) which has caused them to be what they are today.
Just as with American politicians - moreso, given the infrequency of his appearances - it is significant not only what OBL's overall themes are but also which of them he chooses to stress. This could be disinformation, of course, but it appears that his emphasis has shifted. This may also be a sign that we're starting to get more useful cooperation against him from the Saudis.
Replacing the current Saudi regime is actually a long-term goal we share with bin Laden, although of course we have something rather different in mind to replace them. But the strategic landscape of the region and the difficulty of uprooting the Saudis always meant they were the logical last stop for us. The fact that OBL has put them at the top of his own list would seem to indicate that we're right to keep to that prioritization.
"But he's changing his tactics, and advocating a strategy of more limited goals, focusing on Saudi Arabia, rather than reactionary attacks against the rest of the world."
More nonsense.
He says: "Take jihad [holy war] to stop [the Americans] getting hold of [the oil]. Concentrate your operations on the oil, in particular in Iraq and the Gulf."
That is, I think, part and parcel with the internal (to the Middle East) shift in tactics and/or emphasis. Such attacks would put as much pressure on the Mid-East regimes as it would on the US.
Geography. And battle lines. They brought the war onto our turf. We not only pushed them out, we hit several of their strongholds. They aren't ready to surrender yet, so they fight where the battle lines are right now. Saudi Arabia is a good place for that. Alternatively, look for the symbols. They took out the twin towers, symbols of the United States, capitalism, and freedom. We pushed them out of the site of the last major victory for the mujahadeen. We pushed into the middle-eastern nation most defiant of US power and took out the leader. They had to fight us there. While they've been game, they're losing, and the world knows they're losing. To remain viable, they need to add some luster to their movement. Gaining control of 2 of the 3 most holy sites in Islam would go a long toward establishing the legitimacy of their actions.
Of the last Wahhabi vs. Wahhabi 'terror' in Saudi Arabia, Michael Ledeen said:
"The globalization of terrorism is an undoubted success for bin Laden. It is sufficiently serious and frightening to induce (Saudi) Prince Abdullah according to credible secret sources to negotiate with bin Laden a secret agreement to prevent the fall of the monarchy, based on their common hated of America and Israel." According to Allam[Magdi Allam, the assistant editor of the Italian paper Corriere della Sera], that agreement explains Abdullah's statement, following the May 1 terror attack, blaming "Zionism" for terrorism in Saudi Arabia. Other sources tell Allam the same thing I have heard, namely that the Saudi royal family has prepared a detailed plan to run abroad if the situation gets much worse, and that knowledge of the royal family's intentions is a major component in the recent rise in the price of oil. Meanwhile, the Saudis are buying insurance by supporting the terrorists in Iraq."
These attacks, and this tape, are just Osama's way of asking his Wahhabi brother, Prince Abdullah for more cash to kill more Americans (and Thais, and Sudanese, Russians, Indians, etc.). Hell probably get it.
If there are attacks on Saudi oil fields, those attacks will be against foreign workers, not the actual infrastructure. Saudi oil provides bin Laden, al Qaeda's Saudi paramilitaries and their Royal benefactors with their income. Why would any of these Islamists shoot themselves in the foot?
Leaving this unstable Wahhabi cult in control of the world's oil supply endangers everyone.
I disagree with your conclusions here. UBL's original impetus for turning to terrorism was a disagreement with the Saudi government, he's had major issues with them for a long time. The area is very important to him, as it is for many Muslims, due to the location of the sacred cities Mecca and Medinah. He has long railed against the Saudi government, especially in 1990-1991 after they rejected his plan for the defense of Saudi Arabia from the Iraqis and let the Americans come in.
His ideology is defensive in nature and always has been. He intends to be a vanguard that awakes the greater ummah (whole of the Muslim people) to abandon materialism and fight for a Salafist future for the Islamic world.
A major distinguishing factor with Bin Laden is that he singled out the US for its support of the apostate regimes in the Middle East, which united disparate factions for a single cause. His problem with the US isn't its "freedom" or that it is not Muslim, his problem stems from the support of regimes that are counter to his ideology.
It's incredibly foolish and even dangerous to think that this tape represents a sea change in the general Al'Qaeda ideology and to claim some sort of victory from it.
Slow down, Abe. I don't think it represents a "sea change", or a "victory". I think it represents a tactical shift.
Clearly, Al Qaeda has always had a goal of a Middle East, unified under the Caliphate. Until more recently, though, they seemed to regard the House of Saud as something with which they could live....for awhile. It seems like that truce may be off, and--considering Bin Laden's recent statements--they may be less interested in incurring our wrath, and more interested in securing Saudi Arabia first.
I generally agree with this statement:
His problem with the US isn't its "freedom" or that it is not Muslim, his problem stems from the support of regimes that are counter to his ideology.
This jihad is not about whatever OBL says it's about, it's about power. Like all other movements throughout history, it is motivated by the desire for power. Jihad and the caliphate and the Great Satan and whatever, all that is just new wallpaper over the same old plot: guy wants power, guy finds a way to take some on the cheap, guy carries out his plans with some other people to whom he has promised a share of the power.
Changing the enemy is just putting yet another coat of paint on man's hoary quest for power over his fellow man.
"It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate."
Which he talked about where, exactly? Direct quote, please, from a speech.
"There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia."
Um, I was under the impression that he characterized the expulsion of the Moors from Andalusia as the kind of thing that should never happen again. (Read the history of that, and you might be inclined to agree, actually. It was a pogrom conducted by religious fundamentalists against a reasonably civilized, more technologicallly advanced society.) Again, do you have a quote from a Bin Laden speech where he talks about the return of Andalusia to some Global Caliphate Co-Prosperity Sphere?
"There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world."
Prophesied by UBL where, exactly? Direct quote from speech transcript, please.
"He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians."
In fact, U.S. military policy in Iraq, Rummy's ruminations notwithstanding, still emphasize "force protection" above all. I don't think you're going to find many U.S. GIs going on the kinds of suicide missions conducted routinely by the insurgents, because, heck, let's face it - somebody else's march to democracy just ain't worth it to most of them, when there's so often an 80% desertion rate among the Iraqi contingent before one of those expeditions reaches the battle zone. In any case, if UBL talked about the enemy as cowards, well, that's a stump speech for rallying his troops. Now that his troops are so incredibly rallied, and killing Americans almost every day, to natter any further about it would be a tad redundant, don't you think?
"He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire"
Nice figure of speech there, but is it his figure of speech? Direct quote please. "I saw it some where" won't wash.
"...but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out."
Wow, thanks for that bit of wishful thinking. It really made my day. Jihadists are conducting suicide bombings on a weekly basis in Iraq, and you're saying UBL is just a wee bit tired and cowed, because his movement is on the run? Yeah, they're on the run. They're on the run to their next i.e. roadside emplacement.
Which he talked about where, exactly? Direct quote, please, from a speech.
OBL--and Al Qaeda, in general--has long had as its goal the Caliphate, believing that the Caliphate is the only proper form of government. This is consistent with the intense Wahabbi opposition to even other forms of Islam, much less other religions.
OBL noted that the goal of Al Qaeda was to "unite all Muslims and establish a government which follows the rule of the caliphs."
re: Andalusia - he calls it "the tragedy of Andalusia", referring to the reversal of Muslim power in the 15th century.
re: "running" - he refers to the US tendency to not accept losses. To give up when encountered with minimal resistance. That derives from the post-Vietnam risk-aversion that was US policy for so long. Not to dangerous individual missions - clearly, we always want to give our troops the most reasonable amount of protection. But that's different than being unwilling to risk lives for a strategic goal.
If your argument is that all those IEDs represent a powerful, motivated Al Qaeda.....well, I won't argue. But building roadside bombs is quite a few orders of magnitude less threatening than the pre-9/11 incarnation.
