Al-Jazeera has released an audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden in which he warns that al-Qaeda is plotting attacks against America and offers a truce so long as the US leaves Iraq and Afghanistan.
Al-Qaeda has very rarely announced specifics of an attack, which leads me to believe that bin Laden is bluffing. The idea that al-Qaeda could plan and organize a mass-casualty attack with this level of disruption to their network is highly unlikely – and certainly bin Laden’s isolated position makes that even more unlikely. Bin Laden offered a truce once before, specifically to Europe, in April of 2004, shortly after the 3/11 attacks in Madrid.
Bin Laden’s rhetoric is eerily – and intentionally – similar to the rhetoric of the American left, which indicates just how well bin Laden knows the weaknesses of America in this war. His offer of “truce” is almost certainly a hudna – a period where he plans his next move while resting his forces. Bin Laden knows that al-Qaeda is in retreat – Iraqi Sunnis are rejecting them, and the horror of the Jordanian wedding attacks have shown that al-Qaeda no longer represents the Muslim ummah as a whole. Meanwhile, despite the weakness in the polls, President Bush has absolutely no intention of withdrawing US forces until Iraqi forces can take their place – and bin Laden has every reason to fear a capable anti-terrorist force made up of native Arabic speakers from the Gulf region who could infiltrate al-Qaeda far more easily than any Westerner. Such a scenario would be bin Laden’s nightmare scenario and would tear al-Qaeda apart at the seams.
bin Laden’s truce is a false one, and the US will not relent in pushing against al-Qaeda in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. If anything, this offer of hudna is an act of desperation as bin Laden hopes he can stop the US from continuing to fight his organization. With his chief WMD expert dead after a strike in Pakistan, bin Laden is just one slipup away from finding himself at the point of a Hellfire missile. Someone tipped off the CIA to the gathering in Derunta, and bin Laden has to be wondering if he might be next.
For years, conservatives have been condemning Bill Clinton as a failure on terrorism, largely because his missile strike that he hoped would wipe out Osama bin Laden instead took out an aspirin factory. Just this past week, the Bush administration thought they were gonna wipe out Zawahiri with a similar missile strike in Pakistan, and also reportedly failed to take out the intended target. Under the same standard that conservatives apply to Clinton, does this now mean that we can finally declare Bush a failure on terrorism? Just curious.
First of all, you don’t have your facts straight. Clinton hit the al-Shifa factory in the Sudan because it was suspected of being involved in chemical weapons – ironically enough, chemical weapons production involving both Iraq and al-Qaeda – you know, the two things that never, ever, ever had any connection between them? At the same time, he launched cruise missile attacks against al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, which did almost nothing and didn’t come close to hitting anyone of importance.
Secondly, the Derunda strike did take out 3 top al-Qaeda officials, which is 3 more than any of the 1998 strikes ever did.
I’d say “nice try thought”, but really, that argument was dumb even by your standards…