The Story So Far

What brings this topic to mind is today's CNN blather. I actually managed to tune in for the last few minutes of a piece I actually wanted to see and managed to learn something about developing human females in the meantime, so it wasn't a total loss. But after that, Heidi Collins and Peter Bergen had an interesting discussion on 360 about Osama bin Laden.

I hope to pull up the transcript when it's posted (I'm guessing Monday, but the weekend might bring a pleasant surprise.) Heidi, sub-hosting for Anderson Cooper, asked CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen about the significance of the notion that Osama bin Laden is calling the shots for Al Qaeda again.

The Question At Hand

Frankly, I hadn't been paying close enough attention. As far as I can tell, the question implied the following:

• What is the significance or credibility of the idea that a man rumored to have been blown up by a US missile, who is known in life to have health problems requiring problematic management, is of unusually imposing stature and thus will stick out in the crowd somewhat has managed to evade American pursuit long enough to actively rebuild broken connections and orchestrate a rumored strike against the United States in a comparatively short period?

So the first place to start is with the obvious, as nearly-hopeless as the question seems.

What do you think? Is Osama alive and running the show?

Well according to the latest punditry from CNN it seems that the Abu Zarqawi there is now in competition with OBL for the leadership of the Islamic revolution. I personally don’t think Usama was really in power, I think he was much more a figurehead then anything else. We give too much credit to Usama, he doesn’t do much other then give the odd rhetorical responses. I do think that Usama is alive, but I don’t know under what capacity. Al Qaeda is now a term that is now descriptive of a movement, not an organization.

OBL's M.O. was always charismatic, self-promoting, vocal and visual. Present recording and distribution technology (which Osama embraced) would enable a living OBL to perpetuate propaganda and recruiting vital to his organization, securely from anywhere.

At Tora-Bora, the USAF conducted a perhaps too-devastating campaign (at least for those who would exploit OBL as a personification of Islamist resistance, and arch-villain for easy marketing to the simpler segment of the American public). Those strikes flattened entire mountaintops in the most intensive airstrikes since Vietnam, rendering wide swathes of terrain and caves unsearchable, at least without efforts comparable to gold mining. Like many other necessary follow-ups to the US Afghanistan intervention, US leadership apparently did not see this as desireable. There are no big digs under way, unearthing, shoring up and sifting through the unstable remnants of those caves in the mountains around Tora-Bora.

But there is scant reason for the effort: After the rolling thunder ceased, the man who would never be shut up, whose stock in trade was defiance in the face of the fiercest Soviet and American might, was never verifiably heard from or seen again. He's dead.

After the rolling thunder ceased, the man who would never be shut up, and was defiant in the face of Soviet and American might was never verifiably heard from or seen again. The only reasonable conclusion is that he's dead.

Are you sure he was never heard from again? I am pretty sure that UBL had communications post-TB to Al Jez and the gang. Also I don’t understand why the US would threaten Pakistan if they didn’t get UBL by November ’04? I not am 100% sure what is going on with UBL.

Nothing verifiable to my knowledge came from OBL, and of course every little peep loosely attributable to him was ejaculated all over the media- but it was garbled and uncharacteristic stuff unaccompanied by Osama's trademark videos.

US pressure on Pakistan likely took into consideration that Al-Qaeda is not about one man. It is the domestic American war of ideas that focuses on villainous personalities, but shooting war obviously involves controlling borders. Interestingly/ominously, Pakistan's tenuous (& nuclear-armed!) Musharraf regime could not weather overt US military activity, so it wasn't attempted.

As it turned out, Pakistani government operations in the tribal areas also proved too risky to the regime, and so action only amounted to brief skirmishes, not the establishment of border control. A navigable and familiar exit for Osama from Afghanistan was always there, but this does nothing to explain OBL's signal going dead.

There are of course wild theories of Osama's secret capture and detention, which assume much about US and allied covert capabilities involving such a sensational event: Such an action would involve far too many people to keep quiet in an apparatus now seething with leaks in the wake of prison abuses, illegal detentions, etc. Putting OBL on ice would be far too complex an operation to have likely success, considering transition from combat and capture to international transportation, debriefing, and covert detention all in absolute secrecy. And then the political payoff would be stunted by sticky legal wickets if it were later decided to go public and hold a trial. Not only could many untoward anecdotes about past partnerships with the US be revealed, a capture kept in secret would provide Osama's legal defense with grist to chug on for years in almost any court. There is no net gain in keeping Osama locked away in secret. Neither is there advantage over presenting the villain in chains, in executing Osama in secret.

So, we have no Osama in custody, and no Osama at large, running his mouth. That means no Osama.

Nothing verifiable to my knowledge came from OBL, and of course every little peep loosely attributable to him was ejaculated all over the media- but it was garbled and uncharacteristic stuff unaccompanied by Osama's trademark videos.

I am almost ready to agree with that. It's not just the tale of Osama's demise at a missile's end, but the lack of a definitive presence that suggests so strongly to me that he's dead.

An interesting thing that occurs to me, though, as I mull this topic, is that from the outset, I've been of the opinion that we in the West take too Western a view of Osama when attempting to figure his behavior. If it comes down to it, he will send memorized messages by human courier on foot in dusty rags if he has to. I haven't had much cause to think about this lately, but as even I shake my head and sigh at the pundits' orgy about whether Al Qaeda will strike before the election and what effect such a strike will have. In the US, in case our international neighbors hadn't guessed or--have they particularly strong stomachs--surmised from actually following American "news," the only acceptable comparison to what Al Qaeda may or may not be planning before the election is the Spanish incident wherein our analysts all seem tacitly convinced that the ruling party would have survived the election were it not for the bombing.

It is entirely possible that Osama has been whispering in the background the whole time, but specifically because of the way the administration dangles his name about I'm more and more convinced that he's dead. "Osama," such as he may be in the American press, is behaving in far too American a manner, and is being analyzed according to standards blindingly persuaded by Western values.

Now, it seems to me--and this is admittedly speculative--that if anything substantive were to be going on, the administration would not be playing so close to the vest. There's a bluff afoot, and our man Arbusto is deeper in the hoopla than his eyebrows can afford. And while we cannot conclude by the mere presence of an obvious bluff that Osama is dead, the Bush façade becomes in combination with the lack of any definitive signal or sighting a convincing suggestion that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Personally, I would prefer Osama to be alive; I mislike severely the notion of this big a wag.

Transcript Source: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/)
Transcript Link: http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/09/acd.00.html
Program Title: "Anderson Cooper - 360°" (Rush transcript)
Broadcast Date: July 9, 2004

A rush transcript of the CNN program in question is available. Smell the fear:

COLLINS: . . . . Even though he is the most sought after fugitive in the world, Osama bin Laden and his deputies are still hard at work trying to attack the United States. That's what U.S. intelligence agencies believe. Earlier I spoke with CNN terrorism analyst Peter Bergen about these latest reports. He's in Kabul, Afghanistan.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COLLINS: Peter, if Osama bin Laden is possibly directing operations again, what does that tell you about al Qaeda? Is it possible that they have reverted back to that familiar vertical operation and vertical organization?

PETER BERGEN, CNN MILITARY ANALYST: Certainly post the war in Afghanistan, al Qaeda took a huge hit. And the command and control that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri his deputy, exercise over al Qaeda was interfered with. But they remain sort of the ideological leaders of this movement and bin Laden's statements have led to attacks against American economic interests, against coalition partners in the Iraq war. And now there seems to be indications that Ayman al- Zawahiri and bin Laden have personally authorized some kind of attack against American interests, timed for the U.S. election in November.

So that does indicate that al Qaeda remains a -- to some degree a radical organization capable of command or control from the top.

COLLINS: And it raises several questions actually, Peter. I mean, if in fact they are communicating and directing some type of organization, operation here, how are they communicating possibly?

BERGEN: Well, the intelligence officials believe they communicate by courier. They say bin Laden is not using any kind of satellite phone, any kind of electronic communications, any kind of radio, anything that could be traced, they're not using.

So they're communicating by courier.

COLLINS: We had a huge element of surprise September 11 as well as in Spain. But now with this credible information that you just mentioned, there is at least a vague timeline of what could be this spectacular attack that we've been talking about before the November elections. Does that sound like al Qaeda to you?

BERGEN: Well, it is certainly a departure. We haven't had -- usually there is an -- you know, the element of surprise is as you mentioned 9/11, but also the embassy attacks in Africa, the USS Cole, the Madrid attacks, you also mentioned that these were all very surprising.

This would not be a surprising attack. There is a sort of timeline here as you have indicated. So that's sort of a change. But there is another thing that's coming up I want to point out, Heidi, which is bin Laden called for a truce with the members of the coalition in Iraq. And that truce is going to expire sometime around July 15.

So this is another example of some sort of timeline. I would anticipate attacks against British and Italian targets either in Britain originally or in other places around the world.

Source: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/09/acd.00.html)

At any rate, this is the discussion that brought the present topic to mind.

Smell the fear.

As a personal note, I think the thing about the War on Terror that bugs me the most is that despite it all--or perhaps because of it all--the terrorists seem to be winning. And that's just unacceptable.
____________________

• Collins, Heidi and Peter Bergen. "Fallout from Flawed Intelligence." Anderson Cooper 360°. July 9, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/09/acd.00.html

As a personal note, I think the thing about the War on Terror that bugs me the most is that despite it all--or perhaps because of it all--the terrorists seem to be winning.
And you seem always to be wrong.

That doesn't bug me. Quite the contrary.

Carrying your imaginations to their 'logical' extremes, if the USA is the world's biggest "terrorist" than what really have we to fear from other lesser ones and their local enablers?

The seemingly most pronounced, loudest, invariably most reasoned amongst us automatically trumps all, no?

Just the simple fact of having Homeland Security means the terrorists are winning. The terrorists don't even have to do a thing anymore, but so long as we're spending billions of dollars to "watch ourselves" above the norm which is basically the same as being terrorized, they're winning.

- N

Whoa, I wasn't aware of Mr. G until now. Been looking at his posts, some of the threads he has started. Gee, here is an ardent neoconservative with all the desire to equate things to a struggle between left and right and the temerity to attack subjects, people and this forum altogethor because it appears as unfairly biased towards a certain "class." My use of that term is basically because I just watched Thomas Frank interviewed on NOW by Moyers and the observation was made that we do have a class war though discussion of such openly was shunned though used to attack anyone who brought up issues of disparity, wages, health insurance, etc. The ruse is used that discussion of class war is class war. Technically I don't believe that "left" and "right" are descriptive terms for the classes involved in the class war but rather just obfuscation of reality. The real struggle is hidden by the simplifications.

There is the neocon fallacy, that free and unbridled competition leads to sound results, that might makes right, the most ardent SOB in a dog eat dog world is the sole arbitrator of truth. Interesting, Mr. G.

Incidentally, Thomas Frank is the author of the recent book "What's the Matter with Kansas?" where he tried to understand why the poorest county in the United States voted predominantly Republican. He found that cultural issues trumped economic issues. Welfare of life was sacrificed for traditional cultural values. Anti-abortion, anti-flag burning, anti-evolution teaching in the schools, these belief related subjects actually got the population to vote against their own economic self interests. Thomas Frank seems to paint the predicament (not just for Kansas but as he said on NOW "What's the Matter with America?") as a suicidal drive by deeply disturbed people. I am reminded of the book "Data Smog" by David Shenk where he warns something akin to argument becoming the winner of debates, not resolution of issues.

It is interesting to see the great leaps in logic and conclusions from sentence to sentence. The tenacity of the fantasies of the disaffected that hold them to policies against their own self interests is simply amazing.

I ramble. I didn't vote in this poll but you can assume that when and if I do, I'd select the last option. I seem to be getting more and more into the habit of assuming I know very little even after I've looked at things so I reserve judgement and try to weigh evidence one way or the other rather than have any firm conclusions, at least that is what I'm trying to do now to ever greater extent, IMHO.

Carrying your imaginations to their 'logical' extremes, if the USA is the world's biggest "terrorist" than what really have we to fear from other lesser ones and their local enablers?

If I understand the war party and the frightened ones correctly, the difference is that it's Americans being "terrorized."

And, frankly, I don't need to ask the war party. The primary difference between a terrorist receiving American support and a terrorist receiving American scorn is a matter of whether or not someone agrees with American politics. That's the obvious testament from American history.

Is it really that difficult to figure out? People are greedy, and draw narrow classifications like "us" and "them." When people look around and see their own "us" dying and burning, suddenly what was good enough for the goose is not good for the gander.

No. I'm sorry Tiassa, that's not right.

Well, it was a silly question I was trying to answer. When people like G ask such nonsensical questions, sometimes we just have to do our best to figure out what the hell they're talking about.

So what's right, Howie?

Looks like Howie is out to grab some of that silliness spotlight. ;)

http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gifhttp://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gifhttp://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

It doesn't matter if bin Laden is dead or not. The worldwide intefadeh that he jump-started is now self-sustaining. He has crafted a cause, which would appear to involve a pan-Islamic struggle for fundamentalist domination of states across Africa and Asia, with a shorter-term goal of overthrowing the Saudi monarchy and bloodying American forces until they withdraw. If bin Laden is dead, others will provide what little leadership (really none) is necessary. I imagine that most cells must and do operate independently, like the French resistance in 1939-44.

He has more value to both the Bush Administration and al-Qaeda as a shadowy figure in the Afghan hills than as either a dead martyr or a POW. Just think of how Saddam's image has been deflated after his appearance in court last week.

Yes I don’t think that its really all that relevant if UBL is dead or not, I’ve always maintained that the US should not tell anyone that she has killed or captured UBL. I readily admit there is a big problem with that, first the positive; should the US keep the fate of UBL a secret that should avoid inflaming the Islamic world even further, but to the negative; should the US keep it a secret, the president can continue to manipulate the population with a proto-fascist zeal for fear.

the terrorists seem to be winning

For the myopic masses huddled around their TV screens, that may very well be the facade.

Don't fret though - the rest of us will save your sorry ass, in spite of yourself.

You'll be fine - just switch channels to Oprah.

Oh, do tell.

alive and kicking just waiting to strike back at those american assholes

Mod note: I hope your talking from his prespective?

Whether he's alive or dead, calling the shots or not, one thing is a fact: it pays for an incumbent to have the voter-base afraid. Fear in a them or an other is likely counted on and orchestrated (at least to some extent) by the Bush admin.

wheres Osama??????

http://ww0w.frontsteps.com/creations/1001/87/index.php?t=1090849552