Bin Laden Tape: Gloom & Doom (Stratfor)

Stratfor ^ | 1/7/04 | Stratfor

[fourhorsemen]

Very interesting appraisel of the current situation of Al Qaeda.

[Support Free Republic]

Here we go again folks... why not donate now and help get this fundraiser over with!

[U S Army EOD]

How do you say in Arabic, "Gee folks, things just ain't working out like we thought they would".

[Shermy]

Big picture bump.

[MonroeDNA]

Man, when I saw "doom and gloom," I thought of certain freepers.

My bad!

[Shermy]

They were a bit confused.

Saudi/AQ's wished-for enemy is also their best customer.

And the customer is always right...

[CWOJackson]

Last month the level of attacks against the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia escalated sharply and suddenly. I seriously thought civil war had some there finally after all those years of the House of Saud walking a fine line between the fundamentalists and the majority of Saudis.

That seemed to die down very quickly...the Saudis can act quickly and brutality when pressed. I'm wondering just how much damage Al Qaeda suffered in Saudi Arabia.

[BOBTHENAILER]

Al Qaeda has a problem and is searching for a solution.

Analysis: "We're cleanin' Allah's closet.

[expatpat]

Second, it might -- in al Qaeda's mind -- convince the American public that the price of fighting al Qaeda is too high.

These people are stupid -- they need to realize that another attack will only make our resolve stronger, and our vengeance more bloody. If they really want the US public to quit fighting them, they need to quit attacking and threatening us. Then, after a while, the US public will lose interest....

[InterceptPoint]

There is a risk, of course. The Islamic masses might well take the same course that followed Sept. 11: vigorous conversation coupled with inaction, and the American public might want blood instead of withdrawal.

And blood they would get. If al Queda manages to pull off a "Trans 911" attack on the United States the gloves would come off. Both Syria and Iran would be well advised to prepare for war and the manhunt for bin Laden would be intense and would honor no national boundries.

[Keith]

Outstanding analysis...and I think spot on...we must be vigilant as their need for a big splash coincides with our election cycle...

[Southack]

"If they really want the US public to quit fighting them, they need to quit attacking and threatening us. Then, after a while, the US public will lose interest..."

Precisely. War is our strong suit. On the other hand, if Bin Laden comes forward publicly, apologizes, denounces violence, and begs for forgiveness, dissent against our War on Terror would be legion.

At that point Osama could retreat back into the private confines of maddrassas, teaching rampant hate and violence, while all the time preaching love and forgiveness in public. In 20 years we'd be caught off-guard again.

Thus, it is the *peaceful* Osama who threatens us the most. The violent, war-mongering Bin Laden who we all know is a weak paper tiger. We can crush his forces everywhere they mass and every time they are spotted, without exception. In contrast, if Osama manages to move this war *away* from open contests of arms into a public relations debate, we've got trouble.

[KingNo155]

The only thing bin laden is going to do is get more muslims killed!

[BOBTHENAILER]

Very insightful, I hope Osama doesn't read your post.

and I'm saying that in all seriousness

[McGavin999]

The Islamic masses might well take the same course that followed Sept. 11: vigorous conversation coupled with inaction, and the American public might want blood instead of withdrawal.

Might want blood? There's no might about it. The gloves would come completely off.

No, I think Al Qaeda will strike where it thinks there will be no retaliation. I think they will strike france.

[Southack]

I'd give your guess the top odds if I were running a Vegas casino.

[Billthedrill]

The Islamic masses might well take the same course that followed Sept. 11: vigorous conversation coupled with inaction, and the American public might want blood instead of withdrawal.

I can absolutely guarantee the latter. And that would inevitably result in this:

Al Qaeda knows that the culminating battle of the war will be waged in northwestern Pakistan when U.S. forces go after Osama bin Laden and his command cells.

...as I think it will. Al-Qaeda overplayed its hand in the Saudi and the Pakistan bombings, the former to tell their erstwhile paymasters that the deal had changed and the gloves were off, the latter to forestall American intervention in northwestern Pakistan. Neither succeeded, and in fact served to hasten that intervention rather than forestall it. If Special Forces operations haven't already commenced there they will very soon.

On a peripheral but no less important note, I do think that the Iranians are playing for control of the nascent Iraq government. They should be careful what they wish for. The Shi'ites in Iraq are co-religionists, to be sure, but they are also not necessarily pro-Persian, and there are significant Iranian anti-government guerrilla forces in Iraq at the moment as well. The Iranian mullahs are playing for control of little brother to the west; I wonder if they've considered that little brother has his own game and might just be playing for control...of them.

[blackbart.223]

The key, at this time, is to knock Bin Ladin off. Others may follow but at least we are rid of him.

[Skywarner]

Excellent analysis by Stratfor.

[Shermy]

I agree.

And Osama's last did sound "gloomy"...a bit frustrated, and at least tempered in his aspirations

No Timor, etc.

I wonder where Stratfor thinks Osama is. My bet, some lodging in Iran tightly controlled by some radical segment of the Iranian govt.