After listening most of the day to news commentators about this latest missive from Abu Hamza al Muhajir, a few things come to mind and I'd like to get further thoughts about it.
First of all- it seems strange that they would publicly announce defeat in terms of mentioning an actual number of losses. This is a group of arrogant ego maniacs. Why would they want to put that kind of information out there? I realize the obvious, but rarely is there anything obvious with this group of murderers.
Secondly- I find it odd that he called for scientists to join their ranks. (bio-chem, nuke.) Wearin' the tinfoil here most likely, and I could be way far off and reading too much into it, but it sounds more like a signal to me than an actual call for recruits.
Thirdly- the mention of the blind sheik. Was this not one of the battle rallying cries for 9-11? Why are they bringing him up now?
Any thought or ponderings appreciated.
-Heg
1) As mentioned earlier, either the part about "4,000 foreign fighters" being killed is a mistranslation and all the stories are just repeating it, or it is a correct translation but is so factually incorrect and, as you point out, jarringly out of place for a jihadi to say, that there is probably more to it than appears on the surface. Even though we don't do body counts like Vietnam, the kill ratio taking into account all the engagements since 2003 is probably at least 10 to 1. So you would need to add a zero at least. Roughly 4,000 killed is an accurate number for our side (all coalition forces), but even they would know how ridiculously low a number that would be for their casualties. They don't have any interest in putting a number on their own losses. Also, they do not consider themselves "foreign fighters". So it is important to look more closely at what the context of the claim actually is.
2) Al Masri was with al Qaeda when they were testing WMD in Afghanistan back in the late 90s. This is like putting out a call for pilots right before September 11. They already had pilots then. They already have trained WMD operatives and access to experts now (and have for years). Zarqawi ran their worldwide operation, and this guy ran the international network for him.
3) He is pursuing larger overarching objectives for al Qaeda than simply operations inside Iraq. He (along with Zarqawi and the al Qaeda-Iraq leadership) was given the order by UBL to prepare operations inside the U.S. roughly 18 months ago. After all, he was the head of international operations. They are just reiterating their grievance list as a pretext for further attacks and hostage taking inside Iraq . . . and even attacks and hostage taking here. Naming the sheik is simply calling the shot - - establishing a pretext for reciprocal action (abductions of Americans in Iraq). I think the group caught in Canada a few months ago was talking about abducting and beheading the Prime Minister.
Remember that back in 2002/2003 our military uncovered videotapes of them practicing both the abduction or assassination of political leaders (I think the scenario was set on a golf course with Senators) and practice runs of them storming an elementary school (they also found evidence of specific targeting).
However, I don't think these types of attacks/abductions would be stand-alone. They didn't plot and plan for 5 years to generate two-digit, or at best, three digit casualty figures when the bar they have set for themselves is 4-digit casualties or more (3,000 on 9/11). However, high level abductions could occur in the context and confusion of a major WMD attack (either inside Iraq or here). But not by themselves as stand-alone attacks. They probably need to hit 5-digits at a minimum, possibly 6 to be able to claim success, so the central attacks will have to be WMD. And there will likely be simultaneity and phased attacks (the principles of "shock and awe" used against us as on 9/11).
The object is to compound the effect of the attacks. For instance, stolen emergency vehicles can not only be used to convey explosives (as has been a post-9/11 fear), but could be used in the aftermath of an attack to abduct high value targets.
The 4,000 figure is possibly part of setting the bar or "calling the shot" for casualty figures of a future attack (whether here, or in Iraq, or both). It would be the bare minimum they would need to exceed the 3,000 of 9/11. But I expect they will try for something which achieves an effect of at least an order or two of greater magnitude. Hence this call out to Saddam's "nuclear mujahadeen" is more like the beginning of a political speech when the speaker recognizes important members of the audience who are already in place than a call for volunteers.