A strange symbiosis

Bin Laden, Bush both want Iraq war to continue

By Don Rose, a Chicago freelance writer and political consultant who has worked for Democrats and Republicans
Published February 5, 2006

A dozen days before the 2006 State of the Union Message, Osama bin Laden reached out from some cave halfway around the world to give the president a much-needed public-relations boost for the second time in about 15 months.

This new appearance by the leader of Al Qaeda came as the president's polling numbers are at a low ebb and he is under serious pressure to pull at least some troops out of Iraq. Bin Laden's earlier appearance helped re-elect Bush.

Bush and bin Laden each will get exactly what they want from the latest message, reinforcing the view that both halves of this odd couple really need each other--and neither wants to quit the other.

The fact is, each plays the role of organizing symbol for the other, strengthening respective political bases. Nothing helps a political leader rally his troops more than having a clearly defined enemy.

The American invasion and occupation of Iraq have done more to discredit the United States worldwide than any other action in our history. From the first shock-and-awe carpet-bombing of Baghdad to the "mission accomplished" speech through the last two years of blood and blundering across that land, most of the world condemned us while more and more of Islam rallied to bin Laden's side.

There are two wars going on in Iraq: a multipronged revolt against the American occupation and a guerrilla-style civil war that is partly ethnic and partly political. Even granting the potential salutary effects of democratic elections, we have not even been able to define a victory in either war.

Rather, the occupation turned Iraq into a new nexus of terror providing a far more fertile training ground and launching pad for terrorists than Afghanistan under the Taliban. The insurgencies in Iraq continue, while worldwide acts of terrorism are on the increase.

All of which enhances the stature of bin Laden, clearly expanding his base.

`Stay the course!'

There can be little doubt that he wants us to remain there--and he wants Bush to keep telling the world that this administration will continue to "Stay the course!"

So why would bin Laden make public an audio clip Jan. 19 saying, among a host of provocative statements (as translated by the BBC), "What prompted me to speak are the repeated fallacies of your President Bush in his comment on the outcome of the U.S. opinion polls, which indicated that the overwhelming majority of you want the withdrawal of the forces from Iraq, but he objected to this desire and said that the withdrawal of troops would send a wrong message to the enemy."

Here and elsewhere in the speech, he blasts Bush and endorses the position of the U.S. peace movement, then--boasting of the insurgents' successes in the guerrilla war--he proceeds to the ultimate threat:

"As for the delay in carrying out similar operations in America, this was not due to failure to breach your security measures. Operations are under preparation, and you will see them on your own ground once they are finished, God willing."

But he later offers, "We do not object to a long-term truce with you on the basis of fair conditions that we respect."

The administration and its right-wing echo chamber seemed to take the speech at face value. They glommed on to it as a vindication of their own "stay the course" position and used it to attack anti-war Democrats as witting tools of the enemy.

An editorial in the Tribune said: "The reaction to the tape Friday in much of the European press was that bin Laden, with his boasts of terror successes in Iraq and promises of more attacks, did a favor for George W. Bush. The president's critics chafe each time he calls Iraq the central battlefield of the war on terror and not, as many of them believe, a diversion from that war. But bin Laden's relentless obsession with Iraq suggests that he and Bush agree: As Iraq goes, so, perhaps, goes that larger war."

Of course.

So why would bin Laden make such a speech at this time? Does he really think he is convincing the American public? Is he nuts?

Of course not.

As author Thomas Friedman often points out, nothing in the Middle East dialogue is as it seems; everything is arced and elliptical and sometimes means exactly the opposite of what it says.

continue >>

Jump to page: 1 2 Next page

Link Here

September 11, 2001-The Day the World Changed

Link Here