Slate's Bizbox
fighting words: A wartime lexicon.

Al-Qaida Is LosingThere's desperation in Osama's voice.

By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2006, at 1:31 PM ET

I once hypothesized that Osama Bin Laden might be dead. The induction went like this: Proof of life is easy to furnish, but some of the tapes allegedly showing him could easily have been cobbled from earlier releases. Ergo, it mattered to al-Qaida to demonstrate that he was alive. Yet they lacked the ability to demonstrate it. Furthermore, Bin Laden used to be a highly loquacious man, pronouncing on everything from East Timor to Iraq, and seemed at a crucial juncture to have gone quiet.

This reasoning proved inadequate when he popped up during the last U.S. election and made a series of contemporary references, mainly (and ill-advisedly) drawn from Michael Moore's dreadful Fahrenheit 9/11. And we are now assured that the latest audiotape delivered to Al Jazeera has been authenticated also. If we suppose this to be true, then it nonetheless seems to be further evidence that al-Qaida is, as I argued last week, facing a very serious crisis.

Shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, there were arrogant and megalomaniac statements from men like Suleiman Abu-Ghaith, spokesman for al-Qaida, saying that this "storm" of violence would not cease falling, and warning all Muslims living in the West to avoid air travel and tall buildings. Then there came all kinds of bluster about how Iraq would be turned into a sea of fire if one coalition foot was allowed across the border. Then there was a long silence. And then the truce offers began, of which the second, delivered in a somewhat thin and reedy voice, was last week's. (The first was a truce offer to Europeans only, offering a separate peace, and went nowhere, as might easily have been predicted.)

The conditions for this latest truce are of course impossible as well. All one needs, in order to earn Bin Laden's mercy, is to give up Afghanistan and Iraq. But this raises a more intriguing question. Why are formerly triumphalist jihadists using the language of "truce" at all? Not very long ago, God was claimed to be on their side and victory certain.

This comes in the context of a reported and believable split within al-Qaida's own ranks. There doesn't seem much reason to doubt the authenticity of Zawahiri's letter to Zarqawi in Iraq, raising doubts about his strategy of poisoning Iraqi society by targeting the Shiites. Heretics they may be, says Zawahiri, but are you sure that blowing up mosques and mausoleums is the right way to go? Add to this the number of home-grown Iraqi "insurgents" who are turning their guns on Zarquawi's gangsters, and you have a real crisis for the bearded nutbag whose very name used to terrify even some of the stoutest in the West.

I have been attacked for callousness and worse for saying that Bin Laden did us a favor on 9/11, but I am increasingly sure I was right. Until that date, he partially owned Afghanistan and his supporters were moving steadily toward the Talibanization of Pakistan as well. There were al-Qaida sympathizers within the Pakistani intelligence services, armed forces, and nuclear establishment (which then included the A.Q. Khan network). There was also an active Saudi support system, consisting mainly of vast tranches of money, for jihadism worldwide. Now, Afghanistan is lost to Bin Laden and Pakistan has had, at least officially, to modify its behavior considerably. The A.Q. Khan network has been shut down. The Saudi ruling class identifies its state interest with a repudiation of al-Qaida, inside and outside its own borders. And the one remaining regime that openly preached holy war and helped train jihadist forces like the "Fedayeen Saddam"—the pseudo-secular terror state in Iraq—has been irretrievably smashed. Wherever Bin Laden is now, it cannot be where he wanted or hoped to be four and a half years ago.

Given the utter discredit and isolation of its forces in Iraq, who would still say that the fighting there is a "distraction" from the hunt for al-Qaida? They have taken tremendous casualties, obviously in the hope that their atrocious tactics would swiftly dissipate coalition morale and coerce Iraqi support. And it seems as if they haven't learned from their mistake.

The fratricide within the insurgency offers a perfect opportunity, which one hopes is being fully exploited, for infiltration, for the spread of damaging rumors about secret negotiations with one faction, for sabotage and for provocations that will increase the misery and distrust now infecting the ranks. It also offers an occasion to reverse the questions that we have been so anxiously asking ourselves. It is for the murderers and video-beheaders to ask themselves: How long can we sustain this effort? How many casualties is too many? Was our postwar planning adequate to the task? Are we winning hearts and minds? Are we endangered by sectarian strife within our own camp? And they have to pursue these discussions in secrecy, with superstitious reference to dreams and omens and prophecies, whereas at last we can pursue our argument in the open.

But what if the other part of Bin Laden's latest tape is true and another attack is in the making? Well, since 2001 there have been hideous assaults in Spain, Turkey, England, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Kenya, Iraq, Jordan, and Indonesia. I know of no evidence to suggest that this has increased Bin Laden's following in any country, and of considerable evidence to the contrary. We keep hearing that this is a war, which by any definition it is. Well, you can't expect a war without casualties. But it just could be that these threats are a sign of desperation, and that the next attack, wherever it comes, simply will not have the psychic potency of the first one. The only alternative is the unthinkable one of suing for terms, while we should be determined that—as already seems possible—it is the enemy that does that.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks from the Fray:

…I'd be the last one to fault Hitchens for seizing upon the reports of a violent split between foreign fighters and homegrown insurgents in Iraq as a positive development. I think it's also abundantly clear that the Afghanistan campaign was a limited, but decisive success in eliminating Bin Laden's terrorist infrastructure and marginalizing the charismatic leader from his movement.

But the reality of the situation is that the invasion of Iraq has dealt a more decisive death blow to the insane doctrine of preventive war than it has to the insane doctrine of jihadist violence. And when a noted hawk devotes his weekly column to wild hyperbole and fantasies of total victory, sans evidence, one really must question whether he is the least bit self-aware of how nutty he appears to be.

In Hitchens' world, the Iraq insurgency suffers from "utter discredit and isolation." The prospect of Islamic jihadists "suing for terms" is discussed seriously. And most bizarrely, Saddam's stormtroopers-- the Fedayeen-- are described as "jihadist forces" propping up a "pseudo-secular terror state" for the distinctly Orwellian purpose of maintaining the official hawk fiction that there is less jihadist terrorism taking place in Iraq now than before the war.

Naturally, Hitchens fails to note that the Fedayeen likely comprise a healthy share of homegrown Iraqi insurgents whom Hitchens is now counting on to do what the US occupation couldn't--defeat al Qaida-in-Iraq. And he oh-so-casually glosses over the fact that "since 2001 there have been hideous assaults in Spain, Turkey, England, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Kenya, Iraq, Jordan, and Indonesia." Lesser minds might interpret these facts as a sign that we are in no position to declare victory against al-Qaida-inspired terrorism. But our Minister of Information sees beyond The Real into the realm of The Imaginary. This is his gift…

--ShriekingViolet

(To reply, click here)

(1/25)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Topic A: Obama's Speech
| Pundits and diplomats respond.
Robinson: Sunshine in BerlinToles: Obama the UniterTelnaes: Meanwhile, McCain
PLUS » Stumped: Bring Back Bill Clinton