No Peace in Our Time

This would have been more relevant a few days ago. It also would have been more relevant in 1965, 1938, 1905 and a lot of other times throughout history. Osama bin Laden put out a new tape where he threatened a new attack and offered something actually new. He offered a truce. He offered to cut off bombings of Europe and North America if said parties agree to truce so everyone can have the security and peace to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. The specfics aren't real clear about how all this would work, but apparently, this was a big change in stance from al-Qaeda. This was and wasn't. Bin Laden has been consistent in his view that if the "Crusader-Jew Alliance" gets out of the Middle East, he would stop blowing things up and killing innocent people. Of course, he would also be out of the news.

He's been out of the news anyway. Zarqawi and al-Zawahiri have been taking up a lot more media attention than previous deputies and seconds in the history of terrorism. At least, not since Subcommander Marcos of the Zapitista rebels in Mexico. To get back to the point, more worldwide media focus has been placed on two underlings. Zarqawi gets the attention becuase he's leading forces in Iraq, and Iraq is body count. Ayman al-Zawahiri, the number two man of al-Qaeda, gets more attention because he occasionally gets easier to find than his boss. And, judging by the American statements over the past couple of years, he keep getting a new underling, given the way we take about "Number Three" men in that happy little group. Besides, we hadn't really heard anything from bin Laden for over a year, he became kind of a non-threat. Sure, there are still bad guys out there who wish us harm, but bin Laden was a figure who became more figure head than head villain. This tape gets him back in the hearts and minds of the people whose cause he claims to champion.

He also claims to be reading American polling data that shows people are not in support of the war and the American people want American troops out of Iraq sooner rather than later. He spouts some Michael Moore style monologue about the rich, powerful war-mongers supporting Bush and how evil they are. The thing he's NOT telling people on the latest chart topping tape is that bin Laden's popularity has dropped in the Middle East. Like Bush, he can read polling data and knows how to manipulate his "constituency". Muslims in Iraq are calling for the release of an American journalist. Zarqawi's family officially disowned him (which is a MUCH bigger deal for him than it is for Americans) after he attacked a Muslim wedding. The only equivalent is if old world Italian family disowned their mafioso son after he whacked a guy at a good Catholic wedding. Iraqis voted in the last election and the parliament is roughly equivalent in percentages to the real population of Iraq. Which means, all his rhetoric about people not participating is bunk. He's losing grip with the people he counted on to believe him about anything.

Oddly enough, he and Bush are linked at the hip by Fate. When one is more aggressive, the other is more aggressive. Which means one gets more popular, the other one gets popular for defying the evil forces of [blank]. (which is A LOT funnier if you KNOW the man named Blank) And this wasn't a real peace proposal anyway. Bin Laden said it, then immediately said it could never happen and Bush would never agree to this. Of course, he said BUSH had to accept it and talked about all of Europe in the next breath. In NO ONE'S delusions, is Bush the head of anything in Europe. There are no specific terms that would have to be met and there are no specific concessions. No promise for al-Qaeda members to weapons beyond use, form a legitimate government or take any steps towards legitimacy. Basically, he put it out there to see how Bush would respond. And Bush responded the way anyone with a brain would have predicted: bold statements against terrorism, followed up by random generalizations. In this case, White House Spokesman Scott McClellan said "We don't negotiate with terrorists, we put them out of business."

It's a good line, if you're Chuck Norris. While every major country and most minor ones says they don't negotiate with terrorists, they all do. The US has IRA members for various summits, Clinton shook hands with Arafat on the White House Lawn and the US kept making treaties with Indians, then called them bloody savages. The British dealt with Michael Collins even as they called him one of the bloody butchers of the British boys. It does happen, but it doesn't happen like this. Only a couple years of tangental fighting and bin Laden is talking truce? No. If he were fighting for a specific homeland, maybe. Even then, this is a bullshit non offer. Like when a guy tells a girl "No, I'm not into you for the fantastic sex." Hoping for a reaction that says "well, since you brought it up. . .". As much as we deal with terrorists, the US does it on its terms. At this point, it would like we dealt out of weakness, and it would be ANOTHER case of the US cutting and running, like Mogadishu and Lebanon. Yes, it sucks that American soldiers have to die so we can save face. Welcome to international politics. People die for shitty reasons. Hell, there are no GOOD reasons to die, only less shitty ones. A mother dying for her children is understandable, but wouldn't it be better if both the children and mother lived? In the end, if the US saves face on this, less people die, which means soldiers die to save American lives.

Does that make you feel better about all of this?

So it is written, so do I see it.