The 2004 tape boosted the popularity of American President George W. Bush. President Bush opened up a six-point lead over his opponent Senator John Kerry in the first opinion poll to include sampling taken after the videotape was broadcast.
Ron Suskind noted that the CIA analysis of the video led them to the consensus view that the tape was designed strategically to help President Bush win reelection in 2004. Deputy CIA director John E. McLaughlin noted at one meeting, "Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President." Suskind quoted Jami Miscik, CIA deputy associate director for intelligence, as saying "Certainly, he would want Bush to keep doing what he’s doing for a few more years.
That's because Bush had already been fighting Bin Laden. When public fears are raised (by the re-emergence of Osama), a normal reaction is to go for the safety of what you know. Love him or hate him, Bush was what the American people knew - Kerry was untested in the presidency.
Also, Osama was calling for change (i.e. don't reelect Bush), but to not reelect Bush would be tantamount to doing what Osama wanted. In the 2004 video, Osama directly admitted responsibility for 9/11 to the public - for the first time. That amounts to a shot of credibility for Bush, just when he needed it - given the WMD's in Iraq failed to turn up. Admission of his role in 9/11 would also make it much less likely that the American public would follow anything recommended by Osama. Rather, the public would polarize against his position.
Then a Bin Laden video popped up again on 7th September 2007. The Petraeus Report was delivered to congress on 10th September 2007. Talk of the Bin Laden video undermined the level of focus that would otherwise have been given to the anticipated Petraeus Report. Added to that, Bin Laden spent a lot of time appealing to the lefties - the people who wanted the war to end.
By aligning himself with leftist issues, once again he creates fertile ground for polarizing people away from his position and towards Bush's position. Just to make sure people will polarize, he also throws in the unpalatable content that Al Qaeda's job is to keep killing Americans and that everyone should convert to Islam.
Osama appealing to the lefties also gave the Republicans ammunition against lefties, as typified in this excerpt from a Republican's blog:
I’m not one to suggest that America’s liberals support someone like Osama bin Laden, and I’d be quick to ridicule anyone making such an assertion, but when the left finds itself not only sharing many goals with Osama bin Laden vis-a-vis Iraq but also sharing much of the same rhetoric shouldn’t it be time to re-evaluate?
You’d think, but then again it seems like far too many people in this country are more than happy to act as proverbial “useful idiots” for this country’s enemies in the world.
I think it is unquestionable that the timing and content of these videos have been fortuitous to the Bush Admin. That this has occurred more than once also suggests this is a pattern, as opposed to coincidence.
So, the next question is - if both of these videos were respectively made to coincide with a) the 2004 presidential election, and b) the Petraeus Report, what are the underlying drivers or motivations of Bin Laden?
I honestly don't know the answer to that, but I can think of a number of possibilities:
1. Bin Laden doesn't get it - he thinks what he says will get rid of Bush, but he's actually helping him instead - pretty dumb for the mastermind of 9/11. Also, this is highly unlikely, as Bin Laden would have learnt his message had the opposite effect after the 2004 video, so to repeat that mistake does not make sense.
2. Bin Laden wanted Bush to be re-elected and the war in Iraq to continue because he knew Bush was a war president. A simple interpretation is that he wants to keep fighting Americans in the Middle East. However, I think his larger motivation is to expose American foreign policy for what it is. Osama might think Bush's actions are more transparent than most former Presidents (they are). This transparency serves to open the eyes of the populace, forcing them to think beyond the comfort of propaganda and to evaluate the basis upon which Arab grievances exist. (I'm leaning towards this one).
3. He knew the American people would reject what he said, but by them rejecting it he felt better about whatever future acts Al Qaeda will perpetrate against America.
4. Bin Laden is in collusion with the CIA/Bush Admin for mutual benefit and pretty much most, if not all, Al Qaeda fighters don't know that (bit of a stretch of the imagination, made muddier by the facts that he did have links with the CIA and his family has links to the Bush family).
5. Bin Laden is dead, the last two videos were fakes, and the propaganda arm of Al Qaeda has been infiltrated and controlled by American agents (dunno about this one, but it would make a darn good movie).
Last edited by Nefarious on Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:45 pm; edited 10 times in total
Upon re-reading I can see that. I tried to make my earlier post read more clearly.
Here is an interesting take, which suggests Bin Laden might be inciting a continuation of military action from the US, because it serves the purpose of strengthening the Al Qaeda network:
The motivations and behavior of terrorists and the state’s response to extremism are “a dynamic system that can only be understood by looking at both together,” McCauley says.
To explain this perspective, McCauley describes a terrorist group as the apex of a pyramid. The pyramid’s base is composed of everyone who agrees with the terrorists’ goals, even those who disagree with the violent means advocated by extremists. In between are smaller numbers of supporters with increasing levels of commitment to the cause. The terrorist group depends on the pyramid to provide cover, support and recruits.
By committing acts of violence, terrorists hope to provoke a violent response from the state against some of those the terrorists claim to represent, thereby expanding the terrorists’ support base, increasing the number of recruits and building sympathy for their cause. McCauley calls this strategy “jujitsu politics” because it uses the state’s superior strength against itself.
Although some policymakers believe that bioterrorism is a major international threat, McCauley disagrees. “Terrorists don’t have the technical capacity for sophisticated bioweapons. For them, bioweapons are new, untested and could easily go wrong.” Extremist groups usually favor low-tech tactics, such as bomb and gun attacks. “It’s the very opposite of what governments tell us — that we ought to be worried about weapons of mass destruction. Terrorists tend to prefer straightforward, known and reliable kinds of techniques and technology.”
The best way for states to deal with terrorism is by nonviolent means — a “no-response response,” McCauley says. “States should prosecute terrorism in the criminal court system, and avoid confronting terrorists with military force. What terrorists cannot stand is to see that they have made no impact.”
Both times that Bin Laden put forth videos, he did so at a time when dissent among the American public toward their leader was high, whether it be getting the US into the Iraq war or when to pull the troops out. By presenting himself as a threat to all Americans, Bin Laden strengthened the collective American identity, making the people more likely to conform to a common course of action. This was done in such a way to ensure that existing courses of action continued (i.e. maintain the president, maintain the war).
By keeping the status quo, Al Qaeda can continue to grow under the same conditions it has become accustomed to growing under. This is because the growth of Al Qaeda has been structured around these conditions.
Under this interpretation, Osama's actions are entirely self-serving (or Al Qaeda serving as the case may be)
However, it would be false to say a "correlation does not suggest causation". A demonstrably consistent correlation often suggests some causal relationship.
Further, in the case of the 2004 video, we are not talking correlation, but rather intervention - namely an A B A design.
A = baseline polling figures
B = Bin Laden video
A = post video polling figures - 6% increase in favour of Bush
I can only speculate as to bin Laden's intentions. I don't think what bin Laden did was motivated out of wanting to do Bush a favour or because they were in some sort of strange collusion. I think he was being entirely self-serving.
So long as there is a president in place whose response to terrorism is to send his military into other countries, and so long as innocent deaths of civilians and their children continue to be collateral damage as a result of those actions, then Al Qaeda's ideological base is legitimized and disaffected civilians will continue to recruit to Al Qaeda's cause.
Take away the stimulus to keep Al Qaeda going and it will slowly break down and fall apart. Nothing suits bin Laden better than a president who thinks the way to extinguish terrorism is not to seek the needle in the haystack but to burn the entire haystack, and while the people are distracted by trying to put out the burning haystack, is making off with as many resources from the barn as possible.
Al Qaeda are Salafists. Their driving motivation is first to create a Salafist state, preferably in the Muslim Holy Land of Saudi Arabia straightaway, and if that is not immediately possible, in any other Muslim country. Salafists' ultimate goal is global Salafism. Unlike other militant Islamists, Salafists have no reluctance to kill fellow Muslims they perceive as standing in the way of their goals. Salafists view the world in terms of Dar al-Islam (literally "lands of Islam," denoting countries governed under Islamic law (sharia)) and Dar al-Harb (literally "lands of war," denoting countries not governed under sharia), with their ultimate goal being to make the entire world Dar al-Islam. Therefore, Salafists will remain militantly hostile to secular Western democracies and America in particular as the most powerful Western democracy, regardless of politics.
You know what kind of world I would like to see? My idea of utopia?
Well, it would have a number of facets:
1. Religion would be the personal business of each individual and no one would be aggressively trying to convert people to their beliefs or killing others because they don't share the same beliefs.
2. The needs of the planet and the humans and creatures that exist and depend upon it would come before the economy.
3. We would find a good balance between work and play again and consequently medicate everything less.
4. Fair and free trade would be normative and people could trade in whatever currency or system they desired without fear of repercussion, such as war, from those who want monopoly.
5. Countries who are outsiders to a region would not be able to dictate how a region or its resources are split up - issues such as those would be settled by people from within that region.
It was a sunny day today and I went to the beach with my family. There was a park there as well. I would swear that most of the world was represented there today at that park - people from my country of course, but also Brits, Americans, Middle Easterners, people from a variety of Asian countries, Africans - probably more, but that was just what I could identify. And all of our kids were playing together in the park and having a great time. None of the kids were unpleasant to one another and all of the parents were happy and smiling and sharing a laugh with one another while watching the kids play. It felt peaceful and natural and magical.
Site Map
FAQ
Usergroups
Search
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Register
My Profile Space
