Shoot. I didn't finish that post. I was interrupted. I hoped no one would reply...
Did you read your "9/11 Comission report" close enough? They haven't severed ties with him completley, not by a long shot.
Here's what I was going to say about him.
What I find curious in reading about him when the media deign to dirty their hands by talking about him at all, (or our so-called "leaders') is that too few of them mention his role in the Soviet-Afhan war in the late 70'/early 80's. I forget if he funded the mujahadeen or fought with them, but he played some sort of signifigant role in helping the Russians lose that war. He has been aplying those lessons to his twisted plan to overthrow the West. Above all America, Israel's friend. The only thing that could weaken America is drag it into another Vietnam-like situation. And since 9'11 was foiled, he must have slapped his head with glee when Bush with no external provocation gave him just what he wanted...and an ideal training base.
Bin Laden does not want America to get out Iraq. That is not the purpose of the suicide brigade. On the contrary, he wants us to stay as long as possible, but of course does not want things to improve for Iraqis while we are there. From his POV, it is a very delicate operation right now, I'd imagine. This is the reason why there is no large attack on US troops, why Iraqis are getting the brunt of things.
Commit large-scale attacks on American troops and leave Iraqis alone, and he would galvanize support for the war in the American public, which would strengthen his enemy politcally, even as it would strengthen our position there, by substantially more troops quickly. The Iraqi public might also begin to feel some support for the occupation, even after Abu Gharib. And the American public would be thus willing to pay the cost.
But attack mainly Iraqis, it
1)keeps Iraqi public opinion against the American prescence burning under the radar, bu tnot ready for civil war yet.
2)Keeps the war off the front pages of America, since large-scale US casualties make headlines. Americans seem to be willing to tolerate 1-10 US deaths a day; Iraqi deaths of course mean nothing. Bin Laden knows this. Thus, Bush would be low in the polls but there would be no real protest against the war. Bin Laden knwos the US Media very well. Inflcit just enough damage, but keep the war off the nation's front burner. Slow damage is his plan, not a full-out war.
3)If the damage by the insurgents finally makes the Iraqis rebel, hether against the occuptation or by civil war, the resulting strengthening of US troop prescense would only further play inot his hands. The goal is to break us economicaly, slowly and surely, the way he did with the Soviets. Of course, the end result would not be the same; but as a large part of this war (and many of our prigrams) are funded by nations like China, which might someday decided to drop the dollar as its gold standard of trade (look what China did this week already) it might damage us even more.
So that is Bin Laden's goal: keep the situation tense, but not dangerous to the point where Americans would support the war in a major way. Do the maximum amount of domestic damage in Iraq, without making it a matter of top importance on the front pages of America. Keep the Iraqis on edge and discontented; if there is a civil war, fine; but if there isn't, so much the better. It's the chaos that counts. He thinks (and unfortunately, history proves him right) that time is on his side.
It would have been SO much better if we had accepted NATO's offer of help, in September of 2001, instead of going off on our imperialitic venture....