When I was in school, negotiating the mental and physical curve between childhood’s innocence and adulthood’s challenges, I was struck by the prophecies of doomsday. In the Islamic primer Taleem-ul-Islam, a part of compulsory moral education in our school, we were warned of a time before the doomsday when the world would be divided into two camps: the Muslims and the Non-Muslims. A leader would emerge from amongst the Muslims and declare a war against the seemingly all-powerful heathens. The war would result in a victory for the devout Muslims, and those who were not devout would perish.

Today, when I look at the post 9/11 world, my mind is tempted to cast my faith in the striking prophecy that fascinated me as a child. Osama Bin Laden, the hero of the Muslim world, bestride his hobbyhorse of Jihad, waving the Al-Qaeda flag, charges an army of devout Muslims (the Islamic terrorists), against an infidel America. After the Afghanistan bombings, this image somewhat took a beating in my head, as Osama went into hiding or was decimated by the Americans. Some Muslims hailed Saddam Hussein as the new age Islamic hero. He had already earned popularity in the previous Gulf War. Those impressed with his indomitable spirit loved to name their newborn sons as Saddam. Surprisingly, he too has gone the Osama way. After the American occupation of Iraq, people wanted to know where had Saddam vanished. Was he killed or was he still alive? The joke went around that Saddam had gone where Osama was.

Is what we are witnessing today the reflection of the doomsday prophesy? I highly doubt this view. It is logically untenable. Osama is not a child’s comic book legendary hero. The truth is Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist, and if any Muslim holds him as his hero, then he is a supremacist, a fanatic. The same is true of Saddam whose despotism is legendary. And anybody who thinks that a “clash of civilization” (Samuel Huntington coinage) is on the cards, then he must get his head examined.

However, the problem is Osama bin Laden is not a dead man. Or even if he is dead, his ghost is still haunting us day and night.

What else does then explain to us the incessant flow of Osama tapes as cornucopia of terror on Al-Jazeera TV? People want to know who is behind these tapes? Al-Jazeera says the film was produced by a company called Al-Sahhab, which specializes in general in preparing film material for al Qaeda.

The tapes have a baffling origin. Everytime a tape is released the FBI tries to authenticate it and then there is silence. They are afraid to authenticate it, as the mere authentication would eat into their erstwhile claim of having finished him off in the Afghan bombings. The usual story goes something like this:

“CIA analysis of the tape is inconclusive on whether it includes the voice of bin Laden but experts are very confident that al-Zawahri is heard on the recording, reports CBS News White House Correspondent Peter Maer. An official says it’s possible the analysts will never be able to confirm that bin Laden’s voice is on the tape.” (Italics mine, CIA Scrutinizing Osama Tapes, CBS News, September 11, 2003)

Pakistan’s President has admitted in a BBC interview that Osama might be alive and is kicking somewhere between Pakistan and Afghanistan (“I feel that he is alive, yes, because of the various information and intelligence that has come up now. But to guess whether he’s in Pakistan or in Afghanistan, the possibility exists that he is shifting places, shifting bases on both sides. That is the reality.”) For President Bush, who got Afghanistan bombed because the Taliban refused to turn over bin Laden, the icing on the cake is that the Afghan warlords are assembling again to come back to power.

In fact, the Bush Administration’s very thesis of going to war with Iraq for removing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) or regime change is merely a smokescreen to hide the administration’s failure at the home front. I quote Norman Mailor (“The White Man Unburdened,” The New York Review of Books, July 17, 2003):

“When Osama bin Laden failed to be captured by the posses we sent to Afghanistan, Bush was thrust back to ongoing domestic problems that did not give any immediate suggestion that they could prove solution-friendly. The economy was sinking, the market was down, and some classic bastions of American faith (corporate integrity, the FBI, and the Catholic Church—to cite but three) had each suffered a separate and grievous loss of face. Increasing joblessness was undermining national morale. Since our administration was conceivably not ready to tackle any one of the serious problems looming before them that did not involve enriching the top, it was natural for the administration to feel an impulse to move into larger ventures, thrusts into the empyrean—war!”

As we can recall, President Bush launched his was against Iraq for three main reasons: to disarm Iraq of its WMDs, to remove Iraq as a threat to American dominance, and to make Iraq an exemplary Arab democracy as a first step in the transformation of the Middle East. Six months down the line, none of these aims have been realized. What we rather have in Iraq is chaos, mis-governance, and a rise in the number of jihadis, alienating the people of Iraq from the occupation forces. Clearly, by now, the argument that Iraq threatened US interests with WMDs has been disapproved, and the support further eroded by continuing combat deaths in Iraq. The war that was advertised as a “cakewalk” is bleeding the US economy a billion dollars a week. Not surprisingly, President Bush’s approval ratings have declined steadily since his triumphant landing on the USS Lincoln last May and in some polls have now dipped below his pre-September 11 lows.

What does then a beleaguered American President do, who “looks to be the first president since Herbert Hoover to see the total number of jobs decline during his term”?

He plays some more patriot games. He has to rely “on his aggressive foreign policy and his claimed competence in national security to sustain his political strength.”

Whenever President Bush’s popularity ratings go down, or he has no answers to the accusation that no WMDs have yet been found in Iraq (the original cause for attacking Iraq), a new Osama tape is aired by Al Jazeera. Is it just a coincidence? I am reminded of the film Wag the Dog. In this Barry Levinson film (1997), the US president does not seem to have much of a chance of being re-elected after being caught in a scandalous situation days before the election. One of his advisors (Robert DeNiro) contacts a top Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman) in order to manufacture a war in Albania that the president can heroically end, all through mass media.

On September 10, 2003, a new Osama tape was aired on Al-Jazeera, which for the first time put India on the terror map (India was mentioned while Al Qaeda blamed President Musharraf for throttling the jihad in Kashmir). The video shows Osama and his aid, Ayman al-Zawahiri, walking about in a hilly area. In the tape al-Zawahiri calls Musharraf a traitor and makes a virulent attack on his policies towards the US and India. On the basis of this personal attack, a commentator has opined that the Lahkar-e-Toiba (LET) could be behind the tapes. The reason offered is simple: How could an Al Qaeda attack Musharraf when the Taliban offensive is on in Afghanistan? The other alleged suspect is Pakistan’s ISI. At a time when there is growing criticism of Pakistan’s support to the Taliban in Afghanistan, the ISI is signaling to the US through the tapes that if the US continues to pressurize Musharraf, then Al Qaeda and its Pak allies might overthrow his regime. Any which way, the spotlight is back on Musharraf, even though the fact remains that as long the threat of Al Qaeda is there, Pakistan will keep milking the American people for their $150 or $200-million a month in aid to keep the profits on the economy propped up.

But I see more to it.

Is it a coincidence that just about the time the tape was released, Christina B. Rocca, US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia rushed to India to convince it to send troops to Iraq? And why is this? One, to give its mission in Iraq the face of a broader coalition. Two, to get cheap Indian soldiers. When an American soldier dies in action, the US government pays a compensation of up to $250, 000. On the other hand, the family of a jawan killed in Kashmir gets little more than a lakh of Rupees, that is around $2000.

Americans believe that wars are caused by moral failures of leaders, and Bush is fumbling for excuses. Americans are not able to understand that “the story of an unfinished war, undertaken for murky reasons, that has left young Americans ruling indefinitely over people who do not welcome them and who are killing more of them each day.” (Mark Danner, Iraq: The New War, The New York Review of Books, September 25, 2003) They are asking questions about the failure to find evidence of WMDs, the stated reason for the war. This is why, in a recent speech Bush used the terms “terror”, “terrorist”, or “terrorism” 28 times.

It seems that Bush has realized his mistake. His war on Iraq has gone awry. He can no longer wage this economically hurting and politically risky war all alone. He needs the UN now. He wants countries like India and Pakistan to send troops there.

Bush has realized that in a “multi-unipolar world,” (another Huntington coinage) he must make amends in his foreign policy, just as his father had suggested.

After the disintegration of the Soviet Russia, when the old order crumbled down and a new order, the unipolar American order emerged, George Bush Sr., the then President, had enunciated the new order. This new order was to achieve peace, security, freedom and the rule of law in the world. In the New World, America’s leadership was indispensable but, he said, America must form a partnership with allied countries; and the UN should be given a role to play; and also, no mistaking that, the new world order must be based on American values.

Bush Jr. has thrown out what good was there in the American foreign policy. Both Wilson and Roosevelt had put their faith in a universal organization of collective security in which the peace-loving nations could combine to deter or combat the aggressors, no matter where it occurred. Bush Jr. made all these good old American principles stand on their heads.

Bush has realized that Mission Iraq is still far from over, and America could still lose the war. He must do whatever it takes to keep his honor intact in the eyes of the American masses, so that the possibilities of his re-election are ever strong. Some more Osama tapes will be rather helpful in this war after the war.

Tapes of Osama bin Laden

Dec. 13, 2001: U.S. Defense Department releases videotape in which Osama bin Laden is shown at a dinner with associates in Afghanistan on Nov. 9, 2001, saying the destruction of the Sept. 11 attacks exceeded even his "optimistic" calculations.
April 15, 2002: A videotape broadcast by the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera includes what appears to be a man identified as a Sept. 11 hijacker giving a farewell message along with clips showing bin Laden and his top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri. Only al-Zawahri is shown speaking; he calls the terrorist attacks on America a "great victory." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says the material on the tape appears to be outdated.
November 2002: Al-Jazeera broadcasts a brief audiotape in which a voice attributed to bin Laden says the "youths of God" are planning more attacks against the United States. U.S. experts say the tape can’t be authenticated because of its poor quality. The recording warns countries not to side with the United States.

Feb. 11, 2003: A voice purported to be bin Laden calls on Iraqis to carry out suicide attacks against Americans and defend themselves against a U.S. attack in a tape broadcast on Al-Jazeera. The voice urges Muslims to rise up against several U.S.-allied governments in the region. U.S. counterterrorism officials say the audio message was probably an authentic recording of bin Laden.

Feb. 13, 2003: An audiotape purported to be of bin Laden reads a poetic last will and testament in a recording obtained by the British-based Islamic Al-Ansaar news agency, and later by other media. Bin Laden says he wants to die a martyr in a new attack against the United States. It wasn’t possible to verify the authenticity of the recording.