We got 'em on the run!

Or so one would be inclined to believe if you spent too long reading this column by Christopher Hitchens over at Slate:

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.)

So far, so good. But alas, he had to keep writing:

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.

Well now hang on there. For one, Zarqawi has only ever been identified with Al Qaeda in general in the loosest of fashions, by virture of his adherence to something related to Al Qaeda's theological beliefs and his willingness to blast our troops in Iraq. To characterize his overzealous approach in Iraq as a "split"in Al Qaeda is to mis-understand his relationship to Al Qaeda proper, as led/inspired by Bin Laden. Zarqawi's problem in Iraq is not quite Al Qaeda's problem in general, and while the fact that the insurgents may be turning on the jihadists in their midst is great for Iraqi civilians sick of suicide bombings, it really doesn't do that much for us and our soldiers still getting killed largely by those same insurgents. But for Hitchens ther are all sorts of reasons we're "winning" the war against Al Qaeda:

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.

Hitchens is particular prone to circular reasoning. According to him Bin Laden did us a favor on 9/11 because if it weren't for that horrific attack we'd never have taken the measures to prevent Al Qaeda from carrying out...a horrific attack. I'm guessing Hitchens thinks 9/11 may prevent a future catastrophe like a nuclear attack on us, so in that sense it's "worth it", but I'm really not so sure given how most of what we've done since 9/11 to "fight terrror" hasn't actually been about fighting terror so much as it's been about fighting angry Sunnis in Iraq. I particular enjoy his gloss on how Pakistan has had to at least "officially" modify their behavior, as if that counts for much considering what they're doing "unofficially" is not daring to approach the Pashtun areas in which Bin Laden is most likely hiding. Khan is a positive, but I'm not sure that had much to do with 9/11; his aiding the proliferation of nuclear technology began well before 9/11, and I for one think it would have unraveled whether 9/11 happened or not as we've been working for 20 years to shut down covert transfers of nuclear technology. On the contrary, Pakistan's elevated status as our supposed ally has given them leverage over us when it comes to ferreting out those in Pakistan's circles of power that aided Khan; you'll note he's the only one to take the fall, and his "fall" has consisted mostly of retiring to the Pakistan countryside. As for the Saudis...they're certainly being more discrete about their aid to their brethren in Islam overseas. The problem that 9/11 didn't solve is our addiction to oil, which gives Saudi Arabia leverage over us all out of proportion to anything we "gained" over them as a result of 9/11. As for Iraq...well, do we really need to get into that? Are we where we wanted to be??

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.

Hitchens is either being disingenous or doesn't understand that these attacks were not carried out solely to curry public opinion. After all, 9/11 didn't really do a heck of a lot for the Al Qaeda name brand in areas where he wasn't already popular. No, these attacks have a strategic purpose because, as it has been proven time and time again, terrorists can alter the behavior of nation states with their attacks. That's why we're in Iraq, and Spain is not(and those Madrid attacks were hardly "desperation".) Certainly no future attack can have the "psychic potency" of 9/11 because unless they use nukes or blow up a train full of posoinous chemicals in downtown D.C. they can't hope to kill as many Americans. But it doesn't take an attack that powerful to alter our behavior, whether to enmesh us in another disaster somewhere else or restrict civil liberties at home. Bin Laden knows that, and we know it even if we won't admit it aloud.

The fact is there's little about this truce offer that's either encouraging or discouraging. It may or may not be legitimate, and even if it was there's no making a truce with a terrorists whom are in no position to negotiate with states and who we wouldn't trust even if they were. It may be a sign of weakness, or it may be just another ploy by Bin Laden. Things are pretty much the same as they've been since we lodged ourselves in Iraq, and not even Hitchens can possibly believe that this truce offer is the silver lining in our clouds of war.