What would Osama do?

Wretchard, at the Belmont Club has an interesting analysis of Osama's latest message to the American people:

. . . It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out.

Captain Ed, at Captain's Quarters, further refines this analysis:

. . . Far from signaling a surrender, I believe that OBL wants to influence the American elections as another demonstration of his power. He wants to depose George Bush, but he's smart enough to understand that a fire-breathing performance only helps Bush by scaring/insulting the voters. His moderate performance was designed to appeal to the reasonable leftists and centrists who tend to believe that America brought Islamist terror onto itself. His "offer" amounts to a lever with which to promote anti-Israel sentiment to undercut support for Bush, as well as give people the impression that the war is Bush's fault, despite the years of Al Qaeda attacks on American assets.

Don't allow yourselves to be fooled into thinking that Osama has retreated in his desire to reconquer Andalusia and spread the ummah across the globe, reducing the infidels to dhimmitude. He just knows when to temper his rhetoric for the best possible political result.

Personally, I am in Captain Ed's camp -- though "camp" is probably too strong a term to convey what is really a difference in emphasis or nuance between the two commentators.

Osama has been hit, and hit hard since 9/11. I believe that he is mortally afraid of what has transpired in Afghanistan and Iraq; that an emerging pro-democratic, pro-tolerance version of Islam will be the end of Al Queda and his Wahabbist thugs. He is also an excellent politician. He desperately wants to stop Bush's aggressive strategy of taking the fight to Al Queda. However, he recognizes that further threats or an outright endorsement of Kerry would only backfire.

Come November 3rd (or December whatever), if we find the John F. Kerry is going to be our next President, I am certain that the walls in Osama's cave or Waziristani safe house will be ringing with cheers of joy. I hope the American people are sensible enough (and strong enough) not to make his day.

Update

For more on this topic, see Donald Sensing's analysis of the evolution of OBL's communications with the West. His conclusion: Al Queda is on the ropes and it's time for us to finish them off.

Thomas P. M. Barnett offers another perspective: should we wash our hands of the entire mideast and let Israel (and its nuclear weapons) sort it out?