I don’t know, maybe I’m turning into an old cynic, but at this point when I hear about a new tape from Osama, I’m less than terrified. It sounds more like an old man trying to remain relevant, surrounded by his old buddies who haven’t figured it out either. Case in point:
Q: Is bin Laden still relevant? Do people still listen and respond to him?
Bergen: I think if he were irrelevant, we wouldn’t be doing the coverage.
He’s less relevant than he might have been a few years ago because a lot of Muslims have turned against al Qaeda because of its tactics and suicide operations. But there are clearly people who still think he’s important.
He can put out general messages, you know, inciting people to violence, and this is the way it happens. So he puts out the strategic guidance to al Qaeda, through the jihadi network, through the audio and videotapes.
Sometimes he makes specific calls for attacks on particular places. For instance, he called for attacks on Spain, and there were attacks in Madrid in 2004. He called for a response to the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, and there was an attack by al Qaeda on the Danish Embassy in Pakistan last year. And I can give you several other examples.
Hey, quick note to Peter Bergen and the media at large: something like this is only as relevant as you guys make it. Relevance is based upon the effect it has on the public’s lives at large. A story about the DOW dropping 4,000 points or an earthquake swallowing an entire car manufacturing plant is news because even if no one talks about it, its effects will be massive.
Bin Laden making some kind of public pronouncement is propaganda, and propaganda isn’t relevant if it isn’t spread.
