I would think that bin Laden is dead myself if it weren't for the fact that various intelligence agencies have said they believe those audio tapes are probably authentic.

Whew! One massive post. I pretty much agree/am persuaded, except for one major point: I think SH was on the lam, not the lamb. There's no evidence he was a sheep fornicator, much less a pedophilic one.

Dan,

As usual, you have a well-made case. Thanks for all of the info!

I am one of the theorists. I have recently mitigated my theory a bit to say it doesn't really matter. I know AQ is still quite operational and lethal, but the attacks are a lot more....disjointed(?) than we've seen in the past. I don't believe we are seeing an AQ (et al) with the resources they once had. This may be a stretch, but I am seeing an OBL (figuratively) the way Hitler was toward the end. Sitting in a bunker moving units that don't exist anymore around on a map - if not already dead.

Nicely done. I have a couple of problems with your analysis, incuding the exclusion of any discussion of why intelligence agencies might lie about their assessment of the authenticity of these recordings. And you note that bin Laden is seen as the leader of a terror network still standing after 4 years of war. I agree that the perception exists, but the reality is that the organizational structure of bin Laden's group doesn't even remotely resemble what it was on September 12.

These are details, and certainly open for interpretation. Thanks for your contribution to a fascinating discussion.

Brian H:

You'd be mighty surprised what some Iraqis'll say about him these days ...

Joel:

Al-Qaeda certainly doesn't have the resources that it once had - that's a simple consequence of US military action in Afghanistan. Of course, there's also an open question as to how many fighters they still have to play around with, which goes back to the issue of how many they had to begin with. We killed upwards of 10,000 in the first 3 months of OEF, for example.

As for Osama bin Laden being like Hitler in the last days of WW2, that's certainly the view that a number of people take, and al-Zawahiri's recent claim that victory was on their side in Afghanistan really does lead one to wonder what reality they're living in.

spongeworthy:

I agree that al-Qaeda today bears little resemblance to its pre-9/11 structure, but I still think that the argument that we haven't seen any in-fighting for the top spot is a powerful one to make. These groups tend to be made up of people with extremely large egos and in the absence of the top man they generally start fighting amongst themselves.

Dan, I was previously undecided, and your spectacular analysis has convinced me. Also, if the renal disease rumor had been true, Usama have had to have been on dialysis a while ago-- not a cave friendly procedure.

Put me down as strongly in favor of taking him out. Takes the wind out of the "paper tiger" argument.

Thanks to Dan and Greg for the two thoughtful essays. This cements in my mind that we really do not know what is going on. One thing we do know is that Bin Laden, at the end of the day, is not a major player.

Bush deminished OBL importance because there are bigger fish to fry:

AQ hostages in Iran... Iran seeking nuclear arms... Iran supports Bush for President (AP yesterday).

Another arms for hostages deal?? Pure speculation on an unlikely outcome.

Dan said "I agree that al-Qaeda today bears little resemblance to its pre-9/11 structure, but I still think that the argument that we haven't seen any in-fighting for the top spot is a powerful one to make. These groups tend to be made up of people with extremely large egos and in the absence of the top man they generally start fighting amongst themselves."

There hasn't been any infighting because Zawahiri is keeping the fiction of OBL being alive and he is issuing orders in his stead (think Borman vis a vis Hitler). Also because the top ranks have been so severely diminished the egos that would supplant Zawahiri aren't there. After being promoted to the top rank, you tend to defer for a time after your promotion. Plus if Zawahiri is doing the promoting he is putting his own boys in the top leadership. Of the top leadership how many come from Zawahiri organization?

I think OBL is dead. The very nature of the tapes and timing are too suspect. An egotist like OBL couldn't resist exhorting the troops onward in Iraq and Afghanistan particularly before the elections. It is convenient for both sides to have him alive at the moment. We have personalized this fight like we always do and he is our bogeyman. You can imagine how the pacifists would say "war's over lets go home and party" if his death is confirmed.

very interesting and thought provoking as usual, both to Dan and Greg.

I am still puzzled about the admins apparent reluctance to begin releasing info on the (alleged) AQ presence in Iran (ESPECIALLY if OBL, and not just Saif and Saad are there) I can see the following possible reasons

A. They think they can get a deal with Iran on nukes, and dont want to louse that up. They really DONT want another war against an Islamic state, given current strains, including Palestine, not for a long time anyway.
B. Theyre burned on Iraqi WMDs, and dont think anyone would beleive them
C. They dont want to release this till Iraq is stable, and US forces are out of overstretch mode
D. They're waiting till after the US election
E. They dont really beleive this - or at least Powell-Rice-Bush dont really beleive it, and Rummy, Cheney, and the second level neocons are too weak now to push a policy of making this public.
F. Some combination of the above.
G. Nobody serious really beleives this, and Dan is being taken for a ride by a small faction in the intell community.

Dont take G personally - I have no reason personally to beleive thats the case, but it does suggest itself to the skeptic. It does strike me that if OBL is alive and in Iran, and if John Kerry is elected on Nov. 2 that would create some interesting possibilities for him. He would have motivation to act against Iran, and he would have justification, and it would be harder for the Euros to argue that hes a warmonger than in the case with Bush - and he could simultaneously play very hard that HES taking this seriously, while the Bush admin sat on it. IE having won as Dean, he could solidify his position as Lieberman, using the very info the admin sat on fearing it (the notion of the admin beating the drums again) would scare folks into voting for the Deanish Kerry. OTOH hed still be faced with overstretch (assuming that ground forces would be needed, which i think is probable, despite reports from dissidents about how easy this might be) So maybe hed need to sit on it too - but that would mean losing the ability to hit the Bushies for sitting on it, and would have other disadvantages as well.

But it still strikes me that sitting on it is risky for the Bushies politically, as much so as letting it out.

Of the top leadership how many come from Zawahiri organization?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a number of the old IJ crowd have been killed already. Dan?

Very informative post with many well put points.
But I strongly disagree with this statement:

If the administration had anything resembling proof or even likely proof that bin Laden were dead, such as what any number of captured al-Qaeda leaders like Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, et al. have said on the subject, I think I can safely say that they would be screaming it from the roof tops, especially at this point.

I don't think the adminsitration would be procaliming anything at all unless they had DNA style proof of his being dead. This was the same procedure they followed with both Saddam and his sons.

99% just isnt good enough in this type of situation.

sulh, not hudna

What is a sulh?

Dan -

Excellent post, with many good points - not sure if I agree with all your conclusions. My own sparse thoughts on the subject are here: My own sparse thoughts on the subject are here: Why does al-Qaeda not take advantage of the tremendous propaganda value that Osama bin Laden represents, by making him a regular Rush Limbaugh?

Either they are dumb, or Osama is unavailable for some reason.

I am concerned about the extent to which your more sensational claims come from one paper, Al Sharq Al Awsat. IRGC helps Zarqawi! 400 al Qaeda living it up in Iran! Zakiri's "disclosures". Are these stories any more to be believed than the pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMD?

What is a sulh?

The terms granted to a defeated foe.

A hudna is a temporary ceasefire, typically used to regain strength.

Proof would do what benefit to what side? We see spin, slant, and actually false information daily. Who benefits from "news". I once spent 6 months just trying to get out of a "rat hole", looking back, that was a great time. Beats being chased, and nowhere to go.

Rik

Sorry for taking so long to reply ...

jinnderella:

Well, the doctor's the one who said that the whole idea of him having some kind of a kidney disease is false, though I would point out that if bin Laden has, as some have speculated, shacked up at the home of a prominent Pakistani politician from a major political outfit like Jamaat-e-Islami or Jamaat-e-Ulema-e-Islami, he could easily be receiving the medical attention he needs. Keep in mind that while there is a large concentration of al-Qaeda fighters in the tribal regions, a large percentage of al-Qaeda leaders captured in Pakistan appear to have chosen large urban areas like Karachi, Quetta, or Peshawar, where they can access reasonably modern technology and remain in touch with the rest of the network.

praktike:

I concur entirely.

Horst Graben:

Iran has been very clear that it does not intend to extradict the al-Qaeda leaders it has "in custody," even though the Iranian leadership is literally playing with fire on this one. I very much doubt that another "arms for hostages" deal is in the making.

As for the EIJ leadership, a fair number of them are currently deceased, especially in the upper levels of the organization. That's why people like Rabei Osman Ahmed, who was formerly a mid-level leader, have stepped into the fore.

Jeff Schaeper:

Al-Zawahiri and his lieutenants were already running much of al-Qaeda's operational infrastructure and have been ever since the Sudan days. You need to keep in mind, however, that the Egyptians who make up al-Qaeda's upper-most ranks are from 2 distinct and fairly uncooperative groups: Gamaa al-Islamiyyah and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. With bin Laden gone as the unifying force between the two of them, there is a lot of speculation that a power struggle could easily emerge along those old lines for who's the new man on top. Al-Zawahiri has the support of the EIJ members, but the Gamaa crowd follows bin Laden and would presumably oppose (along with the Gulf members of the group, who could easily rally around Saad bin Laden) any attempt by al-Zawahiri to consolidate power for himself.

liberalhawk:

Let me try and address these points as best I can:

A. The administration really doesn't want to talk about another war at this point, for obvious electoral reasons as well as the logistical difficulties involved. They know Kerry won't criticize them for that, again for obvious reasons, so it appears to me that they have some breathing room on this one.

B. Well, it is a valid concern. A lack of public credibility makes it a heck of a lot harder to argue in favor of regime change a second time around.

C. This is my sense of it. The obvious implications of the 9/11 report are pretty clear with respect to al-Qaeda/Iran and a fair number of people would demand action were it to be loudly proclaimed to the general public. As the administration feels that it is currently ill-prepared to deliver such action, they're playing things cool for the moment.

D. Most of it's already available to the general public, at least for anybody who's been paying attention long enough. It's just a matter of how loud said governments want to proclaim such things.

E. I dunno. We haven't seen the kind of debate within the intelligence community on Iran that appears to have existed on Iraq, which could be either very good or very bad.

F. Dunno.

G. If that's the case, then I'm in good company ;)

hm:

Yeah, but the administration never publicly entertained the belief that the Hussein family was dead until there were bodies or captives. As it turns out, that prudence was more than warranted. I think that the same is true in the case of bin Laden.

mitch:

The al-Sharq al-Awsat accounts are by no means the only source of information on Iranian ties to al-Qaeda. There's Judge Garzon, for example, as well as any number stories that have been reported in the Washington Post, The Age, Financial Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, et al. I simply used the al-Sharq stuff this time around because it helped to make my point - I could just as easily have cited the Financial Times, no lightweight newspaper that, which published a purported eye witness account of bin Laden and al-Zawahiri inside Iran.

Dan, aren't you overstating the case a bit on the 9/11 report and Iran? AFAIK, all it says is that the hijackers passed through Iran. IIRC, our source for the claim that they were helped by an Iranian general is an article quoting an Iranian dissident in Al Sharq al Awsat, not the 9/11 report. Am I wrong here?

Praktike

From memory the 911 report suggests that some of the hijackers may have passed through Iran. It's not a hard fact. However, the most explosive revelation of the 911 report is that all of the hijackers were in the US at the time of the hijackings. They even seem to conclude that if their passports hadn't evaporated there would be clear and unambiguous evidence of US visas and port-of-entry stamps in them.

There do seem to be a lot of canards doing the rounds regarding connections between Iran and Al Qaeda. Perhaps the OSP is reprising its team B tactics? I would have thought that after the INA and INC disinfo about Iraq the titbits coming from Iranian exiles would have appropriate health warnings attached.

We do know that Iran arrested a number of possible AQ suspects after the US invasion of Afghanistan. Some have been passed on to the Saudis and some, apparently including UBL's son, are under house arrest. The reports emanating from ASAW seem to be based on supposed statements by those extradited from Iran; they're certainly not based on their having a reporter doing headcounts of interesting characters in Chalous.

It's also worth noting that anything Michael Leeden says should be taken with a shovel-full of salt. I very much doubt he has any insight into the mental processes of UBL, let alone the average muslim, whether Shia or Sunni. It's not remotely credible to suggest that he would be interested in recasting himself as the hidden imam for a sect whom he considers heretics. No Shia would ever entertain the idea that UBL could be the Mehdi. Hassan-I-Sabbah is a much more appropriate reference if you want to play this game.

It should also be noted that (1) the Iranians had sod all to do with the 1980's Afghan war - they were far too busy dealing with the more pressing problems of fighting the Iraqis and (2) after the Russians left, they then backed the Northern Alliance against the Taleban and (3) nearly entered the war after the Taleban and their AQ allies murdered Iranian diplomats in Herat. Ledeen's assertion of a history of cooperation is bunk.

daniel, you're going far beyond what I'm suggesting here. All I'm saying is that the 911 doesn't quite say what Dan is saying it says. He may be confusing his sources.

You're wrong about Iran's role in the Afghan War -- they financed several of the factions, and continued to fund Masud and the Hazaras throughout the 90s. As to Iranian ties to bin Laden, I think they're there but I'm not sure how serious they are. Are they just a connection via Hizb'allah, cooperation in bombings in Saudi Arabia, has the Iranian regime really arrested these guys, would they actually turn them over in exchange for the MEK, etc? Bin Laden is on record urging temporary cooperation with the Shia, following the suggestion of Turabi. But he also throws around words like "polytheists" to describe Shia. So where does he really stand? You don't know the answers to these questions any more than I do.

Here's an interesting rumination of the fate of bin Laden. Hat tip: Zenpundit.

Praktike:

I was referring to the stated Iranian policy of enabling al-Qaeda operatives safe passage in and out of Iran from Afghanistan, as is described in pp. 240-241 of the report, not the claim in al-Sharq al-Awsat that an IRGC general was personally involved in the safe passage.

Also, when did Osama ever call the Shi'ites polytheists? I know Zarqawi has, but bin Laden tends to be more ecumenical in his rhetoric.

daniel:

Oh Lordy, where do I start?

From memory the 911 report suggests that some of the hijackers may have passed through Iran. It's not a hard fact.

From p. 240 of the report:

But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi "muscle" operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.

Continuing on ...

However, the most explosive revelation of the 911 report is that all of the hijackers were in the US at the time of the hijackings. They even seem to conclude that if their passports hadn't evaporated there would be clear and unambiguous evidence of US visas and port-of-entry stamps in them.

Maybe, though I think that we all could have guessed as much already. However, consider the following statement on p. 240:

Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran, on their way to and from Afghanistan. For example, Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda.

I doubt you'll find anything similar with reference to US officials.

here do seem to be a lot of canards doing the rounds regarding connections between Iran and Al Qaeda. Perhaps the OSP is reprising its team B tactics?

You mean like the top Spanish anti-terrorism judge stating that al-Qaeda's ruling council is now based in Iran? Or the numerous complaints from senior European officials that Iran is now a haven for al-Qaeda? Or similar complaints from Arab intelligence agencies? My God, I had no idea the OSP was so powerful ...

I would also recommend that you re-read the SSIC report on US pre-war intelligence concerning Iraq, as it clears both the OSP and the administration in general of the majority of the anti-war memes that have been circulating around since 2002. The same can be said of a number of claims concerning the Iraqi exile groups, with particular emphasis on the INC.

I would have thought that after the INA and INC disinfo about Iraq the titbits coming from Iranian exiles would have appropriate health warnings attached.

Like I said, read the SSIC report. The Iraqi exile groups may well have been full of shit (though I think that they've been unfairly maligned by their long-time opponents at the CIA who are seeking to use them as a scapegoat over the Agency's own intelligence failures with respect to Iraq, a debate for another time), but we didn't go to war on the basis of the good word of Ahmed Chalabi or his subordinates, the SSIC report makes that much quite clear. Everything that was told to the general public, including the information contained in Collin Powell's speech at the UN, was cleared by all of the major US intelligence agencies and there was a lot more to it than just the remarks of Iraqi exiles. Indeed, one of the things you notice when you read the SSIC report is just how little a role that the INC and groups like it played in the intelligence-gathering process.

Moreover, the Iranian exile groups have already caused some serious trouble for Iran with respect to revelations about its nuclear program. Hamid Reza Zakiri, for example, was thought credible enough by the German government to bring him into the trial of an accused co-conspirator in the 9/11 attacks.

We do know that Iran arrested a number of possible AQ suspects after the US invasion of Afghanistan.

Really? We know that the Iranian government has claimed as much, but they certainly haven't been forthcoming with details. Even the stuff about the 3 main al-Qaeda figures who are allegedly referenced as being in Iran (Saad bin Laden, Saif al-Adel, and Suleiman Abu Ghaith) all comes to us from anonymous sources.

Some have been passed on to the Saudis and some, apparently including UBL's son, are under house arrest.

If only they treated the student demonstrators the same way. Those who were handed over to Saudi authorities were promptly released by Prince Nayef's Interior Ministry, including some of the very people who later ended up carrying out the 2003 Riyadh bombings.

The reports emanating from ASAW seem to be based on supposed statements by those extradited from Iran; they're certainly not based on their having a reporter doing headcounts of interesting characters in Chalous.

Actually they're usually based on the reporting of Ali Nourizadeh, a London-based Iranian expatriate who usually attributes his stories to reformist dissidents in the IRGC and the Iranian Foreign Ministry who are angry over the current direction that people like Rafsanjani are taking their country in. Presumably people inside the Iranian government would be quite aware of how many al-Qaeda leaders are based in Chalous and why.

It's also worth noting that anything Michael Leeden says should be taken with a shovel-full of salt.

Why? Because he's a neocon?

I very much doubt he has any insight into the mental processes of UBL, let alone the average muslim, whether Shia or Sunni.

I would wager to guess that Ledeen has had contact with a lot more Iranian Muslims than you have and as such has picked up something of an understanding as to how they think. As far as understanding the mental processes of bin Laden, Ledeen spent a good chunk of his life researching totalitarian movements, enough perhaps that one might conclude that he knows a thing or two about people like bin Laden.

It's not remotely credible to suggest that he would be interested in recasting himself as the hidden imam for a sect whom he considers heretics. No Shia would ever entertain the idea that UBL could be the Mehdi. Hassan-I-Sabbah is a much more appropriate reference if you want to play this game.

That's a good argument, except that's not what Ledeen is saying. If the Iranians make bin Laden "disappear" for a while, it will be done in imitation of their belief in the Mahdi, not because they want to hold up bin Laden at some future date as the Mahdi.

It should also be noted that (1) the Iranians had sod all to do with the 1980's Afghan war - they were far too busy dealing with the more pressing problems of fighting the Iraqis

Untrue for the reasons that praktike notes below - Iran also helped to back the Sunni Hizb-e-Islami warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar during that period and Hekmatyar has since made common cause with both bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

(2) after the Russians left, they then backed the Northern Alliance against the Taleban

Also true, a fact that Ledeen notes in the quote I referenced.

(3) nearly entered the war after the Taleban and their AQ allies murdered Iranian diplomats in Herat.

Actually, it was the Taliban rather than al-Qaeda that murdered the Iranian diplomats and it was in Mazar-e-Sharif that the killings took place. Iran may well have hated the Taliban and everything it stood for, but they were still pragmatic enough to work with al-Qaeda according to the 9/11 report.

Ledeen's assertion of a history of cooperation is bunk.

It isn't just Ledeen on this one, I'm afraid. It's been the assertion of the US government since at least 1998 and is also the position adopted by the sainted 9/11 report, to say nothing of the conclusions reached by any number of other governments on the subject. All Ledeen does is insist on calling a spade a spade.

Warning: long comment ahead.

Dan, I need some time to do more digging, but it appears that the most recent thing I was thinking about was the AQ in the Arabian Peninsula statement, not actually the words of Bin Laden himself. The statement pledged that AQ would "cleanse the Arabian Peninsula of polytheists."

That's probably not the best reference because, A, it isn't Bin Laden, and B, it's not entirely clear whether those guys were actually connected to Bin Laden.

Further back, on the February 11th tape Bin Laden said:

Prophet Muhammad, God's peace be upon him, said: "Avoid the seven grave sins; polytheism, sorcery, killing, unless permitted by God, usury, taking the money of orphans, fleeing from combat, and slandering innocent faithful women."

At the same time, however, he says this:
Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists.

And this:

The fighting, which is waging and which will be waged these days, is very much like the fighting of Muslims against the Byzantine in the past.

And the convergence of interests is not detrimental. The Muslims' fighting against the Byzantine converged with the interests of the Persians.

And this was not detrimental to the companions of the prophet.

That supports your case, I would think.

By the way, in that statement he gives some clear indications that he was in Tora Bora.

The March 4, 2004 statement isn't nailed down, but in it he says:
Among these texts is a hadith by Uday Bin Bin-Hatim, who converted to Christianity before Islam, and who thought, as many people think, that following the leaders and ulema in allowing what has been forbidden by God and banning what has been allowed by God is not worship of these leaders and ulema and is not atheism, because this does not mean praying or fasting for them. However, when Bin Bin-Hatim came to the messenger of God, peace be upon him, while he was reading this Koranic verse: "They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of Allah" he said that he told the prophet: They did not worship them. The prophet answered: Yes, but they forbade what is allowed and allowed what has been forbidden and followed them. Therefore, this is what they worship.
Be careful with this verse, because this verse and that hadith clearly show that obedience to the ruler, a scholar, or anyone else in allowing what has been forbidden by God and banning what God has allowed is tantamount to worshipping them rather than God. This is a greater polytheism and drives the person away from faith, may God protect us and you from this.

This is what Almighty God disassociated himself of when he says: "Praise and glory to Him: (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)." (Koranic verse) after he says: "yet they were commanded to worship but One Allah. There is no god but He." (Koranic verse). This shows that issuing legislation concerning what is allowed and what is banned is a type of worship. This is one of the most important traits of God and one of the most important prerequisites for testifying that there is no god but Allah, the first and most important pillar of Islam. This is a serious warning to those who think that Islam is mere words uttered in which one testifies that there is no god but Allah, while they do not know that these words have requirements that if they do not heed, they would not be committed to the testimony that there is no go[d but Allah]. The gist here is that the absence of a comprehensive understanding of God's religion as a system for all walks of life, including Islam's way of holding the rulers accountable -- because if they follow God's religion things become good for the country and the people -- is one of the greatest flaws in the nation at present. We should be fully aware of this issue and start the reform march today in order to follow the right path, God willing. We should not continue in this wrong path for another century.

How would you interpret that? My understanding is that a standard Wahhabi gripe is the inclusion of anyone other than Allah in prayers, so he's pivoting here and arguing against the very idea of secular governance. But in so doing he's invoking anti-Shia rhetoric.

In his 1998 interview with John Miller he said that all Muslims should "unite in the fight against polytheism." There are several ways to interpret this, but the fact that he includes Jews and Crusaders in addition to polytheists says to me that he's digging at the Shia. I could be wrong.

But further back, he made a pretty clear statement in his 1996 declaration of war against America:
If there are more than one duty to be carried out, then the most important one should receive priority. Clearly after Belief (Imaan) there is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land. No other priority, except Belief, could be considered before it; the people of knowledge, Ibn Taymiyyah, stated: "to fight in defence of religion and Belief is a collective duty; there is no other duty after Belief than fighting the enemy who is corrupting the life and the religion. There is no preconditions for this duty and the enemy should be fought with one best abilities. (ref: supplement of Fatawa). If it is not possible to push back the enemy except by the collective movement of the Muslim people, then there is a duty on the Muslims to ignore the minor differences among themselves; the ill effect of ignoring these differences, at a given period of time, is much less than the ill effect of the occupation of the Muslims' land by the main Kufr. Ibn Taymiyyah had explained this issue and emphasised the importance of dealing with the major threat on the expense of the minor one. He described the situation of the Muslims and the Mujahideen and stated that even the military personnel who are not practising Islam are not exempted from the duty of Jihad against the enemy.

Ibn Taymiyyah, after mentioning the Moguls (Tatar) and their behaviour in changing the law of Allah, stated that: the ultimate aim of pleasing Allah, raising His word, instituting His religion and obeying His messenger (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM) is to fight the enemy, in every aspects and in a complete manner; if the danger to the religion from not fighting is greater than that of fighting, then it is a duty to fight them even if the intention of some of the fighter is not pure i.e. fighting for the sake of leadership (personal gain) or if they do not observe some of the rules and commandments of Islam. To repel the greatest of the two dangers on the expense of the lesser one is an Islamic principle which should be observed. It was the tradition of the people of the Sunnah (Ahlul-Sunnah) to join and invade- fight- with the righteous and non righteous men. Allah may support this religion by righteous and non righteous people as told by the prophet (ALLAH'S BLESSING AND SALUTATIONS ON HIM). If it is not possible to fight except with the help of non righteous military personnel and commanders, then there are two possibilities: either fighting will be ignored and the others, who are the great danger to this life and religion, will take control; or to fight with the help of non righteous rulers and therefore repelling the greatest of the two dangers and implementing most, though not all, of the Islamic laws. The latter option is the right duty to be carried out in these circumstances and in many other similar situation. In fact many of the fights and conquests that took place after the time of Rashidoon, the guided Imams, were of this type. (majmoo' al Fatawa, 26/506).

No one, not even a blind or a deaf person , can deny the presence of the widely spread mischief's or the prevalence of the great sins that had reached the grievous iniquity of polytheism and to share with Allah in His sole right of sovereignty and making of the law.

One more thing: Bin Laden has clearly been up to his eyeballs with the SSP, which if nothing else is a group set up to kill Shia. This guy at Jamestown now says that Al Qaeda "no longer appears willing or able to control anti-Shi'ite elements within regional groups," about which more here.

So it's a mixed bag.

Praktike:

Good points but a couple of comments.

I'll have to go back and check the audio statements in question for certain, but I believe that bin Laden uses the word jahiliyyah and jahili that we translate into English as "polytheists" and is traditionally used by Islamists to refer to the infidel rulers of the Middle East. So when he or his minions refer to polytheists, it needs to be understood whether they're talking about jahili or another derogatory term used in reference to Shi'ites that also means "polytheists" or something to that effect but escapes my memory off-hand. To use an extremely imperfect analogy, if I tell you that we're going to go fight those bastards I don't mean that we're going to go fight everybody who was born out of wedlock.

As for the February 11, 2003 statement it makes pretty clear references to Tora Bora and him having survived the battle there. I believe he also has tips for the "mujahideen in Iraq," which as clear as he's likely to come in acknowledging him having his jackboots on the ground there.

The dilemma is pretty much the same in the other stuff you cite, because I don't know whether or not he's using jahili when he's ranting about the polytheists, which poses a definite problem in determining who he's talking about that wouldn't exist for another Arabic speaker. He certainly isn't referring to the Shi'ites by name or mocking their doctrine of the Hidden Imam the way that Zarqawi has.

As for the SeS/SSP, I'd argue that bin Laden is more isolated from it than some people would care to admit not because they're sectarian but because they're also a bunch of crooks and drug dealers, whereas bin Laden prefers to solidify his alliances with his more "legitimate" Pakistani allies like the LeT or JeM that generally steer clear of illegal activities inside of Pakistan to avoid angering their backers in the ISI. It's the same reason al-Qaeda has a lot stronger ties to the MILF than they do to Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines, although that may be changing soon.

That being said, the Taliban did use the SeS and its evolutionary descendant LeJ extensively in Afghanistan against both the Northern Alliance and the Hazaras and post-9/11 al-Qaeda members in Pakistan have used them as a source of cheap muscle because their members are plentiful, fairly stupid, and knowledgeable about how to run an underground organization (especially in the greater Karachi area) since they've been banned inside of Pakistan for years. Note that despite all of the LeJ/SeS infrastructure inside of Pakistan, most of the al-Qaeda leaders who've been captured there have chosen to rely on established (and IMO loyal and disciplined) international terrorist organizations like the LeT or JeM or else bonafide Islamist political parties like the Jamaat-e-Islami.

I have appreciated reading all of your comments and hope that you don't mind me adding a few thoughts.
I've thought for some time that Osama is in Iran now because:
a) He sent his family there
b) His son was recorded (don't have the link) from a cell phone issuing orders in his father's name (doesn't mean that Osama wasn't near by or in good contact)
c) Son still issuing orders and contacts, but Zawhiri now appears alone on video, which I assume means they (he and Osama) are no longer together
d) Zawhiri is most likely not in Iran but probably holding forth in Pakistan/Afghan border
e) Lack of video tape and audios might mean that, at least, even as an esteemed "guest", the Iranians do not want anything to be tracked back to them. While they are thumbing their noses at us with "nukes", they have to know that the President, having said any regimes that support terrorists are the enemy, would be forced to follow up on this. Coupled with Iran's public insistance to get nuclear material (and probably nukes), I think the President would be able to muster up enough political will to do the job or at least do some air raids and back local insurgencies (I think the backing is going on now as it is; standby for air raids).
f) Zarqawi continues to travel in and out of Iran at will. He traveled through Iran to get to Ansar Islam. It is obvious that AQ understood that Iraq was next. The President couldn't have made it clearer in his Sept 20, 2001 speech. AQ would have to be complete morons not to go into iraq and start setting up infrastructure and support.
g) Iran would have to be complete morons to not know that the US was going into Iraq for same reason as (f). Which means they also had an interest in setting up their own support for guerilla warfare.
h) iran and AQs motives match: Don't let US turn Iraq into a non-Islamic Republic.
i) As much as Saad was in Iran and issuing orders on behalf of his father, it is probable that Iran would prefer to have direct talks with the "leader". The wily Mullahs of Iran would not bet their beards on a wet behind the ears son.
j) Once having OBL in Iran, it is very probable that he became a "guest". Well treated, but monitored and unlikely to be able to leave without due "deference" from his hosts.
h) Osama is not a moron. If he sent his family there he must have known it was a calculated risk. As much as he is some mythical leader, by reading his statements, he is very family oriented. he's not the kind to leave his family in the lion's den without some knowledge that they and eventually him would be living in a gilded cage once they entered. which brings me back to a previous subject, Zawihiri
i) he did not take Zawihiri with him. He left him behind to manage the troops should he not be able to come back or have direct management (think about negotiating with a potential enemy; you don't bring all your best fighters to the parle in case you need them to round up the troops and ride to the rescue or continue on the mission). And I think this is supported by Zawihiri now appearing alone with the AK47 next to him in the video. IIRC, past videos with them together show OBL with the weapon next to him. Seems like it was a passing of the baton.
j) What about zarqawi running in and out of Iran, but not OBL or his family or top lieutenants (actually, I think they were probably a few top lieutenants and some trusted second tier; again, you don't send all your best to a parle that might turn sour)? Zarqawi is actually dispensable in the whole scheme of things. He can come and go because he can be eliminated with their own guys or by dropping some intelligence. And no one would blink. You keep OBL in his gilded cage as assurance while you swing your deals. And it works nicely because, if it all starts going topsy turvey, you have your last ditch bargaining chip eating and drinking at your largesse.

So, yes, I believe it is very plausible that OBL is in Iran.

Dan, thanks for the response. Is it possible you're thinking of mushrikun?

I don't think he is dead because his family hasn't gone through mourning. This is very important in Islam. If he were dead, they would have found out about it.

Excellent presentation of the facts and conclusion. I disagree only with his location. I suspect he's still in the moutains in the north, whether in Afghanistan or Pakistan makes little difference.

The U.S. military and the Pakistanis continue to make various efforts in that area and even in the south. They may know something. They may not.

Here is a comment posted over at Roger Simon's blog that deserves to be read as a counterpoint to Dan's terrific article.

I also believe OBL is dead and furthermore that Bush is the sort of leader who just might be inclined to NOT use OBL's demise for political gain, if it means that the war benefits.

Pierre

Here is a snippet.
And a link to the rest of the article
Some excellent comments here...especially those arguing that OBL is dead. He is in fact dead. I've posted on this point for years, with various proofs, both anecdotal and factual. (See Froggyruminations last week for a precis.) I've made a number of jouneys to Afghanistan and Pakistan since 9/11 and have recently returned from latest trip. OBL is in fact assumed dead by the people of Afghanistan and "Pukhtunistan" (beyond the Indus River to eastern Afghanistan...including the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Baluch/Waziristan.) I've lived with these people since the Soviet War, including a 6 month stint in the same little neighborhood as OBL in 1987 and am one of the few outsiders who've travelled into the private tribal lands into Waziristan. (Training the mujahideen in filmmaking and setting up the first media center in that region of the world. He was well aware, as my immediate neighbor, of the effort to train the mujahideen in filmmaking. OBL, of course, at that time became fascinated with the power of the video image and began documenting his own movement.)

Question: What do Sir Lawrence Olivier and Osama bin Laden have in common? Answer: Both are now digitally re-created images used to manipulate the public. From beyond the grave, Olivier plays a mad scientist in the recent CG extravaganza, "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow," and Osama bin Laden reappears in the latest tape (in a similar world threatening role) to menace the American public into voting for George W. Bush a few days before the election, when Bush trails by one point in the polls. And who authenticates the tape? The government minions of he who gains. Oh, please.