Osama is weak – this is no time to back off

Here’s William Safire in today’s NYT:

"Each state that does not harm our security will remain safe," bin Laden promised, which was "why we did not attack Sweden, for example." His unmistakable import: if the U.S. were to stop our war on Qaeda terror, which has killed or captured an estimated 75 percent of his closest collaborators, that would be what he called "the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan ..." Stop warring on terror and you will "remain safe."

Generals do not call for a truce when they're winning. Only warriors thrust on the defensive become conciliatory, hoping that negotiations will give them time to regroup and resupply. Bin Laden's vain hope seems to be that the defeat of Bush will give him time to buy or steal a horrific weapon as an "equalizer."

Isn’t it obvious that Osama is trying to pull another Madrid here and capture victory in the U.S. election where he could not through his decimated terrorist operation? I hope Americans will consider how a Kerry victory will be perceived in Europe and the Middle East. Bin Laden infamously noted that Americans will always retreat in the face of casualties (citing Beirut and Somalia). Surely he would view the “mess in Iraq” (Kerry’s words) as further evidence that Americans will back off when the cost becomes too great. What price will we pay later?