Terrorism, by its very nature, is a symbolic and a psychological warfare tactic - a deadly combination of violence and "info war". Besides, restricted use of force, the significance of a robust public relations campaign in tackling this menace, hence, cannot be underestimated. But the United States and its allied Muslim regimes in the war against terrorism, waking up to this reality a little late into the game, are miserably lagging behind Osama bin Laden and Co.

Osama's PR campaign, so far, has been right on target. In his latest interview to a leading Pakistani English newspaper he claims to have nuclear and chemical weapons, giving an apt response, from his point of view, to the recent Western media hype on the issue. More so, contrary to his first interview released to Al-Jazeera TV, the latest one, especially the local language version published in Pakistan, clearly conveys that he rejects any direct link to the September 11 attack. He is now attempting to gain sympathy of Muslims, especially in Pakistan, for being blamed and bombed unjustly!

Secondly, in an amazingly quick response to US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice's announcement that the president will not meet with Yasser Arafat at the United Nations gathering, Osama's top lieutenant Ayman el-Zawahri criticised Bush for ignoring the "main engine" behind the September 11 attacks: "American support for Israel". His PR team is watching US news channels 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The target audience for both the parties primarily is the silent majority in the Muslim world. For the sake of analysis, a safe guess would be that 10-15 percent of Muslims all over the world have heartfelt sympathy with Osama and Co and about the same percentage is decidedly against Osama's "vision". Leaving aside this approximately 30 percent, the rest are hanging in the middle or are neutral. Osama definitely has an upper hand in catching the attention of this "middle class", because the religious and political leadership of the Muslim states, despite condemning the September 11 tragedy, has not been willing and able to effectively challenge Osama's version of Jihad and worldview.

Meanwhile, he is conveniently refining his slogans and broadening his agenda; moving from initially limiting his criticism to the US presence in Saudi Arabia to becoming a champion of the Palestine cause lately and from threatening "pro-Western" Arab regimes to condemning United Nations. More so, he took a U-turn from his previous position of declaring all Christians and Jews as arch enemies of Islam, by recently making a clear distinction between US policy-makers and "good people in the West", looking more objective and balanced to the targeted audience.

Osama's performance in Afghanistan provides an intriguing insight into his "rules of the game". According to Ahmed Rashid, a renowned writer and an expert on Taliban, Osama played a vital role in transforming the foreign policy of Taliban since 1997. Mullah Omar, the leader of Taliban, owes a lot to him for his "vision of a global Jihad", destruction of the ancient Buddha statues of Bamiyan, and the "timely" elimination of Ahmed Shah Masood, the legendary leader of the Northern Alliance.

In comparison, there is a long list of blunders committed by the US and their allies in this sphere, starting from Bush's "crusade" analogy to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's declaration: "Western civilisation is superior to Islam". Indian Prime Minister Vajpayee's hang-up with the issue of "cross-border" terrorism in Kashmir has also not been very helpful vis-a-vis public opinion in Pakistan. Israel's policy of reoccupying Palestinian cities at will has also been a negative factor. To cap it all, President Bush's declaration that "it's going to be important for nations to know that they will be held accountable for inactivity", sounds very arrogant, to say the least.

Muslim regimes must declare whether they see Osama as a rogue or a role model. Mere denouncements couched in general terms are useless. Take a clear position - challenge and threaten Osama directly or join him by accepting his leadership. This is imperative, not to appear as US-friendly for any reason, but for the sake of their own religion and its correct interpretation. Similarly, on the part of US, it must be realised that statements alone are no substitute to concrete actions as far as the Palestine issue is concerned. A visible influence on "both" the parties should follow for restarting the peace process. Again, this is need of the hour not for safeguarding the US oil-interests only, but for achieving a viable peace in the Middle East as an end in itself and as a step towards achieving a just world order. Osama and the likes, by implication, will stand outmanoeuvred.