Why Do Terrorists Love To Strike Around Elections?And what can we expect in the coming weeks?
Posted Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2008, at 2:25 PM ET
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponAn appreciation for that kind of thinking underlies the argument Joseph Nye made in the Financial Times recently about why al-Qaida would prefer a belligerent McCain to an Obama who has spoken of improving America's standing in the Muslim world and who "would do wonders to restore the soft power that the Bush administration has squandered over the past eight years. That is why Mr Obama is such a threat to Mr bin Laden." Nye accepts the conventional wisdom that anything that turns the discussion to terrorism helps McCain, so in his view, al-Qaida has an extra incentive to act.
He may be right, though another possibility is that anything that reminds voters that Bin Laden is still out there might hurt the heir apparent to a Republican administration that hasn't caught the world's foremost fugitive. It's also worth noting that terrorism is nothing like the concern it was for voters in 2004, when, as Paul Freedman pointed out, it was probably the decisive issue in George W. Bush's victory over John Kerry. Of course, that could change. But today it would certainly take a lot more than video of the berobed Saudi to do the trick. (There remains a question about whether that tape made any difference in 2004—Kerry believed it did, but the number crunchers at Pew disputed that.) My Brookings Institution colleague and former CIA officer Bruce Riedel makes the interesting suggestion that we may be treated to one of the as-yet-unreleased martyrdom tapes of one of the Sept. 11 attackers. Ghoulish though that would be, it probably wouldn't change many votes.
A video is the most likely piece of electioneering we will see from al-Qaida, but there are two other types of surprise that ought to be considered. The first, of course, is the reverse surprise. While McCain has objected to Obama talking about attacking Pakistani targets, that is precisely what the U.S. military has been doing for months now with helicopter gunship and Predator drone strikes on targets in the tribal areas. There is no reason to think that the United States has gotten the tip it's been awaiting for the last seven years, but we also shouldn't be surprised that so much of the firepower has been focused on the northern regions of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, such as Bajaur, where Bin Laden was thought to be hiding. No doubt Bush would like nothing better than to finally settle that score—according to intelligence sources, there was a major push four years ago as well. Something tells me that the Saudi has figured this out, too.
The last possibility is the one really worth worrying about: a genuine terrorist attack, here or abroad, now or anytime after the election. It is purely speculative to suggest that the odds of an attack are increasing. Al-Qaida and other jihadists seem to be happily occupied, principally with destabilizing Pakistan and eroding security in Afghanistan. But a big trap has opened up, and one has to imagine that the terrorists will want to spring it. In short, there would be a high premium for them to carry out a significant attack soon, because in an election season, or in the early days of a new administration, there would be irresistible political pressure to carry out an obliterating retaliation. The target for that strike would be the terrorists' safe haven in the FATA, and the result would be exactly the kind of widespread Muslim rage at the United States that the terrorists crave. Few today question that Osama Bin Laden ordered the 9/11 attacks because he wanted to draw the United States into a draining war in Afghanistan. To Bin Laden's surprise, the quagmire scenario didn't materialize there, but in Iraq.
With Pakistan already on the verge of a breakdown and anti-Americanism there sky-high, the attraction of igniting a chain of events like this must be tremendous for the jihadists. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't strike back if a major attack occurs; great nations don't leave their dead unanswered, though it should go without saying that it's as vital as ever to be discriminate when using force. Still, if the bomber gets through this time, the consequences are likely to be devastating.
The Hilarious Results of Slate's "Write Like Sarah Palin" Contest
Does Your iPhone Really Need a Titanium Case?
Vice Presidents Say the Darnedest Things
The Golden Scissors Awards Are the Oscars of Black Hair
Slate's Complete Coverage of the Tiger Woods Scandal
The Awesome Spectacle of Glenn Beck's Live Performance of The Christmas Sweater
The terrorists have already won. They didn't win by blowing up the World Trade Center, and damaging the Pentagon, and by hitting the Cole. They won because of our reaction to all those events and others. The evidence is everywhere-- the stupid signs in airports that say "Threat Level HIGH!" and the unending recordings nearby that urge people to be on the lookout for unattended baggage. Even inside the zone of safety, after we've removed our shoes and had our hand luggage rooted through, x-rayed and swabbed, we hear the message not to accept anything from strangers.
The multi-gazillion dollar War On Terror and the fear that the government spreads is the terrorists' prize, their Oscar, their blue ribbon. Make no mistake, if people are nervous it's less because of anything terrorists have done and more due to the incessant reminders by the government of what the terrorists have done.
And what exactly have they done? They've killed around 4,000 Americans, and caused some property damage. In the years since the World Trade Center Attacks, ten times as many Americans have been killed-- by cars. Where is the War On Automobile Fatalities? Far more Americans have their homes burgled, their cars stolen, find themselves robbed every year-- yet where is the War On Crime?
We lock our cars and houses, and we rely on the police and the justice system to deal with criminals. After 9/11, all we had to do, ALL we had to do, to ensure that something like that never happened again was to change the protocol of letting hijackers into the cockpits of airplanes and to beef up the doors. That's it.
Sure, someone could have snuck something onto a plane that could cause a fire, even an explosion, but they planes themselves couldn't have been turned into missiles against us. And to reduce-- not prevent, only reduce-- the chance of someone menacing a plane full of people, increasing screening measures somewhat would suffice.
But the high-profile, fear-mongering does nothing to make us safe, in fact we all feel less safe, and we find our civil rights compromised at every turn by the government, in the name of security. Sorry, how is that not a victory for terrorists? Whose aim is to force change, to strike fear in the hearts of people who live in a free society?
Everyone KNOWS that if terrorists want to bring down a plane that it's a done deal. Most people who can manage to use the internet are smart enough to think of ten ways, ten simple ways, to bring down an airplane, ways that skirt all the security measures in place.
But why would terrorists even go there, when there are so many easier targets?
No, the answer is to give law enforcement agencies the resources they need to reduce the chances of success of terrorist attacks-- and for the rest of us to put it in the recesses of our minds and to go about our daily lives pretty much as we did before 9/11 and the fear-mongering that followed.
--DuckworkerMike
(To reply, click here.)
No one who's followed AQ over the past decade believes they somehow "want" McCain. McCain is their worst nightmare. He enabled Bush's strategy that is decimating them in Northern Iraq, requiring them to retreat back to the mountains and resort to needling forces in Afghanistan. They don't want McCain. They want Obama in.
The lack of resolute U.S. responses to the embassy bombings in Africa, the USS Cole bombing, and the 93 World Trade Center Bombings convinced Bin Laden that the U.S. was a paper tiger, and would fold like a cheap tent from one big attack. His plan was to issue a demand that the U.S. convert to Islam shortly after 9/11. He thought he knew what made Americans tick, and he was wrong.
It would also be ludicrous to suggest AQ is "happily occupied" with destabilizing Pakistan and eroding security in Afghanistan. They can walk and chew gum at the same time and their goals are global, not local.
Further, the notion that Bin Laden's intent was to draw the U.S. into a quagmire in Afghanistan is weak. He didn't think the U.S. had the will to stomach any war, period. The quagmire ended up being an Al Qaeda quagmire in Iraq, requiring them to retreat back to the mountains and start needling forces in Afghanistan.
They know McCain is the one that enabled that strategy, and intends to do the same in Afghanistan. They're not ten feet tall and unstoppable, as so many Americans seem to fear. McCain is AQ's worst nightmare and they're not likely to gamble on the reaction to a strike going one way or the other and thereby blowing the very good odds that Obama's on his way to the White House.
--marjor
(To reply, click here.)
And the attack on 9/11 was associated with what political event? I think that all the article demonstrates is that terrorists attacks can take place before and after elections, before and after installations and before and after inaugurations or pretty much anytime.
Human beings seek to detect patterns since it useful to do so.
I am not a terrorist but it seems to me that the impact of a terrorist act is magnified when it is perceived as random. Random in the choice of target - it could be anywhere, random in the choice of who it targeted - it could be anyone, and random in choice of time - it could happen anytime. Committing terrorist acts according to a pattern chances that the pattern will be discovered and anticipated.
--ccblend
(To reply, click here.)
(10/28)