Terrorism: Political Consequences

July 14, 2004 edition of the "Response to Bush Campaign Terrorism Scare"

So, a few days ago, the Bush Campaign sent Tom Ridge out yet again to try to scare the piss out of the American public. Then the media and the blogosphere go into a tizzy about which candidate would benefit from a terrorist attack, and arguing over what the terrorists want. It seems to be happening every few weeks of the Campaign. It was kind of interesting to see the arguments the first time, back in May, but now it's a little repetitive.

Since I'm not inclined to rewrite the same post over and over again, and I think it serves an interesting rhetorical purpose to see how often certain things come up, I'm going to just bump the date of this post up each time the Bush Campaign uses this tactic and the relatively predictable blog argument comes up. I'll also update with references to other blogs participating in this argument. In the most recent round, of the blogs I read, it's Drezner, Yglesias (again), and Lawyers, Guns, and Money. There's a slight twist on the prior discussion. Before, it was "Who do the terrorists want to win?" Now, it's "Who do the terrorists want to win, and will that candidate get a bounce in the horserace?" Drezner's just stirring the pot with a question, Yglesias can't stay out of the horserace analysis, though even he realizes it's silly, and LG&M comes closest to the right answer with a clear recognition of the foolishness of speculation.

The real answer, in my opinion, is that the appearance of influence is more important than real influence, so every time the Bush Campaign trots out this foolishness, they help Al Qaeda, for reasons explained at greater length below.

---

June 6, 2004 edition of the "Response to Bush Campaign Terrorism Scare"

In response to a Kevin Drum/Matt Yglesias treatment of the question of who Osama Bin Laden wants to be our next president, I reprint (actually, just change the date of) the post below (original date: May 26). I keep hitting these things just week or two ahead of the date that the greater blogosphere wants to talk about them.

---

May 26, 2004 edition of the "Response to Bush Campaign Terrorism Scare"

So, the Bush Administration is telling us that there's serious chatter about a terrorist attack in the United States sometime this summer. Well, according to some experts, Al Qaeda has the resources to do it, thanks in part to the Bush Administration's hubris and stupidity.

The Carpetbagger, my fellow in pseudonymity, has his or her suspicions about the motivations of the Bush Administration in warning us about an attack we can do essentially nothing to avoid. A frightened population is a population that's easier to convince to stay the course with the all-hat no-cattle pseudo-Texan. I have my suspicions as well, but let's put those aside for now.

Kevin Hayden at the American Street points out that the Bush Administration hasn't really done diddly to actually protect us against a terrorist attack, other than convince us to give up some of our civil liberties and just take some civil liberties away. Also true. The state of our cargo port security alone puts the lie to any tough-on-terror Bushwa.

I want to take a different approach, though. I want to consider Al Qaeda's goals in planning or suggesting they're planning an attack this year.

I've been thinking about the attack in Madrid, and the subsequent defeat of the incumbent government there. Opinions differ as to whether the outcome of the election was affected by the attacks. The hawks and chickenhawks in the US and the UK of course accused the Spanish electorate of bowing to the terrorists, while the more restrained analysts suggested that it was more complex, and that the outcome was affected either by increased turnout or the voters' response to the apparent deception byt the incumbents about the source of the attacks.

In the Washington Post article cited above, there's a suggestion that Al Qaeda is trying to affect the outcome of the US elections by launching an attack. I think it's possible that Al Quaeda may be trying to affect the outcome by even suggesting an attack, as well as actually trying to carry one out.

But here's the thing. Al Qaeda wins no matter what the election outcome in November, if people think it's based even in part on Al Quaeda's actions.

Let's hypothesize that either by an actual attack or merely the rumor of one, Americans are frightened into voting to extend the reign of Bush II. The Bush Administration's hubris and disdain for the opinions and value of anyone who's not them will continue to drive recruits Al Qaeda's way, continue to alienate America from its allies, and continue to provide a demonstrably suitable enemy for Al Qaeda. Worse, it will show those who may still distinguish between the American people and the American government that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and their crusade are in fact supported by the American people.

By contrast, let's hypothesize that an actual attack or a rumor of one convinces the American people to change the broken Bush Administration for a Kerry Administration that at least has some chance of working. Al Qaeda can crow its power to reach across the world and change the government of the most powerful nation on the planet, using that to prove its effectiveness and further increase its recruiting.

So even if we know that we should vote for the person we think will do a better job as President in fact, not in perception, we're still faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils from the perspective of the degree and type of benefit to Al Qaeda. I know which evil I choose. I'd rather be mistaken for a coward than proven a fool.

Vote Kerry.

[Update (May 26): Kevin Drum just noticed that Ashcroft was not-so-subtly implying that the goals of an Al Qaeda attack would be to displace Bush, and has the appropriate reaction.]