Terrorism and the Elections.

I got into a phone debate with RS over terrorism policy. It was interesting, because I think he actually acknowledged that the true threat is the ideological struggle between radical Islamism and western liberalism (i.e. "White People.) In short, this is a new species of Cold War. The shakeout of the conversation was a consensus that Obama is probably a LOT more "ruthless" and harder at his core than the image he presents: In short, despite his (entirely reasonable) focus on soft power and diplomacy, he will not capitulate and he is not a pushover. The remaining issue is the effect his presidency would have on the Muslim world.

Viewing this struggle as a battle of ideas and containment/ascendancy, we're losing the war. Furthermore, I think the hardline militaristic approach to fighting radical Islamism is actually exactly what they hoped for, and is producing the polarizing radicalizing effects Al Qaeda was aiming to produce. (i.e., Al-Qaeda wanted a Bush victory in 2004 and created it.) Nothing makes Bin Laden happier than hearing 70 villagers were killed in an air raid in Afghanistan. He loves that shit.

Anyway, I stumbled across an article today which discusses the October Surprise thingamajig...and so I've cut and pasteed some interesting snippiets from it.

What makes elections and transitions so attractive to terrorists? After the October 2004 Bin Laden video was released, I wrote here about jihadists' need to leave their fingerprints on big events. These are the seam moments, the points of inflection in history, and the terrorists want to demonstrate that they are central players in determining outcomes. They especially want to show their Muslim audience that they are having a powerful impact on the world stage and are the global actors they claim to be. Do they try to tilt events to help preferred candidates or parties? There isn't much evidence to support that—and the terrorists seem to have some regard for the law of unintended consequences, so I don't think they believe they can act with sufficient precision to ensure, for example, a victory for McCain or Obama.
. . .
That said, jihadist ideology does suggest that even though they despise all U.S. leaders, they know which leader would be better for their cause. There is a thick vein of Leninist thinking running through radical Islamism—Sayyid Qutb explicitly advocated the creation of a revolutionary vanguard of true believers. Another inheritance from Lenin was the notion that a hard-line enemy was better for mobilizing supporters than one who played down animus.

An 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.
. . .
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.

Actually, just go read the Article. My cut and pastes were sorta random.