The other cheek

   Photo by lintmachine (flickr)

One of the last online stories run by The New York Sun before they folded at the end of September concerned reports of an “October surprise” by al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists.  To many observers, it stood to reason that we could see a repeat of the 2004 Madrid bombings, which propelled Jose Zapatero and his Socialist Party to power, whereupon his first major act was to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq.  Digital chatter on Islamic networks was hot when The Sun ran the story, so the warning wasn’t really all that outlandish.

The story was picked up by blogs and news organizations big and small, but despite similar warnings by Brigitte Gabriel (as I reported here) and others, the prevailing wisdom was that a terror attack before the national elections is unlikely because it could trigger support for John McCain, who it is presumed is the more frightful (to jihadists) of the presidential contenders.

[ad#ad-2]

I myself parroted this view, advanced notably by former G-man Ronald Kessler (see here, for example) in several public and private forums, but I always noted that al-Qaeda has a history of trying to influence elections, so we could expect some sort of intervention on their part as election day nears—if nothing else, the obligatory Bin Laden taped address to the American people—to remind us that the threat of a terrorist attack remains.  I have long been of the opinion that the question of timing in connection with a major terror attack is not so much determined by anything on our part.  In fact, I think the quick answer to the question of why we haven’t been hit since 9/11 is simply because the jihadists aren’t ready yet, and I was recently surprised to see that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff  dogmatically concurs with my view:

Terrorist operations are undertaken when they are operationally ready.  They don’t wait for something that’s an external event, and they don’t rush it.

Be that as it may, October has come and gone without incident and we’re still waiting breathlessly for the Bin Laden tape, but we did have one minor October surprise, when an al-Qaeda website declared that if a pre-election terror attack would usher in a McCain presidency, al-Qaeda would in fact welcome it!  As liberals and leftist nut cases gleefully reported that McCain had been endorsed by our foremost enemy, Walid Phares and Raymond Ibrahim opined that al-Qaeda was just engaging in a bit of reverse psychology to scare American voters away from McCain.  As Dr. Phares put it:

Of course, such subtleties are too much for our leftist friends on the Internet.  It won’t alter either their political perception nor would any of this change their belief that a McCain election actually would be inimical to our efforts to destroy al-Qaeda—that is, if destruction of the terrorists is what they want.  They would much prefer to send them food, educate them, teach them how to improve their economies—all the things al-Qaeda could care less about.  What they want are dead westerners and anything that furthers that goal—say, endorsing the stronger candidate believing it will adversely affect his chances thus electing someone weaker than McCain—seems to escape our leftist friends who are doing a victory dance over the terrorists endorsing McCain.

Of course, all this confusion begs the question of which candidate is really the “weaker” when it comes to defending us from the threat of Islamic terrorism.  But before we get to that, let me just say that I think it is quite reasonable to take the al-Qaeda “endorsement” of McCain at face value.  That is, it’s quite possible that they see a president who is likely to continue squandering men and resources in Iraq and Afghanistan as preferable to one who may strengthen America by conserving resources and improving a faltering economy.  This is in fact exactly what they say, and Bin Laden made  clear in his address just prior to the 2004 elections—believed by both John Kerry and Bin Laden to be responsible for Kerry’s narrow defeat at the polls—that al-Qaeda’s goal is to bleed America dry by forcing it to commit its resources to a losing battle.

In other words, if Bin Laden’s address mimicking the talking points and platform of the Democrats scared some Americans into voting for Bush, maybe THAT was a bit of reverse psychology.  As much as it has been mocked by conservatives, the idea that al-Qaeda may want another unpopular president like Bush, hated by a great part of the American public, is worth considering.  Certainly al-Qaeda has reveled in mocking Bush and in seeing him deplored the world over, and it’s possible he’d continue on for years as their favorite villain if they had their way.  Obama, on the other hand, is an international phenomenon, commanding vast support across Europe and the third world, and it is conceivable that al-Qaeda and other Islamic radicals may fear that he is ultimately the more unifying and thus stronger candidate than Bush’s fellow Republican McCain.

Perhaps the one thing we don’t need to question is that a terror attack is coming sooner or later.  While everyone was arguing about what al-Qaeda supporters really meant by their preference for McCain, Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden predicted that a major terror attack would come within the first months of an Obama administration as a “test” of his “mettle.”  Republicans pounced on the statement as a blunder by the loose-lipped Biden, but almost immediately a Pentagon panel agreed with Biden and ordered preparations for a near-term crisis.  At the Pentagon, apparently, they not only believe Obama will be tested by a major terror attack but that his election is also a forgone conclusion.

So the real question, it seems, is how President Obama will respond to that crisis.  Here’s what Biden had to say:

Watch.  We’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.  I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate.  And he’s gonna need help.  And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you—not financially to help him—we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him.&
nbsp; Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially; it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.

That would be my guess.  It won’t be apparent initially, in the middle, or at the blunt end.  There can be no doubt that Biden is referring to turning the other cheek.  Obama will negotiate the crisis—you know, initiate dialog, find common ground, build bridges of understanding, that sort of thing.  In other words, he will let us be killed to avoid hurting the feelings of Muslims who don’t appreciate our going after jihadists.  As Jesse Jackson said:

Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims. Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith.

Yeah.

Utopian socialism.