Would a terrorist attack in the US before the election help or hurt the Republicans?

[bozothedeathmachine]

There's chatter going on all over the place about an attack happening during Ramadan, which would be before the elections in the US next month. Obviously parallels would be drawn to the attacks in Spain several years ago that many say influenced the electorate to oust the conservative incumbents in favor of their (really) liberal opponents.

On the one side you have the Reps saying the Dems are soft on terror and there hasn't been another attack since 9/11. Granted the latter part of that argument would go out the window (or would it?), and this should prove to people they need the Reps.

On the other side the Dems argument is that Buschco has, according to the 9/11 commission, done a complete crap job on securing the US, this would be the 2nd attack on his watch, and they've done nothing but exacerbate this whole mess.

The latter argument seems more rational to me, but rationality and politics don't seem to play well together. I think another attack on the US is almost a certainty (but when is another question), which lessens the former argument.

Thoughts?

 

[Bikewer]

Since Bush continues to tout the "we're fighting them over there..." rhetoric...

I dunno; polling seems to indicate that the electorate seems to favor the Republicans as doing a good job on "The War On Terror", but falling off sharply regarding Iraq. The Republicans seem to still try to conflate the two, however.

I can't see any great evidence that the administration is fighting the War on Terror with any great efficiency; they have captured or killed some Al Qaeda operatives, but our foreign policy seems to keep making more.
Despite billions spent on the homefront, there has been little evidence that we are now "safer" than prior to 9/11.
Our department has been the recipient of some of this largess, I now have a bag containing a "moon suit", a gas mask, rubber boots, gloves, and sundry other items in case of a CBR attack. It's been sitting on a shelf for about 3 years...

 

[Ziggurat]

Despite billions spent on the homefront, there has been little evidence that we are now "safer" than prior to 9/11.

We don't really have a good way to measure that, do we? How would we even get such evidence? We can't, really, since we only know half the equation.

 

[Beerina]

CBR? Did NBC get mad at the government calling it NBC?

I guess they can get away with it, though, since Comic Book Resources.com is a much smaller organization than the National Broadcasting Company.

 

[Ziggurat]

On the other side the Dems argument is that Buschco has, according to the 9/11 commission, done a complete crap job on securing the US, this would be the 2nd attack on his watch, and they've done nothing but exacerbate this whole mess.

Except that Bush isn't running again. Which makes democrat arguments about what Bush specifically has done rather beside the point. What's more relevant is what Congress has done. Have the democrats in Congress really demonstrated that they take this issue more seriously than the Republicans in congress? I certainly haven't gotten that impression. Furthermore, it's not enough to talk about how we will defend ourselves. Defense-only is a loser's strategy. There needs to be an offensive component.

 

[Tricky]

I think it would help the Republicans. When people in the US get attacked, their first impulse is to find somebody to punish. Whether justified or not, I think the GOP is perceived as the party most likely to do that.

Three years after, we might consider (in numbers slightly greater than a majority) that it was a mistake, but our first reaction is rage, and the "Big Tent" of the GOP has more room for rage. (IMO, as always).

 

[Darth Rotor]

The latter argument seems more rational to me, but rationality and politics don't seem to play well together. I think another attack on the US is almost a certainty (but when is another question), which lessens the former argument.

Thoughts?

A terrorist attack on the US is independent of the actions in Iraq, unless the Iraq operation has created (and not then subsequently killed) more proficient terrorists who then undertake to export their efforts to CONUS. No terrorist is, or has ever been, obliged to go through Iraq (pass Go, collect 200 dollars) before subsequently staging an attack on the US. Osama's boys are a shining example of that. When not if is indeed the scenario. That has been true since at least WTC 1993.

The assertion that "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" is an effective "offense rather than defense" is a wasted argument on Iraq. The "fight them over there" method need not have been an invasion of anywhere, Afghanistan the sanctuary aside. A series of aggressive intelligence intensive assassinations, bombings, and arrests of various cells and groups all over the world would fit the "offense" bill just fine. "Over there" for a war on terrorists is most anywhere they set up shop relatively undeterred.

Iraq is a different matter, except in its related political/phsychological impact on what symbols the US represents in the minds of various actors in the tragicomedy "Terrorist, the Sequel."

DR

 

[Ziggurat]

The "fight them over there" method need not have been an invasion of anywhere, Afghanistan the sanctuary aside.

No, it need not have been. But the proponents of other options have not produced alternatives which would have much effect.

A series of aggressive intelligence intensive assassinations, bombings, and arrests of various cells and groups all over the world would fit the "offense" bill just fine.

By "bombings", I presume you mean acts of war. Because to fit the bill, we need to put the state sponsors of terrorism on the defensive. It is NOT enough to merely go after the terrorists themselves. You are correct that an invasion isn't the only option to do this, but aggressive police action is not an offensive policy at all.

 

[drkitten]

A terrorist attack on the US is independent of the actions in Iraq, unless the Iraq operation has created (and not then subsequently killed) more proficient terrorists who then undertake to export their efforts to CONUS.

I disagree.

Operations in Iraq make US assets and people in Iraq more accessible to mideast terrorists than they were in the USA. It's a simple argument of geography. If I lived in Oregon, would I be more likely to vacation in Disneyland (in California), or in DisneyWorld (in Florida)? If I lived in Kyoto, would I visit Disneyland Tokyo, or Disneyland Paris?

I suspect that your average Turkish terrorist wannabe (no offense to the Turks here; the same argument applies to almost any largely-Muslim/Arab country) would have a much easier time travellling to Iraq then to the United States. Less costs, less border hassles, fewer language issues, and probably a more friendly and supportive set of locals.

But by the same token, I think that the troops in Iraq are creating more terrorists, precisely because the barrier to entry is less. (Some random Turks will be blowing stuff up in Iraq who would otherwise have stayed at home.) And, of course, they're probably making more enemies with each passing day. So I suspect the total pool of terrorists has grown as a result of the Iraqi conflict -- and I suspect that at least some of those terrorists will eventually want to try their hand in the USA.

 

[SlippyToad]

We don't really have a good way to measure that, do we? How would we even get such evidence? We can't, really, since we only know half the equation.

Sure we do. Since 2003, terror attacks have risen sharply in each year. That they aren't happening in the US makes no difference. Terrorists, egged on by the Iraq situation (where there were no terrorists of any description before) and able to learn new tactics rapidly in a chaotic environment, are basically being created, trained, and sent out into the world to wreak havoc. In the meantime, we ban liquid hand sanitizer in the U.S. but still don't scan the luggage in the cargo hold on the planes. It's a Potempkin Village demonstration of "security." It's not real. At some point, it will come back to haunt us as much as funding and supporting Saddam in the 1980's or Bin Laden in the 1990's has.

 

[SlippyToad]

Except that Bush isn't running again. Which makes democrat arguments about what Bush specifically has done rather beside the point. What's more relevant is what Congress has done.

Congress, dominated by Republicans, have rubber-stamped every single thing Bush has done. His only veto of the last six years has been over stem cells.

Have the democrats in Congress really demonstrated that they take this issue more seriously than the Republicans in congress? I certainly haven't gotten that impression.

Maybe because you only watch Fox News, which categorically means you're very poorly informed. For starters, the whole terrorist attack issue has been artifically inflated to panic levels far out of proportion to the danger they present. More people die of the flu every year than in terrorist attacks. More people die in car accidents. We don't freak out and start selling off our civil liberties over car accidents. We shouldn't over terror attacks. Suspending Habeus Corpus, or permitting Bush to name specified people "enemy combatants" (essentially giving him the right to print bills of attainder, dont'cha know?), or tolerating torture, secret prisons, or unadjudicated wiretaps is necessary to reduce every citizen's 0.00001% chance of dying in a terrorist attack to zero is asinine.

I recall several years ago how many gun-toting conservatives and libertarians would jam repeatedly in my face the quote attributed to Ben Franklin: They that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. The issue really isn't whether Democrats are serious about it. It's whether Republicans (and Republican voters) are bed-pissing hysterical about it to the point that they'll give up fundamental constructs of our civil liberties. Those rights are also MINE and not yours to bargain away out of fear, thank you very much.

Furthermore, it's not enough to talk about how we will defend ourselves. Defense-only is a loser's strategy. There needs to be an offensive component.

We've started a pre-emptive war in Iraq and it has been unequivocally a failure. The rescue team sent in by Bush's daddy is apparently releasing a report (after the election, natch) that early rumors indicate will definitively rule out any "victory" condition in Iraq. Which means that basically Baker is going to recommend that Bush cut and run.

This doesn't even get to the issue that every single reason for going into Iraq has been thoroughly refuted by everyone who has an inkling about what went on.

I'm not sure what "offensive" component of the GWOT you could imagine to follow in the steps of what is now clearly dawning as the most catastrophic failure of US foreign and military policy since Vietnam. Again with the actual probability of a threat harming any single American hovering several places to the right of the decimal point, it's going to be hard to commit huge resources toward eliminating that particular threat with military action considering that said action is failing, and causing us worse problems than the one we set out to "solve." We as a nation have frankly got bigger fish to fry.

And by the way, where is Osama Bin Laden? I notice we never did actually find him.

 

[Whoracle]

The Democrats truly would be a pathetic party if they couldn't use another terrorist attack to kick some Republican ass out of office. With Bush always out there reminding us it's his job to protect us, and then failing miserably at it like everything else he has done, the Democrat party would have an excellent chance to remind everyone that these guys aren't doing a good job at protecting us.

 

[Darth Rotor]

No, it need not have been. But the proponents of other options have not produced alternatives which would have much effect.

By "bombings", I presume you mean acts of war. Because to fit the bill, we need to put the state sponsors of terrorism on the defensive. It is NOT enough to merely go after the terrorists themselves. You are correct that an invasion isn't the only option to do this, but aggressive police action is not an offensive policy at all.

Pres Clinton used Tomahawks on Afthanistan to attack terrorist cells. And on Sudan's "chem weapos" facility. No war declared, and IMO, not enough soft power used to back it up.

I am trying to understand your disagreement.

drkitten, access to Americans to attack in Iraq isn't the issue, Americans over seas were already being attacked before we went to Iraq. I note USS Cole and two embassies in Africa, and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. The "over there" versus "over here" meme sets up a false logic of "if P then not Q" where P = fighting in Iraq and Q = terrorist attack On The Us Homeland, which is what CONUS means.

You aren't addressing what I am talking about, you are addressing something else. But let's take your idea a step further: put Americans where terrorists can easily get at them, and create an easy to use arena to strike a blow at the great Satan. That may be what the strategy in Iraq is, or boils down to, but that strategy assumes that "the terrorists will do as we wish them to."

One little thing about war that the armchair strategist rarely appreciates: the enemy has a mind of his own, and won't generally do what you wish he would do. Given the under the table, and overt, support for terrorists groups that is available, no terrorist is, I repeat for emphasis, obliged to fall for the tarbaby target offered them in Iraq. It is tougher to arrange, but infiltration and action on US soil is still a viable option for someone who wants to do damage on US soil. There is no need to go to Iraq first. The current reality is that Arab on Arab violence far exceeds Arab on US violence in Iraq.

The fact that any number of folks have wandered into Iraq to avail themselves of a chance to fight the great Satan I am all too familiar with. They died in bunches when I was over there, and some of them drew American blood. That some did so is no guarantee that all will do so.

DR

 

[drkitten]

I am trying to understand your disagreement.

Fair enough -- I'm having difficulty understanding your response, so I probably wrote it badly.

drkitten, access to Americans to attack in Iraq isn't the issue, Americans over seas were already being attacked before we went to Iraq.

Yes.

I note USS Cole and two embassies in Africa, and the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.

Yes.

The "over there" versus "over here" meme sets up a false logic of "if P then not Q" where P = fighting in Iraq and Q = terrorist attack On The Us Homeland, which is what CONUS means.

Aside from the fact that you seem to feel that a terrorist attack in Hawai'i is somehow acceptable -- more or less. But I don't see why you consider this to be a "false logic."

In law, they would call it an "alibi." If someone is in Iraq (blowing up US troops), then they're not in Chicago (blowing up US buildings). That's simple geography, isn't it?

But let's take your idea a step further: put Americans where terrorists can easily get at them, and create an easy to use arena to strike a blow at the great Satan. That may be what the strategy in Iraq is, or boils down to, but that strategy assumes that "the terrorists will do as we wish them to."

One little thing about war that the armchair strategist rarely appreciates: the enemy has a mind of his own, and won't generally do what you wish he would do.

Which is why you try so hard to make him do what you wish he would do. Deception -- and laying traps via targets of opportunity -- have a long and honorable history in warfare. Did you ever see Return of the Jedi? The Emperor arranged to have the existence of the second Death Star deliberately leaked, in order to draw a Rebel attack that he felt he could win. (THe only reason he failed is because his lieutenant betrayed him -- and because the scriptwriter was on the other side.)

You'll point out that that is fiction. But similar tricks and traps have been set in "real" war as well. For example, where was General Patton on D-Day? He was on the beach in Kent, ostensibly "commanding" a phantom army that didn't exist -- but that was producing lots and lots of radio traffic to persuade the German troops in Calais not to move down to Normandy and crush the "real" invasion force. It worked, too. The Calais troops held, the Allies took the beaches, and never looked back.

Given the under the table, and overt, support for terrorists groups that is available, no terrorist is, I repeat for emphasis, obliged to fall for the tarbaby target offered them in Iraq. It is tougher to arrange, but infiltration and action on US soil is still a viable option for someone who wants to do damage on US soil.

No one is obliged to fight in Iraq, but by the same token, no one is obliged to come to the CONUS. And while the enemy is never obliged to fight on your terms, it's definitely in your best interest to make it as easy as possible for him to do so.

The fact that any number of folks have wandered into Iraq to avail themselves of a chance to fight the great Satan I am all too familiar with. They died in bunches when I was over there, and some of them drew American blood. That some did so is no guarantee that all will do so.

But every one who draws American blood in Iraq isn't drawing it in the United States.

 

[The Don]

Sure we do. Since 2003, terror attacks have risen sharply in each year. That they aren't happening in the US makes no difference.

Of course it makes a difference. The UK was congratulating itself on its conduct in the war and its integration of its racial monorities right up til July 7 last year.

So long as the terrorist attacks are happening somewhere else it's OK

 

[Darth Rotor]

Aside from the fact that you seem to feel that a terrorist attack in Hawai'i is somehow acceptable -- more or less. But I don't see why you consider this to be a "false logic."

Hmm, good point on Hawaii and Alaska. As to false logic and

In law, they would call it an "alibi." If someone is in Iraq (blowing up US troops), then they're not in Chicago (blowing up US buildings). That's simple geography, isn't it

?
You seem to be making the assumption that the guy blowing stuff up in Iraq was ever considering going to Chicago to blow things up. Neither is dependent on the other.

Which is why you try so hard to make him do what you wish he would do.

Yeah, but what we are doing in Iraq hardly qualifies as such an activity. What was done was to expand the opportunity for attacking Americans, mostly those in uniform. That hardly forces the original Al Qaeda, and similar transnationally based, extranational groups to go to Iraq and play our game.

Deception -- and laying traps via targets of opportunity -- have a long and honorable history in warfare.

No kidding? I know how to suck eggs, thanks.

No one is obliged to fight in Iraq, but by the same token, no one is obliged to come to the CONUS.

True, but we have already seen two groups of people who were motivated to, and successfully did, attack the US: the gang of WTC 1993, and the gang of WTC 2001. There is no reason to believe those were isolated gangs of terrorists. There is also no significant operational linkage (in terms of choices for action) between those groups and the actors in Iraq. The early identification of Zarqawi with Al Qaeda was on his own initiative, and apparently caused some concern within the Al Qaeda camp. (This is hard to prove, given the eratic realiability of info accessed in the public domain on Al Q in general. But that's the brief I got. Two+ year old assessment.)
Giving some people the opportunity to travel to Iraq and fight Americans does not necessitate that the people attracted to that option are the same set of people who wish to attack the American homeland for their political purposes (to include Hawaii and Alaska, who deserve as much love and terror as the rest of us. )

And while the enemy is never obliged to fight on your terms, it's definitely in your best interest to make it as easy as possible for him to do so.

But is it in your best interest to aid and abet your enemy's recruiting efforts, to motivate people to join his army, or to ally with him? No. That is counterproductive.

But every one who draws American blood in Iraq isn't drawing it in the United States.

So what? Everyone in Afghanistan shooting at Americans isn't doing so in the US. The various Muslim groups in the Philippines aren't setting off bombs in the US either. Nor are the Shining Path guerillas in Bolivia. Nor the various Islamists in Somalia.

Fighting various terrorists and guerillas in Iraq does nothing to stop any terrorist cell from electing to take the fight directly to America. The initiative, and the decision on where to engage the US, remains in the hands of a given terrorist group. There is no single monolithic terrorist meta group, yet, and given the motivations and purposes of each group, there is not likely to be one any time soon.

Al Qaeda in Iraq was the opening of a new franchise, a business expansion.

DR