Mark Danner, in this week's New Yorker:
America has endured fierce electoral struggles over war and peace before, most recently over Vietnam in 1968. This "war on terror" campaign, however, in its focus on the critical question of "Who can make us safer?," may come to more closely resemble the Red-baiting campaigns of the fifties or the elections after the Civil War in which rivals "waved the bloody shirt." But this campaign includes a shadow player the others lacked. For nearly a decade, Al Qaeda has attempted not to defeat the United States militarily but to gain adherents by building its image among Muslims as the only effective counter to America and to the moderate regimes that American power sustains. To this political program the Bush Administration sought to offer what it thought of as a political response: to "transform the Middle East," by way of war in Iraq. So far, the occupation has done much to diminish American prestige among the moderate Muslims it was meant to persuade -- and has helped increase the prestige of those who make the claim, while they go on killing the occupiers, that they are the only effective opposition to American power. In the United States, the debate over Iraq has encouraged a kind of corrosive, brutal politics that has at its center an appeal to personal fear. That leaves a powerful weapon in the hands of the terrorists, who gained enormously after the attacks in Madrid by appearing to swing Spain's election against a major ally of President Bush. No one can say what effect a terrorist attack would have on the American election. But the tone and the terms of the evolving struggle for political dominance here present the possibility that such an attack could similarly strengthen those whom both candidates have pledged to destroy.
:::sound of nail being hit on the head:::
Si, a direct hit. However, I am not comfortable with the simplistic viewpoint that the terrorists’ recent acts in Spain “swayed” the election to the point of altering its outcome.
I believe the outcome was a direct result of Spain’s citizens deciding to be rid of a leader who dragged them unwillingly into a war the citizens did not support (something Americans might conceivably do, were they to pull their collective head out of their collective sandbox in time).
As to who can “protect” the U.S., that is anybody’s guess right now given our nation’s finances and military overstress - but we do not have to guess about who has torn us down to this point where we are least able to protect ourselves from any kind of tragedy - be it the economy, our jobs, our own hungry homeless folk, national security, social security, etc. etc.
We also have rock solid proof of an inability or unwillingness to plan for or react sensibly to threats and acts of terrorism against the U.S.
If the tone and outcome of a Presidential election were determined by Mr. Danner’s opinions and suggestions, regardless of how well he puts his sentences together, I suppose we could simply forego an election altogether and just put up great big posters saying “We’re hopelessly confused; terrorists attack here” with a bullseye painted in the middle. Then we wouldn’t have to speculate about the effects of more attacks, just sit back and let it all “come on down.”
Not my idea of a good time, either. So what is the alternative?
“So far, the occupation has done much to diminish American prestige among the moderate Muslims it was meant to persuade — and has helped increase the prestige of those who make the claim, while they go on killing the occupiers, that they are the only effective opposition to American power.”
It seems to me the ball of this political game seems to be the fear aroused by the idea that Americans are unpopular and becoming more so day by day.
What statistics show exactly that the West is more unpopular now than at other times? Is this a speculation based on mood and intuitive logic?
These apparent polls seem to suggest another story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3514504.stm
Creating a fear and then promising a solution could be a political tactic but it is more likely the result of excessive emphasis on the negative side of the world by the media and the public. The government simply surfs the waves.
“What statistics show exactly that the West is more unpopular now than at other times? Is this a speculation based on mood and intuitive logic?”
Try this poll: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/150304_iraqsurvey.pdf
The one cited in the previous comment is just the skim from the one I’ve just cited. The truth, as usual, is far more complex—and far less flattering to the United States.
Philip,
I wonder if the pollsters ever made it to Falluja to ask the folks who were dismembering the bodies of foreigners about their opinions regarding the future of their country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3585765.stm
They sure don’t seem to be hopeful about the future or very welcoming to foreigners. Then again, I guess the media just put a negative spin on this scene of foreigners being killed, burned and dismembered.
Also, isn’t it Bush who has made Terrorism and Iraq the only to issues worth discussed. He is the one who keeps telling us that terrorist are going to get us if we don’t sacrifice national rights. He is also the one who threatens every country to follow US policy or face the wrath of the US.
Even the detailed poll results aren’t pertinent to the quote Chris cites. Danner is not writing about Iraqis specifically, but “moderate Muslims” throughout Middle East. And al Qaeda themselves certainly haven’t been impressed by our invasion of Iraq; consider the Madrid bombings.
That said, I have to take issue with Danner’s statement that al Qaeda “gained enormously after the attacks by appearing to swing Spain’s election against a major ally of President Bush.” Exactly how anyone makes a definite gain, let alone an enormous one, from an event whose interpretation is controversial and whose outcome is yet to be determined escapes me. I think Danner is aware of this problem with his claim, and stooped to weaseling his way to the conventional wisdom by writing that the bombings in Madrid appeared to swing Spain’s election. Then there’s the question of whether Spain’s token contribution to the invasion (1100 or 1600 troops? I can’t remember) in fact make it a “major ally”—forces which will only be withdrawn if the United Nations does not take control of the forces in Iraq.
hmmm…dont know if i agree with this article either
The United States is supporting governments in the Middle East, not people. Most of the governments are oppressive by any objective standard and not moderate at all. Saudi Arabia is nearly as bad as Iraq under Saddam. I see where the author is going, but one shouldn’t blur moderate regimes with moderate people.
Regarding the Spain situation mentioned, Spain has doubled their forces in Afghanistan and I am sure they are throwing all available resources into the situation in their own country.
Only someone looking into a very narrow box could see that as a victory for al-Qaeda. Of course, many hawks and al-Qaeda members are guilty of that very myopia. It is time for certain hawks to stop the temper-tantrum and get smart or this thing is going to keep getting worse. I am not so concerned about the armchair hawks on the ‘Net as I am about the narrow-minded folks in the Bush administration.
Their rhetoric may sound nice, but reality ain’t following suit.