Bin Laden’s ballot wasn’t counted - ‘it’s the economy stupid’

By Roderick Jones

Now all the ballots have been counted and the Presidential election decided (apart from Missouri which remains too close to call) it seems like an appropriate time to comment on the seeming lack of any attempt by al-Qaeda (or affiliates) to influence the election through video messages or strategic attacks.

In the month prior to polling day a variety of commentators publicly and privately released material suggesting there may be an al-Qaeda attack towards the end of October. Some of the more extreme assessments cited a series of ‘Internet launch codes’ contained in video broadcasts made by Ayman al-Zawahiri in August and Adam Gadahn in October. Regardless of the presence or not of coded messages, this analysis always relied on a belief that al-Qaeda would seek to influence the US Presidential election. A belief, which is arguably flawed and has its roots in the Madrid attacks of 2004. These attacks three days before the Spanish general election caused the fall of the pro-Bush Spanish Prime Minister, José María Aznar and reversed the course of the election. However, this result could not have been predicted by al-Qaeda as it relied heavily on the governing Partido Popular (PP) mishandling the immediate political aftermath of the bombing in a spectacular way, by blaming the Basque separatist terrorist group ETA. Similarly, Bin Laden released a tape in 2004, which is also thought to have tipped that election to President Bush. This theory relies on the assumption that al-Qaeda has a favored candidate in any given election and that this candidate would then behave in the way they expect - this is a significant theoretical mistake to make. While al-Qaeda will take advantage of short-term tactical positions it is noted for playing the “infinite game” rather than the finite one. It also doesn’t address the fact that any American President would continue to conduct vigorous counter-terrorist action against al-Qaeda. As the former British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston remarked, "Britain has no permanent friends, she only has permanent interests." Similarly, the US clearly has a permanent interest in combating trans-national terrorism.

Therefore, while al-Qaeda’s motivation to insert itself into the US domestic political process is open to question, its desire to disrupt the American economy has always been clear. This is where heightened danger persists. With Western economies continuing to reel from financial instability significant terrorist attacks against key infrastructure targets would be amplified in the magnitude of their effect at this time. It would not be lost on al-Qaeda that money used for supporting banks or failing industry is money that cannot be used for fighting. Further, unlike planning to disrupt the US Presidential election, whose schedule is known by Western security officials, the timing of a potential attack now rests with al-Qaeda. With the global recession predicted to bite for the next eighteen months al-Qaeda has a large window within which to operate.

There is no doubt there has been a political paradigm shift, which broadly favors American attempts to lead the fight against terrorism. As President-Elect Obama begins to receive his daily briefings from the CIA there is also no doubt he will be aware of the threat the US continues to face from terrorism. While American politics has fundamentally changed the larger-scale global trends of increased digital and social connectivity continue to move steadily forward - these undoubtedly enhance al-Qaeda or even the next version of ‘global guerillas’. Therefore, if I were to presume to pick a top five of themes for those CIA briefings relating to terrorism I would highlight Pakistan/Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia/East Africa, proliferation of nuclear attack capability to terrorists and conflict in virtual spaces (which given the Obama campaign’s brush with hackers, wouldn’t need emphasizing too much). While these themes are all immensely challenging there is an opportunity to bring fresh and positive thinking to them. This is perhaps best exemplified by Dr. Irwin Redlener in a lecture entitled ‘how to survive a nuclear attack’. Redlener is a fierce critic of farcical countermeasures and planning based on past patterns. Not a bad place to start.

TrackBack