Al-Qaida's November Surprise

Ethan Heitner

October 30, 2006

Marc Lynch, an associate professor of political science at Williams College who routinely reads and analyzes both Arabic-language media and Arabic-language jihadi forums on the Internet, has an incredibly important and interesting post this weekend on al-Qaida and the elections. He provides a summary of how one jihadi commentator has summed up al-Qaida's likely strategy: If they want the Republicans to win and America to stay bogged down in Iraq, they will be active and release another video. If they think they're ready for the Americans to leave Iraq, they'll stay quiet:

The author's premise is that al-Qaeda has consistently intervened in American domestic politics where necessary in order to ensure that America stays in Iraq. Whenever America seems like it might withdraw, he writes, Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri pops up to remind Americans that if they do then al-Qaeda will triumph in their wake—thus goading them to remain. This predictably silences those reasonable voices calling for withdrawal, who are even accused of national treason, and strengthens the voices of stupidity.  The author offers several detailed examples, including the 2004 election in which bin Laden ensured that Bush would win and continue his policies in Iraq, and a Zawahiri video last year calling on Bush to flee Iraq and admit defeat which Bush used to silence his critics. Each time al-Qaeda's leaders speak, he argues,  Bush and his party are strengthened, and commit even more firmly to remaining in Iraq ... while the mujahideen laugh from the depth of their souls.   

Of course, the anonymous jihadi is not making any decisions for al-Qaida, nor is he privy to those decisions: He's just presenting an analysis, one that Lynch points out is in Arabic and likely not meant for American media consumption. Read the whole thing for further insights into the strategic thinking into why al-Qaida wants us right where we are.

Lynch's reading coincides with Dan Murphy's reporting in the Christian Science Monitor earlier this month about al-Qaida's revealed intentions in Iraq:

But a letter that has been translated and released by the U.S. military indicates that Al Qaeda itself sees the continued American presence in Iraq as a boon for the terror network, which has recently shown signs of expanding into the Palestinian territories and North Africa.

"The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness ... indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest," says the writer, who goes by the name Atiyah. The letter, released last week, was recovered in the rubble of the Iraqi house where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, former leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, was killed by a U.S. bomb in June.

There should be no doubt about this. The continuing occupation of Iraq is bad for U.S. security and good for al-Qaida. Of course, as Lynch also points out:

To be totally clear, I am not saying that Americans should vote for Democrats because an anonymous poster on a jihadi forum says that al-Qaeda wants the Republicans to win. That would be as stupid as saying that Americans should vote for Republicans because al-Qaeda wants Democrats to win. I don't actually think that al-Qaeda should get a vote at all, either in our elections or in what we do about Iraq, and don't want partisans on either side to leap on this as either "proof that al-Qaeda votes Republican" or "proof that al-Qaeda recites liberal talking points". 

But we need our leadership to start thinking a hell of a lot more intelligently about what we're doing in the world, and in order for that to happen we're going to need the public debate to start looking at the facts and not the political ads.