Another Election-Eve Surprise

Having enjoyed such terrific success at crusader baiting during the Bush presidency, Al Qaeda's greatest hope for the 2008 election is to support covertly the election of . . . George W. Bush. Following the October 2000 bombing of the USS COLE, and then the October 2004 Bin Laden video that implicitly endorsed the Democratic candidate, Al Qaeda will continue its pattern of successfully hijacking the American presidential elections of the 21st century. Specifically, Al Qaeda will intervene on the eve of the 2008 election with a terrorist attack designed to sway American voters to elect a hawkish candidate who promises to perpetuate the neo-conservative Bush war policy that is ideally predisposed to leading America into Bin Laden's crusader-baiting trap. Once again, the means to this election-eve manipulation will be the transformation of the election into a referendum on a newly raised, urgent matter of national security. Al Qaeda's third attempt to hijack an American presidential election will be novel, shocking, and intended to incite American voters to elect John McCain. Most likely, this plot will involve the assassination of the British prime minister.

In a delicate balancing act, this terrorist attack will be designed to avoid sabotaging Al Qaeda's portrayal as a righteous messianic group, while still succeeding in providing American voters with a powerful psychological incentive to continue the widely reviled Bush war policy that is so essential to Al Qaeda's ideological appeal. In order not to appear as too conspicuous a ploy to elect McCain, this election-eve shock will not involve a direct attack on America. Instead, this attack will attempt to portray Al Qaeda as genuinely opposed to the continuation of the Bush war policy, while avoiding the portrayal of Al Qaeda as the primary cause of the global war. Specifically, this attack will target the leader of the widely reviled top ally in America's war effort, a man who has largely reversed his campaign pledges and adopted a pro-Bush war policy similar to that of his predecessor Tony Blair. Importantly, this attack will minimize the number of casualties so as not to appear as a recklessly provocative massacre.

Although carefully designed not to appear as too great a provocation of America, this attack will still be intended to succeed in powerfully impacting Americans in the voting booth. An attack on Britain, America's closest ally, will be perceived by Americans as an attack close to home, prompting voters to elect the candidate who polls strongest on national security. In particular, the assassination of the head of state of President Bush's top ally will be perceived by Americans as an implicit Al Qaeda threat against Bush because of his war policies, as well as an implicit threat against both the American troops who are implementing this policy and the American homeland itself. In addition to being a mandate for a forceful national security policy, the election of McCain would then become a show of support for American troops in the war zones and an American president being targeted by our nation's main enemy. In an attempt to avoid condoning attacks on the American president and American soldiers, a crucial fraction of American voters will use their vote to resoundingly reject Al Qaeda's public rationale for this attack, as well as its past and future terrorist attacks. In the minds of American voters, Al Qaeda will have reframed the election as a referendum on the emotionally charged question of whether attacks like 9/11 are an appropriate response to the American foreign policy of the Bush Administration.

In addition to protecting the wartime president, U.S. troops and the homeland itself, Al Qaeda's election-eve attack would prompt American voters to perceive McCain's election as a necessary show of solidarity with an ally under siege that America brought into this war. Contrarily, the election of the national security novice Barak Obama on an anti-Bush platform would be perceived by Americans as (1) an insufficient response to this national security threat, (2) an implicit endorsement of Al Qaeda's past attacks and ongoing threats against American troops, the current president and the homeland, and (3) a rejection of support for our key ally when they need it most.

In similar but less likely alternative scenarios, Al Qaeda's election-eve intervention could take the form of a major attack on American troops in the war zones of Iraq or Afghanistan, or else involve the assassination of the head of state of one of these two countries. The overriding effect of such attacks would be to pressure American voters to ratify the Bush war policy again as a show of support for American troops and allies under siege. Additionally, such a destabilization of the war zones would prompt Americans to respond to this threat to American national security by electing the candidate who polls strongest on this issue. In such a scenario, voters would fear that Obama's election on an anti-Bush platform would signal the unpalatable notion that Americans condone Al Qaeda's attack on the Bush Administration's war effort. In addition, the election of an amateur at national security management would seem an insufficient, reckless response to this escalation of the 9/11 War. On the other hand, such a direct provocation of America inside the war zones would serve to sabotage Al Qaeda's goals, both by suggesting that the Bush policy in these war zones is failing, and by portraying Al Qaeda as the war's key provocateur. Considering these drawbacks, the Al Qaeda plot to support covertly McCain's election will likely be confined to a bid to assassinate the British prime minister.

If McCain is successfully elected, Al Qaeda will again appear blameless for the American public's endorsement and continuation of the Bush war policy, a blundering enterprise that has: 1) seemingly vindicated Al Qaeda's indictment of America as a crusading superpower, 2) devastated the nation's reputation and financial base through military adventurism, and 3) "quietly" allowed Pakistani sanctuary for Al Qaeda's high command who today plan the next 9/11 and acquire nuclear weapons. In addition to perpetuating the key source of Al Qaeda's broad ideological appeal, this endorsement of the Bush war policy will further portray the American people as willing supporters of this seemingly criminal enterprise that is widely perceived as the greatest threat to global stability. This pivotal event will serve as a necessary step in Al Qaeda's ideological campaign, demonizing the American people and rallying support for Al Qaeda's future attacks on American citizens.

Backed by rising anti-American sentiment, Al Qaeda will then attempt to assassinate John McCain (and his vice president-elect, if deemed necessary) in order to extend indefinitely the Bush presidency on a national emergency basis. Of course, publicly Al Qaeda will attempt to frame this assassination as an attempt to combat American "crusaders". In reality, however, this will be a bid to prolong the presidency of Al Qaeda's most valuable recruiting tool and portray George Bush not as a president bound by the constitutional separation of powers but as a crusading emperor whose policies have been firmly endorsed by the American people. If Al Qaeda succeeds in helping to craft the image of a modern Roman Empire that menaces humanity, Al Qaeda will then be poised to win the military conflict of its global insurgency on the foundations of a decisive ideological victory that turns the tide of world opinion irrevocably against the United States.