The Agent Speaks
By: GWYNNE DYERTHE book is called 'Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror,' and it officially comes out on 4 July, but its author, 'Anonymous,' is already giving interviews.
He is, we are assured, a senior counter-terrorist expert still
working in one of the US intelligence agencies, and his message is
that the Bush administration has played into al-Qaeda's hands.
In fact, he thinks that Osama bin Laden might even campaign for
Mr Bush, after his own fashion.
"I'm very sure that (al Qaeda) can't have a better
administration for them than the one they have now," said
'Anonymous' in a pre-publication interview with the 'Guardian'.
"One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack
that would rally the country around the president."
To which the only possible response is Homer Simpson's favourite
reply: Duh.
There could be no better evidence of the abysmal quality of the
thinking in official circles in Washington than the fact that this
trite statement of the obvious is seen as bold dissent.
OF COURSE Osama bin Laden would vote for Bush.
Not only did Bush do what was expected of him after 9/11 and
invade Afghanistan.
When that didn't work out as well as al-Qaeda expected (it
didn't end up in a draining ten-year guerilla war for the United
States, as it had for the Soviet Union), then Mr Bush invaded
Iraq.
Bin Laden could not have foreseen that, because he had no links
to Saddam Hussein (as the bipartisan commission in Washington
investigating the September 11 attacks confirmed last week).
Nor was bin Laden the real reason that the Bush administration
invaded Iraq, although it misled the public into believing that
Saddam had al-Qaeda links.
But for the al-Qaeda leader the invasion of Iraq was a gift from
God:his own plan to bog America down in an Afghan quagmire failed,
but Mr Bush then voluntarily plunged the US into a even worse mess
in Iraq.
The US occupation of Iraq is producing all the images bin Laden
originally hoped would be coming out of Afghanistan:Muslim women
and children blown apart by American bombs; American soldiers
torturing and sexually humiliating Muslim men; Muslim fighters
armed only with light weapons, faith and a willingness to die
successfully defying US military power in places like Falluja and
Najaf.
Why would bin Laden vote for John Kerry, whose first move
(though he denies it now) would be to get American troops out of
Iraq? Bush is his main man.
Osama bin Laden can influence the US election either by
launching terrorist attacks in the United States before November,
or withholding them until later.
If he is still able to micro-manage the timing of such attacks
from his refuge somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistani border, which
way will he jump? The answer is not as simple as 'Anonymous'
suggests.
Regular readers of this column may recall that I brought this
question up in October of last year, and that the calculations bin
Laden had to make were not simple even then.
President Bush has positioned himself as Mr Security, the wise
war leader who has kept Americans safe from another disaster like
9/11.
So if the aim is to give him an electoral boost that carries him
back into the White House in November, not just any old terrorist
attack will do.
Another big terrorist attack like 9/11 -- supposing that
al-Qaeda's remaining sleepers in the United States were able to
mount it -- would not necessarily help Mr Bush win reelection.
It might just as easily be seen by the American public as proof
that he had failed in his main job.
In fact, it is so hard to predict whether another terrorist
attack in the US would help or harm Mr Bush that so long as he
seems to be headed for victory in November anyway, the safest
course for al-Qaeda has been to do nothing.
On that basis, I have been predicting for the past eight months
that there would not be a further terrorist attack in the United
States before the November presidential election.
So far, so good, but there is one thing that could invalidate
that prediction.
If Mr Bush's numbers start to slide badly in the next couple of
months and it begins to look like Mr Kerry will win the election,
then al-Qaeda may decide to act.
But even if it does, it will almost certainly avoid doing
anything very big.
Carry out an attack that kills a thousand Americans, and you
have discredited Mr Bush beyond hope of rehabilitation.
But an attack that kills only a couple of dozen Americans --
enough to remind voters that the terrorists are out to get them,
but not enough to raise questions about Mr Bush's competence in
dealing with the threat -- could be just what the Bush campaign
needs to squeak back in in November.
So if the proportion of decided voters intending to support Mr
Bush sinks below 40 percent by August, then there is the distinct
possibility of a small-scale terrorist attack, probably in some
heartland city, in September or October -- something like a
truck-bomb in Cincinnati or St. Louis, to pick two cities at
random.
The terrorists are not on the run, as Mr Bush often
suggests.
They are ruthless but intelligent people with rational goals,
and their violence is designed to deliver them to those goals.
The game is still afoot, and nobody could say at this point that
they have failed.
* Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose
articles are published in 45 countries.
In fact, he thinks that Osama bin Laden might even campaign for Mr
Bush, after his own fashion."I'm very sure that (al Qaeda) can't
have a better administration for them than the one they have now,"
said 'Anonymous' in a pre-publication interview with the
'Guardian'."One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an
attack that would rally the country around the president."To which
the only possible response is Homer Simpson's favourite reply:
Duh.There could be no better evidence of the abysmal quality of the
thinking in official circles in Washington than the fact that this
trite statement of the obvious is seen as bold dissent.OF COURSE
Osama bin Laden would vote for Bush.Not only did Bush do what was
expected of him after 9/11 and invade Afghanistan.When that didn't
work out as well as al-Qaeda expected (it didn't end up in a
draining ten-year guerilla war for the United States, as it had for
the Soviet Union), then Mr Bush invaded Iraq.Bin Laden could not
have foreseen that, because he had no links to Saddam Hussein (as
the bipartisan commission in Washington investigating the September
11 attacks confirmed last week).Nor was bin Laden the real reason
that the Bush administration invaded Iraq, although it misled the
public into believing that Saddam had al-Qaeda links.But for the
al-Qaeda leader the invasion of Iraq was a gift from God:his own
plan to bog America down in an Afghan quagmire failed, but Mr Bush
then voluntarily plunged the US into a even worse mess in Iraq.The
US occupation of Iraq is producing all the images bin Laden
originally hoped would be coming out of Afghanistan:Muslim women
and children blown apart by American bombs; American soldiers
torturing and sexually humiliating Muslim men; Muslim fighters
armed only with light weapons, faith and a willingness to die
successfully defying US military power in places like Falluja and
Najaf.Why would bin Laden vote for John Kerry, whose first move
(though he denies it now) would be to get American troops out of
Iraq? Bush is his main man.Osama bin Laden can influence the US
election either by launching terrorist attacks in the United States
before November, or withholding them until later.If he is still
able to micro-manage the timing of such attacks from his refuge
somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistani border, which way will he
jump? The answer is not as simple as 'Anonymous' suggests.Regular
readers of this column may recall that I brought this question up
in October of last year, and that the calculations bin Laden had to
make were not simple even then.President Bush has positioned
himself as Mr Security, the wise war leader who has kept Americans
safe from another disaster like 9/11.So if the aim is to give him
an electoral boost that carries him back into the White House in
November, not just any old terrorist attack will do.Another big
terrorist attack like 9/11 -- supposing that al-Qaeda's remaining
sleepers in the United States were able to mount it -- would not
necessarily help Mr Bush win reelection.It might just as easily be
seen by the American public as proof that he had failed in his main
job.In fact, it is so hard to predict whether another terrorist
attack in the US would help or harm Mr Bush that so long as he
seems to be headed for victory in November anyway, the safest
course for al-Qaeda has been to do nothing.On that basis, I have
been predicting for the past eight months that there would not be a
further terrorist attack in the United States before the November
presidential election.So far, so good, but there is one thing that
could invalidate that prediction.If Mr Bush's numbers start to
slide badly in the next couple of months and it begins to look like
Mr Kerry will win the election, then al-Qaeda may decide to act.But
even if it does, it will almost certainly avoid doing anything very
big.Carry out an attack that kills a thousand Americans, and you
have discredited Mr Bush beyond hope of rehabilitation.But an
attack that kills only a couple of dozen Americans -- enough to
remind voters that the terrorists are out to get them, but not
enough to raise questions about Mr Bush's competence in dealing
with the threat -- could be just what the Bush campaign needs to
squeak back in in November.So if the proportion of decided voters
intending to support Mr Bush sinks below 40 percent by August, then
there is the distinct possibility of a small-scale terrorist
attack, probably in some heartland city, in September or October --
something like a truck-bomb in Cincinnati or St. Louis, to pick two
cities at random.The terrorists are not on the run, as Mr Bush
often suggests.They are ruthless but intelligent people with
rational goals, and their violence is designed to deliver them to
those goals.The game is still afoot, and nobody could say at this
point that they have failed.* Gwynne Dyer is a London-based
independent journalist whose articles are published in 45
countries.