Will Bin Laden vote?

Nov.3, 2006

Will Bin Laden vote?

By PV Vivekanand

THE REPUBLICAN camp in the US seems to be waiting for a miracle -- a possible public condemnation of the Bush administration from Osama Bin Laden or his deputy Ayman Zawahiri that could turn the tide in the Nov.7 elections in the Republicans' favour. For it is absolutely necesssary for Al Qaeda to have the Republicans continue in power in Washington in order to press ahead with its "international jihad" that primarily targets the US.
President George W Bush and his neoconservative strategists assert that a Democratic triumph in the elections is a victory for "terrorists" and a loss "for America." That is a short-sighted vision that totally ignores the reality that the policies and approaches followed by the Bush administration are the best contributors to the growth of Al Qaeda and likeminded groups around the world.
Washington says Al Qaeda wants the US out of Iraq. It need not necessarily be so since a US departure from Iraq Ñ and indeed Afghanistan ÑÊwould pull the rug from under the feet of extremists because the American military presence in these two countries have become the cause celebre for them.
Within Iraq, Al Qaeda is believed to constitute less than 10 per cent of the insurgents there. The others represent a mixture of mainly Sunni groups waging a war to end the US occupation of their country. Their objectives are Iraq-specific and their raison d'etre ends when the last US soldier leaves Iraq.
If and when that happens, Al Qaeda would be left on its own with its anti-US agenda and find itself targeted by the former Sunni insurgents.
Intelligence reports and findings of congressional investigations have clearly established that Al Qaeda was not as strong as Bush himself painted it to be and it managed to consolidate its presence and operations in Iraq taking advantage of the US image as an invader and occupier of the country.
It is a widely shared thought among international political and terrorism experts that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was like a "dream coming true" for Al Qaeda.
A Dec. 11, 2005 letter written by a senior Al Qaeda operative known as ÒAtiyahÓ to the then-leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, Jordanian Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, supports this argument.
In the letter, which was released by the director of national intelligence of the US, Atiyah says that Òthe most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest.Ó
He asserted that a US withdrawal from Iraq in 2005 or earlier could have been disastrous for Al Qaeda because it would have deprived the group of the reasons to exist in Iraq.
Al Qaeda wants to keep the US bogged down in Iraq in order to strengthen its influence and continue to wage the bloody guerrilla war against American soldiers. The Bush administration's belligerent policies and refusal to "cut and run" from Iraq serve Bin Laden's interests. The longer the conflict lasts in Iraq the better for Al Qaeda because the US would only get sucked deeper to the imbroglio. Washington does not have a face-saving "exit strategy" that would also help realise even a scaled-down version of the objectives of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Indeed, the US is caught in its own trap. And the Iraq war has become a central issue ahead of Nov.7.
Election pundits predict that the Democrats would trounce the Republicans and wrench control of the House of Representatives as well as the Senate. The Republicans would definitely want a miracle to happen ahead of the elections, and this could be in the form of yet another belligerent and challenging call from Al Qaeda to the incumbent administration.
It is widely accepted that it was a video messsage from Bin Laden that surfaced on Oct.29, 2004 ÑÊfour days before the US presidential election ÑÊthat helped Bush to secure a second term at the White House.
US analysts always expect an "October surprise" in a presidential eleciton year that would help either of the two camps, and the Bin Laden video was indeed one in 2004.
In the video tape, Bin Laden denounced the administration and thumped his nose at Washington. It was a very healthy-looking Bin Laden who appeared in the videoÊwearing a gold-brocaided Arab dress that contradicted the media-portrayed image of a sick and ailing Al Qaeda leader hiding in a cave some place along the Pak-Afghanistan border. His "message" was also a departure from his usual style of shrouding the substance with rhetorics while making statements. He was blunt and straight as if an excellent spindoctor had coached him. He ridiculed Bush and vowed to intensify his fight against the US.
Republican spindoctors jumped at the opportunity. They turned around Bin Laden's "message" and highlighted it as representing his "endorsement" of Bush rival John Kerry who they depicted as too weak to confront extremists around the world. There was an immediate surge of five points in Bush's favour in opinion polls, and he was re-elected (This does not discount the contention by critics that "fradulent" voting took place in several states).
It did not take much imagination to figure out that Bin Laden, by condemning and challenging Bush, was in fact ensuring the president's re-election.
Today, a similar situation could be at hand. With the anti-war fever growing among the American public, the Democrats stand a good chance to dominate the US legislature. If that happens, then there would definitely be a scaling down of Washington's belligerence (although it could not be said that the Democrats would immediately work for an end to the US military presence in Iraq).
Surely, Bin Laden and his people, wherever they are, know this. Why take a chance by not helping the Republicans and thus ensure that the US continues to be seen as an invader and occupier?
The US "staying the course" in Iraq might mean a lot of things for the Bush administration, but for Al Qaeda it means "prolonging the war" ÑÊas Atiyeh put it ÑÊ and serving its own interest. Maintaining silence ahead of the US elections would definitely not be its course of action, which could indeed turn out to be a "November surprise" this election year.