"...though neither their punitive replacement for Abdul Aziz al-Muqrin...."

Was this supposed, possibly, to be "putative replacement," or are you saying relations are that bad?

It was. I've stepped in to do the editing thing per my understanding with Dan, and that (plus a couple more things) are all fixed now.

Yep, thanks Joe!

more editing to be done: do a control-F on "abeit"

In any case, a good report, as usual.

I'm in the middle of Bodansky's A Secret History of the Iraq War (my intial summary here) and, I have to say, it squares with this post. But some of Bodansky's claims are quite outrageous, and some of them have already been discredited. On the whole though, I think he does a good job in explaining the stategies of the players involved, and he's no flack for the Bush administration. I am concerned about the quality of a lot of his sources -- no doubt MENL, DEBKAfile, and regional newspapers contain a fair bit of disinformation. And it seems, from his notes in the back, that Chalabi is his major inside source.

What do you think?

"In short, the lesson that needs to be learned from examining what happened in Spain is that when al-Qaeda seeks to influence elections, it does so strictly in its own interests rather than in those of either the incumbent or the challenging party."

This is fairly self-evident, Dan, but nonetheless worth repeating.

I'm curious, however, what you think would happen if and when the interests of Al Qaeda and the interests of one party become aligned?

VT:

Caricatures aside, unless one party wants to create a worldwide Islamic theocracy ruled by bin Laden, I would say that it would be virtually impossible for al-Qaeda to be aligned with a Western political party. You want a party that's in their pocket, the closest Western equivalent that comes to mind is something along the lines of the Arab European League, the Algerian FIS, Yemen's al-Islah, or the Malaysian PAS.

And of course the MMA up in Pakistan.

Dan;

You're presuming only alignment of the broadest goals, not the shorter-term ones that they likely think will bring them there.

Reduce their objectives to small, immediately achievable steps, and re-consider my question.

VT:

Here again, I don't see that happening no matter who wins in November. Neither Bush or Kerry are going to abandon the war on terrorism or screw it up beyond the point of no return, though I think that there's a legitimate debate that can be held over who would do a better job of managing it.

This is my own view, incidentally, and there are others who can construct plausible scenarios one way or another. In my view, this is a subject upon which I think one can hold to a variety of different but otherwise legitimate positions on.

Or to put it another way, when Bush 41 lost the election, Saddam Hussein figured that he had triumphed over his enemy. If one takes a dispassionate view of how Clinton handled Iraq, I don't think that you can argue that he did that badly a job within the political framework of the 1990s.

In short, bad guys make big plans, but they also make mistakes as well.

Hi Dan: missed you :-)
"Moreover, by influencing a Western election al-Qaeda achieved something that has long been the dream of Arab nationalists across the Middle East since the days of Nasser: influence over a major Western power."
Based on this analysis, coupled with your assessment of current Iranian nuclear capabilities, can you make a Kepler-Trigo threat assessment(or some other metric of your choice) of the liklihood of a radiological weapon being used to influence the US elections?

"I don't think that you can argue that he did that badly a job"
Can and will. The single action of implementing Toricelli tanked our HUMINT in the ME, and guaranteed we'd be deaf and blind there for years. Cm'on you know what the commission talked about in closed door! We didn't just stop hiring-- we FIRED operatives. And they immediately outed anyone they could finger to their new masters. Clinton was a disaster.

Praktike:

Ah, good old Yousef Bodansky ...

According to what I know or can reasonably deduce, there was a great deal of outsourcing that has gone on throughout the Middle East with respect to any number of countries in the region. The Saudis bankrolled a solid chunk of the Pakistani nuclear program and if people like Prince Sultan had their way they would almost certainly have de jure as well as de facto control of it. Allegations about Iraq having outsourced WMD R&D to Syria, Sudan, and Libya have been floating around since at least 1998 under the Clinton administration with respect to things like the al-Shifa plant, which is was extremely conveniently all blacked out in the Senate Select Intelligence Committee report on Iraq. Without getting into specifics, I can certainly see how people reached these conclusions, but the evidence is far from clear on this stuff.

Limited Iraqi support to Ansar al-Islam did occur in terms of weaponry and explosives (plus the personage of Abu Wael), but they also received weaponry from Iran, which was instrumental in setting up the proto-Ansar group Jund al-Islam. Zarqawi arrived in Baghdad because he was an Iraqi intelligence asset from the 1980s (for more on this, see an upcoming article in the Weekly Standard), though there were hundreds of al-Qaeda fighters in addition to other jihadis that showed up to comprise Saddam Hussein's foreign legion prior to the war in Iraq that Hussein hoped would deter the US from attacking, when in fact it ironically bolstered the administration's case for war.

Iraqi Shi'ites provided a great deal of assistance to the US during the war and prior to his murder al-Khoei had organized a Shi'ite revolt in Basra. Ayatollah Sistani likewise issued a fatwa in support of the US efforts to overthrow the Baathists. The Iranian infiltration did occur, but it wasn't centrally coordinated until after the fall of Saddam Hussein because of the internal politicking between SCIRI, Dawaa, Hezbollah, VEVAK, and the IRGC. They also sent a number of assassination squads into Iraq in order to annihilate any remnants of the MEK that survived the US bombing campaign.

The Russians did push for a coup on several occasions inside Iraq prior to war, but all of these efforts were thwarted by the Mukhabarat and the would-be plotters detained or executed.

jinnderella:

Aww, thanks ;)

If radiological weapons are everything that al-Qaeda has to throw at us, I'll be a very happy man. They successfully constructed several out in Herat during the late 1990s, but the problem is that dirty bombs are woefully ineffective terror weapons if you're looking to perpetrate a mass casualty attack like the kind that bin Laden's acolytes tend to favor.

Toricelli should be eviscerated and rightly so for what he did to our intelligence capabilities entirely apart from his apparent personal corruption. My point, however, was that Clinton was hardly a dove on the issue of Iraq, as I think even his detractors (and I count myself among them) will admit.

Jinnderella;

Bad Clinton! Good Republicans! They would never compromise American Intelligence (HUMINT, I guess?) for idealogical or other purposes, would they?

(Via corrente.)

Dan: Ah, but what sort of kill factor would be neccessary to cause chaos with the US elections? IMHO, just the use of any sort of nuclear material would work.
And I definitly believe Kerry would be their candidate of choice, based on the restoration of the UN to power in the democratic platform, and the extremely nasty things the Kerrians say about GWB. Y'know, the enemy of my enemy is my ally?

OK, Dan, now focus your attention on the time leading up to the election, and come again. Remember, I asked about a potential confluence of short term goals.

Why don't you start by taking a step into the great forest of the Caliph that you have been focusing on for so long, and examine the trees a little more closely.

VT, I think that's exactly what Dan was arguing re: the Spanish elections. There was a confluence of short term goals around Iraq between al-Qaeda and Spain's socialists, and the bombing showed that AQ's calculations re: the effects of a major terror attack there were correct. The Phillipines has probably just strengthened AQ's belief in the utility of this approach.

There's also a cynical POV that says if AQ can spin any attackas as proof of their effectiveness and viability, it almost doesn't matter if the political result is objectively favourable - that's more of a bonus to them.

Jinderella;

"Y'know, the enemy of my enemy is my ally?"

Always nice to know you'd happily veer off into civil war or anarchy rather than trying to come together with your fellow American to solve some of the big problems of our times.

VT, what point are you trying to make with this whole thing?

V.T.: Dooooooon't even get me started on impeached president Clinton-- I worked for the dude, and IMHO he should be drawn and quartered for treason over NK.
Reguarding your link-- wasn't "don't ask, don't tell" a Clinton policy? And your value scales are way off. People got killed over Toricelli. A lot of people.
Not to say it wasn't horribly wrong to fire those guys. I also abhor the treatment Alan Turing, one of my personal gods, received at the hands of the military.

Joe: Excellent point. The value-added for AQ is often prestige enhancement, and recruitment.

Joe;

I tend to agree more with the "cynical" view, which I think is based on a perhaps more realistic interpretation of Al Qaeda's immediate motivations as wanting to sow fear and chaos, primarily, and having some political goals perhaps as an adjunct.

But while the success of the second is unpredictable, I think it is easy to see from recent history that they can be certain to achieve the first of these goals.

And that is where we are not confronting them strongly enough. By amplifying the effects of their actions through the media, color-coded threat-levels, and bogus news conferences announcing "intentions" to strike, the Bush administration and the complicit media are helping to ensure that their goal of creating fear and chaos are succeeding.

And to extend this point, I have some serious concerns that the Bush administration also thinks that a high terrorist fear level amongst Americans benefits their political goals.

This is what I am trying to get at when I talk about a confluence of goals. I'm not accusing the admin. of sharing their long term goals, but I wonder whether it hasn't already occurred to them that there is some short-term benefit to also keeping Americans in a constant state of fear (or War), thereby synchronizing their goals with Al Qaeda's for the moment. This is a dangerous road to travel, to be sure, but I am also worried that the Bush Admin. may just be arrogant enough to believe that they can control the situation so that it doesn't get too out of hand.

Do you or Dan believe it benefits or hurts the Bush administration to make sure we are constantly reminded of the terrorist threat and hold the fear of this in the forefront of our minds until November?

VT,
Would it be better for the administration to keep knowledge of a perhaps imminent attack secret? What would the conspiracy theories be then? Something like: "Bush buries terror threat for election advantage"?

I'm not sure that the color alert system is best, but publicizing risk levels, or not, can be spun any which way.

Lurker;

Perhaps a simpler way to look at it is that those who control the information have the real power, but to gain from this just enough information must be made public to remind everyone of this.

Your question does not reflect the current state of affairs. It should really be "would it be better for the administration to keep suspicions of a "perhaps" attack secret", to which the answer is almost certainly "yes, of course".

Because those are the kind of warnings that this adminstration has been issuing.

Yes, it can be spun any old way, but don't dismiss the subject because of this. In this climate, every damn think is grist for the mill, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered.

The real question is not what you or I think of these warnings, but the general CNN/ABC/NBC/CBS-watching public thinks, and moreover whether the Bush adminstration thinks that fear of terrorism benefits them politically or not.

I am quite sure they do not dismiss a potential strategy because it can be "spun" any way.

I didn't realize that people thought Al-Qaeda supported 'left' governments. I think you are correct that they don't care about the traditional left-right ideas, they will support whichever party has their preferred foreign policy. That said, most of those choices in Europe at this point in time are leftish governments. In any case it is worth repeating the idea that Al-Qaeda doesn't mind attacking anyone (on what we see as the normal political spectrum) who does not agree with their foreign policy goals.

jinnderella:

We don't know enough about any potential plots right now to know what kind of plan they might have in the works - my biggest fear is a mass casualty chemical attack. Also, I would note that if al-Qaeda does follow through on the (apparent, and I will be quite honest and say that their leadership will say any nasty things they have to about anyone they want to in order to attract recruits) hatred that its leadership appeals to feel concerning Bush in some kind of assassination attempt, the most likely result would be to ensure a Republican victory come November given how assassinated presidents are generally granted martyr status in American culture.

The main problem with trying to decipher al-Qaeda's motives with respect to an election attack is that we don't have much to go on (at least to my knowledge) beyond Iraq al-Jihad. We can look at Europe and see which party's they might well want to triumph or at the very least which coalitions they would like to collapse there. Those dynamics don't exist on this side of the pond, however, because they don't want to simply remove us from the playing field as we're their main adversary as well as their bogeyman. In the absence of any definitive information, it is quite easy to see how people can draw conclusions one way or another regarding how they would seek to influence the election.

VT:

Al-Qaeda does not simply exist to create chaos and fear. Those are the tools that it uses to achieve a very specific set of religio-political goals that they believe will eventually culminate in the formation of a worldwide caliphate ruled by bin Laden. While there is a definite nihilistic trend to the movement, it is balanced by a great deal of pragmatism, as can be seen in the Madrid bombings.

As far as the color-coded alerts are concerned, all criticism aside, let me just present two key points: those alerts have averted or delayed terrorist attacks. The September 2002 alert forced the delay of the Bali bombings for another month while the December 2003 alert forced an abortion or at least a delay of another attack on the scale of 9/11.

Just so you know.

As far as what administration officials believe, I can only tell you what I know from talking to people in government and most of the folks that I speak with are about as removed as one can be from the internal politicking of the Beltway, but they have all struck me as people who are sincerely trying to do their best to protect America. This also includes many of their opponents in government, who have legitimate issues of contention as to whether or not Iraq was involved with al-Qaeda (or whether Libya was involved with Lockerbie, for that matter) but are still doing everything they can to protect America to the best of their abilities. But then again, I'm a neocon, so what do I know?

As to your question, let me rephrase it a different way: Does it benefit or hurt al-Qaeda to have the American people thinking about who will do a better job of managing the war on terrorism when they go into the ballot box on election day?

Lurker:

At the beginning, the administration did try to keep things under wraps. Then we got that famous FBI memo that was leaked to press describing the warning that got lost in the bureaucracy at FBI HQ and everyone started demanding to know what the administration did before 9/11. This, of course, led to every odd word that Abu Zubaydah happened to mumble being leaked to the press, in most cases without context.

Sebastian Holsclaw:

There a number of exceptions to that argument, notably in Poland, where the ruling coalition is the Democratic Left Alliance. There, it would benefit al-Qaeda to knock the Polish coalition out of power and engineer a right-wing victory.

Dan;

I am not accusing the Bush administration or the rest of our governent of allowing an attack (through either will or neglect) for political benefit. I am addressing the issue of the promulgation of fear of attacks.

Although you cryptically cite 2 examples of how the "public alert" system has helped thwart acts (I'm not going to ask you to provide any further evidence either, BTW, since at best it is likely to be impossible to substantiate) I am more curious about many others where perhaps such a link is not well founded, as well as the almost constant references to terror, Al Qaeda, 9/11, etc. etc., in every stump speech and political statement by Bush/Cheney 2004. These are not terror alert warnings and I doubt any acts have been thwarted as a result. (Yes Kerry mentions it often also, but I doubt not nearly as much as Bush, and I don't like hearing it from him either if it sounds like an effort to scare people.)

I think we should be able to live our lives without constant fear, like in Isreal, where the threat is much more palpable and real. I think it is the job of the President to ensure this.

And I did not say Al Qaede exists simply to sow fear and chaos, only that is likely to be, IMO, their proximate goal.

You know, it's very interesting to read Hizb-ut-Tahrir's political analysis. Now, I'm not familiar with whether HT is an active collaborator with AQ or its variants, but I think it does show that Islamists do pay close attention to Western politics.

The Spanish Elections: Lessons (Not) Learned
your comments have reminded me again that the right/left distinction makes less and less sense. In particular when it comes to fighting islamist terrorism. I recently read a book by two German authors entitled Enzeitpropheten oder die Offensive der Anti-Westler"(Doomsday Prophets-or the anti-western offensive) in which they argue the distinction should be between western and anti-western not right wing left wing. If one thinks in terms of right-left, a working relationship between Sadaam and Osama makes no sense, but it does if you look at it from the western - anti-western perspective. Al Queda does not care about positions on medicare or gay-marriage, it does not even care if you are muslim or not.

Praktike:

Hizb-ut-Tahrir, or at least the global core of it, is an al-Qaeda front according to the Milan wiretaps. So while you aren't very likely to get anything equivalent to the old Party Line that Pravda used to publish, reading its stuff should give you a pretty good idea of what members or supporters of the organization are thinking.

Judging from this Washington Times story today, it seems the administration knows a lot that it isn't letting on, and could certainly be doing more to scare the public.

VT,

I believe that the closer to the forefront of our minds the possibility of an attack is, the more vigilant and observant the public will be. This is much different than simple fear. The positive benefit to fearing terrorist attacks is a heightened sense of awareness that can help prevent those attacks.

I live in a very urban area. The crime rate is relatively high here, and I fear being a victim. However, that fear results in several positive modifications to my behavior to reduce my chances of becoming a victim. If I wasn't afraid, I'd be more likely to put myself into a situation that would result in my victimization.

Our best - only - defense on 9/11 was private citizens taking matters into their own hands after acting on new information. We need more information, not less. I agree that color-coded systems and grand pronouncements from Sec. Ridge and AG Ashcraft are an imperfect way to disseminate that information, and result in a lot of fear. But I think that many citizens put that fear to good use.

I also agree with Dan and others that the recent examples of Spain and the Phillippines are not particularly applicable to the US election. From AQ's POV, the benefit to striking before the election is probably prestige, which leads to new recruits, funds, and influence. Governments wavering in their support for the GWOT might interpret it as a serious disincentive to continue. A successful attack now could very well hand the election to Kerry, but I see no reason to believe that it's Kerry they want as president. Rather, bringing down an American president or either party is an end in itself.

VT: I see your point about public alert levels etc. However, I would argue that a rather regular churning of the juices on this point can lead to a heightened level of awareness of what is going on around us. The trouble is in calibrating this, as the recent discussions of NW 327 amply demonstrate.

My personal belief is that Kerry would be a more dangerous President for AQ (and for the US as well, truth be told). If something bad got pulled off in this country under his watch, he might have to overreact in self-defense. Who would be more likely to nuke Teheran in retaliation for an attack on this country? I am not sure. It reminds me of Malcolm X's justification for telling his supporters to vote for Goldwater, because at least you knew where you stood with him.

I need to read up on those wiretaps, this being the second or third time something has come up related to them that I hadn't been aware of.

But wiretap or no, I'd already been predisposed to believe it, after reading Inside Al Qaeda (the other one).

I wonder if it's fair to consider groups like HT and Tabligh as "gateways." That is, they're a recruiting pool and source of people who can "advance jihad" in non-violent ways, such as the dessemination of propaganda. They're the upstairs crowd at the European mosque, while the boys downstairs are running logistics for terrorist attacks.

I think this a tough problem for law enforcement types. How do they know when the line has been crossed?

More on TAbligh here

Praktike:

The Milan wiretaps are pretty much the Rosetta Stone for how al-Qaeda operates in Europe and should hopefully contain more than enough for you to imagine how they operate over here.

Hizb-ut-Tahrir and Tabligh are more or less "funnel organizations," from what I'm given to understand. The people at the top of both of them know damned well what's going on as far as recruiting is concerned but the folks at the local level may well not be party to that information in order to keep both as legitimate fronts. You hit the nail right on the head as far as how they fit into the infrastructure aspects of the terror network.

But I don't think HT and Tabligh were originally set up as gateways; rather, they seemed to have evolved in that direction or been used as such. And from what Sifaui describes in his book, local imams may be aware of what is going on but also afraid and somewhat sympathetic to the overall program.

Well, Hizb-ut-Tahrir was set up in the 1950s and I think that Tabligh existed within a similar timeframe. My guess is that they've more or less evolved in the same direction, however.