Various commentators (such as Tom Friedman of the New York Times) say that the terrorists “hijacked the recent Spanish election, ” and achieved their goal of electing a government that would appease terrorists.
But are things really that simple? There is, of course, no doubt that terrorism can affect elections. Look at how Bush’s popularity skyrocketed after the 9/11 attacks. If there had been an election after 9/11, Bush would have won in a landslide.
However, things are not as clear when you apply this to real elections. Before the Spanish elections, who could have predicted the effect of a terrorist attack? Maybe the voters would have decided to appease the terrorists, or maybe they would have been outraged and voted for the party they thought would be the toughest against the terrorists. In addition, how can we be certain that terrorists favor appeasement? If their goal is to cultivate hatred of the West, wouldn’t they want the Spanish army in Iraq?
The situation is just as unclear in the upcoming U.S. election. If the terrorists want to cultivate a hatred of the U.S., wouldn’t it be likely that they would favor Bush, who has done a fine job of angering much of the rest of the world? If Al Queda did favor Bush (or, for that matter, Kerry), it is not at all clear that they would use terrorism before the election. Perhaps another terrorist attack would help Bush as 9/11 helped him. Or perhaps it would destroy the illusion that Bush has been tough on terrorism, and would lead to his defeat.
Who knows? All we can know for certain is that things are a lot less simple than Friedman and others are making them.
Comments