One thing we Americans need to remember is that Al Qaeda's leadership is composed of well-educated and thoughtful hatemongers. They have studied America and its habits. Don't doubt that they have studied our reactions to past crises.
A theory of Soviet behavior is that the Soviets provoked each president to test his resolve and his pluck. The Berlin Wall. The Cuban Missile crisis. Vietnam for several presidents. The Yom Kippur War. I can't think of one for Ford. Afghanistan. Missiles in Europe. Iceland.
The timing was not always at the start of each administration. If I was better informed about the diplomacy of each era, I would hazard a guess that relations were testier at the start of each administration then after the sides had a chance to circle each other for a while.
I would suspect that Al Qaeda and OBL are planning a test for the Spring of 2009 or soon thereafter. They will want to get a quick read of our new president. They have learned from the Soviets. They will use an unsure time to try to establish a new relationship of greater predominance.
If a Republican of prominence from the current administration were to rise to the presidency, this confrontation will likely be smaller. The presumption of continuity will reduce it.
If a Republican from outside the administration were to rise, the confrontation will be more aggressive but dependent on who the Republican is. If it is McCain, I would bet a smaller confrontation. His military pedigree will make his resolve seem larger. If it is Senator Hagel . . . (sorry, I am stiffling an involuntary response), this will be highly unpredictable. He has the Republican moniker, but no history of stalwart, clear policy.
If it is a Democrat, the push by Al Qaeda will be small. They want to make the loss of face for the Democrat to be small and the cost of retribution high. The Democrat will have a portion of his or her (I will use the masculine pronour herein as neuter, as is English language standard) party pushing the pasficist line. The retribution cost will make the pascificist position easier to swallow. Then Al Qaeda has a precedent. They will push again. At some point, the Democrat is either going to have blow the wad on the retribution cost and act in a manner far more dramatic than the situation would seem to warrant at the moment.
For example, if Hillary is elected, she will likely react with overwhelming force the first time. There will be no moderate response. She will then be able to avoid reacting at all to some future response, because, when she is accused of fearing to respond, she will point to her prior overwhelming response.
Unfortunately, this up-and-down response is among the more dangerous options. The less predictible the American response, the easier it will be for the aggressive responses to avoid international screaming.
Am I suggesting that from this alone that all Democrats are unqualified? Absolutely not. This prediction has little to do with what choice America should make in 2008 than it does in trying to predict our enemy's behavior.
Americans just need to be aware of what their future may likely hold based on its collective choices.
No comments:
Post a Comment