×
American political events are covered in a weird way where the actual "importance" of the event matters much less than its relationship to existing narratives. For instance: News that members of al Qaeda are privately discussing how best to ensure the election of one of the major candidate's would, in theory, seem like a big deal to someone cognizant of the basic contours of recent American history. But because the terrorists were interested in electing John McCain, who is considered "tough" on terrorism and whose patriotism is beyond reproach, it's not a big deal. If they had been talking about Barack Obama, who is considered less "tough" on terrorism and whose patriotism is considered more tenuous (the media could not explain either belief, incidentally, but both are deeply held, and important in coverage decisions), it would be a very big deal indeed. Sometimes, however, various media personages miss the weekly meeting and go off-message, as Nicholas Kristol did this weekend:
the endorsement of Mr. McCain by a Qaeda-affiliated Web site isn’t a surprise to security specialists. Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism director, and Joseph Nye, the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council, have both suggested that Al Qaeda prefers Mr. McCain and might even try to use terror attacks in the coming days to tip the election to him.“From their perspective, a continuation of Bush policies is best for recruiting,” said Professor Nye, adding that Mr. McCain is far more likely to continue those policies.An American president who keeps troops in Iraq indefinitely, fulminates about Islamic terrorism, inclines toward military solutions and antagonizes other nations is an excellent recruiting tool. In contrast, an African-American president with a Muslim grandfather and a penchant for building bridges rather than blowing them up would give Al Qaeda recruiters fits...Al Qaeda militants prefer a McCain presidency [because] four more years of blindness to nuance in the Muslim world would be a tragedy for Americans and virtually everyone else, but a boon for radical groups trying to recruit suicide bombers.Kristof connects this preference to the sad tale of Somalia, a failed state and humanitarian catastrophe that seemed, in 2006, to have a shot at stability under a union of Islamic political parties. The Bush administration, fearing an Islamic government that would be uncooperative in military actions, backed an Ethiopian invasion. The result? "Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism have surged, partly because Somalis blame Washington for the brutality of the Ethiopian occupiers." Al Qaeda, in other words, prefers McCain not because they view him as ideologically sympathetic (which would be the implication the Right would make if terrorists preferred Obama), but becuase they consider a McCain presidency operationally helpful. It's a fairly scary prospect, but since all the other columnists and reporters made last week's meeting, we'll probably spend tomorrow talking about Joe the Plumber's opinions on energy costs.
