Terrorists and Engineers of War on Terror are Codependent

[Vitruvius]

by Gwynne Dyer

<SNIP> There is now a symbiotic relationship between the Islamist terrorists and the neo-conservative directors of the "war on terror" that promises a long political life to the players on both sides. They are, as our Marxist friends used to put it, "objective allies": both seek to undermine the existing global order in order to expand their own freedom of action, and each group's actions justify the existence of the other group, at least in the eyes of its own supporters.

Al-Qaida, for example, sees the overseas adventures of American neo-conservatives as the best possible recruiting tool for its own cause among Muslims worldwide. If Osama bin Laden could decide the outcome of the next U.S. presidential election, he would instantly choose Bush. A rival candidate might pull American troops out of the Middle East or take a more even-handed approach in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, and Bin Laden has no interest in stability in the region.

Given that bin Laden does not have a magic wand, what is Bush's best hope of winning a second term despite an ailing economy and the deepening quagmire of Iraq? It is that Americans close ranks patriotically behind him as they did in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11. In practice, that means that he needs either another major terrorist attack on American soil or another victorious war against an alleged "terrorist state" or a suspected proliferator of "weapons of mass destruction."

Do the people around bin Laden understand this? Of course they do, and they will help Bush, if they can. Just one major terrorist attack in the United States -- not necessarily another 9-11, which would be very hard to manage, but just a big car-bomb in a U.S. city that kills a hundred or so Americans -- and the domestic political balance would be transformed at a stroke.

(The article goes on to describe how the BFEE can't be absolutely sure of another big terrorist attack, so if we don't get one, the BFEE will give us another war-of-aggression -- which may also elect Bu$h* in '04 and will give Osama bin Laden another boost. In either case, "the confrontation between the Islamists and the neo-cons will probably continue almost to the end of the decade, with each reinforcing the other...")

MORE at http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1013-14.htm


Bu$h and bin Laden -- two murdering multimillionaire terrorists, each boosting the other's fortunes. Bu$h & co. will never never never catch Osama bin Laden -- ObL is so very useful to them as a boogyman... And ObL will kill plenty of innocents, but he'll never never never touch the BFEE -- the BFEE is too useful to him just-as-it-is.

On the hopeful side, this article appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune. The heartland is getting wise to Bu$h & co -- and when that happens the Bu$h-binLaden routine won't work anymore.



P.S: The idea of "objective allies" is now part of game theory -- you'll even find it in reports prepared by right-wing think tanks. And the meaning is exactly as described in the article; two enemies who in fact need each other as boogymen to keep their own constituencies in line... One stock example is Sharon and Arafat; Sharon will never get rid of Arafat, and Arafat will never target Sharon; they're of too much use to each other...

[EdGy]

1. she's really wrong about one point here though

She displays a surprising naivete in these lines:

Nobody in the Bush entourage would actively wish for a new terrorist outrage in the United States, but they must be aware that it might happen anyway, and that it would be likely to stampede American voters back into the arms of their man.

<snip>

Would patriotic Americans in senior positions in the Bush administration really engineer a war in which young Americans would be killed (not to mention numerous foreigners) just to improve their man's chances of re- election?

No, probably not.
<snip>

This shows a real misunderstanding of this crew.

These people believe they are on a mission. The ends justify the means. They certainly have proved willing to go to enormous lengths to ensure Shrub's reelection.

So while much of her analysis is correct, she really misunderestimates the people who have taken over the US government.