Behold the easily manipulated American public. This is a psyops piece to inoculate AQ from any last minute shift to McCain should one of their loose crazies do something stupid before the election. Dutifully, liberal Obama supporters here are carrying the water. No one who's followed AQ over the past decade believes they somehow "want" McCain. McCain is their worst nightmare. He enabled Bush's strategy that is decimating them in Northern Iraq, requiring them to retreat back to the mountains and resort to needling forces in Afghanistan. They don't want McCain. They want Obama in, and these consummate propagandists are calculating how to ensure he does. The lack of resolute U.S. responses to the embassy bombings in Africa, the USS Cole bombing, and the 93 World Trade Center Bombings convinced Bin Laden that the U.S. was a paper tiger, and would fold like a cheap tent from one big attack. His plan was to issue a demand that the U.S. convert to Islam shortly after 9/11. He thought he knew what made Americans tick, and he was wrong. It would also be ludicrous to suggest AQ is "happily occupied" with destabilizing Pakistan and eroding security in Afghanistan. They can walk and chew gum at the same time and their goals are global, not local. Further, the notion that Bin Laden's intent was to draw the U.S. into a quagmire in Afghanistan is weak. He didn't think the U.S. had the will to stomach any war, period. The quagmire ended up being an Al Queda quagmire in Iraq, requiring them to retreat back to the mountains and start needling forces in Afghanistan. They know McCain is the one that enabled that strategy, and intends to do the same in Afghanistan. They're not ten feet tall and unstoppable, as so many Americans seem to fear. McCain is AQ's worst nightmare and they're not likely to gamble on the reaction to a strike going one way or the other and thereby blowing the very good odds that Obama's on his way to the White House. Finally, "I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't strike back if a major attack occurs, great nations don't leave their dead unanswered." We've tried that one. It brought on 9/11. There's a schizophrenic strain in America that says "punish the bad guys" but don't take any action against them because it might make them angrier. WTF? Tough decision for a Commander in Chief in a position where he can't vote "present".

Iranians held US hostages until Reagan took office. See the pattern?

Just like radical Muslims, US conservatives love having a face to hate on the enemy lines. When Gorbachev left the screen oh how they suffered. They had to put Bill Clinton's face in the empty space. Then Saddam Hussein, then Osama Bin Laden. Face it radical Muslims and US conservatives you have no reason to live, no purpose on earth unless you are inventing an evil enemy to hate.

Anyway, McCain is whose worst nightmare? You think this old guy will somehow make more war than Bush? And why exactly do you want a nightmare to be president? That's really intellient..."oh hm...who should I vote for president? Ah yes, this guy is a nightmare, I'll vote for him". More hate, fear and warfare, yeah that's what this world needs. Doh!

The purposes of the terrorist leaders differ from those of the suicide bombers. While those who are willing to die for their cause believe the propoganda that they are fighting a battle with the West that they can win through their sacrifice, their leaders are interested in only one thing--prolonging the battle itself, not winning it. Like power-hungry leaders throughout history (the ideology itself is irrelevant), these "elites" need a boogeyman to rally their troops against in order to justify their continued hold on power.

Because of these motivations, the war-mongers on each side NEED the war-mongers on the other side, to keep the war going so they can remain in power. What the Al Qeada leaders want is not military victory over the West, but the war with the West.

Marjor says: "The lack of resolute U.S. responses to the embassy bombings in Africa, the USS Cole bombing, and the 93 World Trade Center Bombings convinced Bin Laden that the U.S. was a paper tiger, and would fold like a cheap tent from one big attack."

But given the AQ leadership's motivation in continuing the conflict, isn't a more likely reading not that they thought they would "win" a big battle, but that they had to keep escalating their attacks until they got the large-scale military response they wanted?

Benjamin's point seems to me to be that acts of terrorism are really acts of communication, and that by timing the acts to slightly precede or follow an election, they ensure maximum coverage and communication. An attack won't by itself change the military or economic realities, but it can communicate to many audiences: friendly, enemy and third-party. What it communicates is the continued relevance of the terrorist leadership, both to provoke a response and to inspire their followers. Because the terrorists cannot predict or control our exact response, they know they cannot precisely determine the outcome of an election, so whether it precedes or follows the election is not critical. But they can keep us stirred up, and to them that is a positive outcome.

marjor:

He [McCain] enabled Bush's strategy that is decimating them in Northern Iraq,

AQ was not in Anbar, or Arab Iraq at all, before the US invasion. The Ba'athists are the historical enemies of the Islamists. As for the Anbar Awakening, that happened on its own, before the surge. It was the extremism, arrogance and cruelty of the mainly foreign AQ that turned the Sunnis against the Jihadists, not any "strategy" by Bush or McCain.

marjor:

The quagmire ended up being an Al Queda quagmire in Iraq, requiring them to retreat back to the mountains and start needling forces in Afghanistan.

Most of the AQ cadres in Iraq are new recruits from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and from the rest of the Muslim world who were enraged by the American invasion. Most did not "retreat back to the mountains" because they had never set foot in Afghanistan.

marjor:

His plan was to issue a demand that the U.S. convert to Islam shortly after 9/11.

Further, the notion that Bin Laden's intent was to draw the U.S. into a quagmire in Afghanistan is weak.

You are creating a fictional bin Laden that dovetails with your ideological needs. OBL has put out lots of videos, issued many impossible demands and made plenty of threats since 9/11. But he has yet to demand that the US convert to Islam. If this was his "plan", why hasn't he made this demand? What was stopping him?

9/11 was a provocation. OBL did not know exactly where it would lead but he understood that the US would probably retaliate in Afghanistan, since Clinton had already taken that step after the embassy bombings. OBL believed that he could repeat the Soviet-Afghan war with the US.

No, the opinion stated in the article makes far more sense. Military attacks and increased bellicosity from American leaders is just what the enemies need to swell their ranks.

These people aren't an army, their ideology is only made stronger, their resolve strengthened, their claims of abuse strengthened, by more military action and less talk. They are not afraid of dying, in their own sick way, so threats of death and violence have no effect of frightening them, in fact, again, only serving to underline their reasons for attacking the way they do.

Bush and Cheney didn't get it - these people are not like us, this isn't the shootout at the OK Corral. They will not respond to what we think they will. Giving them more military action increases their recruitment and for them, legitimizes their reason for being, giving them a more measured, diverse approach to democratize deflates their sense of purpose and takes the wind out of their sails. So we can give these people the story in how they want to write it or frame it, or we can squash them out by delegitimizing their cause.

Are you saying that the Iranians let the hostages go because they got the US President they wanted? You're kidding, right? Well, you can type, so you can obviously read so do us all a favor and pick up Guests of the Ayatollah by Mark Bowden, same guy who wrote Blackhawk Down, and see if there wasn't a lot of behind the scenes wrangling and backroom dealmaking that preceded the release. Khomeni didn't simply say "Oh, Regan is President, we like him because he will give us someone to point at when we do our Magbar America chant at Friday prayers, so release the hostages because America gave us what we want" That's lunacy. I particularly like the account in Bowden's book about how leftists from America went over to Iran and participated in the students' propaganda displays with the hostages and voiced their support for what those assholes were doing. You're right, I do hate the Left for always saying "Fuck America" and saying they understand the feelings of every piece of shit terrorist they can cozy up to, but I don't think conservatives have a monopoly on hatred. I think I see some in your post and I think I see it in a lot of other leftist bastards who mindlessly call Bush and anyone who associates with, likes or supports him as a Nazi or a Facist. But your kind control all but a few media outlets, so you get to define what is truth and what is just hate filled rhetoric. And for the record, just what is your purpose on Earth, to spew hatred at conservatives and congratulate yourself on how smart you are

talk about hate, Samurai! Sheeeeeesh! you got some issues to work out.

Khomeini released the American hostages the minute that Reagan was inaugurated because the Iranians had made a deal with the Reagan campaign to trade the captives for weapons - but only after Carter was out of office. This arrangement dovetailed nicely with the Reagan campaign's desire to avoid an "October Suprise" and both side's mutual desire to stick it to Jimmy Carter one last time. This relationship between ostensible enemies reappeared later in the Iran-Contra scandal.

By September 1980, Khomeini was looking for a way out of the hostage crisis because a war with Iraq had begun. The freeze that Carter had put on military spare parts, Iranian bank accounts and assets were taking their toll. If the Reagan camapign had not interfered, the hostages probably would have been released earlier.

Marjor, I have a different take on it. They would prefer McCain. Why? Because he won't hesitate to hit the red button and end civilization as we know it. He would blow the world back to the stone age, just where the radical Islamics would want to be...on a level playing field. They don't have the means to blow the world backward, but we do...and with McCain at the helm it is entirely possible.