In American presidential campaigns ?votes? are important. They reemerge every election cycle to dominate the public discussion, guide the campaigns and, oftentimes, decide the outcome. For example, you have the black vote, the woman vote, the union vote, the terrorist vote?
Wait a minute ? the terrorist vote?
That?s right ? if you?ve recently been tuning out election chatter, you may not realize that the presidential preference of our enemies has become a topic of debate. And although al Qaeda hasn?t won suffrage yet, its members? hypothetical vote is important.
Representative Steve King, R-Iowa, a leading commentator on terrorist voting patterns, suggested that Senator Barack Obama is the current presidential favorite among violent jihadists. He recently expressed his belief that Mr. Obama?s strength of support among that constituency is so strong that jihadists would be ?dancing in the streets? upon an Obama victory in November. Mr. King cited Mr. Obama?s Iraq policy, his familial connection to Islam and his Islamic middle name as the issues and policies most attractive to terrorist groups such as al Qaeda.
Mr. King?s attempt to contribute intelligently to our political discourse was, oddly, met with scorn ? Mr. Obama lashed out at him, Senator John McCain distanced himself from him, and the media portrayed him as a quaint but scary bigot. But I think Mr. King was right ? the presumptive preference of Islamist terrorists for Mr. Obama should influence our own votes this fall.
While part of Mr. King?s rationale is that, because of Mr. Obama?s proposed Iraq withdrawal, terrorists in that country would feel safer in an Obama presidency, Mr. King is otherwise merely intimating that Mr. Obama is a more attractive candidate to the Muslim world in general. More precisely, in his statements last week Mr. King suggested that Muslims, including the infinitesimally small percentage of them who happen to be Islamist terrorists, feel they have more in common with Mr. Obama than with our more traditional offerings.
Where Mr. King and I differ is how the election of a president looked upon favorably in the Middle East or the Hindu Kush would affect our fortunes in the War on Terror. Mr. King would presumably think it a negative development, but I believe it is very much in our interest.
Islamist terror and public sentiment in the Muslim world regarding the West are certainly not synonymou, but are undeniably interconnected. As we?ve seen, any country with a Muslim population can spawn Islamist terrorists ? Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, even the United States. Whenever and wherever terrorist organizations successfully foster hatred by Muslims toward the West, and America in particular, the recruits will come.
Terrorist groups such as al Qaeda breed hatred and attract followers by associating America and her allies with a long history of imperialism in primarily Muslim lands by white Christian Westerners ? from the Crusades to the French invasion of Algeria and more. Their movement thrives on dualism, ignoring the religious and ethnic diversity of today?s Western countries to portray the West as opposite of the East.
The terrorists? task of convincing Muslims that America remains an imperialist nation is made much easier when her president, in identity, conduct and policy, is the very personification of what imperialism has meant to Muslims. In President George Bush, al Qaeda and its ilk have been afforded the perfect nemesis: a white and ostentatious Christian who advocates ?crusades? and counts two Muslim countries among his ?Axis of Evil? (one of which he has invaded and occupied with the goal of transforming the Middle East). It shouldn?t come as a surprise that al Qaeda videos cite President Bush individually as an enemy or that he?s burned in effigy in anti-America protests worldwide. Given history, the guy is easy to hate.
So what would happen if we elected a president who is not as easily associated with that history? Mr. Obama is a young man of color with one Muslim name, a man quiet in his Christianity but loud about the need for a new direction in American foreign relations. And he wants to end America?s most blatantly imperialistic operation in recent memory. What would this do to terrorist recruitment efforts? Would al Qaeda have a more difficult time justifying attacks on the country of its favorite candidate?
Such things are impossible to know considering the myriad other factors, especially the Arab-Israeli situation that contributes to Islamism. But it?s certainly possible, maybe even probable, that a President Obama would take some wind out of the sails of anti-Americanism in the Muslim world. Voting for Mr. Obama on those grounds wouldn?t be surrender; any reduction of the terrorist threat should be viewed as a subversive offensive and a victory. More importantly, it would advance the foremost American interest ? the safety of United States citizens.
So stop laughing at him ? Representative King was right. We should consider which candidate would be most favorable to Muslims worldwide, including terrorists. We shouldn?t, however, necessarily come to his conclusions about the implications of that support.
If Mr. Obama wins in November ? and true to Mr. King?s prediction, al Qaeda is dancing in the streets ? I say all the better. For Barack Obama, you may remember, has also vowed to intervene in Pakistan, al Qaeda?s traditional stronghold. And terrorists dancing in the streets are much easier to hit with smart bombs than are terrorists hiding in caves.
John Sprangers ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and international studies.
