Terrorist Fist Jab, Hooray!

January 9, 2009 5:52 AM

Did the terrorists want Obama to win?

Actually, though, I'm curious. As an Obama supoporter, during the election I heard many times from non-Obama supporters that "the terrorists want Obama to win," and I have two questions:

1) Is there any evidence that these ambiguous "terrorists" wanted Obama to be President, and

2) If they did, why? I would think that after 8 years of Bush invading their countries and committing war crimes, they would actually welcome a US President that was going to pull the US troops out of their countries, so it makes some semblance of sense that they would be happy (meaning, not wanting to kill us all because they hate our freedom /sarcasm.)

Also, wouldn't it be ironic if after 8 years of a War on Terror, Bush's political opponent (in policy, anyway,) ended the supposed terror attacks on the US just by being elected?

posted by InsanePenguin to law & government (32 comments total)

Disclosure: I voted for John McCain.

No, I don't think that "they" wanted Obama to win. I don't believe that the individuals who are planning and executing acts of aggression against American interests really -care- who the President is. They believe that they are engaged in a noble struggle against a foreign aggressor.

The notion that these people would stop their struggle because Obama was elected strikes me as simplistic. Is Obama going to end America's support of Israel? Of course not, and America's support of Israel is a foundational building block in the complex system that produced attacks like those on the World Trade Center (both the 1993 attack and the 2001 attack).

I think Obama's going to be a very good president, and his election represents an historic milestone in American history. But there's no reason to believe that the people shooting at our troops give a damn who occupies the White House.
posted by DWRoelands at 6:11 AM on January 9 [11 favorites has favorites]

It's important to remember that these extremists, above all, were idealistically opposed to the U.S. leadership and not necessarily the people who live here (I think). As far as I can tell they saw Bush as a reflection of American "imperialist" aggression and if McCain (who naturally is far closer to Bush in terms of policy than Obama) had been elected these extremists would have continued to act accordingly.

I'm not really well informed in this kind of thing, but I feel like, yes, they "wanted" Obama to win because in their eyes it means the U.S. will be scaling back our war in the middle east and thus will be leaving them to their thing.

To be completely honest I believe that the idea of all these terrorists chilling out in the desert and plotting to take us all out is a largely manufactured one in order to justify our push into other nations. I'm not saying that the threat is fully non-existent, but at the same time I think it's far overplayed.
posted by pandemic at 6:14 AM on January 9

They suposedly endorsed McCain as the guy most likely to continue Bush's policy and bankrupt America militarily.
posted by tallus at 6:16 AM on January 9

The very ambiguity of the term 'terrorist', particularly as used by members of the Bush administration, make the first part really difficult to answer.

Certainly many of those whose countries are currently under some form of occupation may welcome the withdrawl of American troops; however, those we choose to label 'terrorists' or 'insurgents' will almost certainly take the credit for themselves rather than expressing any sort of gratitude to the American people for a change of administration.

But I think the main issue here is that, while the differences in doctrine between Bush and Obama may seem significant to you or I, the average Islamic extremist will continue to see America as the heart of all that is wrong with the world.
posted by le morte de bea arthur at 6:24 AM on January 9

I would think that after 8 years of Bush invading their countries and committing war crimes, they would actually welcome a US President that was going to pull the US troops out of their countries, so it makes some semblance of sense that they would be happy

This is really unanswerable since we can't know what's in their heads, and any statements they've made on the topic would be extremely suspect. You can speculate either way. As you say, they might welcome Obama -- but that's assuming his policies are more in line with what they want. I don't see why you'd assume that. OTOH, they might prefer a more hawkish president since he'd heighten the appearance of a clash of civilizations.

But it's not even known whether Obama or McCain would have been a more hawkish president. Everyone assumed McCain was much more hawkish since he supported invading Iraq, but there weren't many specific forward-looking foreign policy differences to base this on. By the end of the campaign, it was hard to tell the difference between them on their future Iraq policies. Once Maliki came out in support of a timetable, both candidates accepted a timed withdrawal in principle while being vaguely open to refining this according to shifting circumstances. And it's not like McCain was going around arguing we should invade some list of countries while Obama was arguing that we shouldn't.

Also, remember: just because a terrorist states a "grievance" does not mean that the terrorist really believes it, and even if he does really believe it, that still doesn't mean it's what's really driving him. I know al Qaeda claim their goal is to remove US bases from of the Middle East and so on. We're talking about people who want to take away your basic way of life, including diversity, tolerance and gender equality -- please don't believe their lofty stated grievances.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:32 AM on January 9

I'm not really well informed in this kind of thing, but I feel like, yes, they "wanted" Obama to win

pandemic - no, for the record the website affiliated with Al Quaeda endorsed McCain. NYTimes Op-Ed (requires login).
posted by aught at 6:36 AM on January 9

I don't know, but Ahmadinejad gave Obama an unprecedented welcome.

Machiavellian theorists might argue that hard-liners would have hoped for a McCain victory, seeing him as more likely to alienate Islamic opinion from America and generally hasten the destruction of the Great Satan. But I think that Obama is perceived as likely to make US support for Israel less generous and more conditional, and that that counts for a great deal even with fairly radical Islamists.
posted by Phanx at 7:09 AM on January 9

I very much agree with what _ le morte de bea arthur_ notes above. I think "terrorist" has at least a few definitions: political, rhetorical (media, culture), and positional (as the "other"). The bottom line is there is a target and aggressor. Once the basis for violence is established there is no looking back.
posted by ezekieldas at 7:12 AM on January 9

I'd guess that while an Obama administration would be more friendly to a narrow set of "terrorist" goals (scaling back the war, pursuing diplomacy rather than military action, etc.), they would not take to kindly to his hardline stance on Afghanistan and his vow to continue to pursue insurgent activity around the world.

Obama is relatively more rational and pro-peace than Bush. But as long as the United States continues to hold certain basic positions (support of Israel, movement against insurgent cells, military and cultural interference with the Middle East), fundamentalist groups will continue to have reasons to use us as a scapegoat for their political agendas.

DWRoelands: "Disclosure: I voted for John McCain."

How's the new 'do?
posted by Rhaomi at 7:23 AM on January 9 [14 favorites has favorites]

Googling "terrorists want Obama to win" brings up this article as the first hit.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:29 AM on January 9

As people here have already said, it's difficult to even define who's in the group "the terrorists," let alone determine what "they" "really" want.

But let's be honest here -- saying "the terrorists want Obama (or Kerry, or Max Cleland) to win" is not a reasoned attempt to describe an objective reality.

It's rhetoric. It's a politically correct way of saying "he's a traitor," "he's really one of them," etc. It's emotional. It's not logical, and it's not designed to be processed in a logical way by its intended target. If you do, you get the responses you've seen so far: "The terrorists? Which terrorists? Who's a terrorist, exactly? What do these "terrorists" really want, and how would Obama (vs. McCain) give it to them? And if these terrorists are our enemies, should we even believe what they tell us?"

It's all pretty ridiculous, isn't it? That's because we're applying logic to something that's not logical. It's a statement that's designed to provoke hate and fear, not rational discourse.

InsanePenguin, I'm sure you knew most of this. But what I'm trying to say is that there really aren't any rational answers to your question. It's a bit like dividing by zero in math.
posted by PlusDistance at 7:36 AM on January 9 [6 favorites has favorites]

I believe the phrase was first used on a right-wing radio show in order to score more votes for McCain.
posted by Vindaloo at 7:44 AM on January 9

For what it's worth, I've heard various experts of different political stripes echo this argument from Richard Clarke:

"In 2004, bin Laden did try to influence the US election. Whether or not he succeeded, who knows? But he issued a video tape on Halloween, a few days before the election, that implied that he supported Senator Kerry.
"He knew, that if he seemed to be supporting Senator Kerry, that would help President Bush. And it did."

Kerry says it cost him the election.
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:49 AM on January 9 [2 favorites has favorites]

pandemic - no, for the record the website affiliated with Al Quaeda endorsed McCain. NYTimes Op-Ed (requires login).

There are any number of websites affiliated with al qaeda. Take your pick of "endorsements".

I would think that after 8 years of Bush invading their countries and committing war crimes, they would actually welcome a US President that was going to pull the US troops out of their countries, so it makes some semblance of sense that they would be happy (meaning, not wanting to kill us all because they hate our freedom /sarcasm.)

I know this is blatantly obvious, but the 9/11 attacks occurred before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. It sounds like you're implying that these were attacks on President Bush specifically rather than the U.S. as a whole? Or maybe I'm mis-reading this.

But if you think al qaeda is at war with Pres. Bush then it makes sense that they would want Obama to win. If you think their target is the US, then they would be more concerned about who would successfully conduct a war against them, and again they probably would want Obama to win. But it looks like Obama may wind up surprising a lot of people on this issue - a good thing, IMO.

I think Pres. Bush did a good job. He probably woke up every day for years after 9/11 thinking, "they could have been nukes" and did whatever he possibly could to prevent another attack on US soil. And it worked.

People that are willing to blow themselves up and kill people while also thinking that they are doing a good thing and are serving God and justice by doing it may not be thinking to clearly about other things.

Exactly.
posted by txvtchick at 7:53 AM on January 9 [1 favorite has favorites]

Like PlusDistance said, I figured that it was mostly an emotional attack designed to secure votes, I just didn't know if it had any real evidence supporting it.

Thanks for the quick answers, MeFi always helps settle my curiosity.
posted by InsanePenguin at 8:00 AM on January 9

I think it meant that Obama was weak on national security and an Obama victory would make it easier for "the terrorists" to attack the US at home. So if you voted for Obama, you were asking for a new domestic attack.
posted by jindc at 8:29 AM on January 9

If you live in a country that has been interfered with in the past by U.S. strategic geopolitical (often extra-legal, illegal, immoral, etc.) maneuvers, you don't care so much who the president is at any given moment, you're going to be suspicious, wary, and possibly to some extent hostile in general. You would be encouraged about the election of someone like Obama, but the United States is known to be aggressive and acquisitive - so you're not going to let your guard down too much. You're not a terrorist, you're glad Obama won. But.

If, though, you are much more radical and really feel that the U.S./the west is the Great Evil, the only concern about who is president is how much this is likely to inspire/affect your troops and popular opinion, in your region and internationally, during this relatively brief period. If you want your people to hate the U.S. and be willing to give up everything, including (for the passionate and idealistic) their lives and the lives of their children, to oppose it, it's much better for you that the U.S. president be as horrible as possible. You are not glad Obama won, but, whatever. You're patient.
posted by taz at 8:36 AM on January 9

Frankly, the terrorists didn't care if it was Obama or McCain (in my opinion). The attacks of 9/11 were planned & financed during the Clinton Administration, when all was supposedly right with the world.

The terrorists are basically members of a pre-modern death cult (not applying this to all Muslims obviously -- I think Islam is the excuse, not the reason, for the killing). Just read this about the terrorist handlers during the attacks on Mumbai/Bombay, and ask yourself if the US elections would have made a whit of difference on them.
posted by BobbyVan at 8:46 AM on January 9 [1 favorite has favorites]

Well, the domestic terrorists (names withheld) certainly didn't...
posted by Aquaman at 9:41 AM on January 9

[a few comments removed - if you could keep this somewhat verifiable and out of "wild ass guess" range it would make this iffy question go a bit better, thanks!]
posted by jessamyn at 9:41 AM on January 9

As Bin Laden himself is widely reported to have said, if he hated freedom he "would have attacked Sweden."
posted by jamjam at 9:45 AM on January 9 [2 favorites has favorites]

PlusDistance's answer is, I think, the correct one. But there are a couple of key things that people seem to forget:

1. During the Clinton years, when "the terrorists" were bombing the World Trade Center in 1993, planning 9/11, bombing embassies, blowing up the U.S.S. Cole, murdering U.S. Consulate employees in Pakistan, and that sort of thing, the Clinton Administration was bombing the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade and generally bombing the heck out of Belgrade and other places in the world, launching cruise missile attacks against civilian targets in Afghanistan, attacking Iraq on multiple occasions, and engaging in lots of activities that people in various parts of the world who don't like being blown up could get upset about and use as fuel for their hatred of the United States. Clinton's actions were nowhere near as warlike as W's, but let's not forget that Clinton didn't exactly leave the missiles and bombs in their storage facilities for eight years.

2. While a Democrat administration is likely to focus less on military might and overt military action abroad than a Republican one, the idea that Democrat presidents are for peace while Republicans are for war really ignores the actions of Democrat administrations going pretty far back. I'm not saying the Republicans don't like to blow stuff up. But it seems like a lot of Obama supporters willfully ignore the fact that, even though peace-loving hippies and rock stars support Democrats, Democrats in office still blow stuff and people up - all the time.

3. Muslim extremists do not exactly like the sorts of socially "progressive" agendas that recent Democrat administrations have tried to push on developing parts of the world. It is not likely that there are many "terrorists" who are glad that the U.S. is now more likely to start encouraging acceptance of same-sex marriage and abortion rights in developing countries.
posted by The World Famous at 10:08 AM on January 9

I think it's unfair to say this question is unanswerable. It isn't. The only question is WHICH terrorists?

If you recall in 2004, Bin Laden released a tape right before the election, wherein he said that it "didn't matter" whether Kerry or Bush was president. At the same time, the release of that tape was universally viewed as benefiting Bush (the "stick by your commander-in-chief in times of war" narrative obviously favors the incumbent).

The key is figuring out which "terrorists" you're talking about. Some of the more famous terrorist groups (like Al-Qaeda) want to have a truly religious war -- America vs. the Islamic World. They believe in themes of Muslim unity, wish to reinstate the Caliphate (like a Muslim pope, but less fun), get US troops out of any Muslim holy sites, drive Israel into the sea, etc. etc. If a terrorist falls into this category, they would likely favor Bush/McCain over Kerry/Obama, if only because the US is (probably) less likely to withdraw under McCain than Obama.

Then you have terrorists that are the euphemistic "freedom fighters" -- ones who are fighting US troops in Afghanistan/Iraq in an effort to actually get them to leave. These people would obviously favor Kerry/Obama.

But as many comments have already said -- there's a good chance that they don't give a damn. It is not exactly a fringe opinion to believe that the US is operated by an untouchable elite (you know, the CIA, super-duper conspiracies, Illuminati, Masons, etc.), and there are more than a few people who think that Israel really runs America (WhatReallyHappened.com = the most dramatic example). Presidents could just be whatever to them, even if they're everything to some of us.
posted by AlbatrossJones at 10:39 AM on January 9 [1 favorite has favorites]

"It is not exactly a fringe opinion to believe that the US is operated by an untouchable elite..."

That should say IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
posted by AlbatrossJones at 10:40 AM on January 9

Didn't some spokesperson for some anti-US organization publicly call Obama a "House Negro"? Such people will say anything to get a rise out of others and to bolster themselves and their position.

I think what a lot of Americans forget, too, is that outside this country, most people see black and white American citizens as Americans and not by separate racial groupings. They'll use the racial dynamic if they want to score some sort of rhetorical or political point (because we've all heard that lefty European graduate student at the union bring up Katrina, Selma or the LA riots if someone brings up Europe's messes), but I'll bet the fact that Obama is a POC doesn't mean shit to a person who's ready for 9/11 redux. Notice the perps didn't care that day who was black. Obama's an American. To people who would want to bomb us or some such thing, all Americans are the enemy.
posted by droplet at 10:52 AM on January 9

Jaltco, which is it:
This is really unanswerable since we can't know what's in their heads, and any statements they've made on the topic would be extremely suspect. You can speculate either way.
or:
We're talking about people who want to take away your basic way of life, including diversity, tolerance and gender equality -- please don't believe their lofty stated grievances.

It's amazing how many ways such a short statement could be wrong. First, you contradict your own opening statement. You can't know what's in their heads, only you seem sure of what's in their heads.

Further, the motivations you list sound to me much loftier (ie religious/culturally driven) than the unstated "stated grievances" you take issue with. By process of elimination, it seems these "stated greviences" probably have something to do with practical matters like the suffering of Palestinians, the concentrations of wealth and power in oil exporting US allies, etc rather than lofty issues of imposing cultural values.

Cultural issues like values of tolerance, diversity, and gender equality are an issue too, but imposing their values takes a back seat to not having us impose our values on them. Yeah, there has been talk of a "new caliphate." What that means isn't clear though. The old caliphate never extended to North America, the British Isles or Northern Europe, and it sounds like it was actually pretty tolerant and diverse, which it would have to be since it encompassed such a wide range of cultures and ethnic groups.

When it comes down to it, "the terrorists" have a diverse set of agendas, and a variety of tactics and alliances they use to try to achieve them.

As for the original question. From what I know about Bin Ladin, the US's actions in the middle-east under the Bush administration seemed to feed his strategy to a degree beyond what he probably hoped for. Whether his strategy was a winning strategy remains to be seen. We don't know what Obama will do, or what McCain would have done, but perceptions are that Obama would rely more on diplomacy, and rebuilding the reputation of the US which would seem to have worked against Bin Ladin's strategy. On the other hand, diplomacy might suit Iran.

I don't find the idea ridiculous that electing Obama, the man, might soften support for some terrorism. I don't think "the terrorists" would be influenced, but their ability to draw support could be weakened because of the symbolism of Obama being president.

Let's face it, the assertion was incredibly simple minded, for it to be anything close to true, "the terrorists" would have to be a lot more coordinated and unified than, almost by definition, terrorists are. Treating them as such gave the Bush administration cover for other aspects of their agenda. Terrorists aren't the only ones who lie about their intentions.
posted by Good Brain at 10:54 AM on January 9 [1 favorite has favorites]

Presumably an individual terrorist or particular terrorist organization (there is no "the terrorists") wants whatever will further their own agenda.

If a particular terrorist or organization wants US policy to change, they want someone elected who will change those policies.

If a particular terrorist or organization wants the US to go bankrupt, they want someone elected who will pursue policies that accomplish this.

If a particular terrorist or organization wants the US to remain "the enemy" for local political gain, yada yada yada. Or want the US to stop dropping bombs on their city. Or remain a symbolic enemy without being an actual one. And so it goes.

Might as well ask who "the people of this country" wanted to win; everybody wants different things for different reasons.
posted by davejay at 11:16 AM on January 9 [1 favorite has favorites]

Since you mention Bush in your post, and since Bush's first priority was protecting the American homeland, I'll assume you are talking about 'the terrorists' who primarily target American citizens in this country.

The KKK is probably the only organized, or rather semi-organized, terrorist group that has surpassed Al Queda for number of Americans killed, although the KKK took their time over many decades to rack up their numbers instead of going big all in one day. As their raison d'etre is hating blacks, I think it's safe to assume that most would never have voted for Obama, although it's a mistake to assume racists will be consistent.

Since he was anti-taxes and pro-guns, Tim McVey (responsible for second largest single terror attack on US soil) would have supported McCain over Obama, although of course even McCain wouldn't have been reactionary enough for McVey.

Jim Adkinson, killer of Unitarians, was upset over the church's liberal social policies, so again, probably a McCain supporter, although he killed himself before he could cast a vote.

Eric Rudolph, being an anti-abortion extremist, would logically choose McCain over Obama.

More Americans have been killed by right-skewing terrorists than those that lean left. I'll leave it to other Me-Fites to list the lefties.
posted by marsha56 at 12:02 PM on January 9

Secretly, right-wing terrorists would want Obama elected, if only to amplify their persecution complexes.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:47 PM on January 9 [1 favorite has favorites]

"Didn't some spokesperson for some anti-US organization publicly call Obama a "House Negro"? Such people will say anything to get a rise out of others and to bolster themselves and their position."

Yup. That was Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, essentially the second-in-command of Al Qaeda, who is more or less taking over its public relations role. Which is unfortunate for Al Qaeda, because he has a notorious ability to shove his foot way in his mouth. In this particular instance, this statement caused quite a bit of backlash among African Al Qaeda-affiliated folks (like the Somali pirates that keep popping up in the news, who were shipping off some of their random money to Al Qaeda and other militant Islamic groups). They were, to say the least, unimpressed with that sort of language.

There's a decent analysis of that particular incident, from a guy named Evan Kohlmann, who knows way more about this topic than I at [1].

Back to the question in general: The Islamic Army of Iraq has actually recently admitted a "grudging" admiration for Obama. Their press release contained the statement "There were significant lessons demonstrated during the recent American elections… [such as] how Hillary [Clinton] stepped down after facing increasing support for Obama in the polls… She has put aside all disagreements and previous conflicts with him in order to work together, along with their party, to achieve victory… This story presents a valuable lesson to our own honored nation, in which our people, our leaders, our clergy, and the mujahideen all fight amongst each other…..."

But then the statement goes on to essentially warn followers that even though "the shared hatred for America around the world may change after the historic election of a black president", Americans are still bad people and we need to kill them all. [2]

Likewise, al-Zawahiri has recently released a statement saying that (1) yes, even though Obama is popular, we can't stop trying to kill Americans and (2) ah ha! Americans are withdrawing from Iraq! We won![3]

NB: My analysis got a little flippant towards the end there. Sorry. Much more sober, useful, and cogent analyses are found in the links below.


One last comment, on:
"People that are willing to blow themselves up and kill people while also thinking that they are doing a good thing and are serving God and justice by doing it may not be thinking to clearly about other things."

Frankly, that's a very dangerous position to take. Firstly, because not everyone that one would call a "terrorist" accomplishes their goals through suicide bombing, but, more importantly, because various Islamic militant groups have shown themselves capable of extraordinarily complex military and information operations. We ignore that at our own (significant) peril.


[1] http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/11/dr_ayman_alzawahiri_and_the_ri.php
[2] http://www.nefafoundation.org/documents-iraq.html#iaielection
[3] http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/11/zawahiri_jihad_will_continue_d.php
posted by oostevo at 1:22 PM on January 9

[a few comments removed - please stop this derail or take it to metatalk.]
posted by jessamyn at 2:33 PM on January 9

First, there are many terrorists and they will want different things.
Second, there's no way to read their mind. If they say they want one thing, they may be just using reverse psychology to support the other guy. Or not.
Third, for them it's hard to predict who will be better for their causes. Hawks here help their recruitment. Doves here mean that arguably fewer of them will be killed and we won't try to influence their countries as much. Hawks can drain our resources, Doves can strengthen the economy. Hawks make it harder for moderates on their side, and Doves make it harder for extremists on their side. etc.
Fourth, I think bin Laden made that speech in '04 to put himself in the spotlight and to aid his recruitment. He could not be sure himself whether Kerry or Bush would be better for his causes. He did help Bush but that was probably not why he made the speech.
Five, maybe they would prefer Obama if only he was much farther to the left. We just don't know. Maybe they'd like to support Nader if he had a chance. Maybe they'd like to support someone who'd be far more hawkish than Bush, and avoid any and all moderates.
posted by rainy at 10:33 PM on January 9