War and the Voters
The New Year's celebration at Times Square passed without a hitch, as New Yorkers faced down the warnings from characters like Congressman Shays. Orange alert, orange plus, atlas teams, helicopters and fighters scrambled — we made it, and most of us even had some fun along the way.
But it's far too soon to declare victory in the war on terror. True, the capture of Saddam Hussein, the liberation of Iraq, the ouster of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the capture or killing of key Al Qaeda figures, and heightened domestic vigilance have made us safer. Yet there's a risk that America will rest on its laurels and stop short of a full victory against the remaining terrorists in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
Our own view is that President Bush will press for such a victory in his second term and is just pausing now to avoid throwing curveballs into the 2004 presidential election, which polls show him in a position to win. But there are other parties who can pitch curveballs. A play-it-safe strategy has its own risks, the greatest of which is that the yet-unvanquished terrorists will launch a pre-emptive strike of their own in an effort to stop Mr. Bush from winning reelection.
Such an attack, or a series of attacks — timed, say, to coincide with Republican National Convention in New York this summer, or the final stretch of the presidential campaign — could lead to two possible responses. The first, which the terrorists are no doubt hoping for, would send the electorate running to the arms of the Democratic candidate. The Democrat would argue that Mr. Bush's foreign adventures have helped make the Muslim world angry at us, that Mr. Bush hasn't done enough to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, that the Iraq war was a diversion from the war on terrorism, and that Mr. Bush should have focused on security measures at American airports instead of attacking our enemies overseas. All of Mr. Bush's wars and the Patriot Act haven't made America safe, the Democrat argument might go. He should have worked more with the United Nations.
The second possible response to such an attack or series of them is akin to the one that happened after September 11, 2001. American flags sprouted everywhere, and the president's approval rating skyrocketed. Public support for the war in Afghanistan was broad-based and strong. The public would see in Mr. Bush a seasoned wartime leader, and in the Democrat a novice unseasoned in foreign affairs and counseling weakness and concessions to the terrorists.
Polling to probe potential public responses to another terrorist attack would help illuminate these possibilities. We're not aware of any survey data on such scenarios.
It goes without saying that we're hoping against additional attacks on America. And it's hard to tell how sophisticated the terrorists are about American politics. They sometime seem determined to kill and hate all Americans at all times, regardless of how it affects presidential politics. But in the war against Israel they have often used attacks to try to affect elections. To the extent that the Osama bin Ladens of the world fear that another attack on America would cause voters to rally around their arch-enemy Mr. Bush, we New Yorkers are safer. And to the degree that Mr. Bush feels another attack on America could send voters to the Democrats, the president, we hope, will be emboldened to press the war to its conclusion against Iran, Syria, and the Saudis. For then we'll be safer, too.
