America’s Trump Card
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The essence of the Bush doctrine in the terror war is that the best defense is a good offense: that America by engaging terrorists and their sponsors on their home ground, minimizes the chances that they will be able to hit the American homeland again. But the essence of terrorism is to undermine the credibility of the opponent. Thus many observers believe it would be no great surprise if Al Qaeda and its comrades-in-barbarity attempt a strike on American soil between now and the election. After all, a single train bomb achieved regime change in Spain. Why not try the same thing in America?
Already, according to reports in USA Today and elsewhere, election officials are nervously putting out the word to move ballot sites to hardened locations and keep a close eye on suspicious looking characters. But there are reasons to wonder whether Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations would use the American election as a reason to launch another strike.
For starters, Al Qaeda’s leadership has been severely depleted. Potential state sponsors of terrorism also have been put on notice of the consequences of offering sanctuary to potential evil-doers, making it far more difficult to put together anything more complex than roadside explosive devices, suicide car-bombings and rocket attacks on hotels in Iraq. The American military is belatedly starting to place pressure even on the local sanctuaries that make that possible.
Besides, it’s doubtful a Madrid-style attack would have the same effect in America that it did in Spain. Spain’s prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar was dumped because he made the grave error of apparently trying to cover up the source of the attack. And polls already were showing that the war on Saddam Hussein was far more unpopular among Spaniards – and most Europeans – than with Americans.
While Mr. Kerry or his surrogates might point to another major attack as evidence that Bush’s homeland security strategy isn’t working, they will have to be careful with such criticism. It could open them to counter-charges that Democratic criticisms may have sent the wrong signal to the enemy, virtually inviting an attack.
There are legitimate grounds for debate about Iraq. But the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found doesn’t completely dispose of the matter. Last week’s “Duelfer report” stated bluntly that weapons of mass destruction were still very much on Saddam Hussein’s to-do list once sanctions were lifted, or at least as soon as Saddam could steal enough money from the United Nations’ corrupt oil-for-food program to restart his programs. Moreover, Iraq, while it may not have been a major sanctuary for Al Qaeda itself, was certainly a major state sponsor of terror. Remember those $25,000 payments Saddam was making to Palestinian families willing to offer their children on the altar of terrorism against Israel?
No, insofar as the terrorists are rational, they must know that an attempt to disrupt the American elections could go very badly for them. That doesn’t mean America is off the hit list. You never know what some nut might try. Longer term, there may still be efforts to prove that America’s political leadership, whatever it consists of, is unable to guarantee the security of its citizens. And the terrorists also know that the best defense is a good offense.
All of this is the unsettling reality of the post-September 11 world. But America holds a big trump card: the character of the American people and their institutions. The rancor and partisanship surrounding the election might lead some to conclude that America is coming apart. But rancor and partisanship are nothing new to American democracy.
There was plenty of ugly discord during the very dangerous days of the Cold War, but the really impressive fact is that over a period of nearly a half-century the people stayed the course. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people proved a lot more durable than the terrorist institutions established by the Kremlin, Beijing, and elsewhere. And the American people were foremost in accepting the chilling risks that resistance to communism entailed – even as hundreds of thousands were marching in the streets demanding nuclear freezes and outright appeasement.
This is being written before the election in Afghanistan. But from the registration figures, it appears that the idea of democracy is a lot more attractive even to people in supposedly backward places than inhuman ideologies that seek to justify mass murder of innocent men, women and children. Seeing what the Afghans went through, are American voters going to go wobbly at the threat of a terrorist strike? To believe that is to sell the American people seriously short.
Mr.Bray is a Detroit News columnist.