What I haven’t seen discussed yet in any of the Madrid/Spanish election threads (and I haven’t the stamina to read all of them) is the fact that, with such a severe divide as exists between the aims of radical Islamic terrorist groups and the aims of “Western” democracies, any possible reaction by an electorate to terrorist actions or statements can be propagandized by the terrorists to their advantage.
al Qaeda seek to radicalize as many of the citizens of Islamic countries (and specifically Saudi Arabia) as it will take to bring about a fundamentalist revolution in those countries. To do this, they must create and spread a belief structure (within their target groups) resting on two foundational ideas: 1) that the US and its “lackeys” wage war against Islam itself, and 2) that violent resistance is necessary, morally justified, and effective.
IMO, the genius of the Madrid bombings, from the pov of al Q, was not in influencing the vote in a particular direction, but that by timing the bombing days before a national election, a popular “reaction” to the bombing was guaranteed. Even though the election would have occured regardless of any outside agitation, any results of an election held so closely after a major, dramatic and brutal terrorist attack were bound to be perceived as having been swayed in some way by that attack. Post hoc ergo propter hoc may be a logical fallacy, but it is also quite often a correct observation, and a way of thinking that’s practically hard-wired in the human brain. Qaeda understands this, I think.
And, since al Q is immediately “credited” with the election results, either probable outcome can serve their propogandistic agenda. If the Socialists are victorious, al Q can claim they’ve moved Spanish politics in a direction less inimical to Muslims. This validates the moral correctness of their cause and the effectiveness of their organization, gaining them money and recruitment from the target support groups. If the PP are returned to power, and particularly if they return with a strengthened commitment to US leadership, al Q can cite this as validation of the Judeo-Christian world vs. Islamic world war meme, which buttresses their radicalization efforts in Islamic countries. Of these two probabilities, it is the latter, I think, which is the larger strategic victory— however, either result is acceptable. The tactical victory in Spain was the perception of al Qaeda manipulation, rather than the actual results.
This latest purported statement seems to corroborate both sides of the equation, I think. On the one hand, it spins the Socialist election victory and the consequent plans for a withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq in June as a desired decision for “peace” by the Spanish electorate. On the other hand, it declares both Bush and Kerry as enemies of Islam and depicts a victory by either of them in a way which can be used to fuel anti-US emotions; either a brutal and mindless assault against Islam or an insidious and wicked corruption of Islam.
Sentient Meat is quite correct here in my opinion. It’s not the specific electoral desires of al Qaeda which are dangerous, it’s the consideration by an electorate that those desires are relevant which is the real danger.
.