“October surprise” — this is a term that is used by most commentators in the run-up to the American presidential elections. It is defined, in this context, as a major political development or political revelation that is timed to influence the middle-of-the-road non-partisan segment of the American electorate into voting Democrat or Republican depending on the nature of the surprise and who is springing it.
The October surprise of this election year could be one or more of several scenarios, but it is widely expected that it would be an event that would have a direct bearing on the life of Americans. What could that be? Given the dismal record of the administration of President George W. Bush on the internal front, whether economy, employment, healthcare or post-Sept.11 individual freedoms, it is an almost foregone conclusion that it would have to do with the Bush-led war against terrorism and security of Americans.
The neoconservatives in Washington need Bush at the helm to ensure continuity to what they started with military action against Afghanistan and later against Iraq. They have worked too hard to give up their plans now.
The Socialist Equality Party, although a marginal force in the US but whose views find resonance among many, says: “ Nothing this administration says about the so-called ‘terrorist threat’ deserves any credibility. The fact that it systematically lied about the supposed security threat posed by Iraq and its so-called ‘weapons of mass destruction’ has been irrefutably established. The Bush administration consists of people, from the president and vice president on down, who will say anything to justify their criminal political and military actions.
“The Bush administration also consists of desperate and dangerous men who are prepared to do anything to maintain their grip on power. To the extent that there does exist the danger of a terrorist attack prior to the November election, its planners and perpetrators are far more likely to be extreme right-wing provocateurs with connections to the Bush administration and various police and intelligence agencies than members of some secret Al-Qaeda cell operating in the United States.”
Among the many October surprise theories that appear on American papers as well hundreds of websites that carry comments by respected analysts and observers are:
— Producing Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al-Qaeda, which is accused of carrying out the Sept.11, 2001 attacks in the US, in chains and tout his capture as one the great achievements of the Bush administration. A few believe that Bin Laden is already in American custody and the Bush re-election strategists are waiting for the right moment of maximum impact. Jonathan Randal, a former Washington Post reporter and author of the newly released biography of Osama says: “My basic feeling is, if we knew where he was, we’d have grabbed him by now. I don’t think it’s the kind of secret you could keep long.”
— Launching a direct or indirect (Israeli) military action against Iran and thus embroil the US in a fresh war that would pose the choice between an aggressive Bush known to favor use of military force and John Kerry, who, at best, could be described as of unknown quality. For any US action against Iran, Washington needs a terror attack in the US blamed on the Iranians. But a column appearing in the Washington Post (July 23, 2004) appeared to suggest such an attack might not be necessary saying that Iran was a key player in the Sept.11 attacks. “Did we invade the wrong country? One of the lessons being drawn from the Sept. 11 report is that Iran was the real threat. It had links to Al-Qaeda, allowed some of the Sept. 11 hijackers to transit and is today harboring Al-Qaeda leaders… If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the ‘Great Satan’ will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike.”
As for an Israeli attack, it is already known that the Israelis are itching to take a shot at Iran’s nuclear facilities since they could not simply stand the thought of a nuclear Islamic country in their neighborhood. The Israeli strategists have already distributed anti-radiation kits to people living in areas that they say might be contaminated by “an accident” at its own nuclear weapons facility. The indirect message, William Pfaff wrote in the International Herald Tribune, “is that Israel is preparing for an Iranian attack on Israel’s nuclear weapons manufacturing installations; hence, pre-emption is necessary.”
— Staging a “contained” terror attack in the United States blamed on external forces, be it Al-Qaeda, Iran or any other from the hundreds of militant groups that have publicly espoused anti-American hostility. There are many who believe the neoconservatives might already be planning such an attack, which will be spectacular but with limited casualties, and tout it as having been inevitable since US intelligence and security capabilities were deployed to successfully thwart plans for a much larger attack that would have been more devastating than Sept. 11.
Al-Qaeda should be deemed here only as a concept that symbolizes rejection of American policies and approach to the Muslim world rather than an organized group taking orders from Bin Laden.
The key question is: Will Al-Qaeda itself deliver an October surprise in a platter to Bush? Highly unlikely, though Al-Qaeda would want Bush to win re-election. The Bush administration’s aggressive policy has served Al-Qaeda’s purpose by fueling anti-US sentiments in the Muslim world. Al-Qaeda will benefit only if the US remains in Afghanistan and Iraq and continues to make mistakes that feed anti-American sentiments. Michael Scheuer, a serving Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer who wrote the book “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror” under the pseudonym “Anonymous,” argues that Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction that Al-Qaeda wants “toward an all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy.”
The invasion of Iraq is the “best gift” that the Bush administration could offer to Bin Laden, according to Scheuer. “I’m very sure they (Al Qaeda) can’t have a better administration for them than the one they have now,” he says. “One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president.” Will that be the October surprise?
— Vivek Anand is editor of the Gulf Today, Sharjah.
