Truman Series: Why haven’t we heard from Osama?

The following is the latest in our series of posts from fellows of the Truman National Security Project.  Peter Henne writes:

Amidst the many surprises that emerged in this historic Presidential contest—Bill Ayers, suspended campaigns, Sarah Palin…—there was one potential surprise conspicuous by its absence. Osama bin Ladin and the al Qaeda (AQ) network, whose attacks and rhetoric have framed US foreign policy debates since 2001, remained silent, and the only public communiqué to date was a brief release by an AQ affiliate, the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI).

For those of us rejoicing in the victory of President-elect Obama, in an election in which only nine per cent of voters identified terrorism as a primary concern, it is easy to forget the decisive role terrorism once seemed destined to play in America’s fortunes.  Beginning with the 9/11 attacks, fears over terrorism suffused the early years of the new millennium, culminating in the purported terrorist threat to the 2004 elections. Yet, we heard nothing from AQ during the 2008 campaign season, and the economy dominated voters’ attention. Does this mean that the threat of terrorism has dissipated?

The answer is, most likely, “no.” The communiqué released by the AQ affiliate was, as Frank Gardner of the BBC put it, “mild.” The spokesman for the ISI calls on “Western countries” to be impartial; in return, the group will not interfere with the supply of oil. Yet, other groups’ releases were more emphatic in their call for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, while online responses to the ISI communiqué indicated the usual level of anti-US hatred.  Furthermore, a London-based Arabic-language newspaper reported that in recent weeks sources have claimed bin Ladin is planning an attack that is “bigger than 9/11.”

These ambivalent messages indicate an opportunity and warning for the Obama Administration’s counterterrorism policy.  Barring their acquisition of a nuclear weapon, AQ and its affiliates are not likely to seriously threaten the US national interest, although terrorist attacks on US and foreign interests can undermine democratic progress and weaken US resolve for internationalist missions. The greatest threat from these transnational networks lies instead in their mobilization of anti-US opinion; if the United States is viewed unfavorably in other countries it will be difficult to increase soft power through outreach and aid missions, as well as gain the support of foreign leaders.  While al Qaeda communiqués may just be rhetoric, but even rhetoric can fix a negative view of US actions and intentions in the minds of Muslim publics (even if they simultaneously reject the devastating violence perpetrated by AQ affiliates).

The election of Barack Obama—greeted by cheering crowds from Washington, DC to Kenya to Indonesia—has presented a United States to the world distinct from the Bush Administration’s America; a United States that remains the symbol and champion of freedom and opportunity for all. Moreover, as Obama made clear in his campaign and victory speech, it is a United States that will take seriously the commitment to a liberal internationalist order first advanced by FDR and made tangible by Harry Truman. The threat of terrorism may not be the defining threat to the United States in the 21^stcentury, but it reflects our greatest challenges: violent anti-US ideologies, economic and political deprivation, the proliferation of destructive technologies and global uncertainty over the benefits of US unipolarity. Such challenges require a counterterrorism policy that is intelligent, measured and focused on increasing and using US soft power, a task the Obama Administration is certainly qualified to handle.

Peter Henne is a doctoral candidate at Georgetown University.  The views expressed here are his own.