october surprise?
First, the only person whose capture could have any benefit for Bush would be Bin Laden. His evasion is the most visible tarnish on Bush's War on Terror record (though as you can read in my forthcoming Idealistic Nation article, it is far from his only failure.) The capture of any other terrorist would cause little more than a notice among the American public. In July, The New Republic published an article, titled "July Surprise?" suggesting that the Bush administration was pressuring Pakistan to capture high value terrorists during the Democratic National Convention. It turns out that Pakistan did just that. And announced it just hours before Kerry's acceptance speech. But who remembers? I doubt many people. That's cause the terrorists name was Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani. Ever heard of him before? Neither have I. So only a Bin Laden capture would do any good.
But could it instead do bad? After all, it would have taken Bush three years to catch the guy. But more importantly, the American public isn't stupid. Even without the rumors of an October Surprise in the media (and it's sure to only get louder), a Bin Laden capture in the week before the election would seem a little fishy to your average American. I mean, what are the chances of actually capturing him in that week? It seems more likely that he's already been caught and that people will find an election week announcement to be politically repulsing. Or even worse, what if we just haven't been trying hard enough (many of the troops that two years back were searching for Bin Laden are now in Iraq) or have him surrounded but haven't gone in after him (see Tora Bora for examples of Bush having done this already) and only plan to do so right before the election. Such a scenario, or even rumors that this is what happened could be politically devastating for Bush.
The point is, keep your eyes out for an October surprise (or non surprise if you were expecting it) and be skeptical.
<< Home