CE Week #3: “An Afghan ‘October surprise’?”
New technology used in Iraq and Afghanistan to hunt down and kill terrorists may inject itself into the presidential race.
Tim Rutten
September 13, 2008
Friday, The Times’ Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes reported that the United States has escalated its war against Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies by “deploying Predator aircraft equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems that were instrumental in crippling the insurgency in Iraq.”
It’s a story whose significance may extend well beyond the benighted hills and valleys of Pakistan’s violent Pashtun hinterlands and onto the hustings of our current presidential campaign. Coupled with Thursday’s report in the New York Times that President Bush has signed a secret order permitting Afghanistan-based U.S. special operations forces to cross into Pakistan without Islamabad’s permission, the odds of an “October surprise” that could influence the general election have risen appreciably.
U.S. officials also told The Times that the new surveillance systems allow the operators of the unmanned Predators to locate and identify individual human targets “even when they are inside buildings. … The technology gives remote pilots a means beyond images from the Predator’s lens of confirming a target’s identity and precise location.”
The Times’ story confirms the most sensational revelation contained in Bob Woodward’s new book, “The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2007,” which was published this week. Woodward revealed the technology’s existence but, heeding requests from intelligence officials, declined to describe its operations except to say that it had allowed U.S. forces to locate and kill decisive numbers of senior Al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi insurgents. In what may be the book’s most controversial claim, Woodward argues that the secret technology and the so-called Anbar Awakening — in which counterinsurgency techniques developed by the Marines won over tribal leaders in that crucial Sunni-dominated province — had as much or more to do with stabilizing Iraq as the “surge” in U.S. troop numbers.
Beyond the purely military considerations, there are potentially significant political implications. First and most obvious is the question of the surge’s efficacy. The answer matters, particularly to John McCain, who has been one of the surge’s most resolute supporters. If it turns out that it was only one — and, perhaps, the least consequential — in a confluence of successful American initiatives, then McCain could go from steadfast to stubborn in voters’ minds.
The real wild card pops up if this new surveillance technology allows U.S. forces to find and kill Osama bin Laden. Bush wouldn’t be human if he didn’t desperately want to see the Al Qaeda warlord dealt with before inauguration day 2009. Moreover, as Woodward writes, the president frequently relishes the death of individual extremists and insurgents in a way that even our professional soldiers find striking. Then-American commander in Iraq Gen. George W. Casey Jr. “told a colleague in private that he had the impression that Bush reflected the ‘radical wing of the Republican Party that kept saying, “Kill the bastards! Kill the bastards! And you’ll succeed.” ‘ Since the beginning, the president had viewed the war in conventional terms, repeatedly asking how many of the various enemies had been captured or killed.”
If U.S. special operations forces capture or kill Bin Laden, or if a CIA technician pushes a button and puts a Hellfire missile between his eyes, Bush will have made good on the vows he made seven years ago to bring the Al Qaeda leader to some sort of justice. In the eyes of many who supported him over the years, that would allow the president to leave office with at least part of his historical reputation intact.
There also are many Republican activists who must hope that an October surprise involving Bin Laden would give McCain — unswerving supporter of the war and advocate of a muscular, hard-line foreign policy — a boost by association. At the very least, anything that makes his connection to his party’s now dismally unpopular president less of a stigma helps the GOP candidate.
Still, it’s also possible that this particular October surprise might also help Barack Obama, at least at the margins, which is where this election increasingly looks to be decided. The Democratic nominee, after all, opposed going to war in Iraq, in part because it was a distraction from the conflict with the Afghan Taliban and Al Qaeda, which had, after all, committed the 9/11 atrocities. If a military technology heretofore monopolized by operations in Iraq finally brings Bin Laden to answer for his crimes, Obama and his supporters can argue that the war in Iraq delayed the day of reckoning in Afghanistan.
That’s the thing about surprises, no matter what the month: The consequences frequently are as unlooked-for as the event.
An October Suprise could probably be considered an ironic title at this point, since if we can pick out a particular month of the election year that they show up in, it’s hardly surprising. The fact that we have a secret agreement to ignore Islamabad’s authority just reeks of something the Democrats could spin, and the McCain campaign would have to move to distance themselves. It would definitely generate a good bit of ammo. The issue of actually killing Osama Bin Laden would be very interesting to see in terms of the campaign, as both parties could feasibly spin it their way. Obama could spin it as the author said, the war in Iraq delayed this crucial event. The McCain campaign could spin it as a triumph for military power, skimming over the fact that we were in the wrong country for several years. I do have to wonder why we haven’t caught Osama yet, he’s diabetic and is suspected to be on dialysis. Either way though, such an October Surprise could definitely bring our president into the spotlight again. And if it’s negative attention, the Obama Campaign could spin this onto McCain’s head, he has appeared with the President for photo-ops more times than I can count. If it’s positive, the Obama campaign will have to work harder to spin it, and McCain may win out anyway. But I suppose the October Surprise could actually be their surprising results, you never know.
I understand the whole idea of the media telling everyone what is going on in the world and what our next plan is, but what I don’t get is why they do it. ‘October Surprise’ isn’t really a surprise if the whole world knows about it. Or better yet “President Bush has signed a ’secret’ order permitting Afghanistan-based U.S. special operations forces to cross into Pakistan without Islamabad’s permission.” It ‘was’ secret but not so much anymore. I understand that people want to know what is going on and it is the media’s job to tell us, but why do they tell us the ’secrets?’ Then they are not secret.
On a better note, it is good to know that we have come up with yet another new weapon that will supposably help us kill the Al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi insurgents. The only problem that I see is that now they know about it and it more than likely will not take them that long to out smart our new smart weapon. What I understood from the article is that the new weapon can identify any one even if they are in a building. How? Have we mastered x-ray vision and can now see through walls? I like that they are trying very hard to find new technology to help save lives and make killing the bad guys faster and easier, but I am one of those people that believes that humans always have better judgement then a computer or robot , so personally I think that we finish it the old fashion way and kick down the door and say “hello.”
More political surprises? That seems oddly familiar to another ex-president’s situation. Jimmy Carter had his own “surprise” that we were all expecting to happen. Granted, Bush isn’t running for Presidency, it’s his last blast at being able “to leave office with at least part of his historical reputation intact.” It also has the potential to make a great impact on the current presidential elections. As the article said, and Kyle, Obama and McCain could manipulate the situation for their benefit.
That poses the question then, what happens of Osama Bin Laden is killed? There’s a lot at stake for Republicans especially. They will either achieve some glory by association of party, or they will have to work even harder to distance themselves from Bush. (There should be concern about whether or not Bin Laden deserves a trial or not.) On top of that,
“…President Bush has signed a secret order permitting Afghanistan-based U.S. special operations forces to cross into Pakistan without Islamabad’s permission…” The fact that we’re poking into places we’re not allowed to be in, doesn’t surprise me at all. What does surprise me is that the article didn’t touch more on the fact that it’s not very ethical for us to be doing that. Shouldn’t that affect public opinion on the situation in the Middle East? Overall, I’m anxious to see if this “surprise” comes through or not, and how the candidates will react.