Connections

Like Michael Crowley, I'm unwilling to use bin Laden's newly released tape to suggest actual collusion between George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. Nor will I throw out accusations of cooperation between Bush and Ahmadinejad. But it does seem that, consciously or not, these three conduct mutually beneficial policies, with the actions of each amplifying and improving the popularity of the others.

To say that al Qaeda feeds on hatred for America is to speak the most banal of truths. George Bush reaffirms it every time he speaks of their hatred for us. But if such rage is what they feed off, it's not unfair to suggest that those who increase worldwide loathing for us are aiding their cause. Bush's invasion of Iraq, his plan to build permanent bases there, his unwillingness to reject torture, his international belligerence, his unquestioning support for Israel, his nuclear hypocrisy, and nearly every other aspect of his foreign policy appears tailor made to stoke resentment on the Arab Street. And that he does all of it in supposed pursuit of al Qaeda, elevating a degraded terrorist organization to superpower-threatening status, can't but enhance bin Laden's legend and recruitment pool. Were he treated as a mere irritant, deserving of little but dogged pursuit by American law enforcement, he would be greatly, possibly even gravely, weakened.

Meanwhile, as Mike notes, bin Laden seems perfectly content to release a new tape moments before each election. It's understood truth that the tighter terrorism's grip on the national agenda, the brighter the fortunes of the Republican Party. And yet bin Laden, whom the RNC would like you to believe blanches at the mere mention of their name, routinely plays deus ex machina each time their electoral outlook dims. To believe that bin Laden, whose network is largely online and reportedly sophisticated, cannot call up the New York Times and comprehend this electoral dynamic is the height of foolishness. So, for whatever reason, he appears intent on doing his enthusiastic best to improve the Republicans' prospects. Strange, given their belief that he fears them so.

Elsewhere, Ahmadinejad and Bush are similarly mutually reinforcing. By continually responding to Ahmadinejad's provocations, Bush has elevated an impotent Iranian leader (remember Khatami's effectiveness?) to spokesman of a world power. For a small country as desirous of galactic grandeur as Iran, watching the world's superpower leap and snap at every bit of bait Ahmadinejad dangles is precisely what they believe their due. That we are denying them superpower weapons while encouraging and accepting further nuclear development elsewhere simply gives them license to feel aggrieved, too.

Conversely, by musing over Jewish genocide and attacking America at every speech, Ahmadinejad keeps injecting a belligerent and possibly unpredictable Middle Eastern state into the American conversation, again giving Bush an opportunity to puff out his chest and pledge us his protection.

In all cases, our enemies requires Bush's attentions and cooperation to be heard. In all cases, their popularity relies on notoriety, and on America's willingness to promise policies and conduct responses that inflame their constituencies. In all cases, we play along. On the other side, Bush is routinely strengthened by the reemergence of terrorism or rogue states into the American debate, and our enemies invariably offer him that electoral boost. I'm not saying the three are cooperating with each other. I'm not saying they like each other. But on some level, they need each other, and their reliability in providing exactly what the other needs is so total as to, like in the case of bin Laden's latest video, astonish.