] Al Qaeda would love to see Bush defeated, particularly if
] his defeat could be perceived -- particularly in the
] Islamic world -- as a consequence of the network's
] actions. That means U.S. allies are not the only possible
] targets. Al Qaeda has shown itself to be politically
] sophisticated. If it has operatives in the United States,
] then those operatives have friends who can advise the
] group on U.S. politics. Any attack will give Bush an
] immediate boost. It is a given in U.S. policy that the
] president's support increases during a crisis. It is also
] true that over time that support bleeds off, particularly
] if the president is not seen as moving toward solving the
] problem effectively. It follows that al Qaeda will not
] attack on the eve of the U.S. election, but months
] before, giving the American public time to come to the
] conclusion that Bush is unable to cope with the threat.

Stratfor puts its hat in the ring. This is the first time they've taken a position that I do not find my self entirely agreeing with. That almost certainly means I'm wrong, but I'll say it anyway and we'll see.

I knew they thought Al'Q wanted to topple Bush, but I didn't know why. I don't agree with this. I think that a Democratic president in the U.S. would close the gap with Europe, and thereby elminiate the weakness Al'Q is presently exploiting. (Possibly at the expense of creating other weaknesses, but thats an unknown. Partisanship easily takes you outside the realm of reason here.) In reading Stratfor's reasoning it makes sense. If they could get the Arab world to beleive that they toppled a U.S. president it might do wonders for their credibility, IF people beleived it. Honestly, I think that even if they did have an impact arguements that they are responsible will not be taken credibly, and what they loose strategically in the process (a US/Europe fissure, which most certainly real on the street and in the UN) is worth more then what they'd trade for. This alone is not going to galvanize the arab world into engaging in a war that really no one but a bunch of lunatic fundamentalists is interested in.

I also don't think that any attack in the U.S. is likely to topple Bush. I think more attacks are likely to drive Americans right, and I don't think you'll see them unless it looks like Bush will loose. Not until after the election anyway...

Stratfor's discussion of the fact that this wasn't a suicide operation is interesting. There are many ways to interpret that. Most of the press just isn't thinking about it.

What I think is also interesting is that Al'Q clearly are intelligent military strategists, whilst simultaneously they have very backward, feudal ideas about what political future is best for themselves and their people. Identity based politics knows no intellectual heights. No matter how smart you are, it is still entirely possible (and likely) that your concepts about governance and world order are completely broken. This is because people tend to decide who they are and how they feel before they decide what they think. Everyone has got it backwards. People who are different have thoughts that are outside the range of things we're capable of considering. So we think they must be evil. And so we kill eachother...

Strategic Forecasting: Analysis of Madrid