Re-post: How Will Terrorists Respond to Obama’s Election: Open Thread

I was asked by Culture Feast founder Daniel Dessinger, a.k.a. @DanielthePoet, to weigh in on this question on the Culture Feast blog. They have permitted me to re-post here. My response to the question is below. I invite your comments whether in agreement or telling me I'm full of crap:

Posted on 05 November 2008 by Daniel Dessinger

It's safe to say that in this neck of the world, there are two predominant ideals regarding the anti-American terrorist response to United States Presidential Election. This is an open thread, so we'll state the two opposing views and allow you to discuss.

View #1: Anti-American Sentiment Will Lessen As a Direct Result of Obama's Election
Many people hold Republicans and, more specifically, President George W. Bush, responsible for the militant anti-American sentiment around the world. Those holding this view believe that America has now proven it's true heart by electing Barack Obama, and that the rest of the world will take note and not hold the entire country responsible for past presidential "atrocities."

Perhaps terrorists, Iran, Syria, Korea, and others will see the United States differently now that George W. Bush and his worldview are being removed from office. If so, a new era of peaceful negotiations and resolutions to conflicts could begin. Or at the very least, these sovereign nations will not pursue terrorist action because they expect to be respected as sovereign nations and left alone by the previous "world police".

View #2: Electing Obama Has Opened the Floodgates for Terrorism Against American Interests
According to this view, Republican military strength was necessary to express and demonstrate American strength to terrorist factions and dictatorships around the globe. Now that the United States has elected a leader who prefers talks to a show of military force, the impact upon groups most likely to plan a terrorist or military strike is minimal. These groups have a blood feud with the United States and its ideals, and will not be deterred by a Democratic Obama.

In fact, Obama represents weakness. His expressed unwillingness to make difficult preemptive military decisions makes his presidency a prime target for terrorist activity. According to this view, we can expect to see a surge of military/terrorist moves during Obama's first term. They expect Obama will waste too much time trying to negotiate with terrorist/military leaders while they are free to conduct black ops and behind the scenes preparations for attacks against our nation.

Now it's your turn to weigh in.
What affect will Obama's presidency have on anti-American sentiment among terrorist and dictatorial military factions? Keep in mind, we're not talking the world at large - only those who would consider doing harm against our citizens, our interests, and our nation.

My response:
"This is a bit of a conundrum. Anti-American sentiments are not relegated to terrorists. It has been spreading, slowly, from France in the years after WWII.

With WWII being completed the U.S. played a major part in the financing and rebuilding of France. And then we played there "majorly" as if it were the new playground we had built. We did this without much regard of the French culture, and as a result anti-American sentiments slowly but steadily arose to the point it becomes a by-line joke in National Lampoons "European Vacation" with Chevy Chase.

The tie-in around the world, is the perceived philosophy of our actions. We are seen as a country that simply does what it wants, frequently without regard for our global neighbors. That may not be simply a Republican thing, but it is arguable that they have been worse at it. Now, it is also argued that, being the most powerful country, we have protected others (or tried to) and therefore have an "excuse" to "jump to the front of the line" or do what we want when most other countries are bound by a more extensive international decorum.

In interviews in Spain, Italy, South America, etc... we were described as a disrespectful people--of our elderly, our sick, our neighbors etc... That our priorities were wrong with healthcare and education and a visible disdain was the result. Despite our tremendous power.

Terrorism, on the other hand, is about chaos interruption, and skewed religious beliefs resulting statement actions.

Whereas I am inclined to think that the steady, methodical approach and controlled demeanor we have seen from Obama will continue in his interaction with our global neighbors, probably resulting over time in less anti-American sentiment; I'm not sure if it will lessen terrorism bent on U.S. disruption. Because they are about statement actions, terrorists will strive to make the largest statements when possible.

America is an advanced target. Whereas part of the activity, on our soil which we have seen, has been reprisal for our actions abroad (arguable) and may lessen *some*, we are still seen as the place to make the biggest statement. "Attack the infidel power!" I'm not convinced we're much more, or less, of a target due to an immanent change in leadership and subsequently global decorum and perception. Their actions can't be just about targeting strength--China is arguably stronger in military might. But they tend to keep to themselves relative to our activity abroad. Perhaps they too will become more of a target. They have had some small activity, in 1992, and a "foiled plot" in Beijing in 2009. Other than some minor Seperatist Muslim activity, they're okay.

Simply put, I believe *general* anti-American sentiments will lessen, but I am inclined to think that any planned path of terrorist interruptions will continue more or less as they have; even with this new President-Elect. Whether or not they will step things up because Obama is a Democrat which some perceive as militarily flacid, who can know? I *do* think they see him differently than many Americans do. I think they seem him as shrewd. Intellegent. Controlled. Perhaps even unpredicable. That may not equate to a desired conflict."

We invite you to join the conversation--what do you think? Agree? disagree? have more options to add to the consideration?