Outlook: Terrorism and Election 2004

Article

Outlook: Terrorism and Election 2004

The terrorist bombings in Istanbul over the past week make it all the more easy to imagine this scenario the United States. And since terrorists often want to send messages during elections, it is worth asking: how would Americans, and how should Americans, respond if terrorists strike during the presidential campaign.

By David Rothkopf

Published on Nov 21, 2003

Source: Carnegie

Imagine it is Election Day 2004. As you walk toward your local polling place, you can't help but notice how different this day is from past first Tuesdays in November. A Humvee bearing the markings of your local National Guard unit is stationed outside, as are half a dozen guardsmen carrying assault rifles. Would-be voters glance at parked cars and passersby with palpable unease and suspicion. A string of suicide bombings, which began on the day of the first presidential debate, has transformed the country, both on the streets and in the campaign. Terrorism is the only issue that seems to matter.

In an article in this Sunday's Outlook section, "Bombs and Ballots," David Rothkopf says that the terrorist bombings in Istanbul over the past week, which have taken 50 lives, make it all the more easy to imagine this scenario here. And since terrorists often want to send messages during elections, he says it's worth asking: how would Americans, and how should Americans, respond if terrorists strike during the presidential campaign.

David Rothkopf discussed the article in an online chat at washingtonpost.com on November 21, 2003. Read the discussion.

About the Author

David Rothkopf

Former Visiting Scholar

David Rothkopf was a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment as well as the former CEO and editor in chief of the FP Group.

Recent Work

In The Media
How Bush, Obama, and Trump Ended Pax Americana
- David Rothkopf
In The Media
A Bigger Clubhouse
- David Rothkopf

North America United States Security Foreign Policy

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

Commentary
Diwan
The United States and Iran Have Agreed to a Two-Week Ceasefire
Spot analysis from Carnegie scholars on events relating to the Middle East and North Africa.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
Iran Rewrites Its War Strategy
In an interview, Hamidreza Azizi discusses how Tehran has adapted in real time to the conflict with the United States and Israel.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
Trump’s Plan for Gaza Is Not Irrelevant. It’s Worse.
The simple conclusion is that the scheme will bring neither peace nor prosperity, but will institutionalize devastation.
Nathan J. Brown
Commentary
Diwan
What Does the Strait of Hormuz’s Closure Mean?
In an interview, Roger Diwan discusses where the global economy may be going in the third week of the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran.
Nur Arafeh
Commentary
Diwan
Tehran’s Easy Targets
In an interview, Andrew Leber discusses the impact the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran is having on Arab Gulf states.
Michael Young