Outlook: Terrorism and Election 2004

Rothkopf, David

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
Corrupted by Absolute Power
In an interview, Marc Lynch discusses his new book decrying the post-1990 U.S.-dominated order in the Middle East.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
Why Does the Middle East Suffer “Forever Wars”?
Because perpetual conflict enhances control, offers economic benefits, and allows leaders to ignore popular preferences.
Angie Omar
Commentary
Diwan
Where is the Groundwork for Lebanon’s Negotiations With Israel?
A prerequisite of serious talks is that the country’s leadership consolidates majority national support for such a process.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With Iran
In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
Lebanon Needs a New Negotiating Strategy with Israel
Unless Beirut lowers expectations, any setbacks will end up bolstering Hezbollah’s narrative.
Mohanad Hage Ali