The symbiosis between terrorists and our leaders

How do politicians benefit from terrorism? Do terrorists garner support from their sympathizers by provoking political leaders? Is there symbiosis between the two despite the fact that politicians would rather not have a terrorist attack on their watch?On July 11, Uganda experienced what the U.S. went through on Sept. 11, 2001. As my friends, family and I returned home from the World Cup finals game, my car radio was reporting several terrorist attacks in the capital, Kampala. Like the attacks on Sept. 11, the July 11 suicide attacks were spectacular and devastating. Scores of revelers had been injured, killed or maimed.In less than 48 hours, the Somali-based militia, al Shabaab, with known links to al-Qaida, had claimed responsibility. The attacks, they proclaimed, were in response to Uganda's peacekeeping role in Somalia where the Kampala government, with the support of Washington, is propping up Sheikh Sharif's government -- a sworn enemy of al-Qaida.On July 12, Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni visited the sites of the terrorist attacks and ordered the Uganda Joint Anti-Terrorism Task Force to apprehend the perpetrators. He defiantly announced the deployment of 2,000 more troops to Somalia. The U.S. government immediately sent FBI agents to help with the investigations -- one American died in these attacks and several were injured.Notwithstanding the tragic nature of these two events, politicians often glean benefits from them.
Uganda's Museveni (not unlike America's President Bush) declared war on the terrorists and both men experienced a bump in their popularity ratings in what is known as the rally effect. This is where the chief executive receives inordinate support from the people following a crisis. In a poll done four weeks later, a good majority of Ugandans felt that of the candidates running for president in next year's election, Museveni was the only one who could defend Uganda from terrorist threats. His ratings compared to opposition candidates regarding national security were very high.In the U.S., Republicans got a boost as national security gained prominence on the policy agenda. The 9/11 attacks united the country and distracted Americans from long-term challenges such as health care and unemployment.
July 11 cast the following into the background in Uganda: unemployment rates of 45 percent, rising political repression and a president seeking a mandate for another five years in addition to the 24 years he has served thus far.Washington sees Uganda's peacekeeping role in Somalia as vital to the global fight against al-Qaida. Consequently, Kampala receives financial, military and logistical support from the U.S., not to speak of vital diplomatic support. In a developing country such as Uganda where fiscal accountability is lax, the securitization of aid provides a conduit through which funding for political campaigns (especially for the incumbents) might be funneled.
In the United States, Pentagon spending following the 9/11 attacks received limited scrutiny. Following passage of the Patriot Act, Uganda passed the 2002 Anti-Terrorism Act, which invariably circumscribes civil liberties/rights and has no sunset provisions.How do the terrorists benefit? It depends on the responses by the politicians in the attacked countries. In most cases, leaders choose not to appease the aggressors and to (as both Bush and Museveni did) escalate the war, hunt down the perpetrators and smoke accomplices out of their hiding places.Said Museveni on July 13, "We shall get them and make sure that the law of Moses is supplied to them."
But when leaders respond in moralistic terms, depicting the terrorists and their sponsors as the agents of evil against good, the latter strengthen their appeals to sponsors. And when sections of civil society such as the Florida-based Dove World Outreach Center announce plans to mark 9/11 by burning the Quran, they open the terrorists' financial supply lines. This is partly because such characterizations trigger images of a 21st century crusade and partly because this is one of their intended outcomes.
Is there an unwitting symbiosis in this dynamic? Perhaps so, because terrorists leave no room for a viable political solution, especially given their seemingly irrational conduct in the world. The natural and only response from the political representatives of the modern state is to defend its sovereignty. The other benefits are natural corollaries of this reality. Likewise, the raison d'etre of terrorism is to alarm victims, instill terror and guarantee their own survival and reproduction. Joshua B. Rubongoya
Rubongoya is a professor and chairman of the Department of Public Affairs at Roanoke College.