McCain's Threat Appeal: Helpful or Hurtful

In a recent town hall meeting in PA, Republican John McCain revealed that he feared terrorists might increase attacks in Iraq in order to tip the election against him in November. While he is known for saying the U.S. could have presence in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years," both Clinton and Obama have promised to withdraw troops. Attacks and casualities abroad could potenitally increase anti-war sentiment as people see that American presence is more detrimental than helpful, thus bringing support to whoever the Democratic nominee will be.

I wonder, though, if such attacks could cause as much damage as people might think. Could it possibly have the opposite effect? Might people feel that more troops need to go and fight "the enemies" to sort things out?

I feel that fear of terrorists and homeland security are what put our current leader in office. The 9/11 attacks were actually were helpful for him because he promised security and protection that his opponent did not. I feel that by capitalizing on our fear and positioning himself as a hater-of-all-evil, he gained a lot of support that he would not have received otherwise.

If there more casualties abroad, will that elicit reactions of withdrawal or fuel support for war? What if they happen on American soil? Would that change people's reactions? Threat appeals have very powerful persuasive impact, but to whose advantage will it swing?

My thoughts were fueled by this NY Times blog post.