"After all, the Spanish election represents the first victory for the Islamists since 9/11."
I was thinking exactly the same thing earlier today, pondering the significance of this event. The Spanish election gives me a real sick feeling. And I realized, as you, that this is a first victory for the enemy. Except I would go further and say this is the first victory of any kind, including 9/11. This is the first time that an attack has resulted in a major net benefit to their interests. Previous incidents have either been irrelevant or counter-productive (9/11) to the Islamist cause. That's my read anyway.

(Link)

Posted by Greg at March 17, 2004 12:33 AM

I believe you are correct about this leading to more pre-election bombings. Not only al Quada, but many of the home grown terrorists have to be thinking furiously at this time. I imagine that if the ETA didn't do this, they are now thinking that they should have.

Many terrorist organizations around the world that are not al Quada affiliated must now be feeling a little like a mom and pop business that has been overshadowed by Wal-Mart. They can either go out of business as those who believed Bush's 'Your either with us or against us' did (Khadaffi and the IRA) or they can try to get the public's attention by competing harder.

One thing that Bush has not gotten enough credit for is the inhibition of terror around the world over the last couple of years. Everyone, both the good guys and the bad guys, was shocked by 9-11. I think the bad guys were shocked further by the American response, not just in Afganistan but perhaps more significantly in Iraq. If one can look past the quibbles about WMDs, there is the clear message that at least some countries in the world are not going to put up with terrorist crap any more.

The Spanish electorate has now diluted that message. At the same time, the various terrorist groups, al Quada and non al Quada, have to be wondering how seriously to take the mixed messages that Kerry and others are sending. France, Germany and other members of the Coalition of the Unwilling are going to be in great danger because they have demonstrated that they will accomodate terrorists.

Britain and the US may or may not be in less danger. Like you, I believe that another US attack would guarantee a Bush landslide (and that would be just the beginning). For all the Labour handwringing, I think Britain still has the backbone to get up a case of deadly anger too. What is in doubt is whether the leaders of the terrorists also believe this. There are historical precedents - Japan in WWII and Germany in WWI - to show that fanatical leaders who should know better - do not.

By the way, its good to see your posts again. I hope things turned out well.

Posted by Doug Collins at March 17, 2004 12:39 AM

Regime change, Al-Qaeda style.

I'm not sure they'll hit Spain again anytime soon, but it's a message to any other European countries who have elections coming up in the near future.

This tactic strikes at one of the core aspects of a democracy; the assumptions of an uncoerced electorate.

James....

Posted by James at March 17, 2004 01:04 AM

The spanish election, while being a worrying result for the wider international community, is logical when viewed from within the country. This is not a vote for terrorism, spaniards have been marching and voting against terrorist acts for years. (see ETA) This result, not solely caused by the madrid bombings, is a vote against the FORM of the war on terror. What the mass demonstrations, throughout Europe, against the invasion of irag show, is a mistrust of unilateral action. The spanish have voted for dialogue(a key plank in Zapatero's campaign), for multilateral action, for peace achieved through peaceful means and against a president who failed to heed his country; faced with same choice americans and the british and.. might vote for the big stick and preemptive strikes. Although preemptive strikes led by fundamentalist christian businessmen should worry voters more than it seems to.

Finally, and possibly the most important: the world is not safer, and won't be for a long while. Because? If for a moment we imagine terrorists as a dog (by which I mean no slur on dogs), and in front of that dog we place a western capitalist democratic socialist spaniard and a western capitalist conservative democratic american, that dog is going to bite the both of them, equally hard and equally painfully. Why? Because the dog hates them, and until the reason for that hatred can be redressed, there will be no peace, not through war, nor through any other means.

But hey, let's not lose hope.

Posted by ambidextri at March 17, 2004 01:19 AM

A small nit picky comment, - the Spanish left are Communists, calling them Socialists, while that would be bad enough, is to make light of their true political bent...

They fought Franco for so many years, you would think that they would have had enough of Fascism, whether European or Islamo....or indeed any far left doctrine.

Posted by ernest young at March 17, 2004 01:35 AM

"This is not a vote for terrorism, Spaniards have been marching and voting against terrorist acts for years."

So what?

How can any rational person believe that marching and 'voting against terrorist acts' can have any effect on terrorism? Osama bin Laden doesn't hold an election to decide whether he should kill someone.

And if they have been doing this 'for years', one would think they would eventually realize it's not doing much good.

Posted by Doug Collins at March 17, 2004 02:02 AM

How can any rational person believe that marching and 'voting against terrorist acts' can have any effect on terrorism?

another US attack would guarantee a Bush landslide (and that would be just the beginning).

Different marches, different votes, same outcome.(see dog analogy)

While you're quoting:

One thing that Bush has not gotten enough credit for is the inhibition of terror around the world over the last couple of years.

Really? Terrorists? Inhibited? Terrorism is on the increase, that surely cannot be disputed.

Terrorism must be defeated, obviously. The question being posed here is how? The phrase, 'spiral of violence' should be learnt from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Posted by ambidextri at March 17, 2004 02:29 AM

I don't buy the line that voters punished Aznar for inept post-bomb spinning...No, the Spanish public has, by all accounts, never wanted to pull its weight in the war on terror.

Or maybe the Spanish people didn't buy the argument that the war on Iraq was central to the war on terrorism? In any case, how can you say the terrorists won when you acknowledge that the electorate was inclined to vote Socialist anyway? You are conceding victory to the terrorists too easily.

In the US, I have no doubt that election eve bombings like this would guarantee a Bush landslide,

If this is true and a bombing does occur on US soil prior to the election then what are we to conclude about the motivations of the terrorists? Unless they are just plain stupid, a bombing would signal that they actually want a Bush victory. By your logic then, a vote for Bush would be a vote for terrorism.

I can think of one scenario where Bush might not win in the case of a bombing on US soil. That would be if al Qaeda bombed a target like the Democratic Convention with the hope of killing John Kerry. That would really throw everything into chaos.

Posted by Aral Simbon at March 17, 2004 02:34 AM

"Terrorism is on the increase, that surely cannot be disputed"

Perhaps my point about the inhibition of terrorism by the actions in Iraq was not as obvious as I thought.

To restate: Except for al Quada and the usual Palestinian suicidal idiots, what terrorist activity has there been over the last two years? Is this absence of activity not unusual?

The non-suicidal terrorists just haven't been very noticeable. The Spanish actions may change that, unfortunately.

Posted by Doug Collins at March 17, 2004 02:46 AM

Excellent, excellent post, Robert.

Doug - You are correct. Prez Bush has inhibited terrorism world wide - and especially in the First World. This is the first attack on the West -- except the attacks by proxy on the British Consulate General and HSBC in Turkey and Australia in Bali - since 911.

The Spanish have proved themselves weak. That 5m people turned out in public places to "protest terrorism" demonstrates their total lack of sophistication. What effect did they think "protesting terrorism" was going to have? Who were they protesting against? The perpetrators? How utterly stupid and self-deluding. The same goes for those idiots holding up signs that said Paz.

Although there are substantial numbers of appeaseniks in Britain, they are outnumbered by the people with somewhat stiffer spines. Although the NION and ANSWER crowd might "protest" for "peace", far more British people would be absolutely incensed.

I am not sure that this action has endangered Britain at all. Spain was once a caliphate. These drooling goons have still got a chip on their shoulder that Spain got away and they want it back. Have demonstrated so vividly how passive they are, I think Al Qaeda will now be more inclined to concentrate on Spain. Given last week's reaction, it should't take too much more to nudge them into submission. Spain may be the first, and only, country in Europe to accept the Dhimmitude.

Posted by Verity at March 17, 2004 08:32 AM

When the USA was attacked by Islamofascists, the nation's Marine Corps, Army and CIA recruiters were swamped by young Americans wanting to sign up and kill the bastards who attacked our country. When Spain is attacked, young people (and not so young) take to the streets waving candles, painting their faces white, denouncing the USA, chanting "No to War" and voting out the most decent and courageous government to hold office in Madrid.

Some of the postings above reveal the growing split between Europeans and Americans, e.g., the silly business about an angry dog biting a capitalist and socialist equally hard until we address the root causes of the dog's anger. That is typical of the convoluted totally unrealistic way of "thinking" that now passes for sophistication in European elite circles. I can tell you that if a typical American saw his family being attacked by a crazed dog, he wouldn't try to understand and address the root causes of the dog's anger. Two well-aimed blasts from a 12-gauge would take care of that dog and his anger -- and, oh by the way, would save the family.

But for Great Britain, Europe is hopeless; once again, AWOL at a time of great threat to Western Civilization. Europe was gone when the Nazis came marching on the scene; Europe cowered in fear and engaged in self-righteous blather about "equivalence" when the Communists appeared; and now Islamofascists kill women and children in front of them, and the Europeans still hope that if they stay very still and be very, very good, then maybe, just maybe, this new bearded Moloch will eat them last.

Face it, folks. The survival of Western Civilization depends on the political fortune and guts of a Texan "cowboy" in the White House and on the bravery, patriotism, discipline and martial talents of young men from rural Alabama and Georgia, the streets of Harlem and Chicago, and the farms, shopping malls and suburbs of California. So while Europe drinks its lattes, debates its debates, yammers endlessly about 35-hour work weeks, its pensions, its "superior" culture, and its fully paid two month vacations, American youths will lay down their lives (as they always have done) on the world's battlefields. They will defeat the enemy, save the world, and then they will go home, taking their dead and wounded with them -- and, don't worry, they won't demand or expect to hear "thank you" from Europe.

Europe is beneath contempt.

Posted by Lewis at March 17, 2004 09:16 AM

electing a Socialist who promised to pull Spain back from the war on terror

Could somebody point me to the text of this promise.

I understand that they have said that unless the UN takes over the military control of Iraq they will remove 1300 forces, but that their commitment to fighting the war on terror remains.

Looking at the press they are making remarkable progress in identifying the perpetrators and the network used to make it happen, which will be a significant move.

Posted by Dave at March 17, 2004 09:30 AM

Lewis, thank you for your savage and bitter post. It expressed my own feelings precisely. I don't know whether all of Europe is beneath contempt -- although I'm certainly not going to defend them, either -- but Spain certainly is.

I said above, and I believe it, that Spain has issued an open invitation for the terrorists to come back for another housewarming. I think the goons in al-Qaeda are aware that Britain is a very different kettle of fish. About northern Europe, they cannot be absolutely certain ... But they now know for sure that Spain is a dead cert. Perhaps it is wishful thinking, but I think the next hit will be in Spain again. And what will happen if they get caught in Spain anyway? Endless trials and appeals and some people will lionise them, and meanwhile, they can get busy making converts while they're in prison. Think about it. It's not even a small risk.

Posted by Verity at March 17, 2004 09:53 AM

Lewis,

Thank you for your inspiring and superb post! It's not the first nor the last time to see UK/US stand for freedom and liberty while our European "parteners" fiddle around in coffee shops , grasping their copies of the Guardian and Le Monde while their the terrorists prepare their next wave of attack under their noses.

I'm very glad to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our American allies in this fight against tyranny of terror.

Posted by Front4uk at March 17, 2004 11:10 AM

Europe is beneath contempt.
[...]
I don't know whether all of Europe is beneath contempt -- although I'm certainly not going to defend them, either -- but Spain certainly is.

Since this is an international forum, at least try to maintain a bare minimum of civility against people(s) who simply disagree with you.

> In the US, I have no doubt that election eve
> bombings like this would guarantee a Bush landslide,
> as the American public's instictive reaction to being
> attacked is to elect the guy most likely to kick the
> shit out of our enemies.

Looking at the way the opinion polls have been trending during the past two years and the President's current reelection message, I am not quite sure about that... Remember: the Administration's key argument has always been that America supposedly is "safer" thanks to the Iraq war because the bad guys are supposedly busy getting themselves killed in Baghdad and Tikrit, as opposed to flying airliners into skyscrapers in L.A. or Chicago. I have always thought that this "flypaper theory" was an extremly dumb and simplistic argument. But anyway, let's accept the fact there has been no terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Are you really safer? Evidence of absence may simply be absence of evidence, after all.
---
It seems to me as if Kerry has a lot to gain from this -- as long as he keeps repeating the Democratic line that diverting 150,000 soldiers and hundreds of billions to Iraq in fact has made America more vulnerable. Of course, he also needs to propose alternative solutions for how to boost homeland security while pointing out why the Administration is doing a poor job in this regard. In that case, he likely would benefit from a terrorist strike -- because the Administration's key argument ("we are safer now because Bush is in charge") would be annihilated. Since the Administration's approval ratings aren't that good on the economy and other non-war related issues, isn't it quite possible desperate moderate/independent voters would be willing to give the Vietnam veteran candidate a shot...? Of course, his message cannot be "we surrender!" but he is undoubtedly trying to convey the message he will be just as tough but fight a smarter and more nuanced war than the neoconservatives did.
---
Of course, we are all hoping there will be no more 9/11s and 3/11s before the election. If that turns out to be the case, will the Republicans win? Perhaps -- but in that case the war on terror likely will continue its slide in importance as an important election issue.

God knows Kerry has problems, but the war on terror might actually be a win-win situation for him if he plays his cards right. I think the key stumbling block is his personality and background, being a liberal from Massachusetts.

> By electing a Socialist who promised to pull Spain
> back from the war on terror, the Spanish, by
> rewarding the terrorists, have guaranteed more
> bombings and other terrorist activity.

As far as Spain itself is concerned, I would be very surprised if there are further strikes although of course any disgruntled Moroccan Tim McVeight could do it.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 17, 2004 12:07 PM

There is, of course, absolutely no link between al-Qaeda and Iraq except that al-Qaeda saw the US strangling of Iraq through the sanctions regime as an act of continuing war against Muslims. A vote against the Iraq War is not a vote against fighting al-Qaeda.

- Josh

Posted by Wild Pegasus at March 17, 2004 12:12 PM

So the Spanish will keep their troops in Iraq - if the UN are in charge, but will withdraw them if the US is in charge.

So the real argument is not about being 'pro' or 'anti' war, but about being anti US and, probably most likely being anti GWB, which is more in line with general European thinking, and attitude, (as per the comment by Lewis).

Given that the UN has a proven record of vast incompetence, genocide, and corruption, it is hardly surprising that communists would side with the UN and feel quite 'at home' when siding with them.

Posted by ernest young at March 17, 2004 01:04 PM

> So the Spanish will keep their troops in Iraq - if the
> UN are in charge, but will withdraw them if the US is
> in charge.

Like it or not, but the United Nations has *far* more credibility with the likes of Sistani -- who I hear refused to even negotiate directly with Paul Bremer! Not because of what they do, but it seems rather because of what they represent. Again: the United States' lack of credibility in the eyes of most Iraqis may or may not be rational, but it is something you have to deal with,.

> So the real argument is not about being 'pro' or 'anti'
> war, but about being anti US and, probably most
> likely being anti GWB, which is more in line with
> general European thinking, and attitude, (as per the
> comment by Lewis).

Isn't this really an excellent argument for "regime change" in Washington in that case? Look, it's not just Europeans who can't stand GWB. Opinion polls show he is more reviled by the political opposition at home than any other President! Even Clinton wasn't this unpopular among Republicans during impeachment.

The Administration's recent course in Iraq suggests it is now painfully aware it cannot transform the region on its own; even the neoconservatives seems to be reluctantly admitting it if recent stories in THE WEEKLY STANDARD & co. is any indication. If this indeed is a "war for the survival of the West", doesn't it make sense to have somebody in charge who can actually work with Democrats, the United Nations, Europeans and just about anybody else who isn't an American conservative? A less divise politician, in short.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 17, 2004 01:35 PM

Verity, it's also quite possible that AQ won't attack Spain again in the near future, because if they make it look as if the socialists have brought Spain safety by taking an anti-American stance then they have a better chance of manipulating other elections in the same way. Not that I'm suggesting that there is any way in which these fanatics can be appeased (and if there was, they shouldn't be). Rather, I'm suggesting that they might try to make it look as if they have been in order to gain a tactical advantage.

Posted by Andrew Zalotocky at March 17, 2004 01:35 PM

The French Prime Minister received a threat from an Islamic group yesterday. The reason being the ban on headscarves. So I bet the French are feeling real safe having opposed the Iraq war.

This has not received much media attention, even though it should, as it shows the real agenda of Islamofascists, and that the Iraq war has little bearing on AQ.

As for AQ supposedly being angry about injustices, that's bull. Hitler used a similar tactic in the 1930's, claiming to represent the oppressed.
Germany is least likely to be attacked by AQ because of it's history of slaughtering Jews.

If a terror attack occurs in the UK, it will be the multiculturalists who will be the target of public anger.
A 9/11 style attack would put the BBC,Guardian and Indy in very hot water indeed.

Posted by Zevilyn at March 17, 2004 01:55 PM

A vote against the Iraq War is not a vote against fighting al-Qaeda.

A vote against fighting al-Qaeda is precisely what this was. The vote was going to Aznar before the attack, despite what was going on in Iraq.

Lewis' post was spot on. This was about Spanish voters cowering from danger.

Posted by Tim Sturm at March 17, 2004 01:55 PM

Marcus - "Since this is an international forum, at least try to maintain a bare minimum of civility against people(s) who simply disagree with you." The people posting here are in no need of lessons in civility from you, so do spare us your priggish school ma'army thoughts. Oscar Wilde said a gentleman is a man who is never rude - unintentionally.

Just to spell it out, I intended my comments about the Spanish voters to be starkly bereft of civility. Not, as you unaccountably assume, because they "simply disagree" with me, but because they have committed an act of gross stupidity and cowardice which will have delivered a psychological shot in the arm to our mortal enemies. Appeaseniks disgust me.

In a later post, arguing for "regime change" in the United States, you suggest that it would make sense to have somebody in charge who can actually work with Democrats, the United Nations, Europeans and just about anybody else who isn't an American conservative? A less divisive politician, in short." Or, in the vernacular, a principle-free sleazeball like Clinton, in short.

Andrew Zalotocky - You have a point.

Zevilyn - The hanging of a threat against Raffarin on the banning of the hijab in the classroom is just an excuse for making trouble. In a recent poll in France, 45% of Muslim women said they approved of the ban. These will have been mothers of school-age children, probably second generation themselves. It is fundamentalist males in families who are forcing girls to go to school draped in the hijab, when all the girls want to do is look like their classmates. The mothers understand this; the fathers and brothers don't give a hoot what the little girls want. There may be a terrorist act committed in France, especially now that Spain has given them heart, but if there is, I assure you, it will have nothing to do with the hijab. If the Dissident disagrees with me, doubtless he'll post. Same goes for Sylvain.

Tim Sturm - I agree with you wholeheartedly. Lewis's post was absolutely heroic.

Posted by Verity at March 17, 2004 02:56 PM

One of the main reasons the continentals have reacted with appeasement is that their militaries are exceptionally unprepared to project force outside of the Euro theater. The UK is the exception and they have reacted like a powerful nation who isn't afraid to fight.

France acts tough when they are projecting power into third world weakling nations as the Ivory Coast. But when they threatened Yugoslavia, which had a competent military, they backed down rather than fight.

The continentals are weak and are acting weak. One of the lessons history has taught us is weakness or the appearance of weakness will only invites more aggression.

Posted by Reid of America at March 17, 2004 02:59 PM

Marcus,

I have to disagree with you, the UN has no credibility anywhere other than among socialist governments, it is simply a large bureaucratic trough for all of those 'snouts' to feed in. That the principle paymaster, and the sole source of any military muscle, is the US, and given that the Bush government sees it for the corrupt self-serving quango that it is, is seen as as a virtue in the US.

Re Clinton, a darling of the left, a man of little principle, even less morality, just another self serving personality playing at politics. The man was not so much hated, as despised...like the town drunk, he was just part of the local colour.

Why should there be regime change in Washington, - because the Euros say so!, that is no more valid an argument than saying that the Spanish election result was wrong - because it did not suit other countries opinions.

It is not a case of the US not working with the Europeans, the Democrats, the UN, et al, quite the reverse, it is obvious that the Europeans do not want to work with the US. and given that the US is largely footing the bill in both manpower and finance, it would behoove these 'cousins', not to be so arrogant as take the US for granted. The US can take care of itself, can the same be said of most European countries?

The Bush government is trying (for better or worse), to find a solution to the perceived problems, the Europeans are playing politics and are just looking to protect their own corner. The French, the Germans, and others are peeved over Iraq, because they had an investment in the country, and the Bush government rather spoiled that for them. That is why they are so anti Bush.

After reading of yet another French fiasco in Africa, can you blame anyone for not wanting to take their 'advice'. Little wonder that they like Kerry, the saying 'birds of a feather' seems to be rather apt, losers all.

Posted by ernest young at March 17, 2004 03:07 PM

Reid - those are good points. And it's not just history which teaches us that weakness or the appearance of weakness will provoke more aggression. The animal world also provides a vivid illustration. That's why a sick cat will try to disguise the fact that it's sick for as long as it can; and why a weak dog in a pack, however cowed and appeasing, will provoke aggression by other members of the pack. Nature abhors weakness.

Posted by Verity at March 17, 2004 03:11 PM

Josh:

"There is, of course, absolutely no link between al-Qaeda and Iraq..."

The need for a "direct" link between Saddam's regime and Al Qaida is a canard to begin with. The "war on terror" is a strategy to defeat all international terrorist organizations and the non-democratic regimes that support them. No one doubted that Saddam's regime supported international terrorism, it was right out there in the open.

If you want to criticize Bush for not keeping the debate clearly focused on that point, that's fair enough. But it's not an argument against the strategy, only an argument against how the strategy was marketed, so to speak.

" A vote against the Iraq War is not a vote against fighting al-Qaeda."

True enough, in theory. There are POTENTIALLY other viable strategies. But in the months leading up to the liberation of Iraq nobody seemed to be articulating them. In early 2003 I was dead-set against liberating Iraq. During the course of the year I searched far and wide for a credible strategy -- not a tactic, but a strategy -- for defeating Al Qaida (and it's relatives) that did not involve liberating Iraq from Saddam. I couldn't find anybody articulating such a strategy.

What I did find was a well thought-out, credible strategy of spreading democracy in the near and middle east, beginning with the liberation of Afghanistan from the Taliban (already in place at that point) and Iraq from Saddam. I believe this is the best strategy on the table so far.

If you've got a better one, I'm interested in hearing about it. But, in addition to being a feasible strategy with clear and concrete objectives, it has to meet two further criteria for me to take it seriously. First, it has to lead to permanent and fundamental change in non-democratic countries whose governments currently support terrorism. Second, it has to not require any fundamental change in the western democratic-capitalist system of the countries whose governments don't support terrorism.

Posted by Tedd McHenry at March 17, 2004 03:36 PM

"I want a government that does not intervene in the economy."
José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

What?

Read this...
Spain's Sophisticated Voters by Lew Rockwell.

Posted by Lemuel at March 17, 2004 03:51 PM

Ernest- good response.
Marcus- Kerry has not yet offered any plan to deal with the WOT. How on earth are we supposed to believe he would do it "smarter... more nuanced"? Moreover, the very concept that Kerry would be able to "do it better" seems like arrogance to me. The people in the military and intelligence agencies will be the same people regardless. The little guy gets things done in America or at least that's the belief and the hope here. Kerry, thus far, has given the American military very little credit for the outstanding job that it has done. I resent the hell out of that.

Posted by Amelia at March 17, 2004 03:54 PM

"There is, of course, absolutely no link between al-Qaeda and Iraq..."

Josh, - Absolute poppycock!,, you just don't get to read about it...see the link below.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091381/

Not that I am a conspiracy fan, but there is certainly a degree of bias in the media.

Posted by ernest young at March 17, 2004 03:55 PM

Speaking of civility, I bet you all were impressed by the incoming Socialist leadership's comments about Bush, Blair, US and the UK. I believe one even called Blair a dickhead, hardly a keen way to start a civil discussion. I think people need reminding that to the continental left Blair is not one of them, even if you take away his support for the war. Hell Blair is further to the right of most of their right-of-centre parties.

I think that you just might see more attacks by AQ on Spain, after all the current Spaniards occupy former "Muslim lands". AQ has made numerous statements on wanting to return Spain to the Caliphate.

Posted by Andrew Ian Dodge at March 17, 2004 03:55 PM

Andrew - The Spanish politician who called Tony Blair a complete dickhead made that comment around two months ago. He wasn't speaking as a member of the new government.

Re the possibility of another attack on Spain, because they are weak and because the Islamofascists are still affronted that they haven't been a caliphate for 500 years, I had been thinking as you. But Andrew Zolotocky, above, makes a good point for them leaving well alone for the moment.

Posted by Verity at March 17, 2004 04:05 PM

Lew Rockwell's comments are utterly inane for just one simple fact:

The islamofascists have never needed any motivation or provocation other than the fact that we, the unconverted, exist.

Sorry, but I'm not going to apologise for being born and not converting to islam.

Posted by The Wobbly Guy at March 17, 2004 04:14 PM

One of the main reasons the continentals have reacted with appeasement is that their militaries are exceptionally unprepared to project force outside of the Euro theater. The UK is the exception and they have reacted like a powerful nation who isn't afraid to fight.

Of course, it's a bit more complicated than that. I would say Europeans tend to be more pacifist because WW II was fought on our soil, and the memory of that has been passed on to the baby boomers currently running most of Europe.

The second important reason is we are far more familiar with terrorism than you, so we understand it cannot be eradicated by military means.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 17, 2004 04:15 PM

Arguing that the nuances of the Spanish electorate are highly significant in some universal sense, is like arguing that one should take a "nuanced" approach to a violent armed robber in the house.

The robber neither cares for your nuanced sophistication, nor is he deterred by your cosmopolitan and suave arguments for why he should not shoot you, attack your wife and take your stuff.

The intruder would, however, understand the rather blunt meaning of a 12 gauge pump action being cycled, or the simplistic approach traditionally applied in the U.S., of a first round loaded with rock salt to clear the way for the #4 buckshot.

My point being that all the nuance in the world may matter deeply to hardcore Spanish leftists and to the Western left generally - but the filligree details of Spanish politics and Western civ matter little to the Islamicists.

In their minds, only two broad facts matter - that Al Qaida attacked, and the nation of Spain capitulated. All our commentary about the special significance even in the fall of Catalonian sparrows is just mental masturbation - lotsa fun, but mere self-gratifying ego stroking in the end because our opinion in the West just doesn't matter to the Islamofascists.

Posted by Al Maviva at March 17, 2004 04:29 PM

Wobbly Guy,

it is very difficult to take anyone who uses the word "Islamofascists" seriously,

but have you ever read their "statements" ?

Posted by Lemuel at March 17, 2004 04:33 PM

Terrorism must be defeated, obviously. The question being posed here is how? The phrase, 'spiral of violence' should be learnt from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

That's very true. The great debate is do you do something and excite a response from those who would have not done something, or do you nothing and invigorate those who see weakness? Then, the debate also must go to, is terrorism simply a response to meddling in the region, or is there a master, expansionary agenda involved.

To my mind there is a mixture of both. But the root of the equation starts with whether we are going to have economic ties to a region. In my readings of history that if you are not economically isolationist you likely can't be militarily isolationist (especially if the State purports itself to a key player in a country's economic health, i.e. not in a completely laissez faire position). If this is the case, a country who chooses to trade takes on the socio-political baggage of the trading partner/region.

Rolling forward, we are now in a situation where we are tied economically to a region, made of many people who hate the west for many reasons, a feeling of economic disadvantage, results of old-style imperialism, and, yes, a hatred of the Western mentality. They are not all in league with each other, and many times hate each other as much, if not more (but it is necessary to know when they set aside their strifes and invoke the enemy of my enemy is a friend - the key question as to how much tacit support the likes of Saddam give to al quada). Some will attack us if we repel terrorism as it will inflame old wounds. If we don't attack, others will be emboldened. It's simply a catch-22, but the question should be should we remain economically tied to the region. At this point it is necessary. Making it unnecessary may involve too much State involvement (at least in the US) to force a shift to alternatives and so perhaps free us from direct clashes. But for now, we are there, and we will have to make the best choices possible on when to fight and when to make it a diplomatic endeavor. We will all never agree on when one is right over the other. But a complete cave-in the face of danger doesn't seem to be either.

Posted by toolkien at March 17, 2004 04:52 PM

I have to disagree with you, the UN has no credibility anywhere other than among socialist governments, it is simply a large bureaucratic trough for all of those 'snouts' to feed in.

That is beside the point I was making. You may well despise the UN like conservative/libertarian Americans generally do. But your opinion is far less important than Ayatollah Sistani's, who is a man the beleaguered US authorities in Iraq barely need to convince. As the libertarian-leaning NEWSWEEK columnist Fareed Zakaria pointed out recently ("Bowing to the Mighty Ayatollah"), he was only willing to discuss with Kofi Annan's UN.

Why should there be regime change in Washington, - because the Euros say so!

No -- because you will never change things without allies, which means you had better learn to work with them. Allies bring credibility and legitimacy, financial support as well as military & civilian personnel to assist in the post-war effort. The Iraqi invasion would most likely never have happened without the (misguided-) support of Blair and Aznar in particular. If Spain were so irrelevant to you, how come you (and the neocons in general) seem so rattled by this?

> The US can take care of itself, can the same be said
> of most European countries?

Against the supposedly formidable military might of the Islamists? Oh, sure!! These are terrorists in case you have not noticed. Our armies could beat Morocco's any time, though. Sending 150,000 men to a place which really didn't harbor any terrorists or even WMDs seems like a gross strategic error in the "war on terrorism". I really wonder how the 60% of American voters who identify themselves as moderates & liberals will react, if there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil by a group having absolutely nothing to do with Iraq...

The French, the Germans, and others are peeved over Iraq, because they had an investment in the country, and the Bush government rather spoiled that for them. That is why they are so anti Bush.

According to U.S. conservative wisdom, that is. If I remember correctly, the supposedly vast French "investment" in Saddam's Iraq represents only the tiniest fraction of their GNP. They did sell weapons and other things, whereas I seem to recall the United States was quite happily giving actual financial assistance to Saddam in the 1970s and early 80s.

But that is beside the point. I live here, and I can assure you the average European isn't peeved because we have supposedly lost billions or trillions of Euros when Saddam was removed from power. Rather, we are upset because we understand Muslims and the Middle East much better than you do, since we are living "closer to the action". The anti-war side correctly predicted no Saddam-Al Qaeda connection worthy of the name would be found, and nor would the weapons of mass destruction. So why further alienate the anti-Western forces there by fighting a war that had nothing whatsoever to do with the guys who carried out the September 11 attacks?! Why not spend all that political and military capital on something that actually would undermine Islamic terrorists, as opposed to actually giving bin Laden more credibility in the Arab street? And please don't bring up Saddam's mass graves when discussing September 11. The goal is to prevent future Mohammed Attas from striking, and he wasn't motivated by the Iraqi human rights situation or receiving money from Saddam.

That is the European position in a nutshell, my friends. Given what we have found (or rather not found-) in Iraq during the past year and given the reasons provided by the 3/11 bombers, I would conclude we were right to be sceptical whereas you were proven wrong.

Have a good day,

MARCU$

P.S. (Verity-):

Reid - those are good points. And it's not just history which teaches us that weakness or the appearance of weakness will provoke more aggression.

...except the "Islamofascists" are much weaker than Europe. That is why they have to resort to terrorism -- for crying out loud!!

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 17, 2004 05:03 PM

Marcus - I cannot understand why the continental Europeans have become appeasers just because WWII was fought on their soil. Actually, WWII wasn't fought on Spanish soil or Finnish soil. Then why wasn't the experience of the Hundred Years War passed on to the babyboomers of the next generation? This is fallacious arguing. Every country has had battles fought on its soil. That didn't turn the next generation into a generation of appeaseniks and wimps.

Oh, and Britain and Europe have more experience with terrorists than the United States. That old canard. They don't seem to have learned anything from it, except appeasement, which is not how you defeat terrorists. Maybe it's time we listened to a fresh point of view who view terrorism with a clarity of vision perhaps Europe has got all tangled up in nuances - i.e., let's listen in a non-patronising way to the United States and Australia.

Your statement that you cannot defeat terrorism by military might is beyond absurd. Possibly an occupying army cannot defeat terrorism by a cadre of citizens who are determined not to be occupied. (This isn't proven, but let me concede that point just to move the ball down the field.) That is not the case here. The Islamic terrorists are not the indigenes. We are. They have to come to our shores to commit their atrocities. Military might and control of our borders can stop them in their tracks.

They might still feel peeved, but they'd have to get in. We should stop them getting in.

Also, changing the venue of the battlefield would be a good start. Get it out of Europe and the United States and take it into the Middle East, where it belongs.

Posted by Verity at March 17, 2004 05:04 PM

Why not spend all that political and military capital on something that actually would undermine Islamic terrorists, as opposed to actually giving bin Laden more credibility in the Arab street?

What exactly is that something Marcus? I am open to suggestions, but you have not made any. I can buy that you do not believe that a democratic and prosperous Iraq would help the situation, Fine. How would you defeat terrorism?

Posted by Amelia at March 17, 2004 05:11 PM

Marcus - "Given what we have found (or rather not found-) in Iraq during the past year and given the reasons provided by the 3/11 bombers, I would conclude we were right to be sceptical whereas you were proven wrong."

You must be Dutch, given your fondness for red herrings. The point of the war was never WMD. Please - get - this - through - your - appeasenik - heads. It was always about defeating a hydra by the name of Islamo terrorism. WMD, people shredders in Baghdad, whatever, were never the point. The security of our own civilisation is the point.

And no, you don't understand Muslims and the Middle East better. You are not older and wiser. You are older and stupider and weaker and you don't want trouble.

But it's coming anyway. Fight it or accept it. Accepting it is called the dhimmitude.

By your name, I think you may be Dutch. For the benefit of people who don't know, the Dutch government has taken the advice of the late lamented Pym Fortuyn and pulled up the gates on Muslim immigration and "asylum seeking" with a four year moratorium.

Posted by Verity at March 17, 2004 05:30 PM

The great debate is do you do something and excite a response from those who would have not done something, or do you nothing and invigorate those who see weakness? Then, the debate also must go to, is terrorism simply a response to meddling in the region, or is there a master, expansionary agenda involved.

To my mind there is a mixture of both.

Toolkien, you heretic:-) My experience is Samizdatistas tend to think in strictly binary terms (good/evil, appeasement/self-defense; true/false etc.) when it comes to the "war on terrorism."

But the root of the equation starts with whether we are going to have economic ties to a region. In my readings of history that if you are not economically isolationist you likely can't be militarily isolationist

Damn right... The United States does have vast military interests (Israel...) as well as economic issues (oil...) that it cannot ignore. The post-colonial European response would be to simply pull out like the French and the British did. I seem to recall the former had quite a significant problem with Arab terrorism in Algeria. The fact that the overwhelming majority of Islamist terrorist attacks in the post-colonial period have been directed at the United States rather than at European countries suggests "blind hatred of the West" tends to grow stronger if there is direct involvement (meddling) in local affairs.

Toolkien asks"should we remain economically tied to the region"? Given the fact fossil fuels will start to become an increasingly scarce and less attractive source of energy 10-20 years from now anyway, a strong emphasis on energy independence for the West makes sense in any case. Electric cars (in cities) and possible fuel cell powered ones seem at least moderately promising, as it is a bit disappointing that 9/11 didn't have a bigger impact on government energy policy than it did. For example, in the U.S. the left-wing green lobby managed to kill the Alaskan oil drilling initiative whereas the right-wing industrial lobbies successfully resisted attempts to impose stricter fuel economy standards on SUVs in 2002. Seems quite short-sighted. Surely the political parties in the Senate could have hammered out a compromise resulting in ramped-up domestic production of oil *and* sports utility vehicles that waste less fuel. The U.S. would still have been too reliant on Saudi Arabia for energy, but at least it would have been a start.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 17, 2004 05:34 PM

> The point of the war was never WMD.

The stated objective was clearly to keep Saddam from giving WMDs to terrorists. The neocon ideologues never really had the guts to try to explain their implausible "democratic imperialist domino theory" to U.S. taxpayers. Instead, the chief argument was always about the terrorist connection and WMDs because (as Wolfowitz correctly stated) that was the only thing there was a general consensus about.

> pulled up the gates on Muslim immigration and "asylum seeking" with a four year moratorium.

An excellent idea if you ask me. My position has always been that we should behave in good libertarian fashion and leave each other (West vs. Middle East) alone. If their emigrants don't want to adapt to our laws and traditions, they should not come here, period. In return, I see no reason for us to meddle in a poor backwater region such as the Middle East. Where there is no contact, there is no terrorism. It is as simple as that.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 17, 2004 05:46 PM

Amelia... " How would you defeat terrorism?"

mm... always a tricky one that defeating a tactic/abstract concept. The answer is, "it's not possible". There you go... well, it might be possible, but you'd have to have a totally controlled gattica-type security situation, which in turn would make it incredibly easy for governments to flip to totalitarianism, should they so desire. To my mind, none of the attacks so far have been severe enough to justify giving governments the kind of power they'd need to guarantee our safety from terrorist attack.

However, if you'd like to know, how i'd propose defeating islamic extremists who use terrorism to try & further their aims, i'd suggest something like the following:

-Don't openly fool around with middle-eastern countries; no invading/making them do your bidding for your own economic benefit. It just gets people too pissed off, & they seem to be a volatile lot. Yes, we might have to pay more for oil, or perhaps get creative with some alternatives, but hey... i'd rather be slightly poorer for a few years than dead.

-Yes, I know they claim they want a world-wide caliphate or some similar idiocy, but realistically if they want to build up power, they'll probably start at home. Leave them to get into politics (if they can), or try blowing up their corrupt kings etc. If they show their heads; become obvious political figures, or start mounting open attacks on the government, you can probably start leaning on them in subtle ways, or arrange some covert way of taking them out (oops... his house fell down, or the barbaric local security forces accidentally killed him in the course of their 'investigations').

This all seems like a cleverer means of dealing with a shadowy organisation/movement than the open actions we've taken up to present. I'm sure plenty of more sensible (ie. covert, & actually aimed at terrorists) actions are going on all the time, that we don't get to hear about, & for this, I am thankful.

To all those who claim the Iraq invasion lessened terrorism... where? I'd completely agree with you about Afganistan; that undoubtedly lessened the danger from Al Quaida (this regardless of all the 'humanitarian' rubbish spouted at the time; are Afgan women more free now? i think not), but why do many intelligence services suggest the Iraq invasion actually *increased* the danger of terrorist attack? Because they're peacenik apeasers? Aaaaah.... that'd be it.

Posted by A_t at March 17, 2004 05:55 PM

A_t - re Afghanistan - you don't think Cherie Blair fighting for the rights of Afghani women to wear nail polish was that effective, then?

Posted by Verity at March 17, 2004 06:06 PM

Actually, WWII wasn't fought on Spanish soil or Finnish soil.

Ever heard of Marshal Carl-Gustaf Mannerheim? And I would argue that the "WW II dress rehearsal" was fought on Spanish soil, and it was every bit as grisly as the real thing. And who is a "wimp" anyway? Heck -- I would counter-accuse conservative Americans of being totally spooked by a foe that certainly does not threaten the very foundations of our proud Western civilization, or whatever.

Oh, and Britain and Europe have more experience with terrorists than the United States. That old canard. They don't seem to have learned anything from it, except appeasement, which is not how you defeat terrorists.

So the Spanish and British policy against ETA and IRA represents "appeasement?" What alternative American strategy would you suggest, then?

Possibly an occupying army cannot defeat terrorism by a cadre of citizens who are determined not to be occupied.

Indeed. Looks like the Sunni resistance (or anti-Israeli violence in the occupied Palestinian territories) is likely to continue for quite some time yet.

They have to come to our shores to commit their atrocities. Military might and control of our borders can stop them in their tracks.

They might still feel peeved, but they'd have to get in. We should stop them getting in.

Agreed on all counts -- although it is difficult or impossible to prevent them all as British and Spanish anti-terrorist intelligence repeatedly found out. Of course, it goes without saying that we have much more at stake than you because our Islamic immigrant population is a lot bigger than yours.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 17, 2004 06:13 PM

Marcus,
The anti-war side correctly predicted no Saddam-Al Qaeda connection worthy of the name would be found,
Please see: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091381/ Because you haven't read about it, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Given what we have found (or rather not found-) in Iraq during the past year
Given what has been found, - all the graft and corruption to French, German, and UN officials, by way of the 'Food for Oil' program and other devious means. Annan's family were quite happy to accept handouts, and not forgetting 'Gourgeous' George Galloway. It certainly explains a lot of the prevarication and general bloody mindedness.

If Spain were so irrelevant to you, how come you (and the neocons in general) seem so rattled by this
Your words not mine - no one here seems rattled, more like your fellow Europeans are the ones who are rattled, (our is that the sound of knees knocking?).

because you will never change things without allies, which means you had better learn to work with them. Allies bring credibility and legitimacy, financial support
What a pity the Europeans don't understand that! How many times has the US come the assistance of Europe? The US too, is deserving of credibilty, our failing is in taking Europeans at face value, and only latterly realising that they have two (faces).

Rather, we are upset because we understand Muslims and the Middle East much better than you do, since we are living "closer to the action".
For all the European 'experience', none of you seem to have learnt a damned thing. Since the nineteen hundreds you (the collective), have made one bad decision after another. The French in Africa (Morocco ring a bell?), Algeria and Indo China, The UN (or their predecessor), in Palestine/Israel, Korea, VietNam, The English in Egypt, etc. etc. the list is endless.
And you are offering advice, get real......!

I would say Europeans tend to be more pacifist because WW II was fought on our soil, and the memory of that has been passed on to the baby boomers currently running most of Europe.
And so was WWI, but they didn't learn from that either. It isn't pacifism you see, - it's appeasment.

Which brings me back to my point that if you want to succumb to Islam, then go ahead, but do not try to drag those of us who have a little more backbone than you into the morass you are creating. Mind you, it will probably be the 'Mother of all Morass's', what with all your much vaunted experience. When the president of the EU is the Ayatollah Einemeine or Whatever, just remember, - we did offer to help....

Have a nice day!

Posted by ernest young at March 17, 2004 06:21 PM

Professor Volokh thought to post the full text of Kipling's poem "Dane-Geld" today. It goes like this:

IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
To call upon a neighbour and to say:—
“We invaded you last night—we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say:—
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray,
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to says:—

“We never pay any one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost,
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that plays it is lost!”

Kipling is out of fashion, to be sure, but the sentiment he expresses is right on the money. It may be too late for the Spanish, one may hope it is not too late for the other nations of Europe to realize what it is that they must do if they wish to prevent the death-cults of Islamofascism from playing hob with their democracies.

llater,

llamas

Posted by llamas at March 17, 2004 06:48 PM

If anyone wrote an article like this one week after 9/11 - the full wrath of American patriotism would have been crushing. On this blog, especially!

The Spanish public have not voted for terrorism. They have voted against irrational solutions to terrorism.

There is enormous grief in Europe but the Spanish were right annoyed by their Government dictating to them the morals of death. The families of the 9000 or more dead innocent Iraqis have no voice like the families of 9/11 victims still have.

The acts of war taken in the name of a War on Terrorism are seen by the Right as the only effective path that must be taken. History is written to prove you right on that count.

Posted by Nicholas at March 17, 2004 06:49 PM

Ernest - Ayatollah Einemeine or whatever! V good!

Great post, but let me tell you something you already know. The appeaseniks will simply not understand it; they will continue to think they can explain your arguments away with yet more verses of Kumbaya and Kofi Anan's band of thugs and chancers lecturing the West (which provided the thought behind the UN -and the venue for it - grave mistake) complaining how their dignity has been ... whatever ...

The UN was a crappy idea. There are only around 50 or 60 democracies in the world, and the rest are dictatorships of one form or another, or kleptocracies, or run by temporary chancers on the make. To give these non-countries a vote alongside legitimate democracies was always a stupid idea. The tranzis and the commies benefitted; no one else did.

Posted by Verity at March 17, 2004 06:59 PM

Sistani wanted to thumb his nose at the US and talk to the UN for two reasons.

1) He's a politician and it looks good to his more beligerant constituents.

2) The UN is corrupt and weak. It's easier to bribe/ bully than the USA. Sistani had a better change of getting concessions from Annan than he would have gotten from Bremer.

And I actually doubt that Europe could defeat Morroco in its present state. It could not defeat Yugoslavia, and that country shares a frickin' land border for Christ's sake! All they had to do was drive some tanks and stuff acrose the border and they couldn't even do that. Imagine a country the size of Yugo was on the USA's border between us and Canada, and we couldn't even conquer it. That's how ridiculously weak Europe is.

It's a self-imposed weakness too. Europe has the technological know-how and the people to conquer Yugo or Morroco, but they have laid down their sword and picked up so many plowshares they can barely stand beneath the weight.

I think the lesson we should have all learned though is this: When has continental Europe EVER fought the good fight to set men free? When have they EVER fought on the side or morality?

Not during the Cold War, that was the British.

Not WWII, see above.

Not WWI.

Not during the Imperial Century of the 1800's

Not during the 1700's

Not during the Hundred Years war, or the German Unification or Napolean's Campaigns, or the Spanish conquest of the New World, or the ....

When has it EVER happened?

And if it has never happened, why are we disappointed now? I'm just not sure they have it in them.

Posted by Brock at March 17, 2004 07:05 PM

Nicholas -

I have no idea where you got the 9000 number (it sounds made up), but even if true did you bother to discount for the people Saddam would have killed had he remained in power?

Or don't Arab deaths count when it's other Arabs that do the killing?

You disgust me.

Posted by Brock at March 17, 2004 07:11 PM

Lemuel, I don't really care what they're saying. I'm, however, VERY concerned about what they're doing to back up their words. Remember, words are nothing without actions to back them up, and in this, the islamofascists have demonstrated that they seem perfectly willing to carry out their inane mission of converting the world.

The last time they did that, well, lots of people died. Bali, and 9/11. Would've happened in my country too. Almost did, in fact.

A crazed guy with a gun is still dangerous. Hell, a deranged opponent is sometimes the most difficult to deal with, because you can't reason with them.

Would Lew Rockwell prefer the rest of humanity to bury their heads in the sand and hope the problem would go away?

Posted by The Wobbly Guy at March 17, 2004 07:19 PM

llamas - my above comment was posted before yours appeared. The thought is identical. The Spanish peaceniks believe they are paying off the Dane. The longer they live in their delusion of so doing, the more dangerous for the 50 or 60 democracies of the world.

In fact, if the West, save the US, Britain, Australia and Poland, continues to abase itself in the face of thuggish religious fanatics, China may decide to involve itself. Meditate on that for a few seconds.

Posted by Verity at March 17, 2004 07:28 PM

Marcus- Good writing, good points.

A twelve guage shotgun, rock salt and #4 buckshot. Great tactic. Mess with the best, die like the rest. Military means to defeat terrorism is like trying to squeeze water, it just keeps popping out the sides.

A flower, an appeasement, whatever. The terrorist will laugh while blowing up you and your family.

So, military means, american et al style, will not work because it plays into AQ recruitment, ensuring a never ending supply of willing suicide bombers, and backs up their ideology of the west as evil imperialists. Spiral of violence.

Appeasement and dialogue, europe et al style, has no chance either because you cannot reason or agree to differ with a zealot.

So where lies the solution? Why do AQ wish to attack the west?

How's this analogy. America is, right now, the biggest and most powerful empire ever known. Her(tangent-why are countires female?) technology, military and culture reach into nearly every corner of the globe. And she wants to spread even further, and that is the natural function of empire. From roman, from ottoman, from napoleon, from british to american. The natural order. Now imagine the terrorists(broad all inclusive definition here) as that little village on the outskirts of the empire, full in the glare of the empire, refusing to submit. Clinging to their culture, their god and their way of life in the only way they can.
Is it the responsibility of empire to ensure the goodwill of her subjects? No, of course not, but it helps. History teaches that every empire eventually falls due to its inability to fundamentally change the beliefs and structures of the conquered lands, rendering them ungovernable. Even if, as we all agree, the replacement of a dictator by democracy is "better" for everyone.
In other words a lose-lose situation all round.
Therefore: We (because while beneath contempt, (thanks lewis)we are all agreed on the need to eradicate terrorism- as I posted earlier, this is about the form of the war on terror, not about the war itself) need to find a balance between eradicating fanatical minority terrorist groups and cultivating a mutual respect between "Muslim" and "Christian" worlds. And here I must be honest. I do not know exactly how that can be achieved but I do know that it is the only feasible way of ensuring that our children or grandchildren do not have to fight WW 3.

Attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 did not produce much protest. There was a clearly defined enemy state harbouring and helping AQ. Attacking Iraq, no WMD, no connection to AQ, in the name of preemptive action was a disastrous mistake when what the war on terror desperately needs is international cooperation between Western and Middle East countries. It will also be a mistake now for Spain to withdraw troops, it's too late for that, now that they're there they need to stay to try and sort out the worsening mess.

One more:

When the USA was attacked by Islamofascists, the nation's Marine Corps, Army and CIA recruiters were swamped by young Americans wanting to sign up and kill the bastards who attacked our country.

When the muslim world views itself as attacked the young will, I'm sure, swamp AQ recruitment offices in exactly the same way.

Sometime, even the cowboy has to admit that the killing must end.

ALso. It is sickening to read the glee with which some people discuss future attacks in spain.

And by the way, I'm south african, native to the only country where sitting down to discuss solutions actually worked due to the realisation that the alternative was endless war.

Posted by ambidextri at March 17, 2004 07:30 PM

AT wrote

Don't openly fool around with middle-eastern countries

.
Is that really a solution to the problem of Islamicfascism?
That’s sounds attractive, but I am not sure it is realistic. Is our meddling really the problem? Our closest ally during the Cold War was Turkey. That’s where our largest bases were and still are. That’s the country where you can still find Americans walking around in towns like Izmir. The Turks are not the source of Islamic fascism and terrorism, the Wahabbis and the mullahs in Iran are. We have not been in Iran for the better part of my lifetime. We left Lebanon a long time ago. We really have not had, despite what Bin Laden proclaims, a huge presence in SA. We do trade with these countries. Do you advocate that we stop that? Could we stop that?

Second, do we really have the choice not to deal with the Middle East? We certainly did not have that choice while fighting the Cold War. The Wahabbis too seem to be meddling all over the world. There money funds speakers and worse people in my country and in yours too. They certainly have tried to convert less strict Muslims wherever they are found in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Balkans, former parts of the Soviet Union, the list continues. Also there is an unfortunate dependance on foreign oil that exists whether we (or Europe for that matter) likes it or not. Then there is Israel, do you advocate abandoning them?

Third would isolationism work? Libya which the U.S. has had almost nothing to do with in my lifetime not since Reagan bombed them, was extremely close to getting a nuclear bomb. Is that a good thing? It’s a dangerous world. Some countries, most probably, cannot be trusted with dangerous weapons. The most dangerous country on the face of the earth is North Korea. We have had no real involvement there other than paying Danegeld for my entire lifetime. Leaving them alone has not improved them and paying them off seems to have made the situation worse.

Posted by Amelia at March 17, 2004 07:42 PM

ambidextri - I don't think anyone thinks of a possible future attack on Spain with glee. What I am saying, and I can only speak for myself, is, they have voted to make themselves a likely target for the future. I don't want it to happen.

But countries and people must protect themselves - the world is full of predators. And predators are always alert for signs of weakness. I think Spain has just voted to be a victim.

I note this with no glee.

Posted by Verity at March 17, 2004 07:55 PM

Spain was a victim before the voting took place. The subsequent result was a confirmation of the belief that the current plan of action is not working.

If europe is beneath contempt, then what adjective do we apply to the terrorists? Perspective...

Posted by ambidextri at March 17, 2004 10:44 PM

Regime change? Just not by Dubya

Posted by Pete at March 17, 2004 11:22 PM

Fie on all of the above posters who say that the Spanish election result is a victory for terrorism! By conceding defeat so readily it is you who offer encouragement to the terrorists. All the terrorists did was to get more people to the polling booths. This increased turnout favoured the Socialists not because people switched their vote (though some undoubtedly did), but because potential socialist voters who otherwise could not be arsed to vote actually voted. By all means chastise the Spanish voters for their socialist tendencies, but don't chalk-up the Madrid bombing as a victory for terrorism. If all the terrorists did was to bring about a clearer expression of a tendency that was already there anyway, then what are those of you who say this is a victory for terrorism actually saying? That those lazy voters really should have stayed home? That they should have voted for a party they really didn't want? I am just as annoyed as you that socialists won the election but can't you see the danger in conceding defeat to the terrorists? Especially when they didn't win?

Aral Simbon

Posted by Aral Simbon at March 17, 2004 11:27 PM

So Spain is withdrawing from Iraq...

...and the US is withdrawing from Saudi Arabia.

Osama Bin Laden is getting his wish in both cases.

Iraq is not and was not the epicenter of World terrorism. It may or may not have had links to al-Qaeda. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia do. No question. The policy of the US and the UK, not to mention the rest of Europe, is to appease these states when they should be crushed. So calling the Spanish appeasers is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by Huffington Hugmuffin at March 18, 2004 03:00 AM

Ah, yes.

The attack of the "nuancers" has begun.

And not just in Old Decrepit Morally Bankrupt Europe, their natural habitat. The "nuancers" are afoot as well in the great United Kingdom, in my beloved USA and in far away brave Australia. The "nuancers" have the solution! How foolish of the rest of us poor simpletons! We must "fight" terror by not fighting it; we must address the Islamic world's concerns; we must deal with poverty, with environmental degradation, with obesity caused by junk food, with the prevalence of dog poop in public parks; we must worry about everything except the monster at the door. If we ignore it, surely it will go away, or -- even better -- let us study the teachings of the Great Man, that man who knew how to deal with monsters by addressing the root causes of their concerns.

Yes! Let us learn the teachings of that great political sage, Neville Chamberlin!

Get out your umbrellas. March over to Osama's cave. He'll sign a piece of paper guaranteeing "peace in our time." He's a reasonable man, driven by reasonable concerns, no? OK, OK, we have to give him Andalusia -- Hitler was satisfied with his little piece of Czechoslovakia, right? Oh, OK, we all have to convert to Islam, too, and, oh, we have to slap burqas on the women and lock them up at home (no more stressful silly schools or jobs for you! You'll thank us, really, you will.). Oh, and, of course, we must finish what Hitler began, you know, kill all those, those, you know, those pesky Jews -- well, at least the ones in Israel and maybe we can make a start at the ones in New York. Yes, yes, that will save us. We must shun the teachings of the evil Churchill, learn from Neville and Petain and Quisling for they knew the way back then. Let us follow Chirac (PBUH) for he is Our Lord Neville's prophet for these times.

We are saved!

Posted by Lewis at March 18, 2004 04:17 AM

One comment needs to be made about the abuse that is starting to be heaped on the Spanish:

Only some of them are behaving cravenly.

It may have been a large enough number to have swung the election, but as citizens of nations that have elected Clintons and others we shouldn't be too quick to slam them. Bear in mind that other Spaniards are at this moment still in Iraq as comrades in arms with our own troops. They will be there for some time yet and they still deserve our support. They had a leader who stood with us as long as he could and they have just suffered an atrocity that for them is as severe as 9/11 was for us. We had our not-in-my-name morons too. It is the misfortune of Spain that she had more of them.

I, personally, am still grateful for their support and their sacrifice.

Posted by Doug Collins at March 18, 2004 05:46 AM

Lewis, your extrimism is way out of line. Read what people have written, don't just respond by waving your gun around. (Go shoot some cans, maybe that'll calm you)

If you're unable to see the nuances in life then well, hey, like i said, go shoot some cans, learn some respect, and then come back when you're willing to actually try to find a solution to a problem we all face. Together.
You know, a solution that will not cause WW3 in a few years.

Posted by ambidextri at March 18, 2004 05:43 PM

No amount of interpretation or excuses will change the fact that the Spanish election was perceived as a victory for terrorism by the people that count: weak leaders of other governments, terrorists and the people terrorists want to recruit.

No amount of interpretation or excuses will change the fact that this was a regime change caused by terrorism. Polls the day before the attack indicated Aznar's party was headed for an easy win.

The behavior of the new Spanish government can also be interpreted by terrorists as immediate appeasement. By verbally attacking the United States and vowing to pull out the troops (unless the well bribed, well fed, and thoroughly undemocratic United Nations get control of Iraq) is simply that government bowing to the terrorists while saying "Look here! We are doing what you want. Please don't hit us again, oh master!"

Now those who provided the extra votes are not necessarily cowards. There is an alternative: they are idiots. Because if they didn't recognize that their actions are important in the war on terrorism and would be perceived as remarked above, they are fools. If they did recognize it, they are cowards.

Someone on here suggested that Kerry would do a better job in this war because he can "get along with allies" (which I read as subjugating the national interests of the United States to the interests of the leftist European political ruling class). I would suggest that Kerry would indeed get along better.

Kerry is a skilled appeaser. He was a major leader of the effort in the United States to abandon an already won war protecting South Vietnam from control by North Vietnam. He did so with skill and with lying under oath before the Senat of the United States. He did so by slandering his country and all other Vietnam Veterans (myself included). He ignored the nature and evil deeds and policies of the enemy and argued for disengagement.

Kerry wouldn't just get along with the European Policial Class. He is essentially one of them, as shown by his behavior and his failure to see the bigger picture.

........on a related subject, which is the fundamental disapproval of the US in Europe...

European hatred of the US, supposedly because of our invasion of Iraq, is irrational in the extreme. Iraq needed to be toppled. It was an unstable regime with a history of irrational policies (invading Iran in the '80s, invading Kuwait in 1990, failing to cooperate with UN inspectors in 2002). It was terribly brutal to its own people, something which the "sophisticated" Europeans have a remarkable record of tolerating except when immediate European interests are at stake (the Balkans). Furthermore, in spite of all the sniping, the US had every reason to believe that Saddam had either WMDs or the ability to rapidly produce them. Otherwise why impede inspections? Why try to buy long range missiles from North Korea - missiles with little good unless armed with WMD warheads.

And we didn't lie about our belief in WMD stockpiles - Saddam's field generals themselves believed that their flanking units had chemical weapons ready for immediate use. Now if they believed that, how the heck were we supposed to magically know that it was not true? Hans Blix? Remember, the previous UN inspection regime never found the vast biological weapons program and stockpiles (an extremely dangerous quantity of which have STILL not been accounted for). Only the defection of Saddam's son-in-law, after 4 years of failed inspections, led to the uncovering of that program.

When Blix was doing his inspections, the scientists were terrified and always watched by a minder. Information was withheld (for example, he never found out about the chemical warfare/biological warfare capable laboratories in many of the secret police buildings and safe-houses). He didn't find the botulinum seed stock that one scientist was ordered to keep in his home refrigerator. He didn't find the plans and parts of a nuclear-separation centrifuge that a scientists had in his back yard under a rose bush. He didn't detect the three very active programs aimed at producing IRBMs, nor the attempted purchase of North Korean IRBMs.

So pardon us (US) if didn't have much faith in Blix's attempts to get accurate information. There have been cases where nations cooperated with nspection regimes (Ukraine, South Africa which actually had 8 nukes, and now Libya), and the behavior was radically different from Saddams.

So to those who say we lied about WMDs - grow up! There is no way we could have known they weren't there. To this day we don't know whether they are hidden in the desert (like the MIG fighter found buried in the sand) or were shipped to Syria (in the large convoys US satellite intelligence tracked going into Syria right before the war).

Furthermore, in addition to the dangers of regional instability that Saddam obviously represented, we knew his regime had contracts, including Al Qaeda. The evidence is clear, from his special envoy in Pakistan whose only job was Al Qaeda liason to his dealings with Ansar Al Islam. Furthermore, he supported numerous other terrorist groups and provided sanctuary to some of them.

Now add to all this information the short time with which WMD's (other than nukes) could be produced in terrorist quantities in laboratories already in existence, the known desire (from captured documents and material) of Al Qaeda to use chemical and biological warfare, the willingness of both sides to deal with the devil incarnate if it aided their goals, and there was a clear and present danger in Iraq.

Finally, the attitude of Europeans against the US in Iraq can only be attributed to three possible attitudes:

1) Support of an absolute concept of national sovereignty (from a 1648 treaty) no matter how vile the regime. But Europe didn't use that principle in Bosnia.

2) A desire that all military actions be approved by the UN Security Council (silly when you consider how that body works, but anyway)... Again, Europe ignored this in the Balkans, and even during the buildup to the war, France made incursions in Africa without UN permission.

3)A desire to harm the United States or tame the United States, except when its forces are useful to Europe. This is the only reasonable explanation of European behavior.

Allies who hold such a strong desire are allies we don't want. Hopefully Europe will become more adult, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Posted by John Moore at March 18, 2004 07:43 PM

John- excellent post!

Posted by Amelia at March 18, 2004 08:21 PM

Ambidextri -

How's this analogy. America is, right now, the biggest and most powerful empire ever known. Her technology, military and culture reach into nearly every corner of the globe. And she wants to spread even further, and that is the natural function of empire.

You are incorrect sir. America has ZERO wish to extend her territory beyond her present borders. Every enemy regime which has been toppled has been replaced be another (local) government, and we went home. We don’t want to rule Iraq – we want out. We would never have gone if Saddam hadn’t forced us to.

Now imagine the terrorists(broad all inclusive definition here) as that little village on the outskirts of the empire, full in the glare of the empire, refusing to submit. Clinging to their culture, their god and their way of life in the only way they can.

They are not clinging to their culture; they are clinging to their privilege. The privilege which allows them to mistreat their women and to castrate their slaves imported from Africa. Notice how all the terrorists are children of the middle-to-upper-classes? Notice how poor and the women of Iraq and Afghanistan suddenly are able to speak their minds, and go to school? Of course the men don’t like this. They used to have power over their own homes, and now they do not. Uppity women.

Is it the responsibility of empire to ensure the goodwill of her subjects? No, of course not, but it helps.

Indeed. Which is why America treats Iraqis better than the Baathists ever did.

History teaches that every empire eventually falls due to its inability to fundamentally change the beliefs and structures of the conquered lands, rendering them ungovernable.

If we had any plans to govern Iraq, this might be a problem. Seeing as how we’re leaving within the year, I’m not worried about it.

Even if, as we all agree, the replacement of a dictator by democracy is "better" for everyone.

This has to be a supposition? I take it as given.

We (because while beneath contempt, (thanks lewis)we are all agreed on the need to eradicate terrorism- as I posted earlier, this is about the form of the war on terror, not about the war itself) need to find a balance between eradicating fanatical minority terrorist groups and cultivating a mutual respect between "Muslim" and "Christian" worlds.

Query1: How does the alternative to toppling Saddam, namely, allowing him to stay in power, “cultivate mutual respect between “Muslim” and “Christian” worlds? Are you aware that no one (of any remaining importance) in Iraq had any respect for Saddam, only fear? Can you entertain the possibility that toppling Saddam, combined with the $87 Billion in construction spending we have tagged for Iraq, has actually maximized both “respect building” and “terrorist discouraging”?

Query2: If it’s really a ‘balance’ you seek, what progress was being made in eradicating the terrorist training camps and funding programs in Iraq before Saddam was removed? What’s that, none at all? Why yes, I believe the answer is “none at all.” What kind of messed up “balance” is that?

Attacking Afghanistan after 9/11 did not produce much protest.

Afghanistan didn’t have Oil money to bribe favors from the French & Russians.

Attacking Iraq, no WMD,

He sure thought he had them, and he sure would have used them if he did. Madmen who rape and kill people (for fun & profit) should be stopped before they get WMD, don’t you think? We succeeded.

no connection to AQ,

Yes connection to AQ. The proof is so over whelming at this point you must simply be blind.

in the name of preemptive action was a disastrous mistake

Too soon to tell, really. Come back to me in 20 years.

when what the war on terror desperately needs is international cooperation between Western and Middle East countries.

The world wasn’t going to get it. Both sides are needed for “cooperation” to happen. The Middle East was not cooperating. They left us with no choice. Saddam had 12 years to cooperate. He never did. Iran and Syria still aren’t.

It will also be a mistake now for Spain to withdraw troops, it's too late for that, now that they're there they need to stay to try and sort out the worsenin