The American Prospect has a good interview with Jessica Stern, terrorism expert at Harvard University and author of The Ultimate Terrorists and Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill. In the interview, she speculates on possible linkages between ETA and al Qaeda. While all signs seem to point to al Qaeda, she brings up an interesting point that al Qaeda might be recruiting from within ETA.
Do you think that there is a relationship between the two groups?At any rate, I think it's far more likely al Qaeda or at least an Islamist group is responsible. My initial suspicions -- that ETA and al Qaeda may have been in league -- are feeling less sure now with more and more evidence pointing to bin Laden's network emerging daily. Also, a Qaeda attack fits in with my hypothesis that a spring offensive from both sides in the terror war is in the works. I wrote that al Qaeda would attempt to destabilize or overthrow the Saudi regime, destabilize Pakistan and/or weaken U.S. resolve with massive attacks within the country, possibly with WMD. Well, now add a fourth option: crack away at the U.S. alliance by forcing its European allies -- Spain, Poland, Britain and Italy, for the most part -- to withdraw from Iraq. Why is this important? Two words: logistics and manpower. The war on terror and Iraq are linked, although not in the way that President George W. Bush would like. They're linked because much of the U.S. military is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, Spain's 1,300 troops certainly weren't adding much to the firepower there, but they were of significant symbolic value. If Spanish Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero makes good on his promise to pull Spanish troops out by June 30, that will adversely affect the ability of the U.S. to get other countries to help out after the sovereignty hand-over on June 30 -- even with U.N. support. That means the bulk of the security responsibility in Iraq will continue to fall on the U.S. far into the foreseeable future with a hampering of its operational capacity elsewhere. The U.S. military, as powerful as it is, simply can't keep up with Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti and now North Africa. Al Qaeda is counting on this. But back to Spain. I'm of two minds on this. One the one hand, I thoroughly support the democratic process and there is no doubt that despite a horrific bombing, the people of Spain had their voices heard loud and clear. The war in Iraq was immensely unpopular in Spain and it strikes me as stunningly arrogant for a purportedly democratic government to go against the wishes of so many of its citizens. On the other hand, I'm a full-blown supporter of the war against al Qaeda. I was at my desk working at 8:46 a.m. when the first plane snarled low over my neighborhood and slammed into the north Tower. I watched those buildings fall to the ground from my rooftop and saw my neighborhood turned into an armed camp for a week afterward. I know mass terror. I'm against anything that gives al Qaeda breathing room -- which is why I opposed the Iraq war. It was a horrible, needless distraction. There were no significant ties between Saddam's government and al Qaeda. It was unlikely there were any Qaeda forces in Iraq prior to the fall of Baghdad -- except for Ansar al-Islam in the area controlled by the Kurds outside of Saddam's control. As far as being a threat to the United States, he was prevented from moving into two-thirds of his country, he was weakened by international sanctions and he had enemies on all sides: Turkey, Kurdistan, U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and Iran. He had no weapons of mass destruction to give to al Qaeda even were he inclined to do so. Hell, even the rationale that he was a very bad man -- a fact not in dispute -- is taking a shellacking because all the mass graves seem to date from when he was either a U.S. puppet thug or immediately after the 1991 Gulf War in which the U.S. encouraged the Shi'as and the Kurds to rise up, only to have the rug pulled out from under them. They ended up in mass graves, in no small part due to the United States' reluctance to act on their behalf. Iraq was a colossal blunder that has costs thousands of lives and billions of dollars. There is, as yet, no end in sight. But the fact of the matter is that the U.S. is now in Iraq and in need of allies if it hopes to prosecute the war on terror successfully. Billmon has a typically insightful take on this:.
I have to wonder whether there's cooperation between ETA and Al Qaeda, and what this relationship might consist of. Al Qaeda is pragmatic and likes to avail itself of local operatives, expertise, and languages. They especially like to recruit locals. Al Qaeda has a large presence in Spain, so looking for partners like ETA would be at the top of their list. We know that the majority of people in Spain oppose the war in Iraq, so it makes me wonder whether some members of ETA have been infiltrated by the Al Qaeda network. There's also the chance that Al Qaeda might be recruiting within ETA. I think the pragmatism of terrorist groups is emerging as they mature, as is a willingness to cooperate with organizations that would seem to be promoting completely different agendas. Also, sometimes we see that as possible terrorist organizations get closer to achieving their ostensible objective, zealots remain and carry out unprecedented attacks (as happened with the IRA). It's not impossible to imagine that ETA could have done this even though it would be unprecedented for them. Reports have said that Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for this bombing. Are these reports credible?
No. The group claiming to speak for Al Qaeda is notoriously unreliable -- they even claimed responsibility for last summer's blackout. Intelligence officials really don't know anything about the group.
I understand, and emotionally sympathize with, the desire of many readers to see Sunday's election as a victory for the Spanish people -- or for the progressive left, or for both. I, too, am glad the neo-Francoists of the Popular Party got the boot. But as much as I might like to, I can't apply that particular coat of sugar to the results, because I still think that something significant (and ominous, from an American point of view) has happened here: A well-timed terrorist attack has directly and dramatically influenced the results of a national election in a major country allied with the United States. What's more, it has caused, or at least contributed to, a decisive defeat for a ruling party that had aligned itself closely with the current U.S. strategy for fighting terrorism -- which, like it or not (and of course I don't like it at all) includes the occupation and pacification of Iraq.Word. One the one hand, the Spaniards can argue that they have unyoked Iraq from the greater war on terror, which is how it should have been all along. On the other, now that the world's go-to guy on fighting Islamic fanaticism is tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, is this really the time to pull up stakes and say you're on your own? I wish I had a decent answer. But I feel the Spanish, while remaining true to themselves as a democracy, may have just emboldened the real enemy. PS: Back from Japan finally, but will, unfortunately, miss SXSW. My apologies.
Good to have you back, Christopher, and to hear the various insights on all of this - I have been arguing pro and con with myself all day. It is difficult to quantify the “pros” as you say, or to appreciate them for what they are (the Spaniards keeping the faith amongst themselves) when the U.S. is so deeply embedded in a continuous “con”. Who would’ve thought a few years ago that America needed to wield a deft, intelligent and diplomatic hand in our international relations? [Many did, eh?] It will be interesting to see how the White House puts a positive pro-W spin on these developments.
Nice writing, but a quick clarification. The PP was poised to win the election even after the bombing. They lost because it became clear that they were intentionally obfuscating the truth about the authorship of the bombings because they knew that if the truth came out, it would damage (although not completely) their chances at reelection. In other words, they lost the election because they were caught lying to the public about a very, very sensitive issue, on top of everything else. It was the lie that was the nail in the coffin. It was their own stupidity that sealed their fate, not the act of terrorism.
There are more than just a way of fighting terrorism. Radicalizing is not a valid way, lots of people here in Spain think that if Mr Aznar government had a more intelligent treatment of nationalisms ETA wouldn’t exist now as they would not be backed up by democratic people in the Basc Country. Aznar needed to blame ETA of the assasinations as this would scare population. We all know that people that are scared tend to vote right and more firm parties.
For those that might be interested:
An interview with Bin Laden’s former sister-in-law is aired tonight (march 16 at 7:00 pm) on Canadian television station named “TVA”. The only drawback is that it is broadcast in French (since the station is french-canadian)
Might be a little difficult to get in the US but those who have cable in Canada with the sub-titles might be interested to look at it.
“…the Iraq war… was a horrible, needless distraction.”
Gah.
The Iraqi campaign (because it’s only one phase of the real war) is and was a vital portion, possibly the most vital portion, of the effort.
There are, have been for a long time, and probably always will be people who believe that terrorist bombs and terroristic acts are the way to get what they want. Prior to the October Revolution there were terrorists — they called them “anarchists” — plaguing Imperial Russia. It is probably impossible to get rid of them.
The citizens and inhabitants of peaceful, prosperous, reasonably well-ordered countries do not support such efforts in the mass, and do not volunteer to become bombers, suicide or otherwise. They have much better things to do with their lives. A minority do, and will continue to do so. Well, there are a few people who like to have sex with sheep. It’s not that it takes all kinds; it’s that there are all kinds.
The salient fact about the Middle East today is that the countries there are neither peaceful, prosperous, nor at all well ordered. To the contrary, they are stinking shitholes run by thugs and autocrats, and the people of those countries have little or no opportunity for advancement or improvement of their lives. They sit around and wish they had something to do, and the old saw that “idle hands are the devil’s workshop” comes into play. The leaders cannot admit that their policies and actions are responsible for the poverty and depression, so they blame outsiders, and the idle people accept that because there is no really clear reason why things are the way they are that anyone who can reach them will articulate. Presto: al Qaida.
To make things worse, oil prices are depressed in real terms. This makes it impossible for the rulers to buy off their educated classes; unemployment in Saudi Arabia is rampant, because what money they do get has to go to the Waha’abists under agreements that keep the House of Saud in power in the first place. So many of the idle unemployed are highly educated and itching for something to do, which the mad shaykhs are happy to provide.
So long as that situation continues to exist the terrorists will get recruits and money. The only way to fix it and reduce the problem to the point where “intelligence and police work” can accomplish anything is to fix the political structure in the Middle East.
If we can build a prosperous, reasonably well-ordered regime in Iraq — regardless of what form its government takes — and allow the people of Iraq to build their lives and become successful, we will have removed one source of terrorists from the system and, more importantly, we will have provided an example for the remainder. In that respect, Paul Bremer is either lucky or inspired; at this rate, by the time of the turnover there will be legions of Iraqis disgusted with the existing procedures and ready to take over with home-grown ones, which is precisely what we want. We don’t give a damn, in the abstract, what form the new Iraqi government takes. We’ve been advising on Federal Republican Democracy because that’s what we know how to do, but if the Iraqis want something else and can make a go of it that will be fine, too.
It’s a gamble, yes, but the game’s worth the candle.
It’s remarkable to me that all the highbrowed educated elite seem to miss that the cowboy Bush is playing a deeper game than anything they can come up with!
Regards,
Ric
Ric,
Interesting comment. And I do agree with most of your analysis. I don’t, however, agree with your conclusions.
You are more or less proposing a political makeover of the middle-east. Wasn’t Saddam a political makeover at the time? His regime seemed to be a good idea to the powers that be….
Much, if not all of the trouble in the middle-east is the result of infringment by the West for the last 100 years. Isn’t it about time we granted the middle-east the right to determine it’s own course? Isn’t it about time to pull the plug on the likes of Mubarak, Sharon and some of their esteemed collegues?
Check your history books: the peoples of the middle-east are perfectly capable of running their own countries.
On the short term we’re stuck in Iraq. On the longer term, we should get and stay out of the middle-east.
In addition to my previous comment, I’d like to bring in the following link to an excellent article by Ian Buruma that just appeared in the New York Times.
‘Killing Iraq with Kindness’:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/17/opinion/17BURU.html?ex=1080514226&ei=1&en=0ee444455f11e516
(registration required)
I find myself in opposition with most of the statements in this post and the subsequent commentary. The situation is complicated and the responses will be complicated but me start with a simplistic analogy.
As kodia mentioned, and as Ian Buruma’s NYT op-ed piece states, it is one hell of a spider’s web that we have woven over the past century. WE are the spider. WE wove the web. The flies we are trying to catch? Oil. Strategic geographic advantage over traditional rivals in Asia. And others, I’m sure.
If you find a spider’s web in YOUR house, do you think twice before YOU destroy it? And you want to find ways to keep the spiders out of your house, in the first place, right? If you should find them in the house, what is the first reaction? Squash them and dispose of them.
Not too many people take the time to capture them alive and release them outside of their houses, do they?
We, as spiders, may be doomed to eradication or extinction if we do not adapt and find other flies to catch, other ways to feed our “hunger.”
The Spanish do not want to be in the house with the spiders. Their government did not listen to them. The attack on the spiders became an attack on all unwanted insects and the Spanish, in their wisdom, have chosen to flee the house and the spiders.
++++++++++
“…I still think that something significant (and ominous, from an American point of view) has happened here… .”
How arrogant of us to think that the rest of the world must sleep in the bed that we have made for ourselves. And to think that we are right about every aspect of this conflict because our ideals are the “right” ideals—that two or more wrongs are going to make a “right”.
Just because we have blundered into something (or not, as some would have it)—just because we initiated an action—does not mean others must support it or that our action will have its desired outcome. We cannot assume that intervention in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the Muslim world in the name of “democracy” or “freedom” will produce either democracy or freedom.
With all due respect to the victims and families of the victims of acts of terror, I do not believe that War on “Terror” is winnable, practical, or even possible. In a previous thread, someone pointed out the inanity of declaring War on a tactic. I concur.
I am all for exposing the truth of a situation. How much did our government REALLY know before 9/11? What exactly are the Bush family connections with the Saudis and the bin Laden family, in particular?
Once the truth is known—hell, even if we were given GLIMMERS of the truth—then, THEN I am all for pursuing justice, something it seems we have a hard time administering to ourselves in our own country.
Osama bin Laden has an agenda of violence? Sure, let’s hold him and his associates responsible for their actions. But let’s first ask and understand why, and THEN act to correct the underlying causes, with organized violence as a last resort. We can hunt down an Ohio interstate sniper but we can’t catch bin Laden, and I don’t understand why we haven’t made that our number one focus—one of the few points I can agree with, wholeheartedly.
The last time I looked the United States Constitution does not say anything about “an eye for an eye”. By invading Iraq, we weren’t even going for “an eye for an eye”—more like yanking a tooth for having our eye poked out.
Does there have to be “War” to stop terrorists? Do we have to launch military invasions of sovereign nations to stop terrorists? In the particular case of Iraq, had reliance on alliances and covert operations been exhausted first? I dare anyone to answer “yes” to that question.
+++++++
I saw Robert McNamara on C-SPAN recently discussing the inability of governments to question the “rightness” of actions of previous administrations that they have continued without question.
In particular, he berated the Kennedy and Johnson administrations failure to address the “rightness” of Eisenhower’s decision to get involved in Vietnam. He said that no one even discussed whether or not they should be involved in the first place: they only discussed ways to continue the involvement. McNamara cited this consistent failure of governments as the most critical, the biggest roadblock to any kind of peaceful coexistence in the world, and I support that opinion.
It seems as though the Spanish have acted as McNamara suggests that governments should; I also support their actions in the recent election, regardless of any supposed or implied influence, internal or external.
They have acted as their consciences have asked them to act. They are not lashing out in every direction in anger and confusion. They are remaining true to themselves in the face of violence on their own soil.
Zapatero, Spain’s prime minister-elect, has said he will remove Spanish forces from Iraq, and that has been widely publicized to stigmatize him. Has anyone seen any of his opinions or reaction to acts of terror in the American media? I have not. If he has an opinion and someone can share it here, please do. I would like to believe that he is as interested in truth and justice as the people who elected him.
+++++++
One last question to ask:
If the citizens of the United States vote Bush out of office in November, how will the terrorists have influenced that election?
I’ll be listening with an open mind.
“My most immediate priority,” Spain’s new leader, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, declared yesterday, “will be to fight terrorism.”
—from “Weak On Terror”, Paul Krugman, New York Times (registration required)
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/opinion/16KRUG.html
Andrew,
Yesterday I listened to Wouter Bos, the leader of the PvdA in Holland. He’s the Dutch equivalent of Zapatero…
His view bears very much similarty to Zapatero’s: the Dutch army (currently deployed in Iraq) should withdraw. He made a strong case. That is, from the Dutch perspective. But it left me wondering: what about the Iraqi perspective? The army IS there and thus mingling into Iraqi affairs. Doesn’t that oblige a political leader to at least consider the Iraqi perspective?