There have been a lot of stories about whether the ETA (in Basque, Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna or "Basque Fatherland and Liberty") was behind yesterday's horrible attacks in Madrid or instead al Qaeda or some other Islamic group. But the people pointing fingers have their own agendas, and are placing blame so that it benefits them.
Victims of yesterday's bombings are treated at the scene.One-hundred-ninety-eight people died and 1,463 were injured in the bomb attacks which Spanish authorities initially blamed on the ETA. Others say that claims of responsibility allegedly made by an al Qaeda-affiliated group, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, in the London-based newspaper al-Quds, as well as Islamic tapes found in a nearby van along with detonators, indicate that Osama bin Laden's group was behind the attack. The ETA has been considered a "spent force" in Spanish politics. It originated from EKIN, a nationalist group that changed its name in 1958. Initial attacks involved bombs in cities like Bilboa, but the ETA started up in earnest after the death of Gen. Francisco Franco in1961 1975. Traditionally, it operated in the Basque autonomous region in northern Spain and southwestern France, targeting police stations, politicians and other symbols of Spanish control of the Basque homeland. In 2002, however, it stepped up its efforts to hit tourist areas, in an effort to hit one of Madrid's main revenue streams. The group killed 15 people in 2001 and five in 2002, a decrease probably due to Spain and France's increased anti-terrorism efforts. Some analysts believe that the old guard has been arrested and fresh leaders are moving up to take their place, leading to an intensified ruthlessness.
ETA attacks are usually preceded with a warning. There was none in this case. But al Qaeda usually doesn't claim credit so quickly after an attack, and Abu Hafs al-Masri has claimed credit for attacks it had no involvement in, such as the massive blackouts last summer in the United States. So who's to blame?
My opinion, such as it is, is that this may have been a team effort, although I lean toward it being led by Islamists. Terrorism isn't a clear-cut enterprise and stateless groups like ETA and al Qaeda often interact in overt and covert ways. (In fact, they interact so often and so deeply that the failure to find any substantial links between Saddam Hussein's former regime and al Qaeda should be seen not as a failure of investigators to look deeply enough but as proof that there were no links at all.)
ETA may have been inspired by Qaeda tactics, or they may have worked with sleeper cells in Spain in an effort to attain similar goals. Conversely, sleeper cells might have contacted ETA members for logistical help. Middle Eastern armed groups have a long history of working with European terror groups. As Loretta Napoleoni shows in her book, Modern Jihad: Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror Networks, one joint venture in the late 1980s involved the Italian Red Brigades, the PLO, the IRA, the ETA and "German underground groups." Money raised from kidnapping, extortion, armed robbery and other activities went to purchase machine guns, heavy Energa anti-tank mines, grenades, SAM-7 Strela missiles, etc., which were then shared among the various parties.
(Also, ETA members are regular visitors to the lawless city of Ciudad del Este, the Paraguayan city that is a hub for smuggling between Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay. Situated in the area where the three countries meet, more than $12 billion passes through the city each year, including money raised through selling of pirated CDs, trade in stolen and forged passports, Colombian narcotics, computers and stolen cars from Brazil. It has a population of about 20,000 Muslims, and a number of radical Islamist groups operate there. Middle Eastern money brokers linked to Islamist groups such as Hezbollah help launder Latin American narcotic money in Ciudad del Este. These examples just show how intertwined many of these groups are.)
ETA members may have set those bombs. But the funding and the coordination may have come from bin Laden's group. Bin Laden is like a venture capitalist of terror, providing seed money to groups that want into his network, such as what happened on Sept. 1, 2001. That's when Ansar al-Islam, which operates in Iraqi Kurdistan, officially formed. Three Arab veterans of the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan presented the leaders with $300,000 cash from bin Laden.
There's no reason that al Qaeda wouldn't work with -- or help fund -- groups that further its own ends in the short run. (Which is why it never worked with Saddam. Not only did it not share any long-term goals with Iraq, and in fact wanted to destroy Saddam's government, but it didn't share any short-term goals either. Saddam didn't want to destroy the United States. He wanted an end to sanctions so he could go back to trying to dominate the Middle East -- something bin Laden wants to do himself.)
So. What conclusions may be drawn? As Juan Cole notes, if the ETA did it, it would be seen as local significance and probably bolster the standing of Jose Aznar's conservative party prior to the Sunday ballot. If it's jihadists, this will be seen as on par with Sept. 11, 2001, Bali and Lockerbie -- and the War on Terror will have suffered a setback. The U.S., paradoxically, probably would like to have the bombers come from al Qaeda because that would bolster Bush's charge that the War on Terror is ongoing -- so don't change commanders in the middle of a war.
However, either/or is too limiting. I think this was probably some kind of joint venture between the ETA and jihadists, but, still, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see this as a wholly Islamist enterprise. We just don't know the full story yet.
PS: Still traveling in Japan. Sorry for the lack of updates. A lot has been going on and I've missed a lot of it.
Victims of yesterday's bombings are treated at the scene.One-hundred-ninety-eight people died and 1,463 were injured in the bomb attacks which Spanish authorities initially blamed on the ETA. Others say that claims of responsibility allegedly made by an al Qaeda-affiliated group, the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, in the London-based newspaper al-Quds, as well as Islamic tapes found in a nearby van along with detonators, indicate that Osama bin Laden's group was behind the attack. The ETA has been considered a "spent force" in Spanish politics. It originated from EKIN, a nationalist group that changed its name in 1958. Initial attacks involved bombs in cities like Bilboa, but the ETA started up in earnest after the death of Gen. Francisco Franco in
Chris,
Some of the best and most informative writing I have seen on the Madrid bombings. It has been tragically funny seeing all of the mainstream news agencies run back and forth on the claims. One little correction, Franco died in 1975 not 1961.
D’oh! You’re right about Franco. Dammit. Thanks for the correction — and the props.
Thank you for the analysis! I admit I was in a fair amount of confusion over this latest violence, and the network news has cast just about zero light onto it (or at least the questions I wanted more info on.)
Travel safely, Christopher!
Thanks for drawing the distinctions and connections between the three groups potentially responsible for the incident in Spain.
The so-called “War on Terrorism” seems more and more like the “War on Drugs” and other police/government intelligence crackdowns on gangs and organized crime. It is so widespread and involves so many parties that no amount of police action can stop it from happening.
The motivation for terror? Does it come down to a politico-economic based battle between traditional business-spawned haves and criminal or fringe wannabe haves, who have been blocked from political and economic gain by the “legitimate” haves? Or are there just people out there blowing up buildings and trains for kicks? How long must a minority voice be stifled before it becomes so angry that it strikes out with violence?
We used to just use up the raw materials of the third world. Now we use their labor not just to extract raw materials but to also answer phones, diagnose medical conditions, write software code, and who knows what else—all in the name of increased corporate profits, which line the pockets of the wealthiest of the wealthy in the United States and the rest of the world.
How long before victims and potential victims of these groups wake up and start addressing the root causes of “terror”? How much longer will we leave the “war” and the “solutions” up to the very people who created the situation in the first place—the wealthy and the politically powerful?
If the team isn’t winning, it’s the coach or the manager who gets fired first. Then, maybe it’s the general manager or the president of operations. If the team stops making money, is the ownership replaced? Not until the owners have lost their investment, usually.
The wealthy and the powerful are the owners of the world’s teams. Different heads of state or generals may be appointed, elected, deposed and replaced, but the ownership is still the same. Are they still making decisions? Are they still making money? Are their investments going south yet? That’s the only time they’ll consider selling the teams and giving up on their investments.
“Terrorists” use violence to draw attention to themselves and to hit the powers-that-be where it hurts. They do political damage by creating fear and distrust and they do economic damage by destroying property and creating fear of further destruction.
Just as with some criminals, I’m sure some terrorists are unreasonable and downright antisocial. But I’ll bet that there are some really smart ones out there, too, who have a purpose, and who have fuel to draw others into supporting their purpose.
Some terrorists, we must declare war on, but not all. We must all start asking questions such as “Why is this happening?” and “What do these people want that they do not have?” Are they all evil, Hitleresque characters who want to rule the world? Is there one pseudo-Hitler out there leading the charge?
Or are they, for the most part, the minority voice, pushed to violence in order to be heard?
I’d really like to see these questions ASKED, and asked often. It seems that no one is asking these questions and they’ll never be answered unless they are asked!
Outside of religious fundamentalism or insanity, I sincerely doubt that all terrorists do not love life. I sincerely doubt that their beef is with the man or woman or child on the street—it is with the wealthy and powerful who control the lives of the working class.
ASK WHY THIS IS HAPPENING. ASK WHAT THESE PEOPLE WANT. ASK THE WEALTHY AND POWERFUL HOW MUCH OF THIS “WAR” IS BROUGHT ON BY THEIR GREED. And say to ourselves, borrowing from the words of David Byrne and Talking Heads, “My God, what have WE done?”
Andrew,
I am pleased that you have the courage to ask the same question that always strikes me when an attack such as this happens. The world is focusing on “who” and “how” but like yourself I always find myself asking “why”.
“Terrorists” are not some homogenous bunch of madmen. Nor are they shodowy Doctor Evil types bent on taking over the world. Ultimately they have a reason for their actions, however perverse those reasons may seem.
Usually it seems to me that terrorism is about power. Or more importantly, the lack of it in the face of much more powerful, heavily armed enemies. There is no way that any army in the world could win a conventional war against America. But this fact does not remove the resentment that some feel about the way the USA uses the overwhelming military, economic and politcal power it wields. Instead, those who are sufficiently enraged will attack in the only way possible - with sneak attacks, assassinations and bombings.
In the early stages of a terrorist campaign (in Northern Ireland for example, and more recently in Iraq) terrorists attack the security forces of their enemies. But the security forces adopt more and more effective defence measures, built higher walls around their police stations and search more and more people who come close enough to harm them. And so, once all the “hard” targets have been rendered effectively impregnable, terrorists turn to softer targets - commuter trains in rush hour, or nightclubs in Indonesia for example. And so we get more and bigger terrorist outrages where more and more innocent people die.
That’s all I want to say about the tactics of terrorists and the reasons why terrorist attacks now kill so many civilians - the “who” and the “how” of terrorism, if you like.
But, as you mentioned Andrew, the most important question behind all of this is “Why?”
Terrorism exists in a context. To those who share their goals, the people who commit violence are not enagaged in terrorism but in “resistance”. They have the support (active or passive) of the population they claim to represent. Hence the ambivalence of the Arab world towards America’s global War on Terror.
Ultimately, many people in the Arab world (and in fact across the world at large) feel that America’s power is excessive. Whilst they may not condone terrorism, they are also not actively opposing it either. And this is how it manages to continue. Until we address the underlying grievances, the terrorists will thrive because ultimately they have the support of the populace. They can count on the population to hide them or their weapons and not disclose their whereabouts to the authorities. They can count on recieving money, logistical support and discretion from their population, and with these three factors in their favour no opposing power in the world can eliminate them.
The harder the authorities crack down, the more aggreived, besieged and powerless the population feels - and so the more support the terrorists will receive. Palestine is an example of this effect taken to the extreme. To use the cliche, winning the war on terror is about “hearts and minds”.
If the population begins to feel that their grievances are being taken seriously, and that peaceful means might actually be more effective than violent ones, support for terrorists evaporates. No mother wants her child to die unnecessarily. Most people in the world are reasonable and humane and oppose what they feel is unnecessary violence.
To go back to Northern Ireland for a minute: For more than seven decades the British government vowed never to “give in to terrorism”. It was a badge of honour amongst our politicians that they would never so much as speak to theose who engaged in such despicable acts. Tougher and tougher measures were imposed, more and more resources were thrown at the problem and the violence simply continued.
Finally, in great secrecy, and with no small amount of political courage, it was acknowledged amongst those who make decisions that the British could not “win” against the IRA and that the only solution was dialogue. Many said that this was a sign of weakness, that the terrorists had won, that the government had capitulated. But fortunately, those in charge held their nerve and the dialogue continued. the problems have not yet been resolved, but the violence has been reduced almost to the point of non-existence.
Is this giving in to terrorists? Is this “appeasement?” Quite honestly I don’t know.
But I do know that people in Britain no longer fear terrorism from Ireland (although sadly we now fear terrorism from other sources) and people in Ireland no longer feel that bombs and guns are necessary to achieve their political goals.
Once this step has been taken - the step towards dialogue and lasting peace - support networks that allow terrorists to operate collapse. People are willing to hand in weapons, reveal the location of arms caches and speak out against those who use violence. Ultimately the only weapon that really works against terrorism is dialogue.
Guns and secret police only feed the beast. Peace is both the path and the destination.
Ian:
That was brilliant, thank you much.
Ian,
Thank you for discussing so eloquently some of the answers to “Why?”
My heart does go out to those whose loved ones perish in acts of violence. But, again, there is a part of my heart and mind that goes out to those who are committing these acts.
I will always believe we MUST learn to first ask “Why?” and we must LISTEN for the answers.
To Christopher,
1st time visit, thanks for your insight, it helps me to understand a little bit more.
Ian and Andrew,
Thanks for both of your comments, I learn something every day, and both of you had great posts that taught me a little bit more.
By the way folks, in this “War on Terror”, are we really fighting a “War” on a tactic? How do you do that? More importantly, as stated above, Why does Team Bush want to fight a tactic, which is not a nation/state, is not a known political group. What is their real agenda, Why?
Hello everyone!
Interesting weblog and interesting comments (for once!)
Just two comments, another reason why islamic terrorists hit the population so hard, by trying to achieve maximum death toll is because they argue that if we live in democracy we vote for our leaders (their enemy) and therefore we are equally guilty of oppresion (or whatever their claim is)
Regarding the Spanish attack, hints that this was not ETA’s work were: The fact that they did not call first to tell about the bombs, the fact that the bombs were to kill mainly workers and students from the workers neighbourhoods of Madrid’s outskirst. ETA does not target civilians in mass escale. Also they are a socialist organization.
There has been great manipulation on the information they kept bombing us with during the next 48 hours after the attack. But they are giving in to the evidence now, after it had been obvious for a while. Foreign journalists have denounced pressure from the spanish government to claim it was ETA’s work. :) If anyone reads spanish www.elpais.es
Great site, good discussions.
I recently stumbled upon this at Znet:
“America’s unrivaled military superiority means that potential enemies (whether nations or terrorist groups) that choose to attack us will be more likely to resort to terror instead of conventional military assault.”
—Presidential Decision Directive 62, issued in 1998.
Terrorism (resistance) makes sense yet our government and the media makes it out to be an outrage worse than war. I would guess they have waged war on the tactic because they want to win. They want to continue unfair trade practices and rob the world of resources. They want to line their pockets, and they don’t really care who starves (or gets killed in a terrorist attack) in the process.
”Radical Islamic fundamentalism is a huge problem in France. A huge problem in Spain. A terrible problem in Germany. And look at Chechnya! Why do you need to look any further at why Russia’s gonna help us? Or look at Jordan. It’s a secular kingdom! They’re certainly not rah-rah-rah on the Wahhabi movement.”
—Ronald L. Motley, principal attorney, Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment and Development Corporation
—from a New York Times article on 9/11 victims’ families suing international financiers of terrorist activities:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/magazine/14MOTLEY.html
Whether or not Mr. Motley has any insights into the 11 March attacks in Spain, I do not know. Still, it is a fascinating insight into a private citizen’s intelligence-gathering capabilities and the United States government’s failure to do the same.
La Corriere della Sera ran an editorial on the linkages between the ETA and Al Qaeda.
Here’s the English version:
http://www.corriere.it/PrimoPiano/Esteri/Editoriali/Allam/magdieng120304.shtml
Its writer, Magdi Allam, is an Egyptian journalist who writes for the Corriere and La Repubblica. He has been accused of being an agent for Israeli and U.S. interests, and has also been labelled as the “most evident manipulator of Middle East information.”
I DO NOT endorse Allam’s opinions, but want to know if anyone can verify or debunk any of his suppositions regarding the tenuous and dubious link between ETA and Al Qaeda.
To check things out throughout the world problems.
Type your question into your computer google search or etc. and ask who is funding who. It will acually show you where to go. In my checking the problem spots throughout the world, they give them initials, ask who is funding, 90%+ head back to Washington D.C. Then you can get a handle on the problem. Dan
I notice in your article, credit to Modern Jihad. Perhaps you should pick up a copy of Funding Evil, by Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld. I have both books and of the two, Funding Evil is far more informative.