A clarification. As "I mentioned last night":http://www.back-to-iraq.com/archives/000698.php, I worry that the results of the Spanish elections, in which the PP was thrown out and the PSOE were voted in as a response to last week's bombings, will be seen as a victory for Islamists such as Osama bin Laden.
But as reader Ted points out
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.I think there's a lot of truth to this, and I should have been more clear in my writing -- jetlag sucks -- that regardless of the reason the Spanish voted out the PP, it's almost assured that al Qaeda and other terrorists will believe they influenced the election. It is this conclusion -- rightly or wrongly drawn -- that I fear will embolden the enemies of peace. It's certainly a hell of a recruitment tool. Juan cole "notes that":http://www.juancole.com/2004_03_01_juancole_archive.html#107942407001890750
There is no evidence at all that the Spanish public desires the new Socialist government to pull back from a counter-insurgency effort against al-Qaeda. The evidence is only that they became convinced that the war on Iraq had detracted from that effort rather than contributing to it. This is not a cowardly conclusion and it is not a victory for al-Qaeda.Well, not in an absolute universe, no, and the fact that the elections went off at all is a victory against al Qaeda. But I'm not so much worried about how the Spanish vote will be spun on _Le Monde's_ editorial page as I am how it will be spun in Peshawar's _madrassas_. In a battle of ideas, it's not always what's real that wins; more often what's more pleasing to believe does. So the question is: Does an electorate have a responsibility to throw out a manipulative, distant ruling party -- hm... -- regardless of the consequences regarding its alliances, or does it "suck it up" and stick with the current party so as not to give the bad guys any ammunition? I guess it depends on whether you think the Spaniards should follow their own national interests or the United States.' Spanish voters apparently felt -- for whatever valid or invalid reason -- that their country's interest didn't align with those of the United States regarding Iraq. And no one should blame them for that.
What of - and only if - the so called ‘war on terror’ only creates new recruits and doesn’t solve the underlying fundamental problems. Communism wasn’t defeated head-on, but through soft-power. We have to make THEM want OUR society and not push it down their throat. Force only creates counter force. The Spanish election was the first step back to what it means to be living in a democratic society where goverments are held responsible. Short term it will be seen as a victory for the other side - long term it is the very essence which will make our societies prevail.
Or us our beloved president said a few months ago .. “Isn’t democracy wonderful?” I would not want to change it a single bit.
No matter what the response, the bombings themselves will be considered a victory by anyone leaning towards the terrorists. I think this is part of the problem with this question of whether the election results are a victory for al-Qaeda.
The line is that the bombings having any effect (or any perceived effect) is a victory for al-Qaeda, but it is impossible for them to have no effect. Also, even if they had no effect, probably the terrorist will still conclude that they did have an effect, since this is what they are looking for.
No matter what the response, the bombings themselves will be considered a victory by anyone leaning towards the terrorists. I think this is part of the problem with this question of whether the election results are a victory for al-Qaeda.
The line is that the bombings having any effect (or any perceived effect) is a victory for al-Qaeda, but it is impossible for them to have no effect. Also, even if they had no effect, probably the terrorist will still conclude that they did have an effect, since this is what they are looking for.
Chris,
Come on. How can we expect to get out of this mess without admitting it’s a mess?
If uncle Al and OBL are “emboldened”, that’s the price we pay for letting our
president get us into this piss poorly thought-out fiasco. Then we never throw out
leaders while the “war on terror” continues? Humility, man, it’s what we lack by the
f’ing truckload in the country. Imagine the PR we would’ve gotten had we changed
the terms of this conflict right away to one of post-cold war reconstruction — that is,
“We know in the past, for various reasons we are now learning from, we supported
regimes of terror and oppression. But that time has come to an end, and citizens
will no longer be sold out for “security” or cheap commodities or whatever reason
might’ve been used in the past to excuse oppression.” Whatever, something humble,
acknowledging history, and taking the upper hand in the game. OBL is just a
criminal, nothing more. Treat him as such. But no, he’s satan on earth to our
evangelical president. And brave America does nothing but free people from
shackles that must have fallen from the sky to oppress people. Not that we were to
blame entirely, obviously, but between the advantaged and/or militarily powerful
nations, honesty tells us we’ve played a nasty hand and haven’t come close to
coming clean about it.
Instead, we are knee-deep in the inevitable consequences of the ignorant use of
massive military violence. I personally don’t give a rat’s ass what “emboldens”
al Qaeda and OBL, I only care about using all the self-critical ability we can muster,
all the imagination and creativity, and all the HUMILITY we’ve never been evolved
enough as a nation to express in the face of our terrorist fears. The poor saps that
AQ is able to recruit are not rational enough, most likely, to be deterred by anything
but justice and an optimistic future right in front of their eyes.
And the fact that the leader of the most powerful nation on earth is himself a
christian fundamentalist (read “extremist”), well, it does not bode well. The man
doesn’t even think he has the responsibility to explain his decision as President
to anyone, not even the voters — his words, not mine. That’s not a free American
President talking, it’s an emperor. Until the emperor and his minions are deposed,
America will continue down a destructive path. Creativity and Imagination are
unknown to this man, dangerous to him. That the Spanish have gotten very creative
at the polls, it speaks more to our own political stasis as average Americans than it
does to any victory for al Qaeda recruiting.
Peace out.
Jim Pinkerton of Newsday had this to say in his column this AM:
“So what will the incoming Zapatero government do in regard to security policy? Here’s a prediction: Even as he honors his campaign promise to withdraw his country’s troops from Iraq, Zapatero will take obvious and commonsensical measures to improve Spain’s homeland security. That is, he will tighten up on border enforcement, scrutinize aliens more closely and improve security around public places. And he will even work closely with allies in “Old Europe.”
Pinkerton’s a Conservative but not a NEOconservative. You can read the full column here: http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-vppin163709473mar16,0,743954.column
Chris,
One more thing: All those millions of Spanairds who marched in the streets the day
after the bombings, can you really see Americans doing the same thing? Of course
not. We’re much to sequestered, isolated and fearful a people in general. We
are geographically distant from most of the world’s worst problems, and we watch far
too much television to be able to tell the difference between perception and reality.
Sad but true.
Peas & Loave.
Speaking as a citizen of a country that, like Spain, has endured many years of an internal terrorist threat, I have to say that of course the bombing affected the elections.
If the elections had been called off, it would have been a victory for Al-Quaeda because they would have affected the flow of democracy.
If the old government had been voted back in, it would have been a (more long-term) victory for Al-Quaeda in that the increased suppression of ETA would most probably have left a large chunk of the country alienated and disenfranchised, and therefore more willing to disrupt the Spanish infrastructure using violent means. This happened in NI during the 70s.
Everybody knows that the invasion of Iraq was a diversion from the so-called War on Terror: the Spanish are merely proposing that we all get back to the main business - fighting terror and making sure that Al Quaeda don’t win.
A depressed as I am at some of the perceptions of Americans presented in the postings here, I’d like to return to the idea of the idea of the Spanish elections standing for a victory for al Qaeda. They weren’t.
It’s impossible to thin that there’s any reason to change your vote in response to an attack. Whether you’re deciding to oust the government the terrorists don’t like in a gesture of apeasement or if you’re voting for the government in spite of the terrorists, you’re still letting them impact your vote. They’ve won. For more congested thinking on this, I blogged it yesterday. But this is the gist of my argument here:
It’s wrong to think that Spaniards should vote one way or the other on account of the terrorists.
Just a clarification. I’m living in Spain and in discussion with my friends and family, it became clear that indeed, as someone else has posted here, the choice to withdraw the troops was made long before the elections (it was a campaign promise). However, it is in the interest of both the Islamic extremists and the Bush administration to portray the bombings as having influenced the outcome of the election. It gives the Bush administration a justification for their war and it gives the Islamic extremists examples of how terrorism can influence events such as elections, but these are both fiction.
Please, spread the word, the bombings were a tragedy, but it was the PPs inept handling of the investigation that lost them the election, not the bombings.