Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

"And I hope that if my fear comes true, that in our case, it will have exactly the opposite of the intended effect, as September 11 did."

It should. There is a strong, yet unspoken, Jacksonian tradition in America. It's native to America, and mis-understood by people who have spent little time here.

Assuming there _is_ an incident. The incoming President (Bush or Kerry) won't have much choice about what to do - his electorate will demand action in the finest American tradition.

This has happened before. One such ended with with the first battlefield use of nuclear weapons.

The nature of the response will be dictated by the outrage. Enough casualties and it won't end until America has ensured that such an outrage won't happen again.

I don't say this is a good or bad thing. The American psyche is what it is; you rile it at great hazard.

Posted by Brian at March 14, 2004 04:51 PM

Be more afraid that they will hit the British and Italians seeking to isolate the US.

Posted by at March 14, 2004 08:53 PM

Actually, another terrorist attack on U.S. soil could boost Kerry's prospects if he immediately starts criticizing the GOP's position that invading Baathist Iraq somehow makes it less likely that a bunch of Moroccans and Indians blow up 200 passengers at your next train station...

Of course, that won't be enough in itself. He also needs to show voters he is going to be just as tough on terrorism -- only smarter and more nuanced than this Administration's campaign. Fortunately, that isn't going to be very difficult:-)

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 14, 2004 11:21 PM

Spain needs to rediscover the spine it once had when it repelled the Moorish invaders. But without the Inquisition stuff.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at March 15, 2004 03:47 AM

...the GOP's position that invading Baathist Iraq somehow makes it less likely that a bunch of Moroccans and Indians blow up 200 passengers at your next train station...

How many Islamacists would have blown up passengers in a train station if we hadn't overthrown Saddam, Marcus? How would you, or anyone, know? And you don't seem to keep your story straight--I thought that Al Qaeda had no interest in keeping the secular Saddam in power?

He also needs to show voters he is going to be just as tough on terrorism -- only smarter and more nuanced than this Administration's campaign. Fortunately, that isn't going to be very difficult...

If by "smart and nuanced," you mean "having a different position depending on which day of the week he's asked, or who he's talking to," it may be impossible, at least to thinking voters.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 15, 2004 04:36 AM

That is, they did if their goal in Friday's bombing was to remove the Spanish government that supported the War on Terror. And why wouldn't it be their goal?

It probably was, it was made easier because the Spanish people (80% according to polls I saw) were against Spain's involvement in Iraq for the very reason that they feared an attack.

One wonders what the result would be in a tight UK election where both main parties were pro-war. I can't see a sudden swing to the Lib-Dems.

But I thought that Iraq was meant to make this stuff less likely - something about "flypaper"???

Posted by Dave at March 15, 2004 04:46 AM

Dave, are you, like Marcus, omniscient and able to guarantee us that there would have been no attacks if we hadn't removed Saddam?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 15, 2004 05:16 AM

Assuming that Al-Qaeda is responsible for the train bombing and further assuming that the intent of the attack was to remove Spanish support for the reconstruction of Iraq, what real impact will the withdrawal of 1,000 or so soliders have on the Jihadist insurgency?

Allied support from the likes of Spain and Poland is reassuring, but the United States and Britain have been shouldering the lion's share of the Iraq work from the start.

I don't see the train attack as deterring the allied counterinsurgency.

We'll see if Spain moves beyond this attack and brings any real force to bear on the Islamist terror networks outside of Iraq.

It'll be a true victory for al-qaeda if the Spanish response descends into a finger pointing game between western leaders.

Posted by John Kavanagh at March 15, 2004 05:28 AM

One thing that this turn to craven appeasement on the part of the Spanish proves is that the John Kerry strategy of total multilaterialism is a non starter and a prescription for paralysis and impotence. It also proves President Bush correct that we should not defer to others in pursuing the war on terror.

Also, I don't think that the Spanish have bought themselves immunity from terrorism. The Islamo fascists have a beef with Spain dating back, at least, from the conquest of Granada.

Posted by Mark R, Whittington at March 15, 2004 05:44 AM

> How many Islamacists would have blown up
> passengers in a train station if we hadn't
> overthrown Saddam, Marcus? How would you, or
> anyone, know?

Indeed, you and I don't know. The terrorists did specifically mention "Iraq and Afghanistan" as reasons for attacking Madrid. Among other issues (some of which date back to the 15th century) but it makes sense to assume these were secondary reasons since terrorists so far haven't attacked Spain simply for chasing the Moors away from Granada etc..

So the 3/11 bombing was clearly related to the War on Terror. Let's assume, on one hand, that the Spanish government had stayed entirely out of this, declaring strict neutrality. Mark Steyn seems to have the interesting theory that Islamic fanatics will destroy the West anyway, hence it doesn't matter what we do.

Let's assume, on the other hand, that NATO (enthusiastly backed by Aznar) retaliate to 9/11 by nuking Mecca as well as Baghdad, Damascus, Teheran as well as any other "rogue Muslim nation" you can think of. That is the exact opposite of doing nothing, and I strongly suspect Osama bin Laden actually would love to see that happen since he wants a holy war. To me it makes logical sense to assume there would be no shortage of young Muslim terrorists trying to blow up trains in the West after that... So how we fight the "War on Terror" clearly has an impact on how hard the opposite side will want to fight back.

What I am saying is that "appeasement" versus "military self-defense" are not black and white issues. I wholeheartedly approved of the Afghanistan invasion to get rid of Osama bin Laden, since he was behind the September 11 attacks. I think it would have been shortsighted to do nothing. On the other hand, I do not believe in declaring war on Islamic nations on false grounds (WMDs which turn out to be non-existent, Saddam-Al Qaeda ties which remain unproven etc.) because doing so will needlessly encourage anti-Western sentiments in the Arab street, which in turn INCREASES the risk of terrorist attacks.

> And you don't seem to keep your story
> straight--I thought that Al Qaeda had no
> interest in keeping the secular Saddam in power?

They don't care about Saddam at all -- they care about Muslim nations being invaded by crusaders. Now, in some cases (e.g. Afghanistan above) war is unfortunately the only credible option. Iraq, on the other hand, was not directly related to Al Qaeda at all.
---
Besides, I will turn this around by asking how well the "flypaper theory" is working! Not very well in Spain, it seems. The U.S. President has confidently declared America is "safer" following the Iraq war. It will be most interesting to see what happens to his approval/credibility ratings if or when there is another Oklahoma City-level atrocity before the election.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 15, 2004 05:51 AM

Dave, are you, like Marcus, omniscient and able to guarantee us that there would have been no attacks if we hadn't removed Saddam?

With respect to Spain?

Omniscient? No.

Sure enough to be prepared to say so? Yes. If we hadn't removed Saddam and invaded Iraq I don't think that attack would have happened in Spain.

There would almost certainly have been other terrorist attacks elsewhere.

Just as there are going to be more terrorist attacks in the coming years on the UK and the US, of that I have, sadly, no real doubt.

Iraq is irrelvent in that context.

Which is largely the argument I have been making to you for the last 2 years which you've claimed is nonsense. As is the idea that the "flypaper" of Iraq will make the rest of the world safer.

Iraq has been a costly (in money and military material resources) detour on the road to dealing with criminals who commit acts of mass murder.

Posted by Dave at March 15, 2004 06:12 AM

One suspects that if Saddam Hussein were still in power (And why people would wish this were so, I have no idea. I suppose Lindroos would have opposed America's war against Hitler, seeing as the Nazis did not attack Pearl Harbor.), Al Qaeda would still be commiting terrorist outrages like 9/11 (which took place before the liberation of Iraq) and 3/11 in Madrid. Al Qaeda's beef is with Western Civilization itself, believing that it threatens the purity of Muslims by it's very existence.

Of course rejecting craven appeasement does not entail nuking everybody. That's a stupid, silly strawman. It does mean, however, facing reality and standing up to terrorists and the countries (like Iraq when it was under the Baathists) that support them.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at March 15, 2004 06:15 AM

This is not as clear-cut as you make it sound. The main reason the PP lost the election was their attempt to use the terrorist attack for the elections by blaming it on eta even when they had more and more information indicating al qaida. A government that tries to use a horrible terrorist attack to manipulate an election does not deserve to be reelected.

Unfortunately the only way to punish the PP was to vote for the socialist party. I am not happy with the result, but the way the PP handled this was really disgusting.

Posted by Rüdiger Klaehn at March 15, 2004 06:21 AM

> Of course rejecting craven appeasement does not
> entail nuking everybody. That's a stupid, silly
> strawman.

Oh, I knew my argument would be too subtle for you to understand it. I simply wanted to point out two extreme points (unlimited "appeasement" versus unlimited aggression regardless of the consequences) in order to explain to Rand, that the optimal strategy probably resides somewhere in the middle.

Whether Saddam Hussein was "evil" is not the issue: the issue is how to combat Muslim extremism. As Dave correctly explains, Iraq has been a costly distraction. It has already cost hundreds of billions, it turned Muslim public opinion against the United States, it has badly fractured NATO and it has further inflamed the partisan divide between Republicans and Democrats. Precisely the things a smart President trying to extinguish Al Qaeda would want to avoid, at all costs.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 15, 2004 06:31 AM

One suspects that if Saddam Hussein were still in power (And why people would wish this were so...

I didn't see Marcus or anybody else say they wished Saddam was still in power. To infer that they did is incorrect.

I have huge issues with the fact we went after Saddam in the way that we did.

I am not happy with the result, but the way the PP handled this was really disgusting.

Indeed. Reeked of opportunism from the get go. They knew that they would walk the election on an anti-ETA vote, but would be kicked out on the basis of how they ignored popular opinion over Iraq.

The mistake that Al-Q could make is assuming that the Spanish model fits the UK or US, where I suspect it would backfire completely.

Posted by Dave at March 15, 2004 06:32 AM

I agree that it wasn't that clear cut, Rüdiger--we can't conclude that Aznar's government lost because of the bombing. After all, the Iraq policy was unpopular before the bombing. The tragedy is that, while the government might have lost in any event, the Islamacists (and others) will now conclude that they were the triggering event, and it will embolden them in Britain, Italy, perhaps even Poland and, yes, the US.

Marcus, you remain sadly confused, as revealed by your miswording. We didn't "declare war on an Islamic nation." Iraq was not an Islamic nation. It was an Islamic people held hostage by secular thugs.

The reality is that we finished a war started over a dozen years ago by an illegitimate secular crime syndicate called the Ba'ath Party, one that was enslaving an Islamic nation, and we liberated the people of Iraq. In addition, despite the continuous denial on opponents of that action, that was one of the justifications for the war beforehand. Had we followed your (and Dave's) advice, the Iraqi people would continue to live in terror. And do you really, really believe that leaving Saddam in power would have made us safer?

Compared to all the dire pre-war warnings of the opponents, the Iraqi liberation has been a tremendous success. It's a tragedy that the Spanish people have decided that appeasement is the solution. They'll continue to feed the crocodile in the (ultimately vain) hopes that it will leave them alone.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 15, 2004 06:39 AM

Had we followed your (and Dave's) advice, the Iraqi people would continue to live in terror. And do you really, really believe that leaving Saddam in power would have made us safer?

Who on Earth is saying that the only option was to leave Saddam in power? Rand, you're creating a strawman to support your argument.

I can think of and have suggested to you dozens of things we could have done to make us safer. Sadly the course of action we took left us no safer or possibly worse off. Marcus comments on this too.

Compared to all the dire pre-war warnings of the opponents, the Iraqi liberation has been a tremendous success.

Which warnings?

So far my warnings are looking pretty good. Do we have a messy terrorist war internally? Check. Regular deaths of colliation forces? Check. Potential civil war between Sunni and Shi'ite? Check. Friction with Turkey over the Kurds? Check.

Only thing I thought is at least we'd find some WMD and not screw up the police transition.

Apart from that, it looks like a mess to me. And in the time we've been buggering around with Iraq, we've let NATO fall apart, Afganistan still has trouble with the Taliban and globally terrorism has increased not decreased since 9/11.

It's a tragedy that the Spanish people have decided that appeasement is the solution.

This isn't really the case. Looking at the available data, if it had been ETA then the PP would have got a massive majority and carte blanc to do what they needed to do to take out the terrorists. Hardly appeasement to me.

The problem remains is a government rejected the request of its people to get involved in a war which they felt did not involve them.

Any government who over rides the will of the people has to be prepared for the consequences. It's what democracy is all about.

Posted by Dave at March 15, 2004 06:56 AM

"The tragedy is that, while the government might have lost in any event, the Islamacists (and others) will now conclude that they were the triggering event, and it will embolden them in Britain, Italy, perhaps even Poland and, yes, the US."

Yes, this is a dangerous precedent. And they will try this again. They won't do it in germany since it is such a convenient save haven. But britain, poland and the US will have to be very careful before the next elections.

The al qaida video really made it totally clear what this is about. They said "you love life and we love death". This war will not stop until every single member of al qaida is dead. I am looking forward to that day.

Posted by Rüdiger Klaehn at March 15, 2004 06:57 AM

I didn't see Marcus or anybody else say they wished Saddam was still in power.

No, they (and apparently you) just wish that we'd followed policies that would have had the effect of keeping him in power. In the absence of any credible alternative plan to remove him, this is meaningless blather. It's very clear that Chirac and Putin were never going to give us permission to do so, no matter how many more months and how many more "inspections" occurred. They had too much at stake in his continued tenure.

If someone needs surgery to remove a tumor, and you oppose the surgery, it's small comfort to the patient that you don't really want them to have a tumor--that it's just that you don't want to take any action to do anything about it...

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 15, 2004 06:58 AM

No, they (and apparently you) just wish that we'd followed policies that would have had the effect of keeping him in power.

Now who is Omniscient Rand?

There was a clear plan. It just didn't fit in with certain parties timescales for things to happen. Would it have kept him in power? Maybe, maybe not. We didn't go down that route so apart from your personal conviction we can't say for sure.

Sometimes surgery can be botched and lead to a metastatsis of the tumour. Currently happening to a friend's girlfriend (and not thanks to the NHS either, she lives in the US).

Sometimes a round of chemo followed by surgery can be more effective.

Posted by Dave at March 15, 2004 07:20 AM

Yes, a clear plan to keep him in power, since that outcome was in the interest of those who came up with such a "plan." As I said, no credible alternative that would result in his removal has been offered.

And as for your assessment of your own Iraq prognostications, all I can say is that you don't see the glass as half full--you see it as almost empty. I doubt that the Iraqi people, who have just approved a new western-style constitution, who have the most free press in the Arab world, and who no longer live in daily fear of Saddam's thugs, would agree with you. Even if, as Marcus claims, it has enraged the Muslim world against us (I don't really buy it), that is a short-term effect. We're taking a more long-term, "nuanced" strategy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 15, 2004 07:31 AM

Who is the bigger enemy? Islamic radicals or supporters of a cohesive EU?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12233

Why are US oil prices so high? Because Saudi Arabia knows we will use Iraqi oil to leverage Saudi compliance with the War on Terror.

Posted by at March 15, 2004 07:35 AM

There were plenty of alternatives which didn't involve military action last March. I know you didn't agree with them and don't like them, but don't pretend that they didn't exist.

And as for your assessment of your own Iraq prognostications, all I can say is that you don't see the glass as half full--you see it as almost empty.

Indeed.

I doubt that the Iraqi people, who have just approved a new western-style constitution who have the most free press in the Arab world, and who no longer live in daily fear of Saddam's thugs, would agree with you.

I was not aware that the Iraqi "people" had had anything to do with the new constitution, as they have not been able to vote on the thing yet. Nor do we have any idea if after those elections the constitution can stand up to the current internal strife in Iraq. I am reminded that the USSR had a wonderful consitution.

And while the people no longer live in daily fear of Saddam's thugs, they do live in daily fear of terrorist bombs - maybe fewer of them are dying that way but I'm not sure that will make them feel any better. It doesn't make me feel any better I can tell you.

Nor do I suspect the women who are watching their civil rights roll back a half millenia feel better about the fact they have a free press.

Even if, as Marcus claims, it has enraged the Muslim world against us (I don't really buy it), that is a short-term effect. We're taking a more long-term, "nuanced" strategy.

Invading Iraq last March was not "nuanced" - invading Iraq period was a stupid idea and remains a stupid idea.

I'm terribly glad Saddam is gone, but his removal is nothing more than a distraction from dealing with global anti-western terrorism. The real war is still going on in Afghanistan, in the borderlands with Pakistan, in Pakistan itself and a lot of other places.

The fly paper theory of Iraq has been exposed for the nonsense it always was.

Posted by Dave at March 15, 2004 07:43 AM

> > I'm terribly glad Saddam is gone, but his removal is nothing more than a distraction from dealing with global anti-western terrorism. The real war is still going on in Afghanistan, in the borderlands with Pakistan, in Pakistan itself and a lot of other places.

Hee! Hee!

Like a place Bush doesn't want to discuss. But it rhymes with Baubi Barabia.

Posted by at March 15, 2004 08:03 AM

> Had we followed your (and Dave's) advice, the
> Iraqi people would continue to live in terror.

Maybe. Maybe not. In any case, it's almost totally irrelevant to the question of Islamic terrorism which is of direct concern to us all. It was irrelevant before the invasion, that is -- when the idiots currently responsible for U.S. foreign policy created the very situation it claimed in wanted to avoid all along!! We have so far seen no credible evidence of collaboration between the Baathists and bin Laden, but now the latter is almost certainly exploiting the situation for its own gain. Heck -- this is precisely what they were hoping for all along! They get a chance to replace secular Baathist totalitarianism with anarchy, and you are doing the work for them. Priceless.

> And do you really, really believe that leaving
> Saddam in power would have made us safer?

How would it have made you less safe? How many American civilians has Saddam Hussein killed to date, on U.S. soil? Weapons of mass destruction, you say? I was expecting minor caches of chemical weapons by now, but the Americans haven't even managed to find that to date. Collaboration with Al Qaeda? Believe me, if the Administration or Blair's government had found such links they would have revealed them long ago. Apart from Dick Cheney's defiant mutterings (and the occasional unverified conspiracy theory in the WEEKLY STANDARD and other neocon mags), there is nothing.
---
On the other hand, let's assume those 150,000 troops and hundreds of billions of dollars had been devoted to Afghanistan instead. Maybe a little overblown, so let's spend a large fraction of the money on homeland defense since the big concern is those Islamofascists will strike again, after all. Surely would have made you just a teeny bit safer, don't you think? Compared to invading a country which possessed at worst, er, preliminary "WMD program related activities" and wasn't part of the Al Qaeda axis anyway...

> Compared to all the dire pre-war warnings of
> the opponents, the Iraqi liberation has been a
> tremendous success.

I could say the same thing about the rosy neoconservative scenarios which predicted everything would be so easy and wonderful, the grateful Iraqis would all greet the Americans as liberators etc..

A neutral observer probably would describe the results to date as "mixed". If there is a civil war, it will probably break out one or more years after Saddam fell from power. Free speech, grinding poverty and old ethnic grievances can be a deadly combination.

> It's a tragedy that the Spanish people have
> decided that appeasement is the solution.

No necessarily! If the Spanish socialists are smart, they will follow Gerhard Schroeder's example and commit themselves to sorting out the Afghani mess instead. I would move those 1300 troops there instead, where the chances of finding Al Qaeda terrorists remain much greater. Doing so would elegantly address the problem of appearing to be "weak on terrorism" as well.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 15, 2004 09:19 AM

The Spaniards, like many of my fellow Americans, appear to have forgotten that the cause of liberty is a continuous struggle. Liberty is not a thing that you can win in some final battle and are therefore entitled to it forever. The misguided precept of "political correctness" is a symptom of those who think that parsed words and calculated sentiment can counter tyranny as effectively as direct action. The fanatical enemies of liberty are violent men and women who are now openly exploiting the emasculated Western democracies where more attention is paid to silly or inconsequential things like gay marriage, celebrity trials, Academy Awards, or Janet Jackson's "nasty".

My cranky, old professor of American History, H.E. Sterx, used to tell me that we Baby Boomers were going to have real problems taking over the helm of national leadership because: (1)_- We Boomers don't know history (2) We have an attention span of THE PASSION want to filter all content that is delivered to the masses. We prefer to rewrite history and even current events rather than confront reality as it is. Video footage of innocent human beings choosing to leap dozens of stories to their death as opposed to being burned alive was banned out of editor's fears that it was "too upsetting" for viewers. The ulterior motive was to help stem the rising tide of righteous anger and repugnance at the fundamentalist Islamic agenda that is widely embraced across the Middle East.

Outrage against tyranny and a selfless willingness to make any sacrifice to defeat tyrannical forces was once a fundamental American value. One by one, the fundamental values and traditions that form the foundation of previously cherished American values are falling. Some of those old values did die a deserving death in recent years. Social and legal equality for minorities and women are now firmly established. It is unfortunate that the good name of civil rights and equality are being used to forward a more destructive, subtle, and sinister agenda that mounts continuous attacks the foundations of American society. The ultimate target that stands in the way of this malevolent agenda is the most powerful social glue in society is the family. But that is another part of the big story

Posted by Jim McDade at March 15, 2004 09:37 AM

Jim, small point.

"The Spaniards, like many of my fellow Americans, appear to have forgotten that the cause of liberty is a continuous struggle."

Really? The Spanish, unlike your feelow Americans but like my fellow Brits have been living with terorrism for over 30 years.

Had this been their home grown terrorists, the PP would have been re-elected for the hardline stance it has taken against these criminals. The problem remains the public backlash against a government who did something very unpopular and then tried to cover up some potential consequences.

Posted by Dave at March 15, 2004 09:51 AM

I was going to stay out of this one because my position is being admirably represented by Dave and Marcus, but I just want to add one observation and one data point:

> We didn't "declare war on an Islamic nation." Iraq was not an Islamic nation. It was an Islamic people held hostage by secular thugs.

Doesn't matter. What matters is if our actions are perceived as an invasion of an Islamic nation. And this they undoubtedly are.

> I doubt that the Iraqi people, who have just approved a new western-style constitution, who have the most free press in the Arab world, and who no longer live in daily fear of Saddam's thugs, would agree with you.

The person who occupies the office next to mine is married to an Iraqi-American with family still in Iraq. They are all overwhelmingly opposed to the war and the Bush administration.

BTW, the Iraqi people do still live in fear of Saddam's thugs because some of them are now working for the coalition, as documented here.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 15, 2004 10:48 AM

Maybe. Maybe not. In any case, it's almost totally irrelevant to the question of Islamic terrorism which is of direct concern to us all.

You continue to focus on Al Qaeda. I take a smarter, more nuanced view...

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 15, 2004 12:03 PM

The Spanish, unlike your feelow Americans but like my fellow Brits have been living with terorrism for over 30 years.

Not this kind of terrorism. Not the kind that not only wants its own nation, but one that ultimately wants to conquer the world, and is utterly indifferent to human life and in fact revels in the snuffing of it.

And Ron, anecdotes are not statistics. My sister-in-law is an Iraqi with family still in Iraq, and they strongly support US policy and wonder what took so long.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 15, 2004 12:07 PM

Dave, That Spanish government "who did something very unpopular" decided to make a stand while many European nations continue to ignore the increasingly dangerous threat rising in the east.

Iraq was not exactly a warm ally of those fundamentalist fanatics who staged 9/11, but there can be no doubt that Sadaam and Bin Laden viewed each other as, "the enemy of my enemy". Iraq was, and still is a platform for terrorist operations that result in the murder of Americans and other "infidels".

Unfortunately, some nations have a history of preferring to look away in the face of growing threats to peace and freedom. The decade of the 1930s comes to mind.

History also tells us that military force is useful when it comes to stopping Middle Eastern terror. The Muslim Barbary pilots once freely roamed the waters of Europe, capturing ship crews and occasionally even raiding the coast of Britain to capture slaves and kidnap for ransom. In 1815 the United States crushed the Barbary Pirates, a victory that led to treaties ending a history of "tribute payments" to Muslim pirates by the United States. European nations continued paying those bribes and ransoms for years following the US victory.

The now deposed leader of the Spanish government was not taking bribes from Sadaam like some other leaders were. Spain did not sell or loan military to technology to a murderous regime during the weeks leading up to the US led invasion of Iraq. The Spaniards did not serve as an information pipeline to the Iraqi military as the French did when they picked up a piece of intelligence on US activities. Hopefully, all of the dirty laundry will be aired in public very soon.

While Spain's pending withdrawal from Iraq should be viewed as a betrayal, the USA should continue to support the large number of Spaniards who have not been lulled into a false sense of security.

People who think that the terror attacks will stop as soon as the US pulls out of Iraq are the biggest fools on the planet. Hell, the USA could force all of the Israelis to move to New Mexico and this war would not stop. A US pullout would be viewed as a far greater fundamentalist Muslim victory than even 9/11. The attacks following such a pullout will be even bolder and deadlier than 9/11. Bribes and tributes will not satisfy the present day fanatical Muslim pirates. Bin Laden wants one thing- a Muslim planet. As an infidel in the eyes of these maniacal killers, you have two choices: 1- Convert to Islam and follow their leadership. 2- Die.
- Jim

Posted by Jim McDade at March 15, 2004 12:20 PM

> And Ron, anecdotes are not statistics.

I never said otherwise. (Why so many straw-man arguments, Rand?) All I said is that it was a data point. And at the time it was one more data point than anyone else had offered on this particular topic.

But since you mentioned it, I went on a hunt for some real statistics. They're surprisingly hard to find. You can find all kinds of data about what Americans think about the war, but apparently the mainstream media don't think that what the Iraqis think matters much. (Why am I not surprised?)

I was able to find this. Among other things it says "45 percent of respondents believe that "conditions for peace and stability" are improving." One might infer then that 55% of the Iraqi people believe that conditions for peace and stability are not improving.

Here is another interesting tidbit:

Noah Feldman, a New York University law professor and the Coalition Provisional Authority's constitutional law adviser, told the New York Times: "If you move too fast, the wrong people could get elected." Indeed, a poll in October 2003 by the Center for Research and Strategic Studies found that 56 percent of respondents wanted an Islamic Iraq.

And no, that is by no means a comprehensive or balanced review of the literature, but it is more data than anyone else has injected into this discussion.

From Jim McDade:

> People who think that the terror attacks will stop as soon as the US pulls out of Iraq are the biggest fools on the planet.

I dunno. Given recent events I think a case could be made that the people who thought the terror attacks would stop as a result of the U.S. going into Iraq are bigger fools.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 15, 2004 02:40 PM

Given recent events I think a case could be made that the people who thought the terror attacks would stop as a result of the U.S. going into Iraq are bigger fools.

Wow.

And you accuse me of building a strawman?

I'm not aware of anyone who's ever made that argument. You may be, but I'm not. Do you understand the difference between necessary, and sufficient conditions?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 15, 2004 03:04 PM

It seems to me to be a rather cute position to suggest that we should fight one group of terrorists (Al Qaeda) and ignore (or even appease) another group (Saddam's Baathist regime.) In fact it is an inconsistant position. If one is in favor of opposing terrorism (and the states that support it) then one has to support both the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan. If one is in favor of appeasement, then by all means appease both Osama and Saddam.

Not that I would ever recommend the last course. Appeasement never works, as the people of Spain will sooner or later find out.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at March 15, 2004 03:47 PM

So, where does it end? First, French duplicity (or perhaps even complicity) w.r.t. Saddam. Now, Spanish cowardice. Are Western Europeans as a whole REALLY so monumentally naive?

Oh, and to reply to some of Marcus' non-facts from above...

WMD: *EVERYONE*, including the UN, believed that there were *some* WMD. It was always a matter of the quantity and readiness of those weapons that was a bone of contention. Now, that well-known, though hardly well-publicized, fact leads to some very disturbing conclusions. Because one must ask why not even the smallest projected WMD program was found. Given Saddam's means of hiding himself, I'd guess that the reason for not finding anything is NOT that it's too cleverly hidden. So, either the program was moved (to Syria?) or practically the entire program was an elaborate hoax (or some combination). Now, it doesn't help when Cheney still goes around saying "We might still find something.", but it seems pretty conclusive from some of what David Kay found out, that Saddam was pouring money down a very corrupt black hole. ALL the Western intel organizations failed miserably, perhaps because they based much of their conclusions on how much Saddam was spending -- that's how we deduced at least some of what was happening in the Soviet Union. Regardless though, WMD is a non-issue -- there was no reason *at the time of the decision* to believe the WMD was NOT there. Post-facto precognition is simply stupid.

Al-Queda connection: Sorry, but the Brits found the papers that showed the head of Saddam's intelligence service hosted some key Al-Queda folks, including some involved in 9/11. Again, something that the left-leaning, Bush-hating press has chosen to gloss over.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at March 15, 2004 05:46 PM

> Do you understand the difference between necessary, and sufficient conditions?

Do you understand the meaning of the phrase, "I think a case could be made...", and the distinction between that and claiming that something is a fact?

> It seems to me to be a rather cute position to suggest that we should fight one group of terrorists (Al Qaeda) and ignore (or even appease) another group (Saddam's Baathist regime).

I can't decide how to respond to that, so I'll give you my top choices and let you decide:

1. It seems to be a rather cute position to suggest that we should fight one terrorist (Saddam) and ignore (or even appease) another group (the house of Saud).

2. It seems to be a rather cute position to suggest that we should fight one terrorist (Saddam) and ignore (or even appease) another (Kim Jong Il).

3. It seems to be a rather cute position to suggest that we should fight one terrorist (Saddam) while we aid and abet another (Guy Philippe).

4. It seems to me a completely absurd position to suggest that we fight the war on terrorism by deposing a two-bit thug who, although he did brutally oppress his own people (and probably should have been deposed because of that), never presented a credible threat to us.

Take your pick. I really can't decide.

Posted by Ron Garret at March 15, 2004 07:56 PM

That Spanish government "who did something very unpopular" decided to make a stand while many European nations continue to ignore the increasingly dangerous threat rising in the east.

And it did so ignoring the wishing of the people to whom it owes office. For better or worse we live in democracies, Spain barely having 3 decades since being a dictatorship is more acutely tuned to wanting to rein in its leaders than the rest of us.

It was a bad decision, IMHO, but it was understandable and it was what happens when a government ignores the will of the people and tries to cover up the nasty stuff.

Posted by Dave at March 16, 2004 01:51 AM

Nonsense. The end result is no different to the people who live through it. Criminals, for that is what they are, kill innocent people through terrorism.

Pretending anything else devalues the deaths made by people over the last 30 years fighting terrorism all over the world.

Your inference that Al-Q is somehow worst actually plays into their hands. They are as pathetic and ultimately doomed as the IRA and ETA - making them into something special is not what we should be doing.

Posted by Dave at March 16, 2004 01:55 AM

but the Brits found the papers

Sorry, but I'm a Brit and the last people I put much store in at the moment are our intelligence services.

Posted by Dave at March 16, 2004 01:57 AM

If you've been following what's going on in Spain, you'll be aware that popular sentiment was against the incumbent government and that they would likely have lost the election anyway.

Posted by James at March 16, 2004 08:05 AM

Dave,

I'm not the biggest fan of the Western intel services either. However, it's a big difference between erroneous inferences and actually having the documentary evidence and being able to interview people who were there.

Actually, though, even the Al-Queda link isn't terribly important. There was an undeniable connection between Saddam and terrorism -- Saddam's bounties for Palestinian suicide bombers. To me, that alone was enough reason to target Saddam in a World War on Terror.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at March 16, 2004 08:59 AM

Don't forget that the majority of Spaniards supported their government until the bombing injected terror into the electoral process. People voted out of fear of an immediate threat. That election should have been postponed for at least a month. The Spaniards will certainly regret rashly electing that pacifist boob when the Spanish economy begins to falter under a socialist regime.

Iraq was an excellent choice to begin the campaign to suppress terror. Sadaam was a brutal and vocal tyrant. His eventual fate dealt by the hands of "infidel invaders" has a psychological impact on the perpetrators of terror and the leaders of nations who support terror organizations. Those who attempt to break the resolve of the coalition, like the Spanish have done, are only prolonging the misery and killing. Spain's capitulation will inspire more terror and will serve as a recruiting tool for terror groups.

Posted by Jim McDade at March 16, 2004 10:14 AM

Don't forget that the majority of Spaniards supported their government until the bombing injected terror into the electoral process.

That's not quite right. The PP were leading in the polls by around 5% which should have allowed them to form a colalition government, down from the majority they had.

If the bombings had been ETA they would have secured another majority.

The problem was multifold. They had gone against the electorates wishes over Iraq, they were popular for being tough on terrorism.

Trying to hide the potential Al-Q involvement crippled them.

It would have been, perhaps, better globally for them to have postponed the election for 4 weeks. But Spain is a very very young democracy and the people seem to have relished that.

Posted by Dave at March 16, 2004 11:03 AM

Eric,

The problem I have is that in the terms of the real problem (global islamic terorrism) Saddam was second story, at least where attacks that directly effect us were concerned.

He could have, and should have waited. Sure, that would have been dire for the locals but things had been dire for a long time and we lived with it. Millions in that time have died in North Korea, millions are being starved by others - we, as the West, seem to cope. Dealing with the Islamo terrorist should be our priority, top of that list stablising Afganistan properly, dealing with Pakistan and its second hand nuke business, taking out the trash in Saudi etc...

Posted by Dave at March 16, 2004 11:06 AM

Arguing that removing Saddam "could have, and should have waited" because there were other pressing terror threats that should have come first, is a little like arguing that we should cancel the entire space program until there are no longer any Americans living in poverty.

Shall we next resolve to close all firehouses because we can't otherwise afford to hire enough police to completely eradicate crime?

(Note to the logical fallacies fetishists -- this is not a straw man, it's Reducto Ad Absurdum.)

We can, and should, do address many threats simultaneously, and the response to each threat should be calculated and proportional. To imagine that our resources are stretched so thin that we must choose to do only one thing at a time is absurd. To imagine that every threat requires an equal and identical response is equally absurd.

Next, I suppose you'll be warning me not to chew gum until I've finished walking...

Posted by Jay Zilber at March 16, 2004 12:18 PM

Dave,

WRT Al-Q, Saddam may have been 'second tier', but in terms of a "legitimate" gov't openly supporting Jihadist terrorism and thumbing its nose at the rest of the world, Saddam was near the top.

I'd differ with you on the whole concept of "attacks that directly effect us". ALL Jihadist attacks fall under that category, regardless of whether they occur on US territory or whether they are even targeted at Americans. As I said, this is a WORLD WAR against terror (with a heavy initial focus on Jihadist terror) and it must be fought as such. When you think of things this way, where many would've had us spend many years nibbling at the edges, taking down Iraq is actually a bold drive into the core. It removes a major source of funds for the Palestinian Jihadists AND provides a very different geopolitical picture when we try to get Iran engaged in the WMD discussion.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at March 16, 2004 01:25 PM

Looks like appeasement really doesn't work. France, which was a tacit allay of Baathist Iraq, is still under threat of terror because some Islamofascists are angry about a school dress code.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at March 16, 2004 03:25 PM

No Jay, it really is nothing like that. There were and are more serious threats to the personal safety of the average American and European at home than Saddam was. Iraq has swallowed whole, a massive percentage of the US Military - I understand that the stretching is so bad at the moment that most of your carrier fleet is now in port undergoing urgent refit work? Not even the US has infinite military resources and fighting something like the war on terror needs to be done more competantly than identifying the bits that look easy and doing them.

Eric: I simply cannot agree with your view. I agree that this is the view the US government has taken. However, I don't think it is backed up by anything other than hollow rhetoric.

Mark: France have always and always will be a target. The problem is not that the French try to appease, but that they do their own thing, often regardless of the consequences to themselves or those around them. Yes - it can be very annoying.

Posted by Dave at March 17, 2004 01:31 AM

>> Don't forget that the majority of Spaniards
>> supported their government until the bombing
>> injected terror into the electoral process.
>> People voted out of fear of an immediate
>> threat.

That's a gross simplification of the Spanish situation. To begin with, voters were supporting Partido Popular DESPITE its involvement in Iraq -- a venture opposed by a staggering 90% according to opinion polls. That was a major reason why the Socialists were within a few percentage points only a few days before the election, although the Spanish economy was booming.
---
What settled Aznar's fate was he immediately launched a coordinated and cynical effort to misdirect public suspicion against ETA. He reportedly made personal calls to several Spanish papers to state the government was totally convinced ETA were the culprits. Or as liberal blogger Josh Marshall puts it: In other words, faced with a great national tragedy, the government tried to deceive the public in order to achieve a political end...

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 17, 2004 03:42 AM

Nonsense. The end result is no different to the people who live through it. Criminals, for that is what they are, kill innocent people through terrorism.

Pretending anything else devalues the deaths made by people over the last 30 years fighting terrorism all over the world.

The end result of being gassed in concentration camps is the same as someone who dies in a car wreck. Trying to make it into something special was not what we should have been doing.

...

Your blindness to the ambition of the Islamacists is breathtaking.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 17, 2004 07:10 AM

Dave said:

"Eric: I simply cannot agree with your view. I agree that this is the view the US government has taken. However, I don't think it is backed up by anything other than hollow rhetoric."

I guess I fail to understand what there is to disagree with. What "hollow rhetoric" are you talking about? The only hollow rhetoric I've heard are from the folks who still somehow cling pitifully to the belief that we should be pursuing terrorism as a crime problem (which I don't think YOU are espousing; I believe your point is the relative prioritization in taking Saddam out early in the World War). It is a *fact* that any terrorism, anywhere, against anyone, impacts us. The enemy must be confronted by a united front and know that all Jihadism, regardless of target, will be met with the sternest resistance. And all governments must know that ANY support for Jihadism means that they forfeit any continued right to govern their particular nation and are subject to removal at any time. Regardless of any other point, it is undeniable fact that Saddam supported (financially and materially) Jihadists in their terrorism and Saddam has paid the price.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at March 17, 2004 09:38 AM

> WMD: *EVERYONE*, including the UN, believed
> that there were *some* WMD. It was always a
> matter of the quantity and readiness of those
> weapons that was a bone of contention.

Of course it was... My point before the war started was that Saddam had a history of using chemical weapons against his local enemies, but that there was no credible evidence any of it posed a threat to the West. Nuclear weapons and long range missiles would be a problem, but he was a long way from getting both (although some medium range ones were in the pipeline). In any case, Saddam was running a nation state (already weakened, BTW) which meant he had a return address and therefore was constrained by "unilaterally assured destruction" by Western weapons of mass destruction. Note that Saddam was captured alive and did not commit seppuku, Palestinian suicide bomber-style. This suggests he would have been as unwilling to use his non-existent weapons of mass destruction against Americans as Stalin & Mao were; two individuals arguably as cruel and paranoid as he was. I therefore proclaim the "rogue state madman" theory dead and buried. If having 1500 nukes deterred the communists, it should be even more effective against Third World dictators who cannot even shoot back.

Islamic terrorism and WMDs would of course be a different story (=Al Qaeda indeed wants to kill as many as they can, and they don't have a return address). The Administration therefore had to prove a connection. We know Saddam financed some Palestinian suicide bombing activities in Israel, but he was doing far less than Iran & Syria in this regard. If this is supposed to be a war on terrorism, why not at least begin with nations primarily responsible for promoting it? The Taliban were of course an excellent choice in this regard, but Saddam...? Eric mentions some papers showing "the head of Saddam's intelligence service hosted some key Al-Queda folks, including some involved in 9/11. Again, something that the left-leaning, Bush-hating press has chosen to gloss over." Is this memo the centerpiece of "Shrub's" reelection campaign, then? Seems like the kind of document he desperately needs to find! If the Administration isn't using it, it might be just another forged document produced by Iraqis trying to make a dollar or two.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 18, 2004 12:19 PM

> The Spaniards will certainly regret rashly
> electing that pacifist boob when the Spanish
> economy begins to falter under a socialist
> regime.

This is pretty inaccurate as well. Spain was doing very well under the Socialists in 1979-96 before a series of corruption scandals forced them out of office. But economic stagnation wasn't the issue, as I remember.

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 18, 2004 12:26 PM

> The only hollow rhetoric I've heard are from
> the folks who still somehow cling pitifully to
> the belief that we should be pursuing terrorism
> as a crime problem.

And why not? How would you recommend dealing with ETA and IRA if not as a "crime problem?"

Regarding Islamic terrorism, we are dealing with a loose and autonomous international network of individuals receiving a significant part of their income from criminal activities as well as support from ordinary Moslems rather than some "rogue state" madman leader. Their weapons are hijacked airliners, ordinary explosives stuffed into backpacks and other relatively conventional stuff. They are everywhere and nowhere. Can we make things harder for them? Of course we can! We can train more FBI, M5 etc. agents who speak Arabic, we can put more guards at airports and train stations, attempt to stem the flow of money from the "Arab street", the Western nations can pool their intelligence resources to better track and monitor suspected terrorists cells within its Islamic immigrant community etc.. Lots of minor things that will not cost *that* much although many unfortunately will reduce personal freedom. But they will still all be required if we choose to pursue a provocative "strong horse" policy in the Middle East anyway. So why not save a lot of money by using military force only in clear-cut cases such as Afghanistan, which *did* serve as a training camp for the 9/11 bombers...?

Note, also, that the terrorist problem most likely will not disappear for a long time even in the unlikely event that Iraq becomes a peaceful "beacon of freedom and democracy" overnight. These days, ETA is about little more than organized crime after the Spanish government pretty much granted economic and cultural autonomy to the Basque regions. Like IRA, they keep fighting because that is what they have always done. So I expect Al Qaeda-like organizations to be a factor in the West for decades to come regardless of what we choose to do in the Middle East. I do not despair, though -- terrorism is nothing new and it can undoubtedly be minimized by conventional means.

Obviously, the odds will improve if we can change anti-Western perceptions in the Arab world. The pro-war side thinks "democratic imperialism" is the best option, but I believe a mutual policy of non-interference would be more realistic. Let's reduce our commitments in the region (which has little of value except for oil) while making it harder for people from the Middle East to move here. Why ram our "values" down the throats of people who tend to strongly reject them even when they are living in the West!! Mohammed Atta was studying in Germany after all, and the Islamic immigrant communities in Europe remain supporters of terrorism. If the naive neoconservative vision were correct, surely these people (and the millions who have access to satellite TV) would embrace Western secularism, sexual equality and other things?

MARCU$

Posted by Marcus Lindroos at March 18, 2004 01:00 PM

MARCU$ quote #1:
"My point before the war started was that Saddam had a history of using chemical weapons against his local enemies, but that there was no credible evidence any of it posed a threat to the West."

BZZZT! Wrong! (Unless your definition of credible evidence would be dead bodies, at which point it's kinda late...) Did he have the means to deliver? Yes. (Hint: missiles aren't the only way of delivering chem/bio, just as they are quite obviously not the only way to deliver high explosives. For reference, just ask any number of Japanese subway riders from a few years back.) Did he have the motive? Absolutely. Luckily, Saddam never took the opportunity. And, having access to a range of organizations that would've been quite willing to strike the West, your whole "return address" strawman is thoroughly torched.

As for the incriminating memo, IIRC, that was reported in some of the few European press that aren't part and parcel of the whole "it's so fashionable to be anti-American" leftist thing that seems to be in vogue. If I feel sufficiently motivated, I'll do a little googling, but you can do that as easily. Regardless, your silly assertion that such documentation needs to be a part of the Bush campaign is feeble in the extreme. Saddam supported the Palestinian Jihadist terrorists. Ultimately, the brand of Jihadism he supported is a secondary issue. By your 'logic', the US should only have fought Japan in WWII. They were the only ones to make a substantial attack on the US and were therefore the only credible threat. I daresay, all of Europe would be a much different place...

MARCU$ quote #2:
"And why not? How would you recommend dealing with ETA and IRA if not as a "crime problem?" "

If either organization links up with the Jihadist movement, then they become higher on the target list. You sound like you're buying into the same naive insular thought mode that seems to have infected much of Western Europe as well as the Socialist wing of the US Democratic Party, but this is a WORLD WAR, not some sort of police action. To the extent that law enforcement can act as an arm of that war, well that is, in fact, being done (witness the quick FBI response to this latest car bombing in Baghdad). And the finances are being traced. And military targets of opportunity have been and will be attacked. And diplomacy will be applied (witness Libya). All these (and probably others) are tools that can and must be used to wage the global battle against the Jihadists.

MARCU$ quote #3:
"The pro-war side thinks "democratic imperialism" is the best option, but I believe a mutual policy of non-interference would be more realistic."

This is so laughably naive it's sad, really. It's hard to even begin to parse such a bizarre notion as "democratic imperialism". One of the major highlights of Republican foreign policy over the last 25 or so years has been the dramatic increase in democracies around the world. This wouldn't have happened if we were 'forcing it down their throats'. As for 'mutual noninterference' and 'realistic' in the same sentence, that's an oxymoron in the context of Jihadists and those that support them.

- Eric.

Posted by Eric S. at March 18, 2004 07:12 PM

Eric, sorry for the delay...

it is undeniable fact that Saddam supported (financially and materially) Jihadists in their terrorism and Saddam has paid the price.

Yes he has, but at this point in the war, my argument is that the price is/was too high for us to be paying - especially when there are too many other players who should be dealt with.

Frankly, we should have stablised Afganistan and Pakistan before we got interested in Iraq. Saddam paid a lot of good lip service, but there's little I've seen which convinces me he was anything other than a blood thirsty bafoon with a line in sadistic murder. Based on this week's Economist articles on him I think that position is one the people trying to get useful information out of him are taking.

There are a lot of ways of dealling with a global world wide terrorist problem, and tying up 150,000 soliders for a decade (which is what I'm suspecting we're looking at) isn't a sensible one.

Yes, it would have been reprehensible to leave the Iraqi people at his mercy, but that was something we didn't seem to have a problem with in the 80's or even 90's. So we're not exactly able to take too much moral high ground on getting involved now.

Posted by Dave at March 22, 2004 05:52 AM

Post a comment