It certainly seems so. Spanish voters capitulated to terrorism. One could make a case that it was not in their interest to send peace-keeping troops after the Iraq war or that the Spanish government should not have provided diplomatic support to the U.S. government before, during, and after the war. (No Spanish troops took part in the invasion itself.) But the outcome of the election was a clear signal to al Qaeda. Take the lives of innocent Spaniards just before the election, and the Spanish electorate will vote as you dictate.
The multilateral force in Iraq will be diminished by one country. If anyone thinks that U.N. troops are the answer, remember that the reason that the U.N. is not active in Iraq is that their headquarters was blown up by suicide bombers. Any country contributing troops to a U.N. force would face the same threat.
The election was bad for Spain; it was bad for Iraq; and it was bad for other Europeans, who can expect al Qaeda to be emboldened to more acts of terror on European soil, now that they know that that’s how they can win elections.
We should consider that >90% of the Spanish opposed both the Iraq intervention and Spanish participation in it long before these attacks occured. Last week’s bombings merely increased the percieved cost of such intervention to the level where the electorate decided to punish the ruling party for being out of line with the populace on this issue.
I find it amusing that the state-corporatist party was replaced with an old-fashioned welfare socialist party. I suspect it won’t make any real difference in Spain’s economic development.
What might be interesting is possible U.S. retaliation against Spain for their “treachery.” They might “pay the price for their lack of vision.” Their feeble nation is no match for the power of the United States. The Bush administration might decide to “make an example” of Spain by cutting off economic ties and raising tariffs. Some politicians might even have tragic accidents.
This event shouldn’t affect Iraq much — that country is doomed anyway. The vast amount of foreign aid being funneled into Iraq though the Pentagon Central Planning System will have the same effects that foreign aid and central planning have on any country. The expropriation of Iraq’s natural resources and the transfer of profits to the relevant corporations involved will proceed regardless of Spain’s level involvment.
“Last week’s bombings merely increased the percieved cost of such intervention to the level where the electorate decided to punish the ruling party for being out of line with the populace on this issue.” Let’s think about that: T.J. implies that the cost was somehow already given, rather than being a choice on the part of the terrorists and a choice on the part of the 4% or so of the voters who were swayed by it. It seems more reasonable to say that al Qaeda’s leaders knew what they were doing (that’s why the bombing was just before the election) and the swing voters were swung by it. The outcome: now that the terrorists know that it works, we can expect further attacks in Denmark, Norway, Britain, Italy, Poland, Estonia, Bulgaria, and other countries whose governments are part of the coalition. Whether you supported the war or not, that should be very chilling. Furthermore, it’s worth noting that the videotape mentions Spanish involvement not only in Iraq, but in Afghanistan, as well. The Germans and the French should be watching over their shoulders, too.
>>T.J. implies that the cost was somehow already given.
Certainly people can take action to change the real and percieved costs. Before the terrorist attacks, the population was opposed to the ruling party’s activities in Iraq, but they didn’t think the costs of the intervention were high enough to warrant replacing the current government with socialists. The terrorists decided to raise the costs of cooperating with the US, thus causing >10% of the electorate to switch to the socialists.
I think you are correct that attacks against our feeble European allies would be a reasonable Al-Qaeda strategy. Popular support for the Iraq war is especially shaky in England, making it the obvious next target.
This tactic is likely to be less effective against France or Germany where the majority supports their governments’ opposition to US policy. Attacking French and German civilians might prompt the population into supporting enhanced Mideast intervention. It might even lead to changes in immigration policy, thereby delaying the long-run Muslim subversion of these countries via the “weapon of the womb.”
Further direct attacks against US civilian targets would be very unwise: they would eventually lead to the use of the US nuclear arsenal, with widespread popular support.
>>Whether you supported the war or not, that should be very chilling.
This sort of coercion isn’t particularly new or disturbing. The US has the distinction of being the only nation to have played the terrorism game with nuclear weapons and indiscriminate area bombing. Most US citizens seem to think that was all pretty damn heroic, so why should penny-ante Al-Qaeda attacks generate such a fuss?
It seems like “not letting the terrorists win” would be a bad reason for Spain to proceed with its anti-realist interventionism. Simply continuing to thumb one’s nose at al Qaeda for the sake of it, it seems to me, is a poor national security strategy.
Spanish popular opposition to the Iraq war was heretofore based on a principle; the shift to supporting the socialists took that principle and transformed it into a logic. That logic now runs, “We stuck our nose in a fight that wasn’t ours, and now we’re paying a horrific cost. We should change course.” Or “Aznar chose a course of policy that ran very high risks, along with very high potential rewards. He’s failed to protect us from the risks, the rewards aren’t forthcoming, so we’re throwing him out.” It seems to me that that’s not an altogether unreasonable extension.
As far as the danger of demonstrating that terrorism can change policy, it’s hard to imagine that if Spain had experienced an “unprovoked” attack that it would have simply changed whatever policy was irking the terrorists. Even after 9/11, there was a sense in Spain that taking the fight to aQ WAS, in fact, Spain’s fight, too.
There’s a threshold, I think, over which one isn’t willing to change policy because of terrorism. A policy that Spain apparently is willing to change is its support for elective war; a policy that I imagine even its socialists aren’t willing to change is support for its existence as a state.
Do we really think they’re just packing up and going home? Aren’t they incredibly invigorated to take the fight to whoever attacked them?
Tom,
I respectfully disagree with you — which I hazard doing because of your strong intellect.
But to me, your analysis seems too simple. I, alternatively, hold that the Spanish people voted out of a sense of cause and effect.
Cause: support politicians who support American foreign military aggression. Effect: get bombed by terrorists.
The Spanards voted to end the cause in this relationship in order to prevent further effects.
The only message they sent to Al-Queda was “we don’t want any part of this fight.”
I wish more Americans voted with the same level of good sense.
Justin and Michael have both raised good points. A few remarks are in order, not to settle the discussion, but (I hope) to further it.
1. I think that Justin slightly overstates his case when he suggests that my view is that the Spaniards should simply ‘thumb one’s nose at al Qaeda for the sake of it.’ That’s surely not a position any serious person would advance, and I certainly don’t.
2. Part of my concern is that the strategy that was set out in an al Qaeda document discovered last December has worked. According to the translation on the CNN web site (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/16/spain.invest/index.html), it stated:
“We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it,” the al Qaeda document says.
“If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed — and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto.”
It seems reasonable to conclude that the campaign of al Qaeda was successful and that it will now be carried to other countries, too. It’s a bit like paying off kidnappers. If you do it in one case (and assuming that you can trust them and you do in fact receive back your loved one), you can expect it to happen again to someone else.
What should the Danes, the Poles, the Brits, the Estonians, and others with troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan now think? It should be pointed out that the videotape that was found mentioned both Iraq and Afghanistan. Do Michael and Justin also prefer that there had been no military action against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan? The Germans and the French have troops there, too, as do the Canadians, the Danes, and others. Opposing war withthe Taliban is a position that can be advanced respectably and one I did consider quite seriously when the war against the Taliban was first proposed. I concluded that war was justified in that case. I don’t think it was justified with the Ba’athist regime in Iraq, but that mistake has already been made and cannot now be unmade.
3. I’m not sure what the new Spanish government will do, since they’re hedging their bets. We shall see. What I think is unmistakable and what neither Justin nor Michael addressed, is that we now know for a certainty what al Qaeda is going to do: try to murder more and more Europeans ‘ in subways, on trains, in churches and synagogues, anywhere they can find lots of them. And the results of the Spanish elections have given them plenty of reason to do so. (I should add that I think that Aznar’s defeat was quite awful for other reasons as well, as he was one of the most principled liberals in Europe and was about the only obstacle in the way of the truly horrendous constitution for the European Union that was proposed by the Brussels Eurocrats.)
4. I don’t doubt the truth of what Michael wrote, viz. ‘The Spaniards voted to end the cause in this relationship in order to prevent further effects. The only message they sent to Al-Queda was ‘we don’t want any part of this fight.” I just don’t believe that al Qaeda can now be dissuaded from attacking us or innocents who live in countries whose governments are allied to ours. It’s too late. The jihadists hate us and want to exterminate us completely. Unlike ETA, which would stop killing Spaniards if they were given an independent state, al Qaeda wants us all dead. Indeed, al Qaeda documents and statements have mentioned regaining Spain as a part of the lost ‘ and substantially mythical, in any case ‘ Caliphate, which should make Spaniards wonder if they are in fact going to be removed from the enemies list by pulling troops out of Iraq. I believe that we have reached a point where no policy concession by the U.S. or any other government will dissuade al Qaeda from trying to kill as many of us as they can. I think that that leaves us with one and only one set of options: to capture or kill enough of them that they cannot carry out their plans.
5. Giving in to their demands rewards and encourages terrorists. If you’re going to do something that they also say they want you to do, for God’s sake, find some reason other than ‘We did it because they attacked us.’ That’s what Donald Rumsfeld has done with U.S. troops and bases in Saudi Arabia. They’re gone now, and the reason (very quietly) given was that they’re not needed, now that Saddam Hussein is out of power. Good move. Had the U.S. government said, ‘We took out our troops and bases because we feared another attack from al Qaeda,’ would that have discouraged or encouraged another attack?
>> Giving in to their demands rewards and encourages terrorists.
Yes, it does. This does not NECESSARILY make it unwise.
Was it a mistake for the Japanese to give in to US terrorism? Would it have been wiser to fight to annihilation, “on principle”? The Japanese swallowed their pride, gave in to the demands of the horrific mass murderers, and were allowed to escape with their lives.
Every situation is different of course. Compared to an industrial state, the Al-Qaeda guys are rank amateurs at terrorism, so capitulation might not be efficient.
Again, I don’t necessarily see what the big deal is. Most people love and embrace terrorism, as long as their “side” is the one doing it.
I think you may all be reading this the wrong way. My perception of the days preceding the election in Spain was that a lot of people reacted negatively to what they understood as a deliberate attempt by the Aznar government to mislead them (by attributing the bombing to ETA).
Had the Spanish government handled the communication to the public in a better way and perhaps Rajoy would have been elected (as the polls before the bombing indicated).
As for the EU “constitution”, don’t get me started…
Tom:
1. I know better than to believe that you’d advocate so unsophisticated a policy. I want to recap the assumptions I’m working from before clarifying what I meant, though. We’re assuming that (a) al Qaeda perpetrated this act, that (b) the attack was intended to influence the Spanish election, that (c) it did, by demonstrating to the large majority of the Spanish population that the costs of participating in the Iraq war were higher than the rewards. If all of those assumptions are right, then what WOULD it have been for the Spanish people if they voted for Aznar after the attack? They opposed the Iraq war, they resented the way Aznar handled it, and all of a sudden they got an awful, glaring reminder that there indeed WERE costs to acquiescing to Aznar’s policy. If they turned ’round and decided “Hell, let’s VOTE for him anyway,” what would that have been, if not thumbing their noses at al Qaeda? It just doesn’t make any sense to say “I’ve just seen that the policy I’ve objected to all along has horrific costs — but now I’m going to start SUPPORTING it!”
2. Al Qaeda is much smarter than you give it credit for. If what you’re really asserting is that attacking a country will cause it to pull out of a war /on the people who perpetrated the attacks/, that doesn’t make any sense. The goals of the Spanish attack were very attainable. Cowing even the French into not defending themselves is simply unrealistic, and al Qaeda knows that. From a strategic perspective, it’s unclear to me that this was a good move on their part — a symbolic victory, but one that’s meaningless (indeed, counterproductive) in the West’s war against al Qaeda. It’s worth noting that the French and Germans have troops in Afghanistan right now, rooting around the Pakistan border, searching for Osama bin Laden. In fact, a French commander recently said that they almost got him. If they do, will you exalt the heroic French soldiers and the government that sent them? France, Spain, et al realize quite well that it’s in their interest to round up al Qaeda — that’s why they’re doing it.
I think it’s of the utmost importance to separate 9/11 and Iraq. And that task seems to be getting easier and easier, unless we let al Qaeda make it all into the same thing (which, ironically, both the Bush administration and al Qaeda would like to).
3. Socialists suck. The EU Constitution sucks. On balance, the regime change in Spain might turn out to suck (though on that point, I’m not certain, but I don’t know enough about Spanish politics to make a sound judgement). None of those points are contested. The point here, though, is that if al Qaeda decides to perpetrate more attacks in Europe, it’s a dumb strategy. In a certain sense unlike the US, the Europeans (particularly Old Europeans) have a lot more resources to devote to the actual War on Al Qaeda. Don’t think for a moment that attacks on them wouldn’t draw out dollars and troops. It’s worth noting here, though, that it was Spain that was attacked — not France or Germany. In that sense, if I were a Spaniard, I would believe that MY country was the target because MY government provided diplomatic cover to the US invasion of Iraq. And I’d be pissed.
4. I’m not certain what this post has to do with the elections in Spain, unless you’re asserting that Iraq was part of the War on Al Qaeda, of which I’m certainly unconvinced. The Socialists have been quite clear that they intend to make war against those who attacked Spain a top priority. I think Spain believes that al Qaeda would like to destroy it, and I think the Spanish people support pursuing those who attack it. That is, they accept the fact that they’ve been sucked into a War on Al Qaeda, but they reject the notion that they had to kick the hornet’s nest that was the Iraqi state.
5. Julian’s post over at Reason points out that it was all of the pro-war pundits and those who claimed that “Al Qaeda won the Spanish elections” who stated the reason. Granted, it was somewhat self-evident, but publishing it on every op-ed page and pro-Iraq-war or Iraq-war-sympathetic blog in America doesn’t help. It seems to me that the idea here is “no matter what, don’t give in to the demands of terrorists.” What if the policy the terrorists are demanding is a desirable policy, for different reasons? Israel hasn’t given in to the demands of terrorists — it hasn’t gotten them very far. TJ’s tone is off-putting to me, but he raises a good point: At what point do you call a War off? Spain hasn’t called off the War on Al Qaeda, but it has, apparently, called off the War in Iraq. Why was that a bad thing, other than being the same thing as what the terrorists wanted? If the terrorists blew something up and said “stop funding your crazy state schools, or we’ll be back!” would we stop supporting the privatization of the school system? This was a similar conundrum after 9/11 (libertarian foreign policy types had been saying for eons “take troops out of the Middle East, call off the Iraq embargo, stop the silly, one-sided negotiating on behalf of Israel…et cetera.” I agree that it’s difficult to accept that the right policies happen to be the ones that the terrorists are advocating. But at some point, you’ve got to pull the plug on a failed policy. Again, al Qaeda /doesn’t doubt at all/ that the Spanish are going to be coming after the terrorists who attacked Madrid.
All,
I am quite amazed that Mr. Palmer has taken such a beating for his simple assertion:
The election was bad for Spain; it was bad for Iraq; and it was bad for other Europeans, who can expect al Qaeda to be emboldened to more acts of terror on European soil, now that they know that that’s how they can win elections.
I certainly acknowledge, as Justin and others have noted, that there was widespread popular opposition to the war in Iraq, and I will even admit that Iraq and Al Qaeda may be only tenuously related, therefore, the election may have accomplished the heartfelt goals of the Spanish people–but the knee jerk reaction to terrorism indicated by the election hysteria in Spain is both frightening and unquestionably linked directly to the attacks of 3/11.
Justin notes:
It seems to me that the idea here is “no matter what, don’t give in to the demands of terrorists.” What if the policy the terrorists are demanding is a desirable policy, for different reasons?
What if it is?! Who cares?! A lot of Amish may have considered the unibomber’s rant against technology justifiable and productive, but very few of them used his violence as a catalyst for their self-interested social change. Tim McVeigh may have had good reasons for hating the ATF (see Ruby Ridge my libertarian friends) but nobody in the NRA came out to say, “You know, maybe the guy had a point.”
Certainly, elections should proceed according to the will of the people, and in Spain, the people have spoken, specifically on an issue about which they are rather unified (opposition ot involvement in Iraq). But to think that this demonstration of the efficacy of terror in affecting policy will not have wider repercussions in Europe and America and denigrate the worldwide effort to fight terror and establish random violence as an unjust (and ineffective) tool for social change is absurd and naive!
These people are not American political spin-doctors. These acts were not an ad campaign, an admirable show of Thoreau-like civil disobedience, or fodder for theoretical observation. They were the malicious and hateful acts of cowards who have been lured into the belief that their hatred and violence will bring them paradise. It is tragic, but it is real, and the simple fact of the matter is that 3/11 changed the course of an election. Period. Whatever the reason for the change in that election, good or bad theoretically, it was stupid because now Al Qaeda has made headway. Flying planes into the Twin Towers got them war (in Afghanistan) which, in their masochistic ways, may mean a greater final reward, but in the meantime, it has meant a lot of running. Good. Bombing trains in Spain got them a more pacifistic regime (or, by appearances, seems to have done just that). In the aftermath of World War I, Europe had every reason to oppose war as Hitler rose to power, and, certainly, they were more concerned with the carnage inflicted by the first world war than they were the xenophobic and deplorable rhetoric of the fuhrer. Nonetheless, they gave way, and Hitler (and others) took every time they gave. The enemy is new. The tactics are different. But the logic is the same. The appearance of weakness to an enemy who wants nothing more than your death only encourages further action and grants hope to the cause.
I personally have faith that were Britain (or even France) attacked now in the aftermath of Madrid, the response would be quite different. I think those countries would respond without hesitation much as we did in 2001 (where possible), and I agree that Spain and others, while withdrawing from Iraq, will (hopefully) continue to root out terror where it lies. But the simple assertion:
The election was bad for Spain; it was bad for Iraq; and it was bad for other Europeans, who can expect al Qaeda to be emboldened to more acts of terror on European soil, now that they know that that’s how they can win elections.
Is undeniably true!! The violence of these people, unlike the Basques, knows no bounds. They are not freedom fighters, they are deluded, hateful, autocrats and even the appearance of concession is inexcusable. The Socialist Party, if it has any good sense, will come out quickly with a denouncement of these acts uncouched by a criticism of anyone else’s policies, and it should be followed by a swift attempt to bring justice to those who perpetrated them. Iraq may be a subject for debate. What happened in Spain, both in Madrid and on election night is saddening and disheartening.
John writes:
“I am quite amazed that Mr. Palmer has taken such a beating for his simple assertion”
If Mr. Palmer took a beating, it was _because_ it was a simple assertion.
The message that the Spanish election sent may have been marginally counterproductive in the fight against terrorism – but for the most part this remains to be seen. That the Spanish didn’t believe in the connection between fighting terrorism and the war in Iraq is nothing new.
The message was also one sent to the Aznar government: (more than one, actually)
1.) Better come up with _really_ good reasons for following a policy opposed (in varying degrees) by almost 80% of the population.
2.) Please don’t lie to us about terrorism. Immediately blaming ETA was a stunt not forgiven by the swing voters.
I am almost convinced that a government that brazenly lies to the public is worse for democracy and ‘the greater realm of things’ than either 500 Spaniards in Iraq or probably even the _message_ of removing those 500 Spaniards.
The actual removal, should it ever come to it, may well be conducted parallel to a high-profile anti-terrorism policy/stunt etc. of the Socialist Government. They, too, know how their victory might look – and they probably don’t want to be known as the “Chamberlain” victors… or “Terrorism-appeasers”.
best,
Jens F. Laurson
So if Al Qaeda attacks the US before the election, or suppose it gives a verbal endorsement to John Kerry, does that mean voting against Bush is appeasement?
I suppose that I could have written a much longer post, but this one certainly generated a fair amount of thought, which can’t be all bad.
My main point was a simple one. The question is not how I might parse the causal relations surrounding the terrorist attack, the vote, and the announced intentions of the new Spanish government, but how will the leaders and foot soldiers of al Qaeda parse it. I think that that’s pretty easy to figure out, especially considering that their plan was announced beforehand (see above). They certainly think it worked. And if they think that it worked, what impact should we expect it to have on them? I think that’s easy, too. They will be more likely to launch terrorist attacks in other countries with troops in Iraq (OR IN AFGHANISTAN, which was also stated as a cause of the attack in the video released afterward). As Rudyard Kipling put it in his poem (easily found on-line),
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
Andy asks (reasonably enough), “So if Al Qaeda attacks the US before the election, or suppose it gives a verbal endorsement to John Kerry, does that mean voting against Bush is appeasement?” No, it need not, unless you’ve cast that vote because you’ve been intimidated by terrorists. In which case, it is appeasement. One might say, “Well, those Spaniards who seem to have changed their votes *really* were angry because they thought they were misled,” but even in that case, they have still sent a signal that al Qaeda has interpreted as a victory for them. And that means that they’ll do it again….and again.