delete
[quote=“Au”]Spain doesn
delete
I was highly pleased with the result of the Spanish election, and cheered at the news that the Spanish forces will be withdrawn from Iraq. Your compatriots have made a very good decision, Au, and your new Prime Minister is already proving worthy of the trust that you’ve placed in him.
No-longer-so-Teflon-coated Tony must be quaking in his boots at the news. I forecast his impending downfall on the day that the invasion of Iraq began. Now it is looking more certain than ever. My only misgiving about this is that British Prime Minister Howard may prove to be no better than his Australian namesake.
Howard’s never going to get into power in Britain. He’s the worst kind of opportunist, and voters can’t identify with him. He was generally loathed when in Major’s government. He’s a man who knows his time is running out because of his age, too.
politicians who’ve won on anti-bush platforms haven’t had particularly good track records the last few years. usually the anti-bush/anti-american rhetoric just serves to paper over their own shortcomings. we’ll see how the new spanish pm does. only time will tell…
delete
AU:
Well we must leave off to agree to disagree. This is like Poland declaring neutrality during WWII. Great idea if everyone agrees to it. It’s not like the US wants to go to war, but what are the alternatives? Do you have any? Should we stop fighting al Qaeda? And really what does al Qaeda bombing have to do with Iraq? Now, if Iraqis were bombing trains in Spain you would have a point, but they are not and the al Qaeda is made up of primarily Muslims and Arabs from OTHER countries. So what does this say? And how is it related actions taken in Iraq? Al Qaeda says it does not like Spain because you kicked out the Muslims in 1492. How are you going to reason with people like that? Move out to let them have Spain and Portugal back? Regardless of the action in Iraq, the problem is you won in 1492 and they have not forgotten it. This will not go away. Put your heads in the sand if you want. It is precisely this kind of behavior that has made Americans like me so contemptuous of European diplomacy and policies. When it comes to the heavy lifting, Europeans look away and pretend that such concerns are caused by American actions. Why do you think that France despite all the anti-Iraq war rhetoric is so busy helping America try to track Saddam down in Afghanistan. Admittedly, they are French so they have let him slip away quite a few times… 
The obvious point you’re so strenuously and ingenuously missing, Fred, is that attacking and occupying Iraq not only serves absolutely no valid purpose in combatting or ridding the world of al Qaeda, but actually bolsters their cause by sowing such anger and hatred among Moslems worldwide that they and their fellow terrorist organizations can reap a vast harvest of new recruits to carry out an almost unlimited number of their bloody missions.
If the US had devoted its massive resources to working together with other countries to combat al Qaeda and like-minded terrorist groups cooperating with it, rather than manufacturing flagrantly deceptive grounds for satisfying the Bush family’s personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein, then the world would now be a much safer place, and it is more than likely that the Madrid bombings and many other such atrocities perpetrated at diverse locations around the world would never have happened.
The question is, did Bush’s pursuit of Saddam Hussein’s deposition cause al Qaeda resources to flow to Iraq ( Bush’s argument, and thus fred smith’s argument as well), or did it allow AQ to expand (your argument, Omni, if I may put sum up, as well as Hans Blix’s) its resources via recruitment?
That is, if al Qaeda operated on n fronts before Bush attacked Iraq, does it now operate on n fronts, with an operational focus in Iraq that’s resulting in a shrinking of its resources? (as Rumsfeld, among many others in the Bush administration, believe) That’s one of the justifications for the war used by the Bush administration - among a virtual smorgasbord of others, take your pick - that the war in Iraq acted to concentrate AQ resources so that they could be confronted by the US military, and defeated in a series of upfront battles. The Bush administration argues that one result of Iraq was a major tactical victory over the threat presented by AQ, resulting in increased coalition security (in fact, since UN resolutions were used to justify the war on legal grounds, imo Bush argues that Iraq resulted in increased world security at the cost of al Qaeda resources).
Or did our little game in Iraq allow AQ to make Spain its (n + 1) front? That’s my view: Iraq was a diversion in the War on Terror, and any new AQ attacks may be a direct result of Bush’s unilateral war on Iraq, a red herring away from al Qaeda and thus unnecessary. (ok, trilateral with the UK and Spain)
In my opinion, the ideology of the Bush administration, its needless war in Iraq, actually diminished world security. Not only did it starve the hunt for AQ leadership in Afghanistan, it also likely proved fertile in AQ’s growth.
(Bracketed comments are my replacement of Omni’s own, done quite presumptiously by me, I freely admit).
I agree with you Omni. There’s a recent speech by Zbigniew Brzezinski that I think sums this all up well; Brzezinski has also written a new book, The Choice: Global Domination or Global Leadership, that I am going to have to read soon, based solely on its title.
Soft power is much harder than hard power, imo, and that puts me in direct conflict with my president. After all, the inspection regime in place in Iraq, coupled with UN economic sanctions, succeeded in effectively stunting Saddam Hussein’s pursuit of WMD, despite Bush administration protestations to the contrary - protestations that were nurtured, kept alive, and embellished in the face of contrary analysis, resulting in stovepiped military intelligence and, ultimately, an illegal war.
I think this comment from Martin Kettle sums up a universal human truth in the 21st century, particularly apt with respect to terrorism:
[quote=“Martin Kettle”]…The truth is that people want to close their minds to the dangers if they can, but they will be quick to blame the government if things go wrong that they think were avoidable. That is what happened in Spain. …
guardian.co.uk/spain/article … 90,00.html[/quote]
But I think that 2 political decisions were actually proximate to the election outcome:
[ul]1. The Aznar government apparently decided to hang the blame for the bombings on the ETA, despite evidence that Muslim terrorism was behind them. In fact, Aznar’s government had already arrested 5 suspects with links to al Qaeda, yet continued to publicly insist that ETA was responsible.
- The Socialists got wind of the arrests and decided to announce them, forcing Aznar’s government to admit that it blamed ETA but arrested al Qaeda members. This was easily avoidable, and - coupled with Aznar’s decision to support Bush in Iraq (also easily avoidable) - the ousting of Aznar was the quite logical result[/ul]
[quote=“Newshour”]NICOLAS CHECA: Margaret, I really think what the key issue here is the handling or mishandling of public information in the 48 hours after the tragic events of last Thursday. I think it bears mentioning that the election was a statistical dead heat, according to public polls the morning of the tragedy on Thursday morning well within the margin of error, one or two points. And it was really not until Saturday evening, as Keith in your set-up shared with us, that the government decided to come forward with information as to the arrest of these five suspects linked to al-Qaida.
As an example, it took a personal call from Prime Minister Elect Zapatero to the interior minister, the Spanish homeland security secretary, informing him that the Socialist Party was aware of the arrest and that he was prepared to move forward with that information. It took that kind of information to get the current government to come forward and announce to the country at large that in fact it was not the ETA lead that would generate success down the road in the investigation, but rather the al-Qaida route.
MARGARET WARNER: So you’re saying it more than just a public suspicion that they were withholding information, in fact the Zapatero campaign had to essentially pressure the government to release this information?
NICOLAS CHECA: Precisely. Yet there was a report earlier in the afternoon on Saturday coming out of Spanish intelligence agency saying that they were 99 percent confident that ETA was not responsible for the attacks and that all the avenues of the investigation pointed into al-Qaida.
In the early afternoon after the arrests had already been made, the director of the Spanish CIA denied those reports and it was after that that the campaign manager for the Zapatero campaign had to come forward and basically inform public opinion that there was information that was not being shared with the population.
One quick point:
Al Qaeda was around a long time before Bush. I would argue therefore that unless Iraqis are flocking to the movement that Bush’s action in Iraq will lessen terrorism in the region. ARE IRAQIS joining al Qaeda? I don’t see that.
Second, the best way to fight terrorism is to give people hope and that is not going to occur when you have someone like Saddam in Iraq. We had to take him out. We had to remove our troops from Saudi Arabia and we could not do that as long as Saddam was still in power. We now have a nation that is contributing to the region as opposed to being cut off from it. We also have lost the public relations black eye of imposing sanctions on the poor, hapless Iraqi people.
The question then becomes one of whether al Qaeda had cells in Spain BEFORE the Iraq invasion. I think that is has been amply proven that it did and this was BEFORE the Spanish support of the Iraq invasion so how does this gel?
We must take a hard stance against Islamofascism. We must remove all of the hydras heads and that means on to Syria and Iran. Once those “priorities” are out of the way, we can put even more pressure on friends such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaidzhan to reform and who is really going to lose out in this situation? No one. Who will benefit? Those who want democracy and respect for human rights and this is why I have such a difficult time understanding why those on the Left who claim to care about this things so much at home do not understand that finally, they have gotten the Conservatives’ attention and we are willing to work with them on this albeit from different motives (security and economic stability). This is a win-win situation that all of us should be working toward. Not supporting reform in the Middle East as Bush is pushing is akin to saying that the status quo: dictatorships where women and minorities and gays and all the other pet causes so beloved of the Left do not matter when brown people are involved as opposed to white? developing countries as opposed to developed? What? Explain this to me if I am somehow not smelling what the Left is shoveling.
Finally, how has recruitment for a quasireligious organization like al Qaeda picked up? I would argue the opposite. These people were already around and now recruitment is down. Why? Because previously, with its greatest success being 9-11, al Qaeda racked up success after success. God was clearly and demonstrably on its side. The purity of its actions, the zealousness of its faith, etc. etc. so people flocked to it. Now, it has suffered a string of losses from Afghanistan to Iraq to rounding up 2/3rds of its leadership to Libya caving and then people must wonder if God is truly on the al Qaeda’s side why they are losing so much so fast. Everyone likes a winner and that ain’t al Qaeda, but it had 20 years to recruit and train and educate (poison) minds and we are only just beginning to go into start pulling weeds. This will take time. Don’t kid yourselves but the craven cowardly actions of the Spanish prime minister are NOT the way to win this fight, but might I add, I really expect so very little from European leaders these days that I cannot be inspired to contempt. Typical.
i don’t doubt that there is a fine line to walk. invading saudi arabia would be a grave error since it houses Mecca, and would give al qaida the very reason it needs to incite a true holy war, despite the fact that this country harbors many terrorist elements as well as probable sources of funding.
in one sense, I can understand why Iraq as a target is logical. saddam was the bully of the region and the one with the most obvious ambitions and thus very predictable, but dangerous. syria i would also regard as a country in serious need of some buttwhooping. i don’t know enough about the current state of iran (you say the “moderates” are not real moderates, I don’t know one way or the other).
First, Syria and then Iran. Once we have taken those two out (say in the next two to three years) we will have more time to spend visiting our friends in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Azerbaidzhan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, et al to share our concern for the lack of progress toward democracy and human rights, but until then, there are bigger fish to fry and it this doesn’t seem to be consistent, tough, that’s the way it has to be.
[quote=“fred smith”]One quick point:
Al Qaeda was around a long time before Bush. I would argue therefore that unless Iraqis are flocking to the movement that Bush’s action in Iraq will lessen terrorism in the region.[/quote]
Why do you limit membership to this club to Iraqis exclusively?
Doesn’t mean it’s not happening.
Why did we have to “take him out” immediately? Why unilaterally? No one is arguing that removing Saddam was wrong. The error came in the timing of it: it was done before al Qaeda was finished and before the UN approved.
Too early to tell.
Careful, your “empathy” may give you away! [I propose that Forumosa needs a new icon: crocodile tears]
Good point. I am not aware of the “proof,” but I’ll grant its truth anyway, for the purpose of your argument here only (however, I must point out that the Moroccans arrested seemed to be undertrained. After all, they left behind a cell phone by which they were identified. Might this be due to their green-ness as terrorists? New hires, as it were?). The question remains: did Bush’s game in Iraq weaken or strengthen al Qaeda?
To use one of your pet cliches, fred smith, this will take time, time to determine whether AQ is shrinking or growing. Let’s give it 2 years or so, ok?
Yet:
Why did the Bush administration take the second-best way to defeat Islamic extremism, then?
Soft power trumps hard power when the ultimate goal is nation-building.
fred smith, by your own argument, then, its “success” in Spain will increase the rolls of al Qaeda. That is, if you’re correct about its alleged decimation to date - a loss for al Qaeda - resulting in a decrease of resources, then a win for al Qaeda will result in an increase, no?
Why do you insist that “time” acts differently for us and terrorists? That is, we need time, but your analysis tends to consistently minimize its significance to terrorists.
If al Qaeda is expanding, it’s drawing sympathizers from outside Iraq, and perhaps some from inside as well. There are lots of Arabs - other than Saudi Wahabis - who have yet to see the benefits of democracy building in Iraq. What they do see, however, is American hard power and American occupation.
For example, what happens if Iraq endures civil war after the CPA pulls out? There are already a number of militias in Iraq, and they’re growing in size by the minute. Do you really doubt that if, say, Sunnis end up being politically second-class (or much worse, if some form of ethnic retribution takes place) to Kurds or Shiites, then some young Sunni sons and daughters won’t join AQ? Do you think it impossible that an American presence in the midst of civil war, ala Israel and Lebanon, won’t add to al Qaeda’s resources?
Flike:
Just two quick points. Sorry I have to keep going back and forth to reread your message.
The Iraqis are the most directly affected. I have great doubt that such issues would have driven the Arab Street otherwise why not more Muslim terrorism against India for occupying Kashmir and against Russia for Chechnya? The issue is not the occupation or the oppression of Muslims but in fighting everything we stand for. If the Iraqis are not signing up for such terrorist efforts and they are the most directly involved with fighting “American oppression” that should tell you something.
Big difference in progress over the past two years rolling up Islamofascism. Compare the appeasement that went on for 30 years before that. We have seen the soft approach to dealing with terrorism and it didn’t work. Soft power will be necessary too but we must make sure that we are not just talking and negotiating and holding dialog but actively and forcibly if necessary pushing that change.
Let me satirize your position.
Rather than have the police actually using weapons to track down criminals, they will hold pr events where children get to play with sirens and thus using soft power convince the criminal elements to see the error of their ways, and voluntarily turn themselves in? I don’t think so. Step on them harder.
As to unilateral. We were not unilateral. Rather the French, Germans and Belgians were. There were more Western democracies signed up with us than with them. Forget about the Middle Eastern dictators.
As to time. How am I arguing that time is different for them and us. The soft power brigade has 30 years to appease. We have had since 911 to do things differently. Compare our progress with the lack of it before and give us five more years and then compare.
Your argument also perhaps mistakenly equates hard power with hard power being poorly directed. I do not see that. Is the US willfully bombing Iraqi cities and indiscriminately killing civilians? NO. IT is Al Qaeda that is doing that so let the true outrage fall where it should on them.
Who says that India or Russia won’t see more terrorism? Evidence of absence does not necessarily imply absence (in obverse to Bush’s position that SH’s inability to produce WMD’s necessarily implied their presence).
How do you know that some Iraqis are not siging up for terrorist efforts? Do you think that all terrorist activities in Iraq come from outside agents?
Well, it didn’t work against the Taliban. In that instance, hard power was necessary to eliminate a state sponsor immediately. That simply was not the case in Iraq.
Agreed.
No, that’s incorrect. Bush’s war in Iraq approached unilateralism.
Gladly.
If anything, I condemn the use of unilateral hard power to build a nation, Iraq. That takes soft power, which the Bush administration has admitted.
Ah but removing Saddam was necessary before anyone could even contemplate using soft power. And to date, it is not the Iraqis that are going to Spain to blow up trains but al Qaeda and they would have done that regardless of Spain’s involvement in Iraq because of the Reconquista 500 years ago! Ditto for al Qaeda’s hatred of Australia. They announced that it came not first and foremost because of Australian support in Iraq but for that nation’s efforts in East Timor!!!
Second, how was the US action unilateral? Count up the allies and note who was against us. France, Germany and Belgium from the civilized world. Sweden, Ireland, Greece, Austria are ALWAYS neutral. And then Russia and China. When we look at the coopting of UN and French and Germany leaders by Iraqi oil contracts then we really have to wonder who had the moral authority on its side no? Eastern Europe and East Asia (for example) were unanimously behind US efforts. Why? I am not including communist China and North Korea nor Muslim Malaysia and Indonesia in the latter.
Sorry but let me bluntly state that I do not give a f*** about how the tinpot leaders of Angola, Cameroon and Guinea feel about the matter. They are irrelevant. Sorry but there you are.
You’ve got to chew your food with hard teeth before you can digest it with soft juices. It takes both. The trick is getting it in appropriate relative portions.
Again, the problem with Bush’s war in Iraq was in its timing and level of world support. Not in the removal of Saddam Hussein.
I’m not going to bother to count up the troop proportions, but I’ll hazard a rough guess and say the US troops formed 80-85% of those used. That’s close enough to unilateral for me.
yeah, I agree when it comes to Poland, west USSR, Micronesia, and the remainder of Bush’s “coalition.”