Could that, in any way, prove beneficial to AQ? Hence, the major victory angle proposed by Alex? If, as many people here espouse, fighting in Iraq, is actually deflecting the fight against AQ, why would AQ want to take focus away from this distraction?
I'm not going to call you an asshole for stating the obvious. Of course Thursday's bombings had an effect on some voters -- how could it not? I take issue with the idea that Al Qaida did this in order to get the Socialists elected, and therefore a vote for the Socialists was a vote for AQ and terrorism. If you said that, it wouldn't make you an asshole but it would make you into a stupid twit. Zapatero has made two major foreign policy promises since last night: -- Fighting terrorism will be his government's #1 priority. -- All Spanish soldiers will come home from Iraq no later than June 30, 2004 if the UN is not brought in to run peacekeeping. He can make the second statement and remain consistent with the first because he realizes that the Iraq war was not related to terrorism. If he does nothing about terrorism, Spanish voters will get another chance to vote the Socialists out, like they did in 1996. If he does a better job of fighting terrorism than Aznar did, he deserves credit for that -- not that the Bushlovers here would ever offer that. Spanish voters concluded that Aznar's Popular Party successors would not be best to handle this new (to Spain, at least) threat. Spain will now have a peaceful transition of power, and Zapatero has earned the right to live up to his words and promises. Democracy won yesterday, and anyone who equates that with a "victory for the terrorists" is just trying to scare Americans into voting Bush in November.
Thanks to dmar and Qdog for some thoughtful analysis from Spain. For those not familiar with Spain, it's important to realize that a strong percentage of the population does lean socialist. The PSOE was one of the major parties in power immediately following Franco's death 1975 and subsequent transition of power (which wasn't easy) and really ran the nation during the 1980's. Aznar and his PP came along in the 90's, and were effective in improving Spain economically as well as doing a decent job in dealing with ETA. But as has been stated before, 90% of Spaniards opposed the US war in Iraq and opposed their nations involvement in it. I believe to some extent, Aznar reaped what he has sown. Living in Spain for a couple of years and interacting with many students, it's pretty clear that the majority of young people in Spain lean to the left, even communist (leftovers from the Spanish Civil War and Catalan nationalism). Politics in Spain runs deeper than the last 20-25 years of democracy, this is a nation that still bears the scars of a dictatorship. Aznar acted against the will of the majority of Spaniards, and I believe a referendum on that leadership was the result of these elections. For those that believe the PSOE will now capitulate to Al-Qaeda, please get a clue. I for one, am glad that Spain is now a part of the fight on terrorism, it will bring a more balanced voice to the global discussion of how to fight terrorism. America has used the crutch of 9/11 to justify too many unilateral actions (Iraq war) that had little to do with those responsible for it. Now with Spain being another possible victim of Al-Qaeda's brutality, an international coalition with a vested interest will join in the pursuit of those that wish the overthrow of western culture.
No, they rejected the failure of Aznar's party to protect Spain. Did you know that in the runup to GW II the FBI conducted over 10,000 interviews with Iraqi-Americans? That's alot of man-hours, isn't it? Suppose that time had been spent instead rooting out AQ cells here, or beefing up port security? We'd be safer.
.. run toward what? A fight against terrorism against the West that doesn't involve bombing countries not involved with terrorism?
Obie, I submit to you that a large number of Spanish voters made this analysis in the blind rage of Thursdays events while NOT considering all the other factors one uses when voting. Ie. Aznar had done a hell of a job on the economic front and has kept ETA at bay. I'm not suggesting that AQ did this, if it was AQ, to benefit the socialists, per say. But they did do this to try manipulate the results of the election and they were clearly successful. As has been posted earlier, Zapatero might not be the best for Spain, in all facets, but emotion made them focus on foreign terrorists and how Aznar might have made Spain a target. Huge, Huge victory for AQ IMO, they just manipulated a major election in a major Western country.
They run home. Do you honestly believe that Spain is going to up the ante against terrorists outside of the Spanish borders?
For starters, I think some people on this thread need to re-read the definition of terrorism. I'll even provide a link. Secondly, I don't know that AQ's goal was to influence a particular election result. In fact, I doubt that highly. The aim is to influence global politics, not regional or domestic. Thinking that AQ sponsored or carried out this attack to sweep the Socialists into office in Spain attributes too much political sophistication to global terrorism. Terrorism aims to influence political action in one area. In the case of AQ it's reducing Western influence in the Middle East. In the case of the ETA or IRA, it's self-sovereignty. That's it, that's the list!
No so fast Zapatero http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/14/spain.election.analysis.reut/index.html A good analysis overall, but I would like to bring to everyone's attention the last paragraph: "The Socialists will have to seek out alliances with smaller nationalist parties to form an absolute majority in parliament's lower house while the PP remains the largest single party in the Senate by far, which could complicate Zapatero's legislative program." PSOE might control the lower house but he will still have to go through PP to get his agenda done. The word compromise comes to mind.
One doesn't win games by playing defense for the full game. If you want to win, you have to attack. The only way to finally win the war on terrorism is to bring democracy to the Middle East. I hope we all learn that lesson now rather than twenty years from now. As long as AQ thinks that the governments in Islamic countries are supported by the west, they will attack the west. We have to make sure the governments are supported by the people in the Middle East.
Given the commitment of tens of thousands of troops to the invasion of two nations, the illegal invasion of one, the loss of hundreds of American lives, the wounding of thousands more, the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, and the fundamental change in American society in terms of the legislation passed regarding privacy, due process, etc., are you willing to submit that AQ changed American life on 9-11? Are you willing to say that AQ manipulated a major shift in American militarism and reduction of democracy in a major Western country? If not, if you're not willing to make that leap with the US, then why apply that extreme model to Spain? Spain was going to vote one way before the bombings; they seemingly voted a different way after. America had no tolerance for a wide range of agendas before 9/11; they seemingly had different tolerances afterwards. If AQ is shaping Spain's democratic processes, then they are shaping ALL democratic processes; if Americans came to conclusions about the type of nation they were building post-911 exclusive of AQ influence, then why could not Spain's citizens? And since I have not seen, from those propagating the above quoted position, threads about how AQ made the PATRIOT Act and its concomitant resultants happen, and thus the institution of those changes was a "dark day for American democracy," then I'll continue to assume this is just more American arrogance. Have one standard for yourself, another for everyone else, even when they reflect the same values, or similar values, to yourselves. America made the post-911 changes it made to its society to feel more safe. Why degrade the Spanish into AQ-Pavlovian canines for electing a government they think will forge a policy that will make them more safe, if in fact that is the reason writ large for why they voted the way they did? Why one standard for American democracy (which did not even vote for their societal changes), and another for Spanish democracy (which did)??? Hypocrisy. By your model either AQ is dictating terms all over the world, or democracies are wholly uninfluenced by being bombed. I think that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, for America and for Spain. But let's not condemn the Spanish for reflecting at the polls a rage that they felt towards Aznar's foriegn policy the entire time. I think Gringo is right; the bombs woke them up, and returned the rage that they felt earlier with regard to Aznar to them in a most poignant way. And if Spain stops dicking about in Iraq, and leads the way in dismantling AQ, who will have made the WORLD safer? America, or Spain?
Being married to woman who has a master's in international affairs and spent a year attending the University in Valladolid, I was given about as well a lecture on Spanish history one could get. I have the clue which you are looking for. The problem is much as you say. The Spanish people are about as pacifist as one can get. They have had enough of the "big causes" like fascism or communism. Their problem is that the WOT is another big cause. It requires energy that they apparently don't want to give. In many respects PSOE represents the Old Tired Europe trying to gauge it's level of involvement. For a third time on this forum, let me say I do think that much of Europe would like to play defense and wring it's hands. They would much rather sit idly by, do the minimum and complain that they were betrayed. The US isn’t using 9/11 as a crutch. The US is going about it's business as it always has. The US is, once again, expending the energy and idealism that Europe has lost.
Here's something you probably won't read again. I've gotta admit, Mel makes a very strong point here.
I would not have had a problem with the elections being delayed for a week if that was what the parties agreed to. They didn't delay, and so people had to make decisions based on the information that was in front of them. Aznar has by most accounts been very popular on domestic policy and very unpopular on foreign policy. What Thursday did was emphasize the foreign policy aspects of his term, and made people question once again what his decision to support the war in Iraq had to do with stopping terrorism. Whether or not the collective decision by Spaniards was one of "rage" or grief and reflection, well, you'd have to ask the Spaniards. But to say that they were somehow misinformed for voting the way that they did is an insult to democracy. The irony in this long debate is that I asked about a motnh ago if OBL cared who won the November Presidential election, and was widely ridiculed for asking it. Now lots of people here assume that AQ bombed trains in Madrid to help defeat a Bush ally. In retrospect, maybe my question wasn't so stupid. We don't know what the bombers' motives were. Considering that pre-election bombings in Spain are typically the work of ETA and the Popular Party was seen as superior in fighting ETA, AQ bombing trains to help the Socialists is a massive gamble -- they have to carry the bombings out, get the Popular Party to immediately blame ETA, get some of their people arrested, and make the public blame Aznar for the whole thing -- within three days. It sounds like a Elmore Leonard novel. Besides that, in other countries with similar situations the voters have rallied around the incumbent. If history is any indication Aznar should have gotten a huge boost from this. Maybe AQ had a plan to influence the election, but assumed that this would help Aznar, which would have kept Spain in Iraq, which would have continued the dilution of the "war against terror". That's just as feasible as saying that AQ wanted the Socialists to win. Yeah, I'm sure they celebrated with Islamic champagne over a democratically-elected guy who has said that fighting terrorism will be his #1 priority.
I have no idea, and neither do you. I would assume that the first priority of the Spanish military is to protect Spain and its interests. But as a sovereign country they have the right to commit troops to whatever mission they deem most important. Sounds like you don't like that. Tough shit, I suppose.
Interesting perspective, and to some extent, you may be right. However, seeing the demonstrations in Spain following Thursday's attacks and the energy of the population united against a cause, it's hard to call Spain (or the PSOE) a representation of Old Tired Europe. I'd love to see a quarter of the population of the US turnout in the streets to manifest their solidarity and feeling against terrorist acts. Unfortunately, I think we are more politically apathetic than Spaniards. While our government may be flexing it's muscle in action, it's hard to say whether or not that action is misguided. The Iraq War is debatable, and as evidenced by these attacks in Spain, has not served to dismantle Al-Qaeda's (if they are indeed resposible) terrorist arsenal. We must wait and see, as the current actions in the Middle East will have a reverberating effect for the next 10-15 years and time will tell if the Iraq War truly has an effect on the overall WOT.
No we don’t know what the motives were and I think ascribing our own values to their act is wrong. However, we are sure that they had SOME motive. We are also sure it had SOME effect. In that we can say that on some level the attack was successful. Looking deeper, we have to ask if it was truly successful. To answer that one has to figure out the solution to AQ. One could fight them like the US fought the Viet Cong. That is try to figure out exactly who the VC are then pick them off one by one. In other words, defend well and attack with precision. Or one could go after the root cause of AQ. That root cause is governments in Islamic countries run as dictatorships rather than democracies. As long as the extremists can blame the west for the misery in their own country then the west will be attacked. If one accepts this and one realizes this is a 100 year war then it is obvious that the west needs to stand up for democracy in the Middle East.
That was an ignorant statement. Few countries in Europe have as much experience dealing with terrorism domestically as Spain do, having ETA killing politicians and civilians year in year out for the past 10-15 years. And how do the demostrations in the streets this past Friday evidence cowardice??? On the contrary, this is a courageous people that, for the most part, has chosen pacifism after a bloody Civil War in the middle of this century followed by a brutal dictator that rubbed out his opposition until his death in 1975. While these elections have most assuredly been influenced by the terrorist attacks, it's hard to say what the eventual result will be in the overall WOT, but I welcome a new voice, even a new victim, if you will that may balance unilateral US policy and make this a global issue. If anything, this should shake Europe out of it's apathy. If 1/4 of the Spanish population that turned out on Friday can be used as a benchmark, it seems to have worked.
Appeasment protects no one. The spanish voters should be ashamed. They became Cowards when the times called for courage. You, like most liberals still think it is September 10th.