Terrorists claim victory in Spain

[Saint Marcus]

They don't care if somebody is sending troops to Iraq or not.

Yes they do. The main reason Spain was attacked, and not, say, Germany, is because of Aznars pro-Bush stand concerning Iraq (eventhough 80+% of the Spaniards opposed the Iraq war).

I for one am very glad to see the PP out of office. The Spanish people made a good and sensible vote.

[Drake Tungsten]

I Robert Kagan even more. I wish he wrote more than once a month.

Time to Save an Alliance

By Robert Kagan
Tuesday, March 16, 2004; Page A21

The terrorist attack in Madrid and its seismic impact on the Spanish elections this past week have brought the United States and Europe to the edge of the abyss. There's no denying that al Qaeda has struck a strategic and not merely a tactical blow. To murder and terrorize people is one thing, but to unseat a pro-U.S. government in a nation that was a linchpin of America's alliance with the so-called New Europe -- that is al Qaeda's most significant geopolitical success since Sept. 11, 2001.

The unhappy reality is that a significant number of Spanish voters seem to have responded to the attacks in Madrid exactly as al Qaeda hoped they would. They believed their government's close cooperation with the United States, and specifically with the Bush administration in Iraq, had brought the wrath of the terrorist organization on them, and that the way to avoid future attacks was to choose a government that would withdraw from Iraq and distance itself from the United States. Other European peoples and governments have quietly flirted with this kind of thinking in the past, and not just recently but throughout the 1990s. But Spaniards have now made this calculus public. If other European publics decide that the Spaniards are right, and conclude that the safer course in world affairs is to dissociate themselves from the United States, then the transatlantic partnership is no more.

Already there are statements by top European leaders that have the ring of dissociation. In a clear swipe at U.S. policy, European Commission President Romano Prodi commented in the wake of the Madrid attacks: "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Terrorism, he said, "is infinitely more powerful than a year ago." So apparently Prodi accepts al Qaeda's logic, too.

In the coming days and weeks, Europeans will close ranks with Spain and express common European solidarity against al Qaeda terrorism. But there is a real danger that many Europeans will not extend the solidarity across the Atlantic. Some may argue, at least implicitly, that separation from the United States is one effective, nonviolent defense against future terrorist attacks.

Needless to say, that would be a disaster for the United States. The Bush administration needs to recognize it has a crisis on its hands and start making up for lost time in mending transatlantic ties, and not just with chosen favorites. The comforting idea of a "New Europe" always rested on the shifting sands of a public opinion, in Spain and elsewhere, that was never as favorable to American policy as to the governments. The American task now is to address both governments and publics, in Old and New Europe, to move past disagreements over the Iraq war, and to seek transatlantic solidarity against al Qaeda.

John Kerry has an important role to play now, too. The temptation for Kerry and his surrogates to use events in Spain to bolster their arguments against President Bush's foreign policy may be irresistible. But Kerry should think hard before he pushes the point too far. After all, he could be president next January. If Europeans respond to the attack in Spain by distancing themselves from the United States, a divided and dysfunctional West will be his inheritance. Like Bush, Kerry should move the transatlantic conversation beyond the Iraq war to the common war against al Qaeda.

But the problem is not all on the American side, and neither is the solution. Responsible heads in Europe must understand that anything that smacks of retreat in the aftermath of this latest attack could raise the likelihood of further attacks. Al Qaeda's list of demands doesn't end with Iraq. The attack in Madrid was not just punishment for Spain's involvement in Iraq but for involvement with the United States in the war on terrorism. Al Qaeda's statement taking credit for the bombings in Madrid condemned Spain's role in Afghanistan, too. Al Qaeda seeks to divide Europe and the United States not just in Iraq but in the overall struggle. It seeks to convince Europeans not only that the use of force in Iraq was mistaken but that the use of force against terrorism in general is mistaken and futile -- just as Prodi is arguing. Are Europeans prepared to grant all of al Qaeda's conditions in exchange for a promise of security? Thoughts of Munich and 1938 come to mind.

The incoming Spanish government has declared its intention to move away from the United States and back to the "core of Europe," meaning France and Germany. Presumably Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder will welcome their new ally in Old Europe. But presumably they also know that dissociation from the United States in the wake of the Madrid bombings will be a disaster for Europe. If the United States cannot fight al Qaeda without Europe's help, it is equally true that Europe can't fight al Qaeda without the United States. If Europe's leaders understand this, then they and Bush should recognize the urgency of making common cause now, before the already damaged edifice of the transatlantic community collapses.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61725-2004Mar15.html

[Spiffor]

Kagan states the obvious (although with a good choice of words), but for this crap:

It seeks to convince Europeans not only that the use of force in Iraq was mistaken but that the use of force against terrorism in general is mistaken and futile -- just as Prodi is arguing. Are Europeans prepared to grant all of al Qaeda's conditions in exchange for a promise of security? Thoughts of Munich and 1938 come to mind.

I dare you to find any European politician thinking it is possible to negotiate with Al Qaeda in exchange of security. Or that agreeing with their "conditions" (that are more than cloudy) will bring safety to us.

Once again, an American jumps on the Munich trigger as soon as a European considers brute force not to solve the problem. We had exactly the same in Iraq: many people (you included, Drake) seriously believed France and Germany were appeasing Iraq

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPEASEMENT AND THE PREFERENCE FOR NON-MILITARY METHODS.

Did you know security measures have just been reinforced all across Europe? Did you know a meeting of foreign ministers had been held just in the wake of the Madrid attacks in order to get more efficient antiterrorist services? Did you know anti-terrorist security will be the core of today's meeting between Chirac and Schröder?

Oh well. It is obvious we are weak on terrorism, because we oppose the war in Iraq

[Spiffor]

From Euronews:

Terrorist threat: major world cities step up security

Major cities across the world are on high alert amid fears of a new terrorist attack. Security has been stepped up on transport networks across Europe following last week's bombings in Madrid. The London Underground has launched a special campaign warning passengers to be more vigilant. In an unprecedented move, plainclothes anti-terrorist police officers have been deployed throughout the network.

Britain was one of America's staunchest allies in its so-called "war on terror" and police say it is only a matter of time before al Qaeda launches an attack there. Initial tests carried out on four suspicious packages containing white powder which were sent to foreign embassies in London have suggested the contents were not dangerous.

Even France and Germany who both opposed the war in Iraq are concerned. In the German capital Berlin, security has been tightened around the foreign embassies, although interior minister Otto Schily says it is illusory to think that all targets can be protected. He has called on all EU members to share information on convicted criminals' identification records.

French terror alert raised

France has raised its terror alert to "code red" in light of last week's multiple attacks in Madrid. The second highest warning is being imposed on train stations throughout the country, and was raised in airports on Friday. Elsewhere it is "code orange", one level below. Commuters are being told to be vigilant even in this country which strongly opposed the war in Iraq. But it is not just Islamic militants authorities are concerned about. A group known as AZF has reared its ugly head once again. Last month, it threatened to target the state railway if the government failed to pay millions of euros in ransom money. It led to a search of the entire French network - 32,000 kilometres of tracks.

[Drake Tungsten]

I dare you to find any European politician thinking it is possible to negotiate with Al Qaeda in exchange of security.

If you swear off violent means, as Prodi has done, what is left but negotiation and appeasement?

[alva]

It will however be based on a coalition. Are you really giving a coalition government that much credit of stability? In Italy there have been 47 governments, most of all been coalitions. One party falls out, the government loses its majority. What about the elections that come every two years? If the government loses it majority it would get a vote of no confidence I think. I predict that in two years.

I was under the impression that even now there is a minority coalition.

[Boris Godunov]

Yes, apparently, the only way to stop terrorists from "winning" is to just instantly enact the opposite of what they'd want, no matter how good/bad it is for your country.

Interesting line of "reasoning" there. I suppose the petty desire to not let terrorists have a brief moment whereing they feel they've been successful trumps making the electoral decisions one thinks is best, eh?

[Spiffor]

Drake:

Unless I'm mistaken, Prodi's damning quotes are:

"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Terrorism, he said, "is infinitely more powerful than a year ago."

Did I forget anything?

I suppose Prodi favors soft form of antiterrorism, i.e. not all out wars ("force"). And what is left after that is winning the battle of the minds: to prune the terrorists' idelogical and hence popular support. That's something you don't do at gunpoint; that's something you can only worsen at gunpoint.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

I dare you to find any European politician thinking it is possible to negotiate with Al Qaeda in exchange of security.

If you swear off violent means, as Prodi has done, what is left but negotiation and appeasement?

Who are you going to invade next if the terrorist suspects (like those of Madrid) are already in jail? If the rest operates undercover, not connected with state authorities like in Afghanistan? If the terror cells are spread over numerous countries, probably with a lot of sleepers within America and Europe? How useful is pure military force there?

[Drake Tungsten]

Since when is "force" applied only by means of invasion? There's plenty of use for covert ops and other less striking applications of force now that the major, invasion requiring actions are over with.

I suppose the petty desire to not let terrorists have a brief moment whereing they feel they've been successful trumps making the electoral decisions one thinks is best, eh?

It won't be a "brief moment". This was a major victory for Al Qaeda, arguably more impressive than the 9/11 attacks. We'll be hearing about this for years, as Al Qaeda milks their victory over the crusaders for all it's worth. I wonder how many new recruits this is going to garner?

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Since when is "force" applied only by means of invasion? There's plenty of use for covert ops and other less striking applications of force now that the major, invasion requiring actions are over with.

Then I would say Prodi hasn't sworn off force totally, but as ultimate means to end the terror. I would understand his statement so that force is an instrument to fight it back, but not to root it out, since its more and more an ideology, even "mass movement" as this CNN article cites US experts:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/03/15/alqaeda.splinter/index.html

I certainly here noone in Europe saying that we all should be nice to AQ. The problem is what means are most promising, and under certain conditions military means are just not useful.

[Kidlicious]

I don't believe that Al-Qaida wants anti-US or Socialist govts in power. I don't think they are afraid of the US or any of their allies. The war in Iraq has done nothing but further their cause. And they like that. Look at how they want radicals in Iraq. They want the same thing all over the world, especially in the West.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Good article from the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61543-2004Mar15.html

Seems that, despite claims here to the contrary, the defeat of the Partido Popular had as much to do with anti-American sentiment and anger over being attacked because of Spanish involvement in Iraq as it did with the "lies" of the government after the event.

edit: Good editorial on the subject, as well. I the Washington Post.

Drake for those of us not subscribing to the Washington Post, can you clip and paste, pretty please

[Drake Tungsten]

Then I would say Prodi hasn't sworn off force totally, but as ultimate means to end the terror.

Well, if that's what he's really saying, then I don't disagree with him; there is no "ultimate means" of ending terror and force is just one of many necessary measures. That isn't what it sounded like he was saying, however...

I certainly here noone in Europe saying that we all should be nice to AQ.

That isn't the issue Kagan brings up. He's more concerned with Europe cutting ties with America in the hope that Al Qaeda will spare them to concentrate on the Great Satan. That's what I'm afraid of, as well, and many people in Europe seem to be advocating just such a strategy.

[Drake Tungsten]

Drake for those of us not subscribing to the Washington Post, can you clip and paste, pretty please

It's free to register and quite worth it for access to the best paper on Earth...

edit: Alright, but just this once...

Madrid Bombs Shook Voters
Distrust of the Government, Anger at U.S. Fueled Upset

By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, March 16, 2004; Page A01

MADRID, March 15 -- The hand-lettered sign at the sidewalk memorial for the 200 victims of last week's deadly train bombings starkly summed up the sentiment of many who came to pay respects Monday afternoon. It read: "They Died to Support Bush."

Sunday's stunning electoral defeat for the ruling party of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, one of President Bush's closest European allies, reflected a late surge of public anger over the government's support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq triggered both by the attacks and by a sense that the government had sought to exploit the bombings for political gain, according to political analysts and voters.

Several added that it also reflected a sense of alarm and despair that appears to cut across the political spectrum over the way the United States is wielding power in the world.

"We love America -- Faulkner, Hemingway, Coca-Cola and Marilyn Monroe -- but we have something against your government," said Luis Gonzales, 56, a high school Spanish literature teacher, as he stopped to view the rows of candles, flowers and makeshift signs at the central Puerta del Sol. "Aznar took us into a war that wasn't our war but only for the benefit of the extreme right and the American companies."

Some analysts said the vote cast doubts on Spain's commitment to the war on terrorism, and warned that the extremists responsible for last week's attacks would view the results as a clear-cut victory. They warned that European leaders who sided with Washington in the Iraq war, such as Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, could face similar electoral upheaval and the threat of a terrorist strike on their own civilian populations.

"It's important to see Spain as part of a much wider phenomenon, not only European but global, and what's affected the election there could affect other countries and other elections as well," said Mark Leonard, director of the Foreign Policy Center, a London-based research group.

While little hard polling information was yet available, analysts pointed to an unexpected level of voter turnout -- which at 77 percent was 9 points higher than the 2000 elections -- and the participation of 2 million first-time voters as indicating a last-minute surge against the ruling Popular Party. The winning Socialist Workers' Party and a number of regional anti-government parties also gained support in autonomous provinces.

Usually analysts expect a dramatic disaster such as last week's synchronized attacks on morning rush-hour commuters to solidify support for governing parties with well-defined law-and-order policies. At first, when officials blamed the Basque separatist movement known as ETA for the bombings, the pattern seemed to be holding, with opinion polls suggesting the ruling party might increase its grip on power. The Aznar government has been widely credited for taking a tough stance against ETA.

But in the ensuing 48 hours, as suspicion shifted toward Islamic extremists connected with the al Qaeda network, the tide appeared to turn. Opposition politicians and journalists alleged that the Aznar government was withholding evidence implicating al Qaeda, triggering unprecedented street demonstrations outside Popular Party headquarters here and in other major cities on the eve of Sunday's elections.

While ETA was widely seen as an unavoidable domestic enemy that had to be confronted, many voters said they believed al Qaeda would never have targeted Spain had Aznar not supported Bush in the Iraq war. "Americans need to understand that Bush's attitude is causing more hatred and more terrorism," said Marie Isabel Garcia, 31, a foreign language graduate student who visited the Puerta del Sol memorial.

Others said their votes reflected both a lack of confidence in Spain's intelligence and security services, which failed to detect warning signals that the attack was imminent, and a lack of trust in Aznar, who has been accused of manipulating and selectively using intelligence information for political purposes. Recent disclosures that the U.S. and British governments used faulty intelligence on Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction to justify the Iraq war compounded the government's credibility problem. In the end, those issues overshadowed the government's recognized success in managing Spain's economy.

Some of the highly visible anti-American sentiment here is aimed directly at Bush, who is viewed by many as a hard-liner lacking empathy for other countries. Several people at the Puerta del Sol singled out Bush's televised expression of sympathy following the train bombings as insensitive.

"He was cold and aloof," complained Elena Nicolas, a civil servant in her late thirties. "He didn't even bother to wear a black tie."

Many here contend Aznar has adopted a servile stance toward the United States. In contrast, Socialist party leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero stressed his independence and willingness to criticize Washington. Many approvingly cited an incident during last October's Columbus Day military parade when Zapatero sat down as the American flag passed by. "It's not my flag," he reportedly said later.

Zapatero's image as a relative political neophyte was also widely seen as an advantage. He promised voters what he called "full transparency," implying that Aznar and his cabinet had been less than honest in the aftermath of last week's attacks. Previous episodes, such as claims that Aznar's government had concealed damaging information about a major oil spill off Spain's Atlantic coast two years ago, fed the perception that the outgoing prime minister and his party were not trustworthy.

"All the negative elements of his political personality were shown at this stage and the election became a plebiscite against Aznar," said Antonio Lorsa, a University of Madrid political scientist. "People felt one cannot trust this party and this man."

Spain has long had a difficult relationship with the United States. The conservative establishment resented America for destroying the remains of the Spanish empire during the Spanish-American War in 1898 and supplanting Spain as the dominant imperial power in Latin America. Spain's political left, which admired the United States, felt betrayed when Washington forged a strategic alliance with the late fascist ruler Francisco Franco after World War II.

"The American army entered the rest of Europe as liberators but entered Spain as collaborators with the Franco regime," said Jose Varela Ortega, vice president of the Ortega y Gasset Foundation, a research organization in Madrid.

But Varela, who described himself as pro-American, said Spanish voters resented the war on terrorism because of a natural tendency to opt for a policy of ignoring or appeasing violent extremists. "It is very human to blame the policeman and not the criminal," he said. "You see it in France and Germany and to a large extent in Spain -- that the best thing to do is to let them alone, the Saddam Husseins of this world, and nothing bad will happen. The policeman is the troublemaker, and [the Americans] are the policeman of the world."

The Spanish Response

Tuesday, March 16, 2004; Page A20

SPANISH VOTERS no doubt wished to rebuke the ruling Popular Party for its wrong-footed reaction to last week's terrorist bombing in Madrid, and its support for the United States in Iraq. Fair enough -- but it's hard not to be concerned about how the message was likely received outside the country, by the leaders of al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organizations. Before the bombing, the Popular Party was favored to win comfortably; after the devastating attack, and an al Qaeda statement saying its intent was to punish Spain for its role in Iraq, the election was swept by the opposition -- and its leader immediately pledged to withdraw Spanish troops and cool relations with Washington. The rash response by Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain's prime minister-elect, will probably convince the extremists that their attempt to sway Spanish policy with mass murder succeeded brilliantly.

The outgoing prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, lived by entirely different principles. An ardent opponent of terrorism, he became one of President Bush's most steadfast allies after Sept. 11, 2001, and courageously supported the Iraq war even when polls showed the Spanish public was overwhelmingly against it. Until last week, it appeared that Mr. Aznar's toughness would prevail; even though he had decided to leave office, his chosen successor appeared likely to win. His government's mistake may have been to blame the Basque terrorist organization ETA for last Thursday's train bombings until evidence of involvement by al Qaeda or other Arab extremists seemed overwhelming. The miscue apparently angered some voters while confirming others in their belief that Mr. Aznar was wrong to send 1,300 Spanish troops to Iraq. The beneficiary was Mr. Zapatero, who had promised even before the bombing to withdraw the troops on June 30 unless the force was sanctioned by the United Nations.

Mr. Zapatero could not be expected to alter his view that the original decision to invade Iraq was wrong. But the reaction of Spain, and Europe, to this massive and shocking attack on its soil is crucial -- as is its response to the continuing challenge in Iraq. The two are inextricably linked: Whatever the prewar situation, al Qaeda's tactics now have made explicit the connection between the continuing fight in Iraq and the overall war on terrorism. Mr. Zapatero said his first priority would be to fight terrorism. Yet rather than declare that the terrorists would not achieve their stated aim in slaughtering 200 Spanish civilians, he reiterated his intention to pull out from Iraq in less equivocal terms than before the election.

The incoming prime minister declared the Iraq occupation "a disaster" -- yet he didn't explain how withdrawing troops would improve the situation. Spain's participation on the ground in Iraq is small, but a Spanish withdrawal will make it harder for other nations, such as Poland and Italy, to stay the course. The danger is that Europe's reaction to a war that has now reached its soil will be retreat and appeasement rather than strengthened resolve. "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," European Commission President Romano Prodi said yesterday. Should such sentiments prevail, the next U.S. administration -- whether led by President Bush or Sen. John F. Kerry -- may have no alternative to unilateralism.