Spain PM-elect: Troops out of Iraq

[agcatter]

European Commission Chief Romano Prodi:

"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists"

Please someone wake me up from this nightmare.

[minionofmidas]

The PP wasn't booted out because there was a terrorist attack but because they lied about it and tried to make it look as if it was their favourite enemy when everybody knew it wasn't.
Imagine some Right Wing, Militia nut blows off a big one in the US a week before the election and Bush tries to blame it on Al-Quaeda, then you have a scenario comparable to what happened in Spain.
So, guys, your conclusion is flawed because your premise is totally flawed.

And the PSOE is withdrawing from Iraq because they'd said all along that's what they were going to do. Changing that because of a terrorist attack would be giving in to the terrorists.

[angus]

Now Trimble is answering questions about the event.  This is good.  Check out CSPAN.  He's pretty staunch in his support of Bush-Blair at the moment, the way I read it.

[agcatter]

Mistaken about what?  Not sure what you mean.

I do think the Spanish people are a confused lot.  However, I don't think you can lay that at the feet of us for not explaining the consequences of appeasement to them.  

What I'm afraid of is that a lot of innocents in Britain, Italy, Germany etc are about to die.  Al Quida can't help but think the attacks were a stunning victory and that the Spanish cowered before them.  Don't you think now that more terrorist attacks are more likely after the election result than they would have been had the results been different?  Nobody can see into the future, but I'm guessing the Spanish electorate just got a whole lot of Europeans killed.

I think we could talk until we were blue in the face and a majority of Europeans would choose not to fight.  The quote I just cited scares the hell out of me.  It scares me that mentality is the dominant one in Europe.

[angus]

Thank you agcat and Lewis, I must admit I'm a little confused at the moment.  You both make excellent arguments.  I just need to think about it all.  Thanks for the response, both of you.

[12th Doctor]

The PP wasn't booted out because there was a terrorist attack but because they lied about it and tried to make it look as if it was their favourite enemy when everybody knew it wasn't.
Imagine some Right Wing, Militia nut blows off a big one in the US a week before the election and Bush tries to blame it on Al-Quaeda, then you have a scenario comparable to what happened in Spain.
So, guys, your conclusion is flawed because your premise is totally flawed.

And the PSOE is withdrawing from Iraq because they'd said all along that's what they were going to do. Changing that because of a terrorist attack would be giving in to the terrorists.

The government there blamed Basque nationalist, correct?  Why didn't they say it was Al Quida?  I must admit, I am somewhat ignorent when it comes to Spanish politics.

[angus]

Hans Blix on Hardball now!

details to follow...

[minionofmidas]

Several reasons, I guess...Hard to figure out what's the most important one...
Basically...
1) Aznar has put a lot of pressure on ETA during his term in office. Defeating them once and for all was pretty much his aim in office
One may say he's got a personal vendetta with Basque nationalism. I think he's also got a bigoted, quasi-racist problem with Basques themselves, he's made remarks that sound like that.
2) A majority of the voters support him on ETA, but not on Iraq. So I guess someone at PP headquarters must've thought that if it was ETA, that should help them in the polls, but if it was Islamists, people might say it's because Aznar's vocal support for Bush made them a target (although that's assuming Al-Qaeda cares about Saddam Hussein, possibly a rather large assumption in itself). So they may have blamed it on ETA, hoping nothing would contradict them. I'm assuming that at this point they did not have a clue who it was, unlike right now where nothing points to ETA.
This strategy just blew up in their faces, partly due to tactical errors of their own: Aznar getting the UN to condemn ETA without any evidence and his ordering ambassadors to argue the case all over the world went down very badly with the Spanish electorate. The latter thing, especially, reminded Spaniards of a similar order of Aznar's during the build-up to the Iraq war, when he told them to spread the claim Saddam had ties with Al-Qaeda - right after reading a report by his own secret service that put the credibility of this claim at zero.
So, it was like "He's lieing again! This is the last straw!" to many people who opposed the war but don't normally vote. Remember, turnout went up from 68,7% to 77,2%. The PP's share of the vote went down 6,9%, but it's share of the electorate just 1,5%, it's just that so much more people voted for the opposition.

[WMS]

European Commission Chief Romano Prodi:

"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists"

Please someone wake me up from this nightmare.

You have GOT to be kidding me. That is one of the dumber quotes I've ever heard. This is not improving Europe's image over here...

...and per Stratfor.com (sorry, it's a paid site, and I can't quote them ): their view is that Al-Qaida will try to hit the U.S., but not right before the election since we Americans will rally around the president if that happens. Instead, they'll do it in spring or summer, to give the rallying time to wear off and make it seem as if G.W. can't do anything to stop them. And Al-Qaida would LOVE to use a NBC weapon in the U.S...but for now, expect more conventional attacks in Europe. As for who and when...what's the election schedule looking like?

[angus]

Blix is hard to watch.  Mostly it was about iraq.  They're coming around.  These diplomatic games go slowly, and we are an impatient people.  relax.

[angus]

Oh, now David Kay!

[12th Doctor]

Several reasons, I guess...Hard to figure out what's the most important one...
Basically...
1) Aznar has put a lot of pressure on ETA during his term in office. Defeating them once and for all was pretty much his aim in office
One may say he's got a personal vendetta with Basque nationalism. I think he's also got a bigoted, quasi-racist problem with Basques themselves, he's made remarks that sound like that.
2) A majority of the voters support him on ETA, but not on Iraq. So I guess someone at PP headquarters must've thought that if it was ETA, that should help them in the polls, but if it was Islamists, people might say it's because Aznar's vocal support for Bush made them a target (although that's assuming Al-Qaeda cares about Saddam Hussein, possibly a rather large assumption in itself). So they may have blamed it on ETA, hoping nothing would contradict them. I'm assuming that at this point they did not have a clue who it was, unlike right now where nothing points to ETA.
This strategy just blew up in their faces, partly due to tactical errors of their own: Aznar getting the UN to condemn ETA without any evidence and his ordering ambassadors to argue the case all over the world went down very badly with the Spanish electorate. The latter thing, especially, reminded Spaniards of a similar order of Aznar's during the build-up to the Iraq war, when he told them to spread the claim Saddam had ties with Al-Qaeda - right after reading a report by his own secret service that put the credibility of this claim at zero.
So, it was like "He's lieing again! This is the last straw!" to many people who opposed the war but don't normally vote. Remember, turnout went up from 68,7% to 77,2%. The PP's share of the vote went down 6,9%, but it's share of the electorate just 1,5%, it's just that so much more people voted for the opposition.

Still, how can they be so stupid.  I'm getting a headache from this.

[angus]

... without any evidence ...

Still, how can they be so stupid.  I'm getting a headache from this.

Hard to say.  Be careful of using that phrase within hours of you heard a condemnation.  still, we have to work with the new people.  CNNHN just quoted Powell saying, "I hope we'll be able to find common ground in the fight against terrorism."

[minionofmidas]

Well, they did push for and get that vote. (Of course, it's just a toothless resolution, I know, but this is politics of symbols, not acts...) And there was no evidence for ETA involvement at the time, though there was less evidence for the contrary than there is now.

[Umengus]

European Commission Chief Romano Prodi:

"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists"

Please someone wake me up from this nightmare.

For the next time, give the source. For this, it's The stampa.

I think, when you read all the text, that Prodi wanted say that the US action in Iraq was wrong to fight terrorism because terrorism is stronger today that a year ago.

He says also that EU must fight against terrorism to give security to EU citizens.

[angus]

All you hawks will be glad to know that Spain is an anomaly:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62387-2004Mar16.html

[Mort from NewYawk]

It's hard to say it better than David Brooks in today's NY Times (the other conservative, besides William Safire, on the op-ed page):

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/16/opinion/16BROO.html

[angus]

Mort,  Thanks for the link.
The word is apaciguamiento.  The article is well-written and informative, as Brooks' articles usually are.  But he can be a bit reactionary.  The statement "There will be other aftershocks from the Spanish election." will be proven false, I hope.  You can find statements like this one, by Romano Prodi, "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." But you can also find statements like this one, from Il Corriere della Sela, "March 11 is going to be more important than 11 September" for Europe. The Madrid attacks they say, mark the beginning of "a European war that the [European] Union is going to have to fight from now on with a far greater degree of unity and solidarity than it has shown over the past few months."  

And what a beautiful language:
Tuttavia all'Europa serve una coscienza e dunque la capacità di compiere delle scelte. Si può decidere che la risposta americana al terrorismo è sbagliata, ma allora è necessario avere qualche idea alternativa ed efficace. L'11 settembre ha prodotto l'Afghanistan e l'Iraq. Chi ha criticato l'America, con suo buon diritto, non aveva messo nel conto un attentato di matrice islamica contro un Paese europeo. Dopo l'11 marzo, se si ammette che chi ha attaccato la Spagna ha voluto colpire l'intera Unione, è indispensabile che sia l'Europa a rispondere al terrorismo. Dimostrando, se del caso, di avere una ricetta migliore di quella di cui dispone l'America. Il disimpegno pacifista è una risposta? A suo modo lo è, ma difficilmente l'Europa sfuggirebbe per questa via ad altre dosi di nichilismo terrorista. «Madrid, Italia» si è scritto nei giorni scorsi. Se non è solo retorica, è opportuno trarne le conseguenze.

My italian is rusty, but it seems they're fairly philosophical, and trying to question their own failures, as well as those of the US.  Why rush to judgement?  You may find that their own interests will guide them into greater cooperation in the war on terror much better than pushing and shoving will.

[angus]

"Il disimpegno pacifista è una risposta?"

I read that as serious question.  Not scholarly advice.

"A suo modo lo è, ma difficilmente l'Europa sfuggirebbe per questa via ad altre dosi di nichilismo terrorista"

This is real debate.  Nothing wrong with that.  And is but a sampling of the many fine editorials written throughout the region.  Remember how pissy we all got (And rightly so!) when Bush suggested Kerry is inviting foreign intervention into our elections?  That is a two-way street my friend.

[Gustaf]

Look for them to hit the Brits or Italy next.  You'll immediately see hundreds of thousands in the steets demonstrating not against the terrorists that hit them, but Bush and Blair.  I think I'm going to throw up.

You are 200% right on that one.

100% at the most. I am pretty sure the Brits wouldn't react like that. And you're still missing the dynamics behind the Spanish election result.

[Gustaf]

European Commission Chief Romano Prodi:

"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists"

Please someone wake me up from this nightmare.

For the next time, give the source. For this, it's The stampa.

I think, when you read all the text, that Prodi wanted say that the US action in Iraq was wrong to fight terrorism because terrorism is stronger today that a year ago.

He says also that EU must fight against terrorism to give security to EU citizens.

I'd like more of the context to understand exactly what Prodi is saying. But the man is viewed as a joke by most people, so he doesn't really mean much himself.

[angus]

I'd like more of the context to understand exactly what Prodi is saying. But the man is viewed as a joke by most people, so he doesn't really mean much himself.

Many of the most influential people in history were viewed as a 'joke'   In any event, here's some context:

http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Politica/2004/03_Marzo/13/prodi.shtml

[Gustaf]

Many of the most influential people in history were viewed as a 'joke'   In any event, here's some context:

http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Politica/2004/03_Marzo/13/prodi.shtml

OK, Mr. 'I read Italian and is gonna show off with it', I don't.

And Prodi may be many things, but he certainly isn't influential.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All you angry Americans are missing the fact that though the war on terrorism is an obvious national interest to the US, is isn't really to Spain...

OK, Gustaf, you almost made me choke to death with that one.  All I can say is: if Spain doesn't think the war on terror is in THEIR national interest, then I would LOVE to read the Spanish interpretation of bin Ladin's letter in which he stated his intention to restore Andalusia under Muslim control.

Wake up!

[classical liberal]

Our campaign against terror should be special ops and strike teams.  Covert missions and people disappearing.  There should by mysterious occurrences hurting the morale of the terrorists.  Instead we have a line of tanks and a TV camera riding a jeep behind.  That's not how to diffuse the chances of martyring the enemy.  Martyr hurt our cause, but the way we are currently waging war is not conducive to preventing new enemy recruits.