Spain has been in the news lately, both for her Muslim guests who bombed the trains of Madrid (killing more than 200 people) and her citizens who voted for a new pro-appeasement government. U.S. media are expressing shock that the instinctive reaction of Christian Europeans was to cave in to the demands of a violent minority. Sitting here in a country where any attack is met by voters rallying around the government and pressing for a strong counterattack the European propensity toward appeasement seems odd.
But is there anything truly new here? Even the mere threat of Islamic terrorism has for several decades been very effective at steering European nations’ foreign policy. Going back further consider the Germans in the 1930s and early 1940s. A small minority of people living in Europe had an ideology and the will to use violence to back up that ideology. Without a whole lot of effort or actual force they were able to conquer nearly every other European nation and convince those Europeans to accept major elements of their ideology. European democracies appear strong but apparently are easy to control by anyone who threatens to disrupt the bourgeois comforts of the populace. Nor do Europeans have the internal strength to dislodge violent minorities who’ve gained control of their societies. In the 1940s it was the leveling of German cities by the British and American air forces and Soviet artillery that convinced Europeans of the impracticality of Naziism.
It would be tempting to attribute the cravenness of the average European to the climate or their proximity to Muslim countries. Yet the English have been stubbornly resistant to both the Nazis and various Islamic threats despite being geographically proximate to Europe and hosting a large Muslim minority within their borders.
Even if we can be sure of the answer to what the average European would call Osama bin-Laden (“Sir”) we’ll probably never figure out any way to stiffen the backbone of the average Christian European. The political scientist quoted in this blog on August 28, 2003 was perhaps correct in his prediction that France and other European nations would become Muslim dictatorships within the next generation’s lifetimes, partly through demographics and birthrate but mostly because the non-Muslim majority lacked the will to oppose a unified minority.
Sir,
I am an European (Italian) and I disagree strongly. Spaniards are not appeasers. If you know spanish try to read spanish blogs and whatch if you see fear. I see rage for a PM that tried to use a national tragedy to gain votes: the strategy backfired.
I would not rather comment Your political analysis of the ’30. The things are much less simpler than that.
Sorry for my imperfect English.
“blah blah blah A small minority of people living in Washington DC had an ideology and the will to use violence to back up that ideology. Without a whole lot of effort or actual force they were able to conquer nearly every other American State and convince those Americans to accept major elements of their ideology. American democracy appear strong but apparently are easy to control by any lobby who threatens to disrupt … blah blah blah ”
This statement is as (in)valid as yours …
Al Qaeda has staged two terrorist attacks against the French since the start of the Iraq war, and none (so far) against the British.
The Spaniards, like most of the rest of the world, do not believe the Iraq war is part of the war on terrorism. Just because Bush says so does not make it so. Furthermore, it transpired on Saturday the Aznar government was deliberately lying about the investigation to claim ETA did it, and the voters punished it for misrepresenting intelligence for partisan purposes. Any coincidence, etc…
Arguing that French Muslims are less attached to democracy and likely to support a theocratic coup is as racist and morally repugnant as those antisemites who claimed a century ago that Jews like Captain Dreyfus were less attached to the Republic than Christians and more likely to betray it to the Germans. I would take anything your political scientist acquaintance says with extreme reservations.
Phil,
I swear you’re being satirical, but let’s pretend otherwise for the sake of an alternative view. I’ll try not to let your stereotyped and poorly-informed views of Europeans confirm the ones I have of Americans.
This is not appeasement by any stretch. Some of the perhaps more apathetic, left-leaning sections of the Spanish electorate, along with a number of angry first time voters, were spurred to register their votes against a government that they weren’t overly impressed by anyway, thus swinging the balance decisively in the socialists favour. That it took a civilian tragedy to motivate them may be to their shame, but Aznar’s policies had already polarised and alienated large sections of their society. Trying to spin the Madrid bombings as the “unquestionable” work of ETA did not help either.
A vote for the PSOE was not a vote for al-Quaida, nor a vote for making peace with terrorists, regardless of whether or not the result would be welcomed by that organisation. It was a vote against unpopular, misguided or disingenuous American-led ways of tackling the current situation, spurred on by the murder of innocent people, the majority of whom may have held similar views.
If Kerry wins the US election, would it be fair for Europeans to claim that America has also voted for appeasement, by apparently rejecting their “war president”?
Respectfully,
Your comment is a bit short sighted. For one, Britain, like the rest of Europe, had the policy of not building up arms and “provoking Hitler”. The only thing that saved them was the fact that there was large body of water between them and the Germans, the lack of a real Germany invasion plan (converted Rhine barges as landing ships!) and a relatively strong airforce. I say relatively because they were fighting close to home, their fewer aircraft could fly more missions. Luck is what I would call it.
As for the Russians: had the Germans gone there first before western Europe, they outcome would probably have been much different. Although I have to admit that was a good thing for Western Europe in the long run as even if he had defeated Russia, I doubt Western European countries would have had the ability or will power (ie: shoot their own troops if they retreat and use human mine sweepers) to hold Hitler’s remaining troops back.
Now back to the present:
The thing with terrorists is that if you leave them alone, they will leave you alone. Continued US support of Israeli land-grab and indiscriminite killings in the West Bank and Gaza strip and the not needed invasion of Iraq is making the world a more dangerous place. And as spain proves, even minor involvement (1500 troops in Iraq, as opposed to the US’s 150.000) to “appease” US foreign policy makes you a target. It’s funny how the capital of “free trade” shuts you out if you don’t do exectly what they want. Don’t read that in the papers over there, do you?
And I am deeply offended by your suggestion that the average european would call OBL “Sir”. You realy only get your news from one source, don’t you? I can assure you that everyone I know hates his guts and wants to see him and his followers hung by their balls. And that is also what is said in the media, there is no doubt who the real bad guy is here. But can you blame us for not being to fond of those that support his financers and keep provoking him either?
Whites vote white. It’s as true here as it is in the US and as long as there is a non-muslim majority, there is no way you’ll see a Muslim goverment in place in any European country. Unless they take over by force. And as nobody has ever handed over their country to a few bomb-crazy lunatics, what makes you think any European countries will start now?
You dissapoint me with this post, Philip. I thought you were more intelligent and educated than that.
Meh, weak troll. You can do better.
Your enemy’s enemy is my friend?
Do you have any idea how offensive your remark is?
Massimo is completely right. To paraphrase one of your guys: “It’s the lies, stupid”
The last few paragraphs of this article are a pretty good insight as to what happened here in Spain:
http://football.guardian.co.uk/continental/story/0,8018,1169914,00.html
Heh, heh, heh. It’s so amusing to watch all the europeans jumping on this story with their knickers in a twist…
What can I say? I live in Spain, and I don’t really relish the idea that Osama Bin Laden has turned into the de facto president of my country (or at least the Foreign Affairs Minister). It’s true that the PP, the right-wing party ousted by Mr. Osama, could have handled better the aftermath of the attacks, but the thing is, if they had admitted from the beginning that it had been Al-Qaeda, the left would have started blaming them for the massacres right away (under the logic of “the murderers aren’t those who planted the bombs, but those who did something to piss them off!”), instead of waiting two days. Even before the bombings, there was a very active and loud sector of the left hell-bent on ousting the PP for whatever reason possible, and no matter what the PP did, they would have found a reason to turn the bombings against them.
As for those who blame Phil’s views on his “ugly american” status… I don’t really want to write too much in his defense (I think he can defend himself quite well enough, thanks), but perhaps you should read past entries in this blogs, or some of his writings in his website. I didn’t see any europeans protesting when Phil attributed the Irak war to oil without a second thought, nor when he lambasts the american corporate elite. It seems to me that Phil applies the same kind of cynical worldview to everyone and anyone; it just itches more when you are part of his target.
The trouble is that there is a logic “Bomb in Madrid -> Spain pulls out of Iraq” which is simply not correct.
The PP behaved in the most abject way at exactly the wrong time so the Spanish voted them out. We’ll never really know what would have happened if they had not tried to get votes from a national tragedy, but my guess is that they would still be in power.
Zapatero had always promised to withdraw from Iraq and since he happens to be the lucky winner of the PP’s suicide it seems reasonable that he carries out his promise. In particular since the military part of the war on terror is really not doing all that well. Bomb threats everywhere and OBL still at large. How many people have we killed for that result?
On the other Zapatero said he’d stay in Iraq if the power is handed over to the UN, so maybe the issue isn’t spine but respect of international institutions. Just an idea.
US sources funded terrorism in Europe for many years, apparently under the nose of the US authorities. US federal legislators and diplomats encouraged European governments to negotiate with terrorists.
You are portraying things in black-and-white. In reality there is a wide range of colour and shading.
To read this as appeasement to terrorists refuses to acknowledge the fact that over 80% of the Spanish population was against the war in Iraq, not the war on terror. One of the arguments was that by ignoring democratic principles (representing the view of the majority) to go to war tied closely to a misguided (in the view of Europe) American policy would bring terrorism to Spain. It has. The rebuke of Aznar’s government is two fold. It says we do not like the fact that you pulled us in to the war in Iraq, and we do not like the consequence in that this policy has made us more visible targets for terrorism. But it can not be read as appeasing terrorists. In fact I think it is quite the opposite. The result is that the “war” on terror will be escalated in Europe, but so to will be the resistance to American policies which have been viewed as counterproductive and misleading against the war on terror, most notably the war in Iraq and the continuous unilateral behavior of the Bush administration. To read this as appeasement is to fall for the bait and switch – the notion that not supporting the war in Iraq is not supporting the war on terror. Those two things are not the same, nor should they ever had been the same. It is cheap rhetoric to imply that they are and even cheaper to draw parallels to Nazi Appeasement. I would have though an intelligent man such as you would avoid such shallow analysis.
What will we call Mr. Greenspun? Sir. Because I would not like to be as offensive as he is…
Philip,
I agree with most of what you wrote; I would point out, though, that an average Jewish European has as little, perhaps even less backbone than a Christian European. Most Jewish Europeans have supported liberal immigration laws; admittedly that has to do with Jews having to seek refuge in the past, but given the sort of problems ahead of us, this is like navigating by looking at the rear mirror. On top of it there is the secular religion of diversity, which enjoys support among Jewish Europeans.
<>
The problem is that an average election cycle requires thinking four years ahead, rendering democracy incapable of dealing with the sort of problems where one has to look 20 or 40 years ahead. There used to be Europeans who had a long term vision – e.g. Churchill, De Gaulle, but they were products of pre-WWI Europe.
<>
They are afraid of being labeled Nazi.
Europe’s backbone was destroyed by all that happened during the 20th century. First, WWI bled Europe white and made it lose its will to fight. Next, WWII made patriotism a dirty word – if you are a patriot, you will be accused of being a nationalist, which is associated with being a Nazi. Next, during the Cold War the Western Europeans learned that they could take their security for granted (“the Americans protected us because it was in their interest” – I’ve heard it more than once.) On top of it, any rational debate is paralyzed by the prospect of being labeled racist (Fazal Majid above is a good example of how this is done.)
Having said all that, is US that much better? Have you noticed that the Michigan congressmen are nowadays voting anti-Israel? Surely that has something to do with Muslim immigration, hasn’t it? There is no willingness to deal with Muslim immigration in the US either.
Finally, I cannot leave this comment from Bas Scheffers unchallenged:
<>
Did it work that way with Baader-Meinhof? With the Red Brigades? Do those names mean anything to you? Were you around then?
I gotta correct my formatting.
“European democracies appear strong but apparently are easy to control by anyone who threatens to disrupt the bourgeois comforts of the populace. ”
was Philip’s comment, to which I replied:
The problem is that an average election cycle requires thinking four years ahead, rendering democracy incapable of dealing with the sort of problems where one has to look 20 or 40 years ahead. There used to be Europeans who had a long term vision – e.g. Churchill, De Gaulle, but they were products of pre-WWI Europe.
and this
“The thing with terrorists is that if you leave them alone, they will leave you alone.”
was Bas Scheffers comment, to which I replied:
Did it work that way with Baader-Meinhof? With the Red Brigades? Do those names mean anything to you? Were you around then?
Welcome to the New American Century. Non-Americans would do well to remember the current US foreign policy. “Either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists.” I suspect that if there had been no Madrid bombing, but the socialists still won, we’d still be hearing this rhetoric.
If you support Bush, you are a “proud, free and independent” country. If you are against him, you’re an appeaser.
If Osama Bin Laden were to launch a brazen attack on America a few days before the November 2004 presidential election, do you think the American electorate would be so pusillanimous as to throw George Bush out of office?
I think not.
What is the evidence that the 90 percent of the Spanish electorate that opposed the war in Iraq in the first place, was going to vote for the government that went to war? Your analysis — if we could call it that, sir — depends almost entirely on a fact which you assume to be true, but which almost certainly is not.
Perhaps if the Spanish government had not lied about the source of the explosions, attempting to blame them upon the Basques, even going so far as to get an EU resolution passed to that effect before all the evidence was in, perhaps if they had not lied they would still be in power.
Far from showing the cravenness of the electorate in Spain it shows the exact opposite. Backbone. Isn’t it nice to see a democracy where people can tell the difference when they are being lied to, and they actually don’t like it?
Of course you are entitled to your own opinion, or polemic, or demagoguery or your own brand of hatred or whatever you want to call it.
Phil Atio: If Tim McVeigh (or his ghost) was to launch an attack four days before a US election and Bush blamed it on Al Quaida because he knew that would secure him the victory, AND the American people discovered this the night before the election, do you not think they would vote him out of office?
Godwin’s Law obviously applies to web logs as well.
PLEASE!
The citizens voted out the previous administration for two reasons:
1. They tried to lie after the terror attacks and blame the ETA
2. THEY COULDN’T STOP THE ISLAMIC TERRORISTS
They voted in a new sherriff since the old one seemed more interested in Iraq and their own political fortunes than actually you know, stopping terrorism. Why is that so hard to understand?
Bryguy,
It is not so hard to understand. It is just that sometimes Philip preferences
go towards writting like a wanker instead of checking the facts.
I live in Portugal and I am spending a weekend in Madrid each month, but
all the necessary information to understand Aznar’s backfired manipulation was presented in BBC, Sky News and even CNN (which coverage was better than
I dared to expect).
The Spanish population already proved their courage again and again, by
taking a stand against ETA in public demonstrations… which could involve
the risk of revenge. They just don’t like being lied to.
Why is so much people so sure that the invasion of Iraq was motivated by
the War against terrorism? That would be better served by stabilizing
Afeganistan as promised, and that is not happening.
Have fun,
PG
What a troll like blast.
Again, Iraq != AlQaeda. The present administration has done an excellent job of equating Iraq to Al Qaeda and the war of terrorism. But there’s no credible evidence to back those assertions.
..that will accuse an entire nation of being cowards simply from the comfort of your keyboard in San Diego because they decide to exercise their rights as citizens in a democracy, the same rights that you claim that we are fighting for in Iraq.
I was watching TV this afternoon and there was footage showing how the railway service affected by the attack is working as usual since early this morning. It showed a trainful of commuters, some of them with tears in their eyes, some of them with an openly defiant expression on their faces. Some recognised they had felt a tingle in their stomach when boarding the train, but all said they were not going to change their life because of, and give in to, the assassins who had committed the atrocity.
Wasn’t ETA responsible for the bombings??
If *you* like to be controlled by your government, here we don’t. Spain has nearly 1000 years has a country. We’ve seen and had our wars in those times.
European countries are older democracies and don’t pretend to rule the world. Just look at our geography.. we’ve always had pleanty of neighbours and we’ve grown to live in *peace* with them.
Btw, have you seen any request made by the terrorists?? The decision to leave Iraq has been a topic long before the bombings..
sorry for the english.
> If Osama Bin Laden were to launch a brazen attack on America a few days before
the November 2004 presidential election, do you think the American electorate
would be so pusillanimous as to throw George Bush out of office?
No, I’m sure the electorate would swing strongly behind Bush (thus giving him his first proper majority, like the one Zapatero had 😉 – so there’s an(other) election that bin-Laden could influence. In fact, it’s probably an outcome he would want, since Bush has proved useful for inflaming Arab opinion.
Folks: good points about the Spanish government’s historical hard line against ETA. But I’m not sure that it is comparable. All bureaucracies fight furiously against having their responsibilities trimmed. ETA’s goal is independence for a chunk of Spain, which would reduce the area governed by the Spanish government.
Al-Qaeda conceivably might one day seek to control part or all of Spain but for the medium-term all that they have asked for is control of Spain’s foreign policy in Arab/Islamic countries. Now that they have it, perhaps they’ll ask for something else…
It seems the Spanish electorate has rediscovered rationality in voting: rewarding politicians for success, punishing them for failure. The opposite of what the US public does, rewarding rightwing politicians for ineffective security policies.
Bush must be hoping that rationality isn’t contageous, or at least not enough to travel across the Atlantic ocean.
>>Al-Qaeda conceivably might one day seek to control part or all of Spain but for the medium-term all that they have asked for is control of Spain’s foreign policy in Arab/Islamic countries. Now that they have it, perhaps they’ll ask for something else…
What a totally pompous, arrogant assertion … your comparisons to Nazi Germany are ludicrous …
And the points about appeasement are akin to a statement like “If Al-Qaeda is against cancer, then we must be for it…” …
Truly remarkable, the chutzpah here …
Given that OBL want war with the west, isn’t going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq as a reaction to 9/11 giving OBL control of US foreign policy?
“It seems the Spanish electorate has rediscovered rationality in voting: ”
Actually that was not my experience. I’d say a small part of the Spanish electorate has rediscovered voting full stop. If you look at the vote count (rather than the percentages) the PP has barely less than in 2000 – and were expected to drop slightly anyway.
What happened is that the participation went up. Voters who are disillusioned with the whole political class got off their arses and voted for a change.
Philip:
All the data in in Naum’s 1st post. I followed
several TV stations during March 11 and his
account is perfectly accurate. And all the
data is online for you to check.
I can not understand why you prefer to ignore
the facts and keep writting like a wanker.
What a discredit.
Ben:
Still, lets remember that voting participation
in Spain (and most/all EU countries) was always
higher than it is in the US.
Have fun,
It has been widely (and relatively sensibly) speculated that Bin Laden’s ultimate goal with the 9/11 attacks was to goad the US into a wild unilateral overreaction which would divide their allies and mobilize the Muslim world against them, at least providing a focal point for the various fringe loonies to rally around.
Doubtless he was pretty disappointed when the US government lined up the UN and NATO for their action in Afghanistan which was executed with an incredible efficiency and return on investment, both militarily and politically as the world watched the pre-medieval fundamentalist hillbillies who had held the country in terror finally get their due.
Then he must have been thrilled and amazed as the US turned around ditched all common sense, shed all the alliances and goodwill they’d mobilized and set off on a Bismarckian influence-grab and windmill-tilt in Iraq. Not only did the administration throw “their side” into total disarray, they all but walked away from Afghanistan leaving it for the plucking of the same clowns they’d just helped to wrestle it away from to use as their own personal heroin farm, they polarized the Muslim world with even the most moderate people having a hard time reconciling the obvious lies that were tendered as motives for the war with the US’ treatment of equally vile, but less obstructive demagogues everywhere else in the region and indeed the world. The people of Iraq require democracy so urgently we have to invade it, but Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, the U.A.E., Syria, and Yemen are just fine the way they are? Come on. The only country in the western world in which there was anything resembling majority support for the war was the United States. Let me tell you if even the generally spineless Canadian government doesn’t chime in with an obsequious “me too” on a proposed american military move – it needs some sober second thought.
So the bottom line is this whirlwind of disapproval in Europe was sown directly by the Bush administration. No constituency outside of the US supported the war in Iraq and they told you so, so don’t be shocked when nobody wants to send their kids to get chewed up in that Potemkin “liberation” exercise. If the US (and Spanish) government had buckled down and commited its resources to attacking Al Qaeda’s infrastructure in Afghanistan, Pakistan Sudan, rather than charging off on some misguided personal vendetta/resource grab in Iraq, the citizens of Spain, the US and pretty much everwhere else would have been much better served and the Spanish government might still be a close US ally.
Philip
Sounds like you have joined the neo-con gangs eh? have been reading Michael Ledeen lately?
I think Philip is losing it.. Spanish voters evicting a government that was lying to appease an lying government who is endangering everyone just shows common sense to me.. something I hope US voters will duplicate in November. It should be noted that the new PM is NOT withdrawing from Afghanistan where OBL and AlQaeda hang out. Of course we as the US arent much concerned about OBL now what we have acquired pipleline rights .. now we just need to secure that Iraqi oil:) but hey I feel safer now than in 2000… NOT
george girton • 3/17/04; 10:21:11 AM wrote:
What is the evidence that the 90 percent of the Spanish electorate that opposed the war in Iraq in the first place, was going to vote for the government that went to war? Your analysis — if we could call it that, sir — depends almost entirely on a fact which you assume to be true, but which almost certainly is not.
===================================================
First, the previous posters stated 80%, not 90% as you claimed, so please don’t attribute your own typo as other posters’ errors.
Second, Google the following: “Polls Show European Public Opposed to Iraq War”, Reuters, January 30, 2003. Unless you have been in a hole for the past year and half, you should know that 80% in Spain, 73% in Italy, 79% in Denmark, 67% in Czech Republic, 82% in Hugary, and 63 in Poland opposed the Iraq war.
I remember it varying an awful lot. In this article they talk about 84.7% opposed in any case and 2.3% in favour if the UN didn’t back the attack:
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2003/02/22/espana/1045892312.html
God, Philip, I love your binary approach to politics.
Philip has once again done a great job of presenting an analysis that greatly bothers a lot of people. Cool. I love to see the reactions. I especially like the claim by Pedro Jorge that Spain has 1k years as a country. Interesting. So, what the year 1492 means nothing to you?
It is difficult to be a leader. When you first set out to lead, people snicker at you and call you names. I cannot understand for the life of me how 16 U.N. Resolutions over 12 years and a report by Hans Blixx stating that Iraq and Saddam Hussein were in material breach of these resolutions has been contorted. Have any of you Bush/U.S. haters stopped to think… if the current U.S. administration had lied and overstated its case against Hussein, then they must have known that there wouldn’t be any WMD to be found. That all being true, wouldn’t they have been better prepared with phase 2 of their master plan, that is explaining away the absence of WMD? Isn’t it nice to sit back a year and a half removed and snipe at a true world leader who has the courage of his convictions? The elected US President (read the Constitution if you’re unclear – all subsequent FL recounts produced the same result) has stood up and did what he (and the U.S. Congress – Kerry: “Yea” – Clinton, H.: “Yea”) knew was the right thing to do. Look up what: Clinton, Kennedy & Kerry said about Hussein before the war, very similar to the Bushies. Blixx said just yesterday on the Today Show that he presumed there were WMD. Don’t worry, Europe, G.I. Joe is here, we are willing to die in your place, to protect you, to save your a&&e& again (WWI, WWII, The Cold War, Kosovo). No coalition, huh? I guess there’s no coalition until a member threatens to pull out. It still isn’t clear that ETA wasn’t working with A.Q. so don’t count those chickens yet.
“If you leave terrorists alone, they’ll leave you alone”??? Let me ask how does one become a terrorist? Is it by proclamation? Your memories are short and your spines are jelly. OBL and Co. will come knocking on your door next.
But don’t worry G.I. Joe is here. We’ve convinced Gaddafi.
Just call me a dumb neo-con, it’s easier to put me in a box you can ignore.
I’ve had an idea to settle this. Philip, you’ve got loads of money. Why don’t you comission a survey of the Spanish, asking them why they voted what they did. I suggest the following options:
a) Scared of osama
b) Pissed off with how the PP lied about the whole episode
c) My choice was not influenced by 11-M or it’s aftermath
My pronostic: a majority of c), about 7% b) and almost no a)
I think the American people’s tendency to rally around their government is an unfortunate one.
We’re free mainly because our people are, normally, the most anti-authoritarian in the world, and have a healthy skepticism toward the government’s claims.
But we forget how to be Americans in wartime, and feel some kind of “patriotic” obligation to believe any clown who wraps himself in the flag and uses the magic words “national security.”
That’s extremely dangerous, because it’s SOP for governments to use war and patriotism as a way of controlling the popular mind and deflecting attention from its own mendacity. It’s in wartime that we need to be most vigilant toward the government, but it usually works out the other way around.
A political culture that encourages people to “trust and obey” in wartime is an awfully strong incentive for politicians to GET into wars, don’t you think?
BTW, around a century ago, during the controversy over the Spanish-American War, Sumner ironically described the triumph of jingoism and statism in this country as a conquest of the United States by Spain. A hundred years later, the Spanish people, by refusing to swallow their government’s party line, are proving they know more about being Americans than we do. Maybe it’s time for another Spanish conquest.
Ben: Hmm… I do have loads of money. Sadly, however, nowhere near enough to influence politics in the U.S. Maybe my money would go farther in Europe, though. It would appear that anyone with enough money to fund 5 or 6 young Muslims can control the foreign policy of the country of his choice. Instead of funding a survey perhaps it would be more interesting to fund some terrorists who could make a quirky demand of the Spanish (or other European) government.
Philip: Do you have any evidence that the swing in the Spanish vote was not the product of the PP’s attempt to use the attack for their political benefit?
Ben: I’m sure that nobody can ever know for sure what was going on in the minds of the voters. However, looking in from outside the sequence of events (bombing, vote, decision to withdraw the infidel Spanish soldiers from sacred Muslim territory) would seem to offer much encouragement to those who would influence nations via terrorism. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/17/france.threats/index.html would seem to indicate that the next country in which this theory is going to be tested is France.
Honestly if you were here you would have a pretty good idea (and if you were really interested you could fund that survey).
I know how things might appear on the outside, which is why you should read a bit about what people say who lived through the sad episode (and not just me).
Things were just dandy for the PP untill saturday. Then people were furious at them for their lies. Then they voted them out.
As for the decision to withdraw from Iraq – it is actually conditional on the US not handing the power to the UN. So I guess Spanish policy is now in the hands of your prez. I hope he uses this wisely.
Let’s not forget the Bali bombing in 2002. A stated reason for the attack was to punish Australia for intervening in East Timor against Indonesia, a Muslim country: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2743679.stm
Philip, this is all silly drivel. History repeating itself.
Now can you get back to important and more enjoyable posts i.e. pictures of big fluffy samoyeds ?
Philip, this is the dumbest post of yours I’ve ever read. You usually have a strong line in irony, but here it’s absent.
The outgoing Spanish government failed terribly in two ways; 1) trying to pin the blame the wrong group of terrorists (the ETA) too early, and 2) not coordinating police and intelligence, in an echo of 9/11. After the fact, these agencies admit they knew of the suspects, but had not coordinated, or made arrests.
The incoming Spanish prime minister flat out said fighting terrorism is his first priority. Let’s hope he’s more successful at it than his predecessor.
The other aspect is that a terrorist attack days before an election would surely HELP the incumbent portraying himself as a terrorist fighter.
The counter-intuitive result here is that the opposition party still managed to win, despite the deadly reminder of the danger the country faces.
One can only conclude that the terrorist’s plan to influence the result backfired.
The promise to retire our troops from Irak was done weeks or months ago by Zapatero if Irak wasn’t under United Nations control. He is keeping his promise now.
Phil, I think you’re way off base here.
One of bin Laden’s biggest problems with the West was that there have been infidel American troops in Saudi Arabia since the Gulf War.
He attacked the US, and Bush then APPEASED him – caved in to terrorists! – by withdrawing most US forces from SA.
Post hoc does not equal prompter hoc.
The PP in Spain tried to spin a terror attack for political gain;
when the populace found out, they thew the liars out.
Their new government is withdrawing from the Iraq sideshow and
has said it will now focus on The Global War on Terror –
note they are NOT withdrawing their forces from Afghanistan.
The American attack on Iraq was irrelevent to the War on Terror.
Spain has recognized that truth, and America should too.
I enjoy reading your blog, you’re a smart guy, but you seem to be ‘way off on this one.
Bob: Excellent point. I would agree with you that from Osama’s perspective the 9/11 killings were very successful. They didn’t work out too well for the former owners of Afghanistan, however, so presumably the American response discouraged country owners from hosting Al-Qaeda. It certainly seems that the West overall is losing the War on Terror and therefore it could be unfair to focus on Spain. On the other hand there is probably no Western country that has given up so much ground in so few days to their Islamic antagonists.
Let’s have a peace process!!
Hey, what about the “root causes” of this attack–the occupation of Malaga since 1492 or whatever? C’mon Guardian readers, chime in!
I say let the UN occupy Madrid and turn over half of Spain to Al Queda.
It is only right, how else can we correct this horrible injustice?
Good work, Philip!
Phil,
The election of Zapatero was a safe bet _before_ the bombings.
Al qaida may have used this as an opportunity to strengthen *the perception* that terrorism can affect political change.
America’s perception of recent events bothers me not one bit. How this plays to potential terrorists in the middle east is another matter.
This was not an appeasement vote and you insult the people of Spain by suggesting it was.
Well, Philip, if “the west is losing the war on terror”, maybe that means the tactics aren’t working. Maybe it’s time for a tactical retreat, regroup and come up with a winning stragey. One that actualy focusses on catching terrorists, rather than furthering, or at least protecting, business interests and ticking off more prospective terrorists in the process.
Anyone who thinks Spain has given in and given up fighting is a complete and utter moron. With the counter-productive invasion of Iraq off Spanish intelligence and law enforcement minds, they can now focus on what they should be doing: catching the criminals and bringing them to justice.
I have tried to be politcal about this, but when are you arrogant, thick-header, egocentrical, two bit, self rightious, dumb-ass yanks going to realise that there is more than one way to combat terrorism and that your’s isn’t necesarily the right one?
The elections were not decided by the bombings. Polls indicated a head-to-head race before, but were not made public because of Spanish election rules. A source in German: http://www.zeit.de/2004/13/Wahlen
The conservative government had been on the way down for quite some time. There were a number of events where ministers and PM Aznar himself tried to lie to the public, and he was not very popular anymore either.
I am an American living in Madrid (about 5-10 minutes from Atocha train station) and have been in Europe for the last 9 years.
Many people including myself initially believed the attacks were carried out by ETA. They had tried to bomb another station only a few months ago. But for a number of reasons (scale of attack, no advance notice…) there were reasons to believe that it was not ETA. Still, anyone living in Spain for the past years had to acknowledge that ETA was a leading suspect.
What happened is that the left-wing press along with supposedly regular people basically conspired (i.e. “spontaneous demonstrations organised across the country”) to make it appear that the government was carrying out a cover up. It may be the case that the PP was not quick enough to consider Muslim extremists as the perpetrators, but the real dirty tricks were carried out by the left-wing (Socalist and Communist parties). Despite this, the PP has basically accepted their defeat without further recriminations.
Curiously enough, there is some evidence starting to point to the Basque terrorists having aided the Muslim terrorists. It will be very curious to see how this evolves.
Philip, I agree with most of what you said here (I’m “native Dutch”, by the way). Furthermore, Finnish intelligence services have evidence of an islamic terrorist cell discussing the possiblities of influencing elections in Spain. Even though the PP would probably have lost anyway, with them ignoring the majority of voters and all, to the terrorists it will seem they succeeded. Especially since the overall sentiment seems to be that “if Spain would not have been in Iraq, this would not have happened”. Wrong. OBL’s war is against the entire West, not just America or friends of America. Yes, Al-Qaeda has claimed the attack to have been punishment for “crimes committed with the criminal Bush”, but OBL has a higher goal: islamic domination of the world. And not just islamic, no, the fundamentalist Taliban view for that matter. That is scary.
Having France as the probable next target also makes no sense regarding the “do nothing and they will do nothing”-theory. After all, the French have been very loud protesters of the American led invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, it is the French in whom many “evil” islamic countries find an eager trading partner for arms and other often illicit materials. Just look at the sanctions France received from the UN for their illegal trading with Saddam Hussein.
But is Europe going to be an islamic theocracy any time soon? I think not. In just about every European country, a muslim-scare resembling the red scare in the US during the cold war is shaping up to be a policy-setting affair. Right-wing, (ultra)nationalist, racist political movements get evermore followers and “political correctness” (ie, doing nothing that seems even remotely nazist) is becoming something to fight against. And all of this seems to manifest itself in fighting off only one alien minority: muslims. Appeasement? Yes. Surrender? Hell no! (Unless they….)
I am Anerican and have lived in Spain for 17 years. I believe that the vote for the Socialist party was caused by the ruling party’s botched attempt to blame the attack on Basque separatists in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. The voters were simply sick of being lied to and reacted accordingly. The fact that they had been forced against their will into the war when 80% of the population was against it also counted. I believe that the Spanish have been fighting terrorism for generations and know much more about it than Bush. They think the war in Iraq has much more to do with oil than terrorism.
The way that dubya has led this country in the war with Iraq and on terror is the only discourse the terrorists understand. OBL said so himself in an interview with Dan Rather in the mid-90’s. (Sorry – couldn’t find a reference). In that interview he listed several acts of terrorism against the United States (Beirut, Mogadishu, WTC bombing #1) as evidence that United States would not react in kind. He went on to say that direct acts of terrorism will drive the U.S. from anywhere without a reponse. The inaction of the U.S. and its allies emboldens the terorrists. Remember, Ayman Al-Zawiri (OBL’s #2) is convicted of plotting the assassination of Anwar Sadat. Sadat was assassinated for signing the peace accord with Israel in 1978 with President Carter.
If you think that milk and cookies are going to persuade OBL, Arafat, Damascus & Tehran that we should all just get along, you haven’t read your Koran. Turning away or causing someone to turn away from Allah is the worst crime one can commit. This is a direct offense against Islam and must be punished – not with a timeout either. There is no love lost between OBL and Hussein. Islam is experiencing a rebirth under the US-led occupation in Iraq – religion can be practiced freely now.
You cannot lead from a position of weakness. Capitulating to the wishes of terrorists, as Spain did: perception=reality, makes us weak and them strong.
Because of the results in Spain, there will be an attempt to influence the upcoming U.S. elections. They have no choice but to try.
Again: OBL did’n “manipulate” the elections in Spain. Aznar DID that, shooting his own foot by lying to his voters about the investigation of such terrible crime.
Had he been honest and he would probably have been reelected. (Iraq or no Iraq… and remember that noone is talking about withdrawing from Afeghanistan.)
It is all over the online news sites for you to check.
One that chooses to ignore this facts – that so many people that know Spain’s reality already highlighted here – either lives in his own little world or enjoys manipulating the truth.
John, you don’t understand. Nobody is saying not to act and they will go away. Criminals they are and need to be brought to justice, either through the courts or, if needed, by making them dissapear.
There are three things that need to be done: 1) Stop open provokation (Israeli “settlements”, invasion of Iraq), 2) take out the terrorists. Not their family members, not the mosque they pray at, not the street they live in. Take out the terrorist. Find him, track him and when you got an open shot, take it. Killing innocents or destroying their property will breed 10 terrorists for every one you kill. This is a lot harder and to your citizens (voters!) it looks like you are not doing anything, but it is the only way to win. And finaly, which should probably be number one, 3) Keep them out and foil attacks.
You see, Americans think Europeans are against the war on terror. That is not true in any way. They are against the methods currently employed and the lies and deceit by your and our own leaders. Witholding information in the name of security is fine, lying and then going on an attack, that every sensible human being agrees will be counter productive, in our name is not acceptable.
John, do you think it’s possible that by boasting that the US would not respond he was actually trying to elicit a response?
Bas: Open provocation? Let’s recall the fall of 2000 when Arrafat walked away from a deal that would have created a Palestinian state with joint control over Jerusalem. Let’s recall Bush 41 not marching to Baghdad in 1991. This is a war, if you think that killing/capturing OBL will end A.Q., you’re wrong. This is not some band of street thugs that everyone in the neighborhood wishes would go away. This is an international army of special forces troops that are well funded and well organized. You have to make everyone who lives in that neighborhood or shares that ideaology (remember the dancing in the streets, throughout the Arab world on 9/11) understand the consequences of their actions, a la Berlin and Hiroshima. I don’t see any German or Japanese terrorists running around. Keep them out? Who is the “them”? If you target Muslims at airport security, you’re a racist. A good portion of the 9/11 highjackers were here on lapsed student visas. We aren’t going to build walls around the U.S. or Western Europe.
We don’t think that Europeans are against the war on terror – just that they are unwilling to spill their own blood. And that spilling anyone’s blood other than the perpetrator’s is not acceptable. So, you’d like us to send bands of merry men out to find these fellows and convince them to come in for questioning or be duly thrashed.
Lies? Again 16 resolutions, Hans Blix report to the UN Security Council. Go back to September 12, 2001 and read them again. Bas, you should read Phillip’s piece on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. It gives insight into how and why the Arab nations are opressing their own people while blaming U.S./Israel (one in the same in their minds). The worst possible thing that could happen from their point of view is the establishment of a democracy in their midst. I read a letter to the editor on ArabNews.com, that said something to the effect of, “If the U.S. were so worried about oppressed Arabs, they’d liberate all of us.” I’ve also read that with a nascent democracy next door, the Iranians who seek to establish a representative government will have will have greater likelihood of success.
Ben: Given that OBL was speaking with the experience the Soviets had in Afghanistan during the 80’s fresh in his mind, I think its fair to say that. The issue, however, is that in failing to respond to prior attacks, subsequent attacks became more brazen: U.S. barracks in Dahran and the USS Cole, US Embassy in Kenya and finally WTC attack #2. I suspect that OBL was a little surprised to see Kabul fall so quickly.
Paolo: The lefties (Ted Kennedy) here in the states are already parroting what A.Q. has claimed. Bad News for America = Good News for John Kerry.
John,
Arafat had every reason to walk away, would you like a deal with, say, Iraq, that gave joint control over NYC just because some thugs showed up and claimed it? It is not Israeli land. Period.
I am sure Philip’s piece on the region will be as biased as he always is on that subject.
Besides, the version we got here was that the peace process was going great. Killings on both sides were way down, but to Israeli voters it wasn’t going well enough. So they voted for a new goverment that would “be tough on terrorism”. And look were they are today.
Sound familiar? Think before you vote this year.
Oh sorry, forgot a few points you made. 1) The US supports and refuses to investigate his likely funders, let alone take action against them and 2) the “dancing in the street” footage was widely discreditted as having been recorded well before 9/11 within days of it being aired. But I doubt US mainstream media stuck with the story for that long.
A people that can be enraged into rallying around their stupid president is at least as spineless, mindless, and easy to manipulate as the people that can be scared into ousting their wise government (NOT Spaniards).
Sometimes, it takes real courage to do the right thing at the risk of appearing as a coward.
Phil,
I liked it all better when you were writing about your dead dog.
Sheesh. I often disagree with you, Philip, but you’ve never produced stuff as ignorant as this before.
The best response I’ve seen to the mind-boggling claims about the Spanish elections is Juan Cole’s
http://www.juancole.com/2004_03_01_juancole_archive.html#107942407001890750
And the claims that people in the US are “tougher” than Europeans are just stereotyping, with no evidential basis of any kind that I can see.
In case the message hasn’t gotten through yet, here it is again from the NY Times:
“Spanish voters weren’t intimidated by the terrorist bombings — they turned on a ruling party they didn’t trust. When the government rushed to blame the wrong people for the attack, tried to suppress growing evidence to the contrary and used its control over state television and radio both to push its false accusation and to play down antigovernment protests, it reminded people of the broader lies about the war.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/19/opinion/19KRUG.html?hp
Let’s imagine that Spain pulls the troops and military intelligence personnel they have in Iraq out, and uses them instead to defend against and take preemptive action against Al-Qaeda. (Which is surely not unlikely – not even the stupidest warbloggers seem to have suggested the Spanish aren’t trying to catch those responsible for the Madrid bombing, or to improve security so such a thing can’t happen again.) If this happens, will you admit that what you’ve written is a crock of shit?
What you’ve said is the equivalent of arguing that the British pulling troops out of India to defend Britain against Hitler were “appeasing” Hitler, because Hitler had condemned the British presence in India.
Grynszpan, your skills as political analyst are only comparable to your skills as enterpreneur. Go back to your tcl stuff and photo critique…
a) Zapatero promised the troops out of Irak *before* 11-M (IF AND ONLY IF O.N.U. doesn’t take control by June 1st).
b) 90% of Spaniards opposed the War, a year ago. Aznar ignored millions of citizens marching the streets.
c) People voted for change because they were tired of Aznar politics and because they felt their goverment lied them. Blaming ETA compulsively also helped.
That’s it. Simple. It’s democracy.
Why the american right fails to understands this is beyond me.
Shalom.
Frankly I think that this post is full of the most stereotypical American binary vision of the world. Unless your post is part of a new “Blame Europeans who live in these days” contest, of course.
Bas,
The “open shot” is a myth, a day-dream of the pacifist mind. If you want to kill someone with a bullet you better be prepaired that someone’s infant sone will be sitting behind that person.
In the real world you have to get the “best shot”. Sometimes you realise that even though you might kill other people, this is the only shot you are going to get before your terrorist kills more of your people.
If you wait for the “open shot” you are in effect giving terrorists victory. They will always hide behind civilian targets. Never have terrorists banded into an army in order to confront our forces unless forced to.
The decicion to endanger civilian lives in theirs, not ours. And for that we cannot forgive them, ever.
Like Golda Meir said “We can forgive them for killing our sons, but we can never forgive them for forcing us to kill theirs”.
So, Yoni, you don’t even try? It wouldn’t be ethical. So I guess it is better to have an anonymous Apache pilot launching a Hellfire missile at the terrorists car in a busy street, guaranteed to kill inocent people, and just call it “collateral damage”.
“The whole notion that the 21st century can suddenly revert to the 18th
and governments can fight wars in which the people and vital national
interests are not involved is absurd.
Very sad, Phil. I expected better than that from you 🙁
While going after our new enemies, you neglect our old friends:
1. Saudi Arabia is deeply committed to ending terrorism. The 9/11 terrorists could have come from anywhere.
2. Pakistan is a staunch ally in the battle against terrorism. Selling atomic bombs is an excusable prank.
3. Osama bin Laden’s family could not have been aiding him. It would be abhorrent to have subjected any of them to any inconvenience because of 9/11
4. The Coalition of the Willing microstates are with us for ideological reasons. There are absolutely no payoffs involved.
This seems to me a disappointing piece from Phil for many reasons. Firstly, the use of words like appeasement and political correctness has become an all too popular tool in politics, especially for the right. The trick is to pick an emotive word and use it to describe any point of view that is counter to yours. If you are lucky you can cut straight to the first two circuits of a persons brain (the most basic and emotional areas), and have them bypass circuit three, the critical thinking part of the brain e.g. anyone not with the US is an appeaser, they’re “appeasing” those Muslims just like Europe “appeased” the Nazis, that’s terrible etc, etc, etc.
Secondly, Phil seems to believe that he has met every single European, so uses the old European1= European 2=European 3 “logic” trick. If he must say Europeans this and Europeans that, then unless he writes some but not all Europeans seem to me ……….. then he is just making meaningless noise.
Thirdly his analysis seems to me just plain wrong. Spaniards simply exercised their democratic (a popular Bush word) rights, the PP party misled the voters over WofMD and then tried to mislead them again over who was responsible for the bombings hardly a vote winning strategy, and the war on Iraq and opposing terror are not the same thing, in fact you could easily argue that the war in Iraq did Al-Q a big favor.
I am opposed to fundamentalism of all kinds, be that Muslim, Neo Con, Zionist, Christian etc, but I find it difficult to believe that it can be countered by the use of large amounts of high tech military might.
Was Phil merely trying to illustrate the international demonizing of America and its current president? Certainly he succeeded therein: such a solaridity in opinion from abroad! But if his analogies to 20th century European appeasement were offensive, imagine how much more upset many would be if he drew comparisons with collective thought/hysteria, the continuing use of scapegoatism, etc.
Perhaps we should let Europe search out a new scapegoat (or, and let’s be optimistic, move beyond this practice). I would seriously consider voting for a candidate who suggested removing US military presence from bases in Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Greece, Turkey, Korea, Japan … and the Middle East. It wouldn’t keep us from applying dwindling resources to police the world, but it’d sure make it more difficult to do so.
Trolling aside, an Islamo Fascism thesis was espoused by CG Jung in the 1930s. If I recall correctly from his Collected Works, he stated that he hadn’t found anything similar to the rise Nazi party since the rise of Islam.
Warm regards.
Kevin Drum points out that reading the electiosn as a victory of appeasement is shortsighted and ignorant.
Well, he doesn’t use quite that language. He gives 4 points in which consider the election results
* Polls show that the Socialists were catching up anyway. They might have won even without the bombings.
* The bombings simply caused an upsurge in interest in the elections, which in turn caused a higher turnout (63% vs. 55% in 2000). This benefited the Socialists, who usually do better when the turnout is better.
* The populace was enraged at Aznar for lying about ETA being responsible for the bombings and took it out on him at the polls.
* Voters thought Spain had been targeted because of its support for the Iraq war and voted for the party that had promised to withdraw Spain’s troops.
Points 1 and 2 are things that aren’t getting much focus in the US media, for whatever reason. And posts like yours aren’t helping the matter.
One other thing; The Spaniards are only pulling out of Iraq ( and that only if the UN isn’t involved by July). Thay’re staying in Afghanistan. So Bin Laden may find himself being called something else altogether by some Europeans.
Mr. Greenspun,
You are bloody arrogant! I am certain that you will be able to find the delete key to remote your entire posting. It might help you to save face.
Failing that, then rather than pottering down the coastline in your tiny aeroplane, you might consider investing in a journey across the Atlantic Ocean in a real jetliner. There you can meet some Europeans first hand. There is nothing to fear – on the contrary – we are really quite civilised.
Don’t try to appease any British readers who were lead astray by Phoney Blair using falsified documentation in the Iraq case. He too will probably disappear from the limelight at the next election.
Very disappointed…
“It would appear that anyone with enough money to fund 5 or 6 young Muslims can control the foreign policy of the country of his choice.”
On the contrary – it shows that democracy is alive and well, and the Spanish voters act with their heads. It shows that the foreign policy of Spain is not dictated by one man, Aznar, in contravention of the wishes of the vast majority of Spaniards.
I share the disappointment expressed by other posters. I used to regard Phil as someone with an informed point of view. Now I see he is just another big fool. A shame.
Reiterating a point others have made: Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism (other than helping terrorist recruiting).
The Spanish voted out a government that got sidetracked with the Iraq adventurism and lied about vital issues. How this can be seen as appeasing terrorists is a mystery to me.
I read your photography comments, and i never could imagine how a smart guy can talk about such a dramatic fact without enough information. We in Spain suffered FOUR YEARS of arrogance, lies, prepotency, of a government and a president whose mental weakness is only comparable with the George Bush one. The 11M drama was the final reason that compel to go voting millions of spanish people, but the reason lies away in time.
Please, BE INFORMED, READ, ASK, before defiling the memory of almost 200 people and their families. WE DON’T WANT TO GO TO WAR TO IRAQ, WE DOES NOT LOSE ANTYHING AT IRAQ. THE IRAQI INVASION IS A LIE. If people at USA believes this lie, is your problem, but we, Spanish people use the right way to make hear our voice: democracy.
I hope i will read your apologies one day…