Baseball Crank: WAR/POLITICS: A Victory for Appeasement

March 14, 2004

WAR/POLITICS: A Victory for Appeasement

Spanish socialists, apparently successful in exploiting last week’s terrorist attacks for political gain, are poised to win control of that country’s government. I know little about Spanish politics, but John over at Iberian Notes, who the Crank highlighted the other day, draws a scathing conclusion that I find hard to argue with:

What happened? It's clear: the people of Spain are not willing to risk standing up to domestic or international terrorism and would prefer to appease the terrorists in hopes that they will be left alone in the future. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero will be the next Prime Minister, and one of the first things he will do is pull Spain out of the Coalition. Spain will join the Paris-Berlin axis. I assume Spanish troops will soon be leaving Iraq…
The Madrid bombings changed everything. The people have decided that Islamic terrorists are responsible, though that is in no way determined yet, and they have decided that it is the fault of Jose Maria Aznar and the PP government. Congratulations to the terrorists, whether ETA or Islamic: you've done your job. You disrupted the election. You beat Aznar and Rajoy and the PP, who were way ahead in all the polls before the bombings. And congratulations to the leftist parties, too. They won this election--well, not quite fair and square, more like pretty dirty, what with exploiting the bombing to accuse the government of lying with no evidence. But they won. They won, democratically, a clear victory.

A victory for appeasement. A victory for cowardice.

That may seem harsh, especially in light of Spain’s tragic losses on Thursday. However, it is very worrisome to see the struggle against terrorism demonized and a policy of appeasement of terrorists seemingly embraced by the electorate of an ally. The people of Spain, while entitled to mourn, should be lashing out at the terrorists who slaughtered their innocent citizens, not the political leadership which sought to combat them.

I also don’t buy the notion that Spain can forever extricate itself from the cross-hairs of Islamic terrorists (assuming, for arguments sake, that they definitively were behind Thursday’s attacks) simply by distancing itself from the Big Bad Americans. As this article notes, al Qaeda and its allies are still smarting from the defeat of the Moors in Spain over 500 years ago:

Thursday's bombings have raised an uncomfortable question for Spaniards. Is Osama bin Laden dreaming of exacting revenge for the loss of Al-Andalus, the ancient Moorish kingdom in Iberia?
A group said to be close to bin Laden's al-Qaeda, the Brigade of Abu Hafs al-Masri, sent a message to a London-based Arabic newspaper saying: "This is part of settling old accounts with Spain, the crusader and America's ally in its war against Islam." While the authenticity of the message is open to doubt, there is no question that it reflects the thinking of Islamists who hold that any land that has once been part of the Muslim community should forever remain under Muslim rule.

At the beginning of the 11th century, three-quarters of Spain's population was Muslim. But as soon as the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand and Isabella reconquered the country for Christianity, the Muslims were ordered out…Bin Laden has also spoken of Al-Andalus, regarded with nostalgia by Islamists as the halcyon age of Muslim power and artistic achievement. Moorish armies from North Africa conquered the Iberian Peninsula in the 8th century and transformed the region into an integral part of the Muslim umma, or nation. The year 1492, when Granada was ceded to Ferdinand and Isabella, is a talismanic date for some Islamist scholars, who consider it as the beginning of the decline of the Muslim world. The tale of the "Moors' last sigh" is recounted to epitomise the loss of one of the Islamic world's great jewels.

Bin Laden included Spain on the list of "temporarily occupied Muslim territory" long before the war in Iraq or even September 11, 2001.

Distancing itself from the U.S. and its allies may, in the short-term, lower Spain on the list of prospective al Qaeda targets, but it can never altogether remove it. Al Qaeda is a cancer that threatens all nations over which it feels Islamic rule should govern, including Spain, and choosing not to fight back against it is no guarantee of safety. Instead, such a course may be, in the long run, the ultimate guarantee of continued fear and unease.

UPDATE: The commentariat helpfully links to this article about how the Spanish government may have selectively released information regarding the responsibility for the Madrid bombings. There is conflicting evidence there. At best, however, the government handled its PR clumsily. At worst, it was a more sinister attempt at misinformation.

Look, I would love to believe that the Spanish election results were primarily based on simple mistrust of the government or reasons other than attempting to distance Spain from the U.S and our allies and not wanting to fight back against terrorism. Unfortunately, I don’t. And every action from the new socialist government only acts to reinforce that belief.

Posted by The Mad Hibernian at 06:27 PM | Politics 2004 • | War 2004 | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Comments

90% of Spaniards were against their country's involvement in Iraq...and yet it still appeared there would not be a change in the party at the top.

The 3/11 happened.

Had the vote went the way it did (to the Socialists) based simply on that, you might think the Spaniards took one on the chin and decided to throw in the towel. A glass jaw so to speak.

But it wasn't simply based on that. Despite mounting evidence, the party in control continued to hype their belief that the bombings were the work of the ETA. They clearly politicized the tragedy...and they paid the price.

I'd consider it a cautionary tale. And I'd refrain calling out democracies based upon the results of their elections.

Posted by: C Giddy at March 15, 2004 06:43 PM

It’s democracy to be sure, but that doesn’t mean we can’t criticize it.

Were the socialists elected because they’re going to be any better at fighting al Qaeda or ETA? Or is this a vote to avoid fighting the likes of them altogether?

How unreasonable was it for the government not rule out ETA until further investigation had been done? This attack was only FOUR days ago. The notion that this was some sweeping cover-up by the Spanish government doesn’t sit right with me. The Spanish government has been fighting ETA and Basque terrorism for years; if this was al Qaeda (as it now appears) it’s the first major attack of theirs in Spain that I can remember.

The Spanish populace did generally oppose the Iraq war, as was their right. However, as I understand it, the majority of them were still prepared to comfortably re-elect the government as of Wednesday. On Thursday, they were attacked, thus directly precipitating the anti-U.S. vote and socialist victory. Thus, terrorists were allowed to greatly influence the outcome of the election. This sends a terrible message to terrorists. What is to stop similar politically-motivated attacks in Britain, in Poland, in the U.S., etc…?

Sure, this is democracy at work, but it is democracy buckling to the will of extremists and murderers. We should aid and comfort the Spanish victims of this tragedy, but these election results are not something we should in any way applaud.

Posted by: The Mad Hibernian at March 16, 2004 12:40 AM

Oh yeah, this gov't was definitely going to be reelected, probably by a comfortable margin to boot.

I'm no international policy wonk/terrorism expert....but I raised an eyebrow when I heard reports that the Spanish Gov't was downplaying Al Qaeda links and promoting ETA theories.

Still, in hindsite, the gov't in charge was screwed either way, as the already wary Spaniards would reasonably think that the main reason they'd been targeted was their cooperation in Iraq, thus inclining them to vote the party out.

Still, if standing with the US in Iraq was the right fight, then they should've said as much and pointed the finger squarely at Al Qaeda.

The fact the gov't felt they had to pull this misdirection stunt does not bode well for democracy. Seriously. It appears that Al Qeada has directly manipulated a democratic election via terrorism, and in doing so forced a democratically elected government to act...less than democratic.

Posted by: C Giddy at March 16, 2004 11:46 AM

A victory for appeasement?!?! A victory for cowardice?!?!?

Did the Spanish People lose this war on terror, or did the Spanish Government lose it by resorting to misinformation in order to mislead the electorate?

WAS IT A VOTE FOR TERRORISM, OR A VOTE AGAINST A GOVERNMENT SPONSERED MISINFORMATION!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=1&u=/washpost/20040317/ts_washpost/a64633_2004mar16

You've all seen it, and you haven't posted anything denouncing these actions. Thus far the electorate has been accused, and not the previous administration.

I've already said this maybe a cautionary tale for the US and the current administration.

Make no mistake, a vote for Kerry will not be a vote for the terrorists, it will be a vote against deception. Deception as a Standard Operating Procedure used by this administration in every venture...energy policy, medicare bills, tax policy, the war on terrorism, the economy, etc., etc., etc.

Posted by: C Giddy at March 17, 2004 04:35 PM

Yeah, there definitely seems to be a good deal more evidence in that direction than I originally thought (although I haven’t read it all with St. Patrick on the brain today). The Spanish government acted duplicitously and stupidly if they tried to convince people of something it thought wasn’t true. No question.

I still oppose the Socialist position (on terrorism, on Iraq and probably on everything else) and think their victory sends the absolutely wrong message to terrorists.

However, the government bears a good share of blame, it appears. Mainland Europe needs to get its act together in terms of fighting terrorism, but lying to the people (if that’s what happened) ain’t the way to do it…

As for Bush analogy leap, I don’t buy it for a second.

Posted by: The Mad Hibernian at March 17, 2004 05:38 PM

…except maybe regarding Medicare. But I have a feeling that the “Bush-As-Duplicitous-Free-Spending-Liberal” argument isn’t the one you’re making.

Posted by: The Mad Hibernian at March 17, 2004 11:34 PM

I was against the bill. Bush was duplicitous in getting it passed.

Regardless, my support or non-support of the bill is neither here nor there.

While there are plenty of cuts that could be made (lots of pork out there) I'd probably be unhappy with many of the cuts a Bush admin would propose. Many of his own constituants would probably be unhappy as well.

But nobody wants to bite the bullet, and Bush doesn't have the balls to make the cuts.

Bush cutting funds without cutting programs is right alongside a Democrat raising taxes without having programs to be funded.

Posted by: C Giddy at March 18, 2004 05:09 PM