~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
First, the more I hear about it, the more dubious I am about it all. But second, lets assume all the charges that are going about are absolutely true. How would that advance the debate?
To the extent to which it contributed to real intelligence reform, this story might have some merit. To the further extent to which it undermined Washington's culture of investigations (in this case, the bipartisanly partisan 9/11 Commission), it would make a positive contribution.
But to the extent to which it replaces "BUSH KNEW!" with "CLINTON KNEW! (or should have known!)" charges, it is just part of the bipartisan circle-jerk that keeps us all busy but doesn't really contribute to a substantive debate about what policies to follow and how to make them work.
This is one of the things that has contributed to my lack of blogging recently. By no means the only reason I haven't blogged, but a significant one. Repeatedly having to rebut "BUSH LIED"! and all the other bogus distractions that act as a substitute for intelligent civic discourse is not my idea of the best use of time. I know it has to be done, and I can link to all the things, be they on WMD, intelligence, ties to terrorism (see below) and the like which refutes the litany, have done it before and likely will do it again, but this Sisyphean task grows wearisome.
Ok, so lets go back to assuming that ABLE DANGER-based intelligence revealed Mohammed Attah as a member of a terrorist cell in the U.S., a year before 9/11. What does that prove?
It proves what we already knew: we need to get a lot better at handling intelligence. It proves that a great deal of mistakes occurred, in no small part based on bad policy. Fixating on that can only be useful if it becomes part of an argument over improving our intelligence-management system, over what policy should be rather than how to fix blame.
Are things improving in the war on terror, or do we still have many unlearned lessons? For that matter, are conditions improving in Iraq, or do we need to change policies to prevent deterioration and to insure success? It is so hard to tell in no small part because these issues are deeply politicized.
I would argue, in my opinion correctly, largely by the other side, which is so determined to undermine domestic political opponents on the Right that they will use whatever propaganda they can, clearly ignoring inconvenient fact and dismissing evidence that would be more than enough if their guy was in the White House (and they'll use far slimmer evidence - often invented out of whole cloth - to demonize members of the Administration, showing a double-standard, and also that the so-called "Reality-Based Community" has little regard for, well, reality). But this has meant that "we" then focus our attentions so much on countering that, showing the "untold story" of the progress in the war (be it in Iraq or the larger war) and begin to spin a tale based on dismissing or diminishing bad news, that the picture we paint might be as distorted as the one they do - and no, putting both together does not produce anything like "the full story".
I am all for reasoned political debate, criticism of policy (be it the policies of this Administration or the previous one or the next one), skepticism, and disagreement. But too much of it seems to be done for the sake of nailing political opponents, "Gotcha!" on both sides, and not enough centered really on what would be the best way to go forward.
Jonah Goldberg, who has participated in this himself and no doubt will continue to (but then, so have I in my own way, and if you are reading this post, then most likely so have you, whichever side of the divide you are on) had this observation, which he made about TV punditry but which increasingly (IMO) applies to debates in general:
This all illuminates the rot in cable-news political discourse. I had a contract with CNN for about four years, which meant I was obliged to be on call for the usual five-minute mini-debates that are a staple on all the news networks. Before that, I committed similar punditry on Fox and MSNBC. On all the networks, but I think particularly on CNN, there’s a habit of pairing opinion journalists with “political consultants” — i.e., party mouthpieces and activists.
I hate the practice because it makes it almost impossible to argue in good faith. I disagree with the Bush administration on a wide number of issues — from immigration policy and “compassionate conservatism” to its grotesque overspending. But it’s very hard to offer a balanced defense when your opponent is shouting that you’re a whore to the GOP and that Bush is a liar with his pants on fire.
(Emphasis added).
Now, I think that the forces largely responsible for this condition need to be defeated. It is one of the reasons why, despite the fact that I think other reasons for going into Iraq were at least as important, it was important to find WMD in Iraq.
I think it's demonstrably true that mistakes on this score were made in good faith, not because "Bush Lied!" (a futher connection to "ABLE DANGER" arguments - the fault is in intel and how it is handled), and that what was found in Iraq with respect to Saddam's WMD programs (as opposed to existing stockpiles - which also shows that perhaps there was a mistake in emphasis, the programs were always more dangerous than whatever existing piles there might have been).
But the lack of discovery of such stockpiles has given a second lease on life, indeed further empowered, some of the most destructive voices in our society. We see them on the march every day, twisting and skewing dialogue in the country, ascendant in one of the major political parties, and absolutely preventing any substantive policy discussion. Everything instead is turned into a shouting match.
We face a lot of very serious foreign & military policy questions. Some people are discussing them. But the debate is largely dominated by the worse angels of our nature. This is very discouraging and demoralizing, and I'm not sure what can be done to improve the situation.
The two ringleaders both had connections to Iraq. The mastermind, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport and was known to his associates as "Rashid the Iraqi." It was he who persuaded the bombers to make their target the World Trade Center. The other man, Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to Baghdad, where, ABC News reported in 1994, he had been put on the government payroll.
as well as the harboring of Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas (among others).
On far less - far, far less - evidence, many people love to draw all sorts of connections and indeed invent conspiracy theories out of whole cloth and speculation. They refuse to accept the reality of these ties for political, often partisan, reasons. Clearly, Saddam had ties to terrorism.
(Note to possible readers: I know stuff like this might be not so fresh. For me I'm just saving a link. As to when even semi-irregular blogging might resume, nobody knows.)
I guess I have to save this link, too, on the Cindy Sheehan thing. I'm hoping not to get into debates about personalities such as this, but, alas, just in case.
I haven't blogged at all in months. I suppose I owe a post on that. But now isn't the time.
Right now, my thoughts and prayers are with the people of London, and Britain as a whole. I can't possibly keep up with what others are saying, of course the best collection is [url=http://instapundit.com/archives/024085.php]here[/url].
I don't really want to make any pointed observations right now. I will say one thing, though, and that is I saw "Red Ken" Livingston's remarks, and it was his "Guiliani Moment" - showing that at times like this, where you are on the idological spectrum has little to do with responding to something like this. "Even" a Leftist can show resolve and strength. Which should give those of us who wonder some hope, and also suggests that we may have been wrong to have our doubts about their capacity for resolve in defense of liberty. Of course we'll see how things go in the future. But he said nothing that I would disagree with, nothing that couldn't have come from Guiliani or Blair.
But that's all I'm going to say along those lines for now. It's a horrible day for London, following what was a grand day in winning the 2012 Olympic Games. I have some internet friends who live in and around London, and so far at least they all seem ok. But many are not. Hopefully the worst is over.
Strategypage has a good synopsis of the current structure of the al-Qaeda network up. Unfortunately, it's on their terrorism diary page, and thus will scroll rather than remain in a permanently linkable location. So I'm going to "mirror" it here:
TERRORISM: The Many Branches of Al Qaeda
December 23, 2004: The war on terrorist organizations gets a lot less media attention than does the war with terrorists. The terrorist violence in Iraq, Israel, Chechnya, Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Indonesia and a few other places gets a reporters attention. But there are more important developments, with the terrorist organizations, that we hear little about. There’s a good reason for that, as the war against the terrorist organizations is an intelligence operation. Espionage agents, informants, spy satellites and electronic eavesdropping are the principal weapons. The action, such as it is, takes place in the shadows, and doesn’t make much noise.
Because of the secret war against al Qaeda, a lot is known about the organization. This is mainly because most of the members are not very well educated in areas like OPSEC (operational security, keeping the enemy from observing your activities). Email and phone messages are caught and recorded, while couriers, and what they are carrying, are captured regularly. Fallujah yielded a large haul of al Qaeda documents, as have raids in Pakistan and elsewhere. Hardly any of this stuff is leaked to the media, lest al Qaeda find out how much the infidels know. But despite their bumbling and amateurish efforts, al Qaeda members are out to kill. They get their act together from time to time and pull off a major operation. Until the movement dies out, which may take a generation, the war on terror will continue.
Al Qaeda is not one organization, like the CIA, MI-6 or Mossad. Al Qaeda is a coalition of over three dozen terrorist groups that cooperate, often loosely, in their war against the infidels (non-Moslems). At the moment, the most powerful branch of al Qaeda is the one operating in Iraq. And that’s because there, al Qaeda has joined forces with the Baath Party, which is trying to return the Sunni Arabs to power in Iraq. This reaffirms an old truism in the terrorist world; you can’t succeed without money and a population to provide support. Anywhere there are Moslems, you will find some who either approve of al Qaeda’s goals (converting the world to Islam), or are willing to support al Qaeda operations. The percentage of approvers is large, often a third or more of Moslem populations. The percentage of supporters is much smaller. You can see this from the small number of al Qaeda terrorist operations around the world. With millions of Moslems in North American and Europe, there have been very few al Qaeda terror attacks. In fact, those two areas have seen just one in the past three years. It’s a different story in Moslem countries, where al Qaeda goals also include replacing the current kings, dictators, or corrupt democracies, with better government. One thing that must always be kept in mind is that the Moslem world is, for the most part, poorly governed and economically backward. A lot of the support for al Qaeda is actually rage at the inability of Moslems to get their act together in the governance and economics department. Most Moslems recognize that al Qaeda is just one more bad idea to afflict Islamic nations. But for the moment, the al Qaeda crowd are winning the PR war. That will change over time, but for now, al Qaeda is killing people. Most of those being killed are Moslems.
The most active al Qaeda affiliates are in countries where there are other issues in play. For example.
Chechnya- The Chechens have been part of Russia for over a century, and have been fighting the Russians, on and off, most of that time. The current bout of violence is winding down, but has left in its wake a very effective, and bloody minded, group of Islamic terrorists. The Russians, as they have done so many times before, are in the process of killing all the Islamic terrorists in Chechnya, or driving them into exile. But this process still has another year or so to go.
Saudi Arabia- Al Qaeda's biggest financial supporters are here, as are one of the largest pools of recruits. Saudi Arabia is the source of the strict, violent and paranoid form of Islam (Wahhabism) that serves as al Qaeda’s religious foundation. The family (the al Sauds) that rules Saudi Arabia also subscribes to Wahhabism. So the battle in this kingdom is over which Wahhabist faction will be dominant. The smart money is on the al Sauds, but you never know.
Afghanistan- The Taliban are sort of al Qaeda Lite. Real al Qaeda are operating in Afghanistan, but many of the Taliban factions are turning against them. The majority of Afghans care for neither Taliban nor al Qaeda. But at the moment, the Afghan al Qaeda are getting a lot of money and manpower from Pakistani, and other, al Qaeda organizations. This is largely because al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is hiding somewhere along the Afghan/Pakistan border. So the Afghan al Qaeda will continue to be a minor problem until the outside support dries up, or bin Laden is caught.
Pakistan- Before al Qaeda came along, Pakistan already had a lot of Islamic terrorists. Most of their battles were with each other, the Pakistani government, or Indian police in the disputed border province of Kashmir. Current cooperation with al Qaeda is out of convenience. Al Qaeda itself is not popular, because many terror attacks have just killed lots of Pakistanis.
Indonesia/Philippines- Much of the al Qaeda fervor in this region is because of continued friction between Moslems and non-Moslems. The local governments are corrupt and incompetent, thus making it easy for al Qaeda to maintain some out-of-the-way camps. Most of the locals don’t care for al Qaeda, but a minority does.
Europe- With some twenty million Moslems, this is a good area for fund raising, recruiting and hiding out. The recruits are usually born in Europe and have no first hand knowledge of the dark side of Moslem rule. But the whole al Qaeda bit is terribly romantic and inspiring to these lads. So they give money, and sometimes their lives, for the cause. The Europeans, usually tolerant to a fault, are growing impatient with these al Qaeda fans, and are cracking down.
Israel- The Palestinians turned to terror four years ago when they did not get what they wanted through negotiations. The terror campaign failed, but the terrorist groups that evolved in the meantime don’t want to stop, even though most Palestinians do. The Israelis were successful at shutting down the terror attacks on Israelis, and it’s feared that many of the Palestinian terrorists will flee to other parts of the world, and keep on killing after a Palestinian civil war to decide the future of the war with Israel.
Lebanon- The Shia minority, in order to repay Iran for aid during the 1975-90 civil war, allowed the terrorist group Hizbollah to set up shop in Lebanon. Hizbollah makes war on Israel as well, and has been aiding Palestinian terrorists. Allied with al Qaeda, Hizbollah sees itself as an “elder brother.” Syria and Lebanon (and Israel) want to shut down Hizbollah, and send the survivors back to Iran. That may eventually happen.
Iran- Although most of the population wants nothing to do with Islamic terrorism, the current constitution gives the Islamic radical minority veto power over government actions. The Islamic radicals will fight to death if the majority attempts to change the constitution. Right now, most Iranians are not willing to fight for their freedom. Iranian Moslems are Shia, and al Qaeda considers Shia heretics (and has murdered many of them.) The Iranian Islamic radicals overlook this at the moment, because they, and al Qaeda both have the same goal, planet wide Islamic rule. Unfortunately, al Qaeda wants everyone to be Sunni Moslems. That will cause problems with the Shia Moslems in Iran, who want a Shia world. About five percent of all Moslems are Shia (most live in Iran and Iraq. ) So Iran provides some support for al Qaeda.
Central Asia- The al Qaeda leadership from this part of the world were killed in Afghanistan during the late 2001 fighting. But they are slowly rebuilding.
Algeria- Islamic terrorists have been fighting the government, and most Algerians, for over a decade. However, the Islamic radicals have been losing, and are dispersing to other countries. So you will see Algerian terrorists showing up in other countries more than in Algeria.
Somalia- The country has been without a government for over a decade. Some al Qaeda groups have set up shop here. But because of the chaos, there is not a lot they can do. American Special Forces and commandoes keep an eye on the situation, occasionally going in to take prisoners or stop something from happening. No press releases are issued about these operations.
Sub-Saharan Africa- Lots of Islamic radicalism here, but not a lot of enthusiasm for al Qaeda. Islamic radicals are seen as a bunch of ruthless killers, and treated as such.
South America- Moslem criminal gangs provide some support services for al Qaeda, but otherwise there is not a lot of support. Moslems are a very small minority down there, and they don’t want to trigger an anti-Islamic attitude because of al Qaeda terrorism in the region.
There is some al Qaeda activity in any country with a Moslem population. Al Qaeda encourages anyone to join in. Kill some people and get your message out to the media. It's a system that first developed in the late 19th century (via the Anarchist, and other, movements.) It still works. And there's still no quick cure.
End. I also recommend checking out this piece by James F. Dunnigan on divisions in al-Qaeda's leadership and this piece by Austin Bay on Iraq & democracy in the Arab world.
THREE days ago, a pregnant Israeli woman and her four young daughters were shot to death at point-blank range by two Palestinian murderers. Each child - ages 11, 9, 7 and 2 - received another bullet to the head, and the mother was shot again directly in the abdomen.
It is useful to remember this incident and compare the dead silence it has elicited from those same human-rights organizations, media outlets and America-bashers involved in the feeding frenzy accompanying the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The disparity of outrage is quite revealing.
The feeding frenzy demonstrates that even those who hate America - and never miss a chance to express that hatred - expect us to adhere to a certain standard of decency. The dead silence demonstrates that no similar expectations apply to societies that produce baby killers and homicide bombers, or use women and children as "human shields" in combat.
Why? Because behind the "high-mindedness" of "universal" human rights is a hypocritical prejudice which allows certain cultures more "leeway" when it come to murder and mayhem.
The United States has expressed regret over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal - even as several Palestinian militant groups wanted credit for murdering a pregnant women and her four young daughters.
Yes, but we must remember that the leaders of the later groups are described as "spiritual leaders" throughout most of the civilized world, in particular Western Europe. So their behavior is unquestionable.
International acts of terror in
2003 were the fewest in more than 30 years
Remember that when people claim we're not making any progress and even claim that we're making things worse. Such claims are contradicted by the facts.
No matter how many children they blow up, be they Jewish children or Moslem children as in Basra, some people will continue to describe the terror masters as "spiritual leaders" and terrorists as resistance fighters, pushed into violence. But the "devil made them do it" theory, along with romanticization of third-world killers of whatever stripe they may be, does not alter the facts of the act itself.
Indiscriminate killing such as they engage in must be confronted, fought, and defeated. The kind of people willing to do things like this must be put down. This is not a reaction to injustice or poverty or oppression - many who participate, as has long been chronicled - are well educated and well off. There is nothing that can rationalize this, though there are many people who rationalize it and shift the blame from the perpetrators to some other source, the West or the U.S., which they despise for their own reasons. “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is in reality someone who murders children.
The first of these is to terrorize the regime's coercive forces, notably the police and the National Guard, that are in the front line of the war against terror. The murders in Jeddah of several policemen in February and March have set a pattern that has since been repeated in Riyadh as well as the cities of Buraidah and Unizah in the Najdi heartland.
The second aim is to create no-go areas for the security forces, thus enabling the terrorists to establish safe havens and, later, a number of "liberated zones." The militants seem to have focused on the Qassim region, where the Hanbali brand of Sunni Islam is strong. At least two remote spots in al-Shamsiyah and Um-Sadrah, some 45 kilometers east of Buraidah, have been identified as logistics points for terrorists.
The terror campaign's third aim is to disrupt the modest program of political reform announced by Crown Prince Abdullah last year. The program includes the holding of the kingdom's first-ever elections: Though modest - limited to municipal councils - these could strengthen the regime by broadening its support base.
But things don't look like they're going their way:
dozens of alleged militants have been killed in more than 80 engagements with the security forces. Among them were four of al Qaeda's most notorious military commanders, including Khalid al-Haj, a Yemeni regarded as the overall commander of the terror movement in the Persian Gulf region. Almost 1,000 other militants have been captured in a nationwide sweep against "the deviant movement" in the past six months.
No doubt this will set off another wave of criticism of Israel for killing one of these guys. Of course, these Hamas people are happy to send others to kill in Israel while expecting to be sacrosanct themselves, so screw 'em and the critics both.
Joe at Winds of Change remarks briefly on the previous post, and in the comments, Randy Paul points out an error I made:
Minor, minor, minor quibble: The Azores are part of Portugal, thus Spain did not host the meeting P refers to.
D'oh!
My bad. I did know that. . .*grrr* I'm sorry to make an error like that. It's a sloppy error.
Joe found my angle interesting, given my usual views on Europe. My views on the EU can be separated from my views on European countries, I hope. I possibly don't do as good a job as I could in making that distinction. For example, Romano Prodi, a mouthpiece of the EU, isn't the same as our coalition members in Europe.
In my opinion one of the problems in the post-3/11 commentary on this side of the Atlantic has been a failure to keep such distinctions. How the Romano Prodis or the Dominique de Villepins of the world react is one thing, how Spain goes is another. I'm not for placating the former, but IMO we could have done a lot more to convince the people of Spain - and should do a lot more to convince the people of Italy, Poland, Britain, &tc. that the choice their governments made was the right choice. We shouldn't necessarily call them cowards when it's largely a matter of divergent views and the fact that though we convinced the governments, it never reached the majority of the people in those countries.
A hard road, to be sure. I know that in some ways saying this is similar to what A.L. says about making the case, but I'll again note that he emphasizes the Administration's efforts and deficiencies in this area but I'm talking about us - all of us, governmental and private. It includes people who have, post-3/11, written in a vein that is the flip side of the coin of so much of European post-9/11 commentary, about what our reaction should have been and reeking of contempt when it didn't.
Today is a good day to reprise the rebutting the spin post, as various Clinton functionaries claim they presented Bush with a plan to go after al-Qaeda and others with questionable motives, which the media never question because they're part of the Kerry Campaign now, claim Bush didn't pay enough attention to terrorism before 9/11 and if only he had, none of this would have happened.
First, follow the link. Everything I said then still applies now. This is part of revisionist history, necessary to tear down Bush so that Kerry will look acceptable by comparison. But it's the same old crap, and the only reason it is treated seriously is because it isn't given thoughtful scrutiny.
Lets again look at it the other way, though. Pre-9/11, what do you think the reaction of Democrats and Liberals would have been if Bush announced an aggressive campaign to go after al-Qaeda and their Taliban allies in Afghanistan? Just a distraction from Florida and war hysteria.
All these latest episodes prove is that if there is anyone in America politicizing the war and seeing it completely in partisan terms of political advantage, it is the Democratic Party and most - with honorable exceptions - Liberals. While some of us are trying to fight a war, others are waging partisan war at home which, when you look at it and what policies they propose in the alternative, which are not serious, is really a war against the war. Their main policy position, as advocated by their standard-bearer, John Kerry, the man they're trying to get elected with these tactics, is to go back to pre-9/11 methods in the war.
The simple fact is, before 9/11, we - as a country, in a bipartisan fashion - did not treat the threat as seriously as we should have. Those who are trying to spotlight Bush in that are the ones being partisan and politicizing the war. But the real choice in this election is what policies we'll follow going forward. The implication of their charges against Bush, that this should be treated more seriously than it was then, is belied by the policy position they have, which does the opposite. If nothing else does, that highlights that they see this mainly as a political exercise.
Over at Enter Stage Right I have a piece up on 3/11 and the difference in reactions on the two sides of the Atlantic.
Check it out, but I want to add one thing here. It's not that I think the Spanish response, or European response generally, is one that will produce the right policies for dealing with the menace of terrorism. But I can imagine a retired engineer in Barcelona writing thoughtful, critical essays quoting from American commentators and blogs, making the point that America is proving to not be a real ally because their reaction to 3/11 isn't what we wanted it to be. I can imagine that writer's words being read not only in Spain but in Italy, Poland, England, and elsewhere, reaching a wide audience.
I can also imagine persuading that writer on the merits of what strategies and policies will work and should be adopted. But I don't think that saying he has no cojones will be effective or persuasive. Calling them cowards, that they're on their knees, capitulating. A lot of what has been written in the wake of 3/11 are things I agree with, including the disappointment over the change in government. I too believe, and have written as much, that the election of a Spanish government which is saying they will pull their troops out of Iraq only encourages the terrorists to think that these methods work. People don't stop doing what they think works.
Arguing that point is one thing, but quite often commentary is also sprinkled with remarks that are guaranteed to cause a European reader to do the same thing so many of us have done: say "fuck you". Does it matter? Remember, we're not talking about France and Germany here. We're talking about a country that hosted the meeting, in the Azores, announcing the coalition's determination to go into Iraq. How we react and what we say is a big deal. Much of what's been written here since isn't likely to win friends and influence people in those European countries that do matter and are or have until now been by our side throughout this. It's something we need to keep in our minds as we write: how will this affect things? Will it help persuade, or turn people off? Am I writing something that will make that engineer in Barcelona see me as someone who does share the same goals and interests but is trying to persuade me that the way he thinks we should handle it is the right way, or will that reader conclude that I am just a condescending blowhard, the American equivalent of so many European commentators?
Israel has killed the founder of Hamas, "spiritual guide" of the terrorist organization. The BBC, of course, manages a sympathetic bio of this man with blood-stained hands.
I guess I don't have much good to say about the man to add to what the BBC does. So I won't say more about him. But I do congradulate Israel for a success in the fight against terror.
So last week I temped in an office, working at a computer. Though the internet access wasn't so great, it had some and I was able to blog a bit. Today and perhaps through the rest of the week I'll be working outdoors (at Crow Canyon). Should be nice weather, but any posting I'll be doing today will come late, if at all. Till then check out this piece by Anne Applebaum on the impact of Spain:
The military uselessness of allies in general, and Europeans in particular, is now a cornerstone of American political discourse, and a Spanish withdrawal from Iraq will only reinforce it.
The trouble comes, of course, when we get around to talking about the psychological effects of the Spanish election. By that I don't just mean the boost it offers al Qaeda. This is serious, but I don't really expect the Spanish to stop searching for al Qaeda operatives or cooperating with U.S. intelligence. No, what worries me far more is what the change of government in Spain does to what I call the ideological war on terrorism. . .
Spain's announcement that it intends, in effect, to abandon the fragile "new European" coalition in Iraq is a blow to the notion of a unified West, and a great boost for those German and French politicians who have long dreamed of creating a Europe that is not a partner of the United States but a political and economic rival.
(Emphasis added). Check out the whole piece. But I'd like to highlight this as well:
In part, though, this is the payback not for the war in Iraq but for the way it was launched and sold, or not sold, to Europeans. Before the war, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell did not travel the continent, explaining why it should be fought, despite the fact that this was not blindingly obvious, either here or there.
Many say that in part that's because Powell seemed to prefer to bask in the attention of being seen as a "dissenting voice" within the Administration to promoting the policy. But conclusions like that ignore the fact that, well, Powell seems to not like to travel. He's one of the more stay-at-home Secretaries of State we've had in recent memory, prefering to send deputies and undersecretaries to make the case abroad, not just on Iraq but a whole range of issues. But the fact is a visit from the Secretary of State makes more of an impact.
Applebaum makes a number of other good points. Like I said, check out the whole thing.
Reaction continues to pour fourth. Edward Luttwak proves you can be against the Iraq war without blaming the U.S. for the attack on Spain or rationalizing it:
Even those who view the Iraq war as a strategic error for the United States — and I'm one of them — cannot take seriously the Zapateros of Europe, who seem bent on validating the crudest caricatures of "old European" cowardly decadence. It was an act of colossal irresponsibility for the Socialists and the Spanish news media to excoriate the Aznar government for asserting that ETA, the Basque separatist movement, was probably behind the attacks.
Regarding the argument that "our support for America mean we deserved to be beaten", an argument akin to the old "she asked for it" argument, Luttwak writes:
Whatever their motivation, the Socialists' argument was fundamentally flawed. Osama bin Laden and other Islamists had identified Spain as a priority target years before the Iraq war. Under Muslim law, no land conquered by Islam may legitimately come under non-Muslim rule. For the fanatics, Spain is still Al Andalus of the Middle Ages, which must be re-claimed for Islam by immigration and intimidation. Even if the bombs were placed by Islamists, the idea that Spain was attacked solely because of Mr. Aznar's support for the Iraq war is simply wrong.
As an aside, I'm a big fan of Luttwak because he wrote this.
A lot of people are making the same point the Washington Post editorial team does, but that doesn't mean its wrong:
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. . .
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.
There is this story on efforts to explore keeping Spanish troops there under a NATO umbrella. That depends on the French, though. Robert Kagan writes on the reaction of the Europeans in general, and it's not looking like a reaction filled with resolve - except for the resolve to bail:
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.
He goes further:
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.
But, statements to the contrary notwithstanding, it's far from clear that Europe has any intention of fighting al-Qaeda. Here's the European response, in a Reuters report:
The European Union (news - web sites) appeared to back away Tuesday from calls for new institutions to fight terrorism after the Madrid bombings, stressing instead the need to implement agreed measures and share information. . .
The executive European Commission (news - web sites) played down the idea of appointing a single EU counter-terrorism Czar, urging member states to adopt and apply legislation already on the table and make their police and intelligence services cooperate.
Law enforcement officials said when EU ministers hold emergency security talks Friday, they should focus on bolstering existing, practical cooperation, rather than get distracted by calls for new bodies. . .
EU Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Antonio Vitorino urged member states to make better use of the EU's police agency Europol to pool intelligence and Eurojust, created last year to boost cooperation between national judicial authorities.
Europe's not about fighting a war on terror - they just plan on sending in the police after an attack to arrest those directly responsible for murdering their people. Their attitude is further driven home in this piece:
If ever there was a time for European leaders to trade talk for action, last week was it. So it tells you something about the solemnity with which the war on terrorism is perceived in some quarters that Germany's first reaction to what may yet prove the deadliest terror attack in European history was to renounce action, and then call for talk.
"I believe we need a conference of EU interior ministers as quickly as possible," announced the German interior minister, Otto Schily. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder seconded Schily, pledging not to beef up security, and vowing to reject new anti-terror laws. Instead, he offered the European version of that silly Democratic slogan: anti-terrorism is largely a police action. He then promised "hard punishment" for terrorists. That way, presumably, once those terrorists have finished butchering yet another swath of humanity, they'll be really, really sorry.
A case study of reactions to 3/11. Lets look at Australia, at two pieces in particular.
The editorial in The Australian blamed, well, the terrorists for the terror attacks. They see the terrorists & their supporters as the enemy. The editorial starts off this way:
THE terrorist murders in Madrid have but one message for all Australians: we must stand firm against those who wish us harm for no reason other than their hatred for our way of life. It now seems likely the Madrid bombs were the work of Islamic terrorists linked to Osama bin Laden and his al-Qa'ida terror network. As Prime Minister John Howard has warned, there is every reason to fear these madmen will try to kill Australians, either at home or abroad. It is a danger we must confront. There is no other path that would end the terrorists' dream of slaughter.
Those who say we have brought the threat upon ourselves, and that renouncing the war against Saddam Hussein and abandoning the US alliance would take us off the target list, ignore the lessons of history, and defy commonsense.
Speaking on behalf of that position, or rather arguing that the U.S. (not just evilBush) is the enemy, is this piece in the Sidney Morning Herald. The SMH apparently paid Margo Kingston for a column, but Gabriel Kolko wrote this one. Sweet gig if you can get it, eh Margo? Well, Kolko says nothing Kingston wouldn't have written if Margo wasn't having a lazy day.
Many people get their underwear in a bunch and become all offended when anyone suggests that there are some on the Left who are effectively on the other side, seeing America and not the terrorists as their enemy. But when they do so, they are distracting attention from pieces like Kingston-Kolko's that they publish and parrot. One thing to be noted by its absence is there is only the most fleeting and non-judgemental reference to Radical Islamic terror. The U.S. is responsible for what happened in Spain. Indeed, the reference to the Madrid bombings is invariably in passive voice, to omit the perpetrators. For example, here is the first reference:
But the events in Spain over the past days, from the massive deadly explosions in Madrid to the defeat of the ruling party because it supported the Iraq war despite overwhelming public opposition to doing so, have greatly raised the costs to its allies of following Washington's lead.
The bombings - explosions in Spain - treated either as a act of nature (no bombers mentioned, al-Qaeda never mentioned) or as being caused by the United States, the consequence of Spain's friendship with the Great Satan. That’s actually the al-Qaeda position. Without mentioning the enemy we face and describing it as the editorial in The Australian does, Kingston-Kolko makes the point that those who were our allies in the fight against Communism, which they earlier lament the passing of because it contained the U.S. in their view, are not our allies now in the current conflict:
So long as the future is to a large degree - to paraphrase Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - "unknowable," it is not to the national interest of its traditional allies to perpetuate the relationships created from 1945 to 1990.
That's true and I've mentioned myself that America cannot rely on former allies, or alliance structures created to deal with the last crisis rather than this one, because the interests of countries like France are on the other side, joining with Oligarchical China to intimidate Democratic Taiwan for example, and engaging in transfer of military technology to them. None of this upsets Kingston-Kolko: as during the Cold War, they identify more with ruthless dictatorships, as long as they are foes of the U.S.
Make no mistake. This isn't just opposition to Bush, or Republicans, or Neoconservatives, or even just conservatives. This is open opposition to the U.S., seeing America as the enemy. On the prospect of a Democratic Administration, they put it thusly:
To be critical of Bush is scarcely justification for wishful thinking about Kerry. Since 1947, the foreign policies of the Democrats and Republicans have been essentially consensual on crucial issues - "bipartisan" as both parties phrase it - but they often utilise quite different rhetoric.
Critics of the existing foreign or domestic order will not take over Washington this November. As dangerous as it is, Bush's reelection may be a lesser evil because he is much more likely to continue the destruction of the alliance system that is so crucial to American power. One does not have to believe that the worse the better but we have to consider candidly the foreign policy consequences of a renewal of Bush's mandate.
They want to see Bush, not Kerry, elected not because they wish America and its allies well, but because they want America to suffer setbacks and be hampered and opposed. Whether their belief that this will be the outcome is true or not, note that it is not based on a friendly attitude.
It's not the despots and Islamic radicals they want to see contained - it is America. When people like myself, or Andrew Sullivan, or Steven Den Beste say that, we get accused of hyperbole and distorting what the Left wants. But here it is in print in a major Australian newspaper. As Glenn Reynolds would say: they're not just anti-war. They're on the other side.
This is not to say the Spanish Socialist Party is somehow in league with al-Qaeda. But it is clear that one of the things the Islamic Radicals want to do is exploit divisions in the West. Last week, before the bombing, Aznar's Popular Party was expected to win the election. In it's aftermath, they were defeated and the Socialists came to power a platform of distancing themselves from the U.S. and throwing in the towel in Iraq. They will move from the camp of U.S. allies into that of the French on these issues.
I've written before on the growing divisions between America and Continental Europe before, but instead of referring you to posts of mine, let me send you to a recent series by the Buggy Professor, start here and work your way up to his post, written yesterday, on the Spanish election result. The key point he makes in this context is counter to the often-expressed idea that there may be differences between governments but that doesn't mean disagreement with the people. One often hears this in "oh, yes I disagree with the policies of the American government, but I like Americans just fine" and variants (fill in country name here). His point is that in some ways the trans-Atlantic Alliance may seem ok, he wrote earlier on bandwagoning to the U.S., but the underlying difference in popular attitudes would eventually be expressed in policy as a result of elections. Like the one we saw in Spain yesterday, which is a jumping off of the bandwagon.
I want to note something here for my American readers, too. Especially since it may be a surprise to them. The bloggosphere and blog readers are a different breed, so we've seen and felt a lot of identification, sympathy, and feelings of fellowship for the people of Spain since last week. But look out across the rest of the country - there isn't that depth of feeling. Sure, there is sympathy, but not really a deeply held feeling that we're all in the same boat. People see it as tragic but there is not a "Sept. 11th" feeling. The reaction to Europe's 3/11 is almost identical to European reaction to America's 9/11. It's just more evidence, I think, that we're drifting in different directions and that common bond has faded. Not for everyone, for sure: just as there are a significant number of Europeans who "got" Sept. 11th, there are Americans who "get" 3/11. But if you don't notice the generally different reactions, you're missing something critical.
The other thing to note is that the reactions are very different. They have similarities that mask that difference. The European reaction to 3/11 is as deep as America’s to 9/11. But do they feel they are at war? Is there not only sorrow, but anger? Not in the sense of a desire for revenge, but a desire to insure that “never again”, to eliminate this menace? Or do they still believe that terrorism, like the weather, is just something you have to live with, there is no way to “end” it?
As people assemble at the Spanish Embassy, John Podhoretz seems angry. Are you? When did we lose our anger? Half the country can only express anger at Bush, it seems. There, they seem sincere - that's where they have their fire. Kerry's words on our enemies lack the fire he reserves for Bush or Republicans. But he's the standard-bearer for the Good People, so it's alright.
The Washington Post has a fairly decent editorial on 3/11, though. 3/11 and I'm pretty convinced it wasn't ETA, you know?
Be sure to check out Krauthammer and Peters as well. Read back to back they make quite an impression, and drive home who our real allies our. The Peters piece is a fitting tribute to Aznar - and Spain. As Peters says in closing:
Spain stood by us. Now we must have the vision to stand by Spain.
Major terror attack on Madrid rail system, with over 170 dead and 500-600 injured, most casualties from a terror attack in modern Spanish history. May the Lord keep the souls of the dead, comfort their families and friends, may the injured recover quickly and completely, and may the culprits (not "those responsible") be brought to justice. Spain's government fingering ETA, which is denying involvement. More later.
I have to say that from the description, it sounds more like an al-Qaeda attack than something ETA would pull off - the multiple bombs (including three found and defused) resembles al-Qaeda's MO. But I don't claim to be an expert, and I'm not on the scene.
Bush has condemned the attack and expressed America's solidarity with Spain. Due to the effectiveness of the press in covering the Bush Administration, I'm having trouble finding a link to that at the moment.
More: Read here for how the attack was unlike ETA's MO and akin to al-Qaeda's.
Mr. Kay told the New York Times that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute his fledgling nuclear program as late as 2001, and had an active program to use the deadly chemical ricin as a weapon until he was stopped by the U.S.-led invasion in March.
Then there is this story from this January about a plot possibly involving the use of Ricin in France (again).
(Ricin-related links via Instapundit's search engine).
Yes, I know, I know: we're only supposed to draw nefarious inferences when things involve Bush, Cheney, Haliburton, the Vast NeoCon Conspiracy, and the like. We're not supposed to draw connections between our enemies producing, say, Ricin and Ricin showing up in stories involving terror plots. Nothing to see here, Saddam was obviously not involved in any of these episodes, move along(.org. . .)
Trent Telenko sends, via e-mail, a link to this piece in The Observer, commenting on it as follows:
If I am reading this correctly. The Islamists are turning their sites on
Europe because of their inability to hurt Americans in Iraq or in north
America.
This is a real problem in that Europe's more centralized police systems are
far more vulnerable to systemic corruption and "P.C." political influence
than America's more fragmented federal, state and local law enforcement
system.
That might be true, but if it is, it's pretty atrocious. After all, we know how bad things are here when it comes to "P.C." & political influences on institutions.
In some ways they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. How do I mean? Well, arguably the very un-P.C. proposal in France to outlaw the wearing of headscarves (and other religiously driven garb) will cause terrorists to rationalize targeting them further. Just so people know, I'm not saying it's a good rationale, just that it will be used to rationalize such attacks, and the porous European security measures will make it more likely that such attacks succeed. In my opinion that just shows that the European countries should accept the logic of being pro-active, as we're attempting to be, because the terrorists will always find some rationale. They need to be defeated, not just thwarted.
Then there are Our Friends, the Saudis. As the article quotes one member of the terror network assuring the others about their support:
'Don't ever worry about money, because Saudi Arabia's money is your money'
The article is fairly detailed and well worth reading. Check it out.
Update: Glenn Reynolds has more including a story involving the French thwarting a plot aimed at them.
On the other side, taking cues from one member of the terror cell to free others. More to the story than meets the BBC's eye. Perhaps more on this later (blogging somewhat limited today).
At the beginning of the week terrorists attacked the Jewish residents of Constantinople Istanbul. Not "Israeli residents", for those who believe it's all about Israel and the radical Islamists have no problem with Jews living peacefully with Moslems. They bombed the Jewish residents of Istanbul.
Now at the end of the week these same terrorists attack the interests of a European country, Britain, in the same city. This city is in a country, Turkey, that is currently governed by an Islamic Party, a government that refused to give permission to the U.S. to base troops for the Iraq war, and which recently rescinded an offer to send troops to help keep security in Iraq. What am I saying with this?
That, if this will not convince the people who are calling for peace that there is no compromising with the extremists who make up these terrorist organizations, then nothing will. They are blind who will not see. I am reminded of the editorial the Jerusalem Post published in the wake of the first attack:
This attack illustrates the indivisibility of terrorism. The issue is not whether it was against Jews, Turkey, or the West: it was all of the above. The attempt to dissect such attacks is often, consciously or not, an attempt by those not yet affected to pretend that the circle of victims will not spread to them.
Jews were attacked because of hatred of Israel, we are told. Or Turkey was attacked because it is close to America and Israel. Maybe, so goes the logic, if we do not cooperate with America or Israel, we will be spared.
Don't count on it. How many countries have to be hit before Europe concludes, in an operational way, that we are in this together?
The heart of the strategy of terrorism is to bank precisely on Europe's ability to deceive itself. If the West were as united and single-minded as its attackers, the terrorists would not stand a chance. . . . The terrorist network sees that this is not happening and concludes, with some logic, that continued terrorism is necessary to reenforce and deepen the divisions between Europe and the United States.
I have written much the same thing myself: that if we were to be resolute, there is no way that they could defeat us. It is our past irresolution that has made them think they could win by such tactics. The steady drip of casualties in Iraq causes some to think the price is too high to pay, but my Grandfathers and Grandmothers endured far worse during WWII and, while that generation mourned its losses it did not believe them a reason to quit the field. They did not see the price, as lamentable as it was, as too high to pay for victory.
