Guess Spain hasn't capitulated to ter-rorists...

[showcase]

In response to Bin Laden's offer of a 'truce' with the Europeans (which just smacks of desperation)...

In a reference to terror attacks on the United States and Spain, the voice on the tape said that "what happened on Sept. 11 and March 11 was your goods delivered back to you."

"Security is a need for all humans and we could not let you have a monopoly on it for yourselves," the voice added. "People who are aware would not let their politicians jeopardize their security."

At the start of the recording, the voice called this a "message to our neighbors north of the Mediterranean, including a reconciliation initiative in response to the recent positive developments that have appeared."

It did not give any specifics, but the March 11 attacks in Madrid that killed 191 people and increasing violence in Iraq have prompted debate in Europe and Asia about keeping troops there.

Spain's outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's government, which strongly backed the U.S.-led war in Iraq despite popular and political opposition, was ousted in general elections three days after the attacks in Spain.

Incoming Socialist leader Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has pledged to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops from Iraq by June 30 unless the United Nations (news - web sites) takes control.

However, his incoming government rejected the offer of a truce with al-Qaida. Spain's incoming foreign minister, Miguel Angel Moratinos, speaking at his nation's parliament, said: "What we want is peace, democracy and freedom. We don't have to listen to or answer" the tape.

Spineless Europeans indeed (although the French have yet to make a statement...).

[showcase]

Ooops, forgot the link...

story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040415/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_bin_laden_tape

[thebin]

I can't believe you see a rejection of negotiations with that animal as a bold stance, or anything other than a political foregone conclusion. What is noteworthy about this?

That a G7 nation's government is not openly conducting negotiations with the world's biggest villain...yes, that is reassuring. What did you expect them to say?
Nobody ever accused Zapatero of being Al Queda's agent in Iberia. The concern, one that was quite well-founded given the reprieve granted publically by the trecordist group after the election, was that a horrible example had been set. A trecordist group could quite resonably claim it removed a government that was bent on engaging trecordists and trying to bring Westrern style democracy in some rudimentary form to the Arab world. That is the lesson the trecordists surely drew. It is troubling to say the least. This was never about a fear that Zapatero was about to pull out some token force in Afghanistan. That would look really bad. We don't expect Zapatero to make it plain that he seeks to withdraw engaging trecordists. But that is neither here nor there. EVERY SINGLE political report from Spain, inculding Spanish experts from right and left, said the same thing. the Madrid bombings certainly affected the election dramatically. What the trecordists draw from that is the exrtremely troubling thing...not whether or not Zapatero makes a real or token effort to continue a rather meek "anti-al Queda" policy. You couldn't possibly read reports from Spain on voter opinion after the election and not conclude that the deciding voting block were people who choose to blame now-Gtown professor Aznar for "making them a target." Now that is spineless, and what is more, it is pure "the girl should not have been dressed like that if she didn't want to be raped" angle.

[showcase]

A trecordist group could quite resonably claim it removed a government that was bent on engaging trecordists and trying to bring Westrern style democracy in some rudimentary form to the Arab world. That is the lesson the trecordists surely drew. It is troubling to say the least.

I submit this latest is noteworthy in three ways:

The point I was trying to make then and attempted to reiterate through this incident is that any conclusions regarding the March 11 attacks and March 19 voting are better drawn not from the voting itself but from the actions of the elected government. As I tried to clarify at the time, my feeling was that ANY attack that occurs close to Election Day cannot but influence the voting - hence, what inferences may fairly be drawn from that voting lies not with its totals, but how the elected government responds.

Second, if there was a decisive block of Spanish voters that genuinely believes Aznar "made Spain a target" by confronting Al-Qaeda, one would expect to hear from them in one way, shape, or form following this announcement, as the truce offer would be exactly what they wanted in voting Socialist. I will be as disappointed as you are now if an outcry does materialize, but I haven't heard anything.

Third (and related to the first), if Al-Qaeda wanted to draw the lesson you describe above, I submit this makes that conclusion untenable. "The lesson," etc., is all about image, and so I agree that in a very superficial way, the March 11 attacks can be construed as causing the fall of a government that was ostensibly tough on terror - after all, this is exactly the interpretation Al-Qaeda embraced, as shown by its reference to the "positive signs" or whatever in Europe. However, the rebuff of this preposterous "truce" offer, extended based on the foregoing interpretation of the March 19 voting, when combined with Spain's doubling of its Afghanistan contingent, only refutes that inference.

[thebin]

Of course no Spaniard is going to admit publically that he wants to embrace this Bin Laden offer. Its not that simple or that overt. The point someone made, whose name escapes me but he was in Spain covering the election before and after the blast, is that this was a very emotional election, that might have been best served if it were postponed a couple of weeks- which may have minimized (but not eliminated) the extent to which the trecord-ists could claim victory. I agree that there is a signficant problem that the bombing may have been seen to sway the election either way- but let's be honest, the terr-orists were certainly much more pleased to have effected it toward Zapatero and his brand of isloationism rather than Aznar's party and his overt engagement. So I really don't see it as half dozen in one and 6 in the other. The coverage of the "Aznar made us a target" crowd in Spain was extensive- and was reported from both sides of the political spectrum. I am not making it up and I provided plenty of links to the BBC among others declaring this as hard news, not commentary. And just because these people are not going to publically embrace negotiations with an animal a couple of months later, does not alter the basic truth of the fact that the swing vote in the election were people who sought to punish Aznar and the PP- which was EXACTLY what the trecord-ists wanted to be sure. I mean it sucks for the Socialists that they had these unwanted allies so to speak murdering on their behalf, but as ugly as that idea sounds, you know its basically true. The truth of what happened is pretty inescapable and very hard to dress up as anything other than a horrible tragedy and even worse lesson for trecord-ists to draw from an unmitigated success as far as their demented minds are concerned. I don't even blame the socialists, they are just being honest about their politcs, but I do blame the millions who changed their vote to punish Aznar and thus provided history's most stunning terr-orism success story; the coup d etat of a G7 government that by all experts was not going to happen if the election were on March 10. I have complete faith that American swing voters would have gone the other way- and voted for the party that the te-rro-ists hated most. Might have been unfair to the opposition party, but it would have been preferble in many ways to what happened in March in Spain as it would have gone against the logic that encourages them to murder. Americans rally when they should, I really think that a half century of Europeans living the so-called End of History, while letting us secure their freedom and proseperity for them, has made them morally fat and lazy even while they ridicule us as literally fat and lazy. Something happened to the common man's sense of morality and duty while they let their armies atrophy because they knew we were not during the Cold War. THey really are convinced that freedom is free and that we are the only impediment to it.

[showcase]

I have a few discrete areas of disagreement with your thesis:

Of course no Spaniard is going to admit publically that he wants to embrace this Bin Laden offer. Its not that simple or that overt.

Well, maybe it is. In todays post, a column presented the following reactions to Bin Laden's offer:

In a conversation on a Berlin sidewalk, Wolfgang Lindner, 52, an office worker, praised the German government's rejection of the purported offer. "You can't bargain for peace," he said.

Daniela Brenner, 26, a waitress, said she would not trust bin Laden on such an offer, but added that she would want to think about it.

My feeling is that in any electorate, European or American, there will invariably be a segment that will vote but is too ignorant to see the foolishness of their reasons for doing so. Such a segment certainly voted in Spain, and appears to be represented by Frau Brenner in Germany. However, there are clowns who vote Nader, Perot, or even LaRouche. In close elections (and the Spanish election was certainly going to be close on March 10), these voters can decide the outcome. This is why I can't subscribe to the larger theory that Europeans as a whole are 'morally lazy' - I just don't see the data to support that conclusion.

the terr-orists were certainly much more pleased to have effected it toward Zapatero and his brand of isloationism rather than Aznar's party and his overt engagement.

I disagree that Zapatero's willingness to break from the coalition of the willing is necessarily reflective of (or even can fairly be described at this point as) isolationism. Certainly, he's challenged Bush's previously unquestioned control over the direction of the coalition in Iraq. However, nothing I read in the aftermath of March 11 or since has suggested to me that Zapatero is contemplating a strategic withdrawal from the war on ter-ror - he'll stay in Iraq if the UN has a role, he's reaffirmed a commitment to Afghanistan, etc.. A lot of how one views this is predicated, I think, on the relation one ascribes to the war in Iraq on the war on ter-ror. For me Iraq is, at best, an engagement of choice in a secondary theater.

I do agree, however, that the ter-rorists were happy to have a hand in replacing Aznar with someone they thought would be much more receptive to their world view. I just think they totally miscalculated on the extent to which any non-Aznar government would see things their way.

Something happened to the common man's sense of morality and duty while they let their armies atrophy because they knew we were not during the Cold War.

I wouldn't say Germany, France, or even Spain or Italy allowed their armies to wither during the Cold War. Germany maintained a sizable and well-equipped army, as did France, who also maintained two aircraft carriers (I think; there was at least one). Clearly, the collapse of the USSR saw a decline in European military prowess and the willingness to use it, but at the same time these countries did not have the military capacity, political mandate, and financial clout necessary to project power the way the US still did. Certainly, NATO depended on the US as its cornerstone, and as a result these countries largely had to grin and bear whatever the US did. It's unsurprising that once the need for NATO evaporated, continental Europe felt free to indulge the anti-US bent that took root as a consequence of our post-WWII dominance. I don't condone it, but I can't reach the conclusion you and others have drawn either.


Durned spelling er-rors...

[thebin]

We are starting to reach saturation point here but I wanted to add that I disagree that Europe maintained top flight militaries during the Cold War. The troop stregnth is extraordinarily misleading- then as now-many European militaries function as a sort of welfare program. The UK and to a lesser degree France (out of a suspicion of an American-lead NATO) only kept world class fighting forces. THe others kept large police forces and tiny navies and airforces with outdated equipment and poorly trained officer and enlisted corps. What guaranteed European security from 45-present was not our troop stregnth, which was always lower than the USSR, but our parity with USSR in extremly expensive strategic bombers and ICBMs as well as our Two Oceans's Navy. Our military spending, then as now, has always been in real terms several times that of continental Europe. We footed that bill. And once they were grateful for it. Any defense expert will tell you that our real defense capabability is MILES ahead of continental Europe- that was not some post-1989 slow down, they never really built back up after the Cold War because we were always there for them, literally and figurtively. ANd now, it is my belief that as a consequence, they have a very unrealistic view that freedom is essentially free, as long as you don't antogonize people like those American Cowboys. I don't think you average European has come to terms with the fact that it is the West's liberties that bin laden hates, and that Palestine has always been a red herring thrown out to make the Europeans think he might have a reasonable gripe. Well I don't want to simply not antagonize this guy, I want him to show his face and then reduce it to a pulp on a cave wall. I really think much of Europe prefers a See No Evil, Hear No Evil approach. Just my two.

[showcase]

I hope I can clarify some objections I have to this theory.

thebin said:

I disagree that Europe maintained top flight militaries during the Cold War. The troop stregnth is extraordinarily misleading- then as now-many European militaries function as a sort of welfare program.

Clearly, only the UK and France maintained any blue water navy to speak of. That being said, Germany, France and Italy maintained compulsory military serivce throughout the Cold War. Such armies are not on par with professional services, but I don't see how they can be described as quasi-welfare programs. More importantly, however, the pervasive and intrusive nature of compulsory military service only reinforces the costs of defending your nation - imagine if US citizens still had to give over a year or two in the primes of their lives.

The UK and to a lesser degree France (out of a suspicion of an American-lead NATO) only kept world class fighting forces. THe others kept large police forces and tiny navies and airforces with outdated equipment and poorly trained officer and enlisted corps. What guaranteed European security from 45-present was not our troop stregnth, which was always lower than the USSR, but our parity with USSR in extremly expensive strategic bombers and ICBMs as well as our Two Oceans's Navy.

Again, I don't think the German Army during the Cold War can reasonably be described as a police force. Their Leopard tanks were every bit as good as the British Chieftan or US Patton tanks. Certainly, nations like Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Spain, and Norway contribued even less in the way of fighting forces (although they generally equipped their forces with US, German, or UK principal armaments). More to the point, however, the UK and France did field SSBNs and ICBMs, which are essential to the MAD deterrence. Would NATO have been as successful w/o the US? Absolutely not. But European countries did make meaningful contributions to the overall deterrence. I mean, if European forces on the ground at the start of the war were really a paper tiger, the US wouldn't even have a chance to get in the war.

Our military spending, then as now, has always been in real terms several times that of continental Europe. We footed that bill. And once they were grateful for it. Any defense expert will tell you that our real defense capabability is MILES ahead of continental Europe- that was not some post-1989 slow down, they never really built back up after the Cold War because we were always there for them, literally and figurtively.

This has always been a red-herring, in my eyes. It's certainly true that US military spending outstripped our NATO allies,' and that the US had better military equipment as a result. However, this fact arose specifically because the Pentagon was tasked with prosecuting wars in two theatres simultaneously, and a somewhat high percentage of GNP spent on the military will yield exponentially higher resources to spend in R&D and maintenance. Our NATO allies had no such mandate to be military powers on the world level, particularly given the far more imminent threat confronting them.

ANd now, it is my belief that as a consequence, they have a very unrealistic view that freedom is essentially free, as long as you don't antogonize people like those American Cowboys. I don't think you average European has come to terms with the fact that it is the West's liberties that bin laden hates, and that Palestine has always been a red herring thrown out to make the Europeans think he might have a reasonable gripe. Well I don't want to simply not antagonize this guy, I want him to show his face and then reduce it to a pulp on a cave wall. I really think much of Europe prefers a See No Evil, Hear No Evil approach. Just my two.

I think this conclusion unfairly excludes other consequences from the Cold War that primarly confronted the European allies. If a US diplomatic or geopolitical blunder triggered a shooting war, T-80s of the USSR's 1st Guards Tank Army wouldn't be pouring into New Hampshire and Vermont in drives towards Boston and New York, but ino the German northern plains in drives towards Bremen and Hannover. Warsaw Pact artillery wouldn't be falling on Portland, ME, but on Nuremburg. Soviet chemical weapons would, however, fall on Reforger sites scattered throughout the Rhineland and Bavaria, rather than Virginia and Pennsylvania. The certainty of hosting WWIII more logically makes one more cautious in geopolitics and aware of its ramifications, rather than oblivious to or dismissive of the dangers that confront your nation. Perhaps a nuclear exchange would occur, making all that irrelevant, but even if it could be avoided,Western Europe would certainly be devastated.

Clearly, in terms of investment, the US shouldered most of the bill during the Cold War. However, I think it is too simplistic to conclude from this single fact that Europeans have necessarily become soft or complacent. I think their resistance to Bush's lead on Iraq stems rather from their understandable fear of brash geopolitical moves. The reasons for this fear have dissipated with the passing of the USSR - the resulting cautiousness, inculcated over decades, in my opinion is both longer lasting and more understandable.

[showcase]

Well, with Zapatero's recent decision, maybe it has. I don't see the logic, one way or another, for the decision to advance the withdrawal and make it contingent on nothing. I don't like troops being on the ground in Iraq, but it's happened, and simply withdrawing them won't undo the past. It's just going to make things worse.

Quite discouraging.