Tacitus gives an appropriate slapdown to an emerging talking point. I quite agree with him on this, as with his views on irresponsible rhetoric.
As depressing as that is.
That said, I continue to reiterate a basic point about Spain: one member of the largest military coalition since World War II has had a change of policy and plans to leave Iraq in a few months due to a disagreement over how Iraq should be managed. The left's bloviating about how this means "the coalition is dissolving" and that it's "a major slap in the face of the liar Bush" is every bit as excessive as the right's wailing and gnashing of teeth about how it's a huge victory for Al Qaeda.
Nonsense. Either the new Spanish government will crack down hard on terrorism as promised, giving Al Qaeda a short-lived tactical victory at best, or, Al Qaeda will try the same stuff in other countries, and people around the world will start to see what they're doing and react strongly against it.
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. If people make a mistake in a democracy, they usually correct it. I think more people need to have faith in the values and endurance of western liberalism. Democracy may not move at the speed of light, react as quickly as we would sometimes like, may need prodding, but you take the bad with the good on these things.
The West shall endure.
* Update * Craig Henry makes some good points on the Spain business, and links to a couple of other good articles too.
While I wish the Spanish elections had gone the other way, so as not to give al Qaeda even a small tactical victory, I have to agree with your overall assessment Dean. Western fear and trembling that terrorists might take the wrong lesson from the events of the past week only adds a bonus for the other side.
Western fear and trembling that terrorists might take the wrong lesson from the events of the past week only adds a bonus for the other side.
You know, I hadn't thought of that, but that's a good point too.
Anytime the AQ types can kill a bunch of infidels it is a tactical vctory. When they kill a bunch of infidels, bring down a government and cause a democracy to change its policies, it is a strategic victory.
Refusing to recognize a win by the bad guys isn't going to make it go away.
So a vote for socialism is a vote for Al Qaeda.
Decidng that a right-wing government has dealt with terrorism incompetently is a vote for Al Qaeda.
Deciding that Iraq was a mistake is a vote for Al Qaeda.
I'm sorry, am I the only one who sees all of the above as non-sequiturs?
Mind you, I can blister ears upon request about how much contempt I hold for people who call Bush or Aznar liars. Just by saying such things, they prove themselves to be irrational partisan hacks. Some of them are people I consider friends, but it doesn't change the fact that I consider them deeply irrational and mean-spirited when it comes to this issue, or practically anything else involving Bush. They simply aren't rational, and the energy expended trying to discuss the matter with them in a civil or thoughtful manner is energy wasted.
Furthermore, I have long considered most (yes, I said most) of the Left's opposition to the Iraq war to be intellectually weak at best, and morally bankrupt regardless. I stand by that still.
All that aside, you're not going to get me to accept that the new government in Spain is a major strategic victory for Al Qaeda. Minor tactical advantage, maybe. One with potential to turn around and bite them on the ass regardless.
But is this fight about freedom and democracy, or is it not? Has the new government pledged to stay civil and fight terrorism or has it not? Do they even get a chance to prove themselves before we declare them Quislings?
How about when Spain releases convicted terrorists? As Greece does. Greece has not crumbled, not officially, anyway.
Dean,
Here's an example of a non-sequitur:
"Because Democracy is the best form of government all decisions made by voters are beyond criticism".
I was watching Hannity and Colmes last night and Colmes went on some rant about "Bush's war". I've heard this nonsense for so long, I somehow shut it off. Last night, I'm thinking "Bush's war". That pretty much describes what is wrong with America today. You get attacked and leftist pacifist filth don't want any part of it. Truly disgusting.
Why is it a strategic victory for terrorists if a democracy changes its policy?
It's undesirable, surely, however they are against democracy (no matter what policy it chooses), and we are for democracy (no matter what policy it chooses).
I don't think we'll be inviting Spain to join any more coalitions. They can't be trusted.
While I agree that people will eventually realize that they are making a mistake and correct it, I think that will only happen after many people die. I hope they realize it before that, but it doesn't seem likely, as far as Europe is concerned. And that is why I consider it somewhat of a victory for Al-Qaeda.
This is contingent on people voting in governments softer on terrorism, of course. If they vote for parties that are willing to take the fight to the terrorists, then my point is moot.
"a major slap in the face of the liar Bush"
Who are you quoting?
“Here's an example of a non-sequitur:
‘Because Democracy is the best form of government all decisions made by voters are beyond criticism’”.
Here’s another one;
“A vote against participating in the US-lead alliance occupying Iraq is a vote against waging an active and well thought-out war on Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.”
BTW, terrorists do what they do for two reasons (at least):
1) Make life hell for those that survive their attacks.
2) Drive a wedge between the alliance's partners.
Discuss.
“A vote against participating in the US-lead alliance occupying Iraq is a vote against waging an active and well thought-out war on Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.”
What country held this referendum?
Um, with all due respect, Dean, it seems clear that Zapatero has no love for the US (or Bush, if we want to split hairs), and that is his sticking point, more than a policy shift. Why is this clear to me? Because he is willing to leave his troops in Iraq if the UN assumes control. Meanwhile, he has called our operations there a "fiasco" (his word, not mine). This is the same operation you pointed to a while ago as being one of the most successful large-scale military operations in history.
Zapatero has also publicly stated he wants Kerry to win, and would work more closely with him. That right there makes him a first-class ass. What kind of idiot talks about who he wants to see running other countries? I guess he didn't pay too much attention to what happened after the German elections, did he?
This is all on the front page of Yahoo! if you want to read it yourself.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20040317/ap_on_re_eu/spain_bombings_2
Anyone know how long the Spaniards are stuck with Zapatero?
Read about the Napoleanic Wars.
There were, what, 4 or 5 different alliances aimed at France over that time period?
"So a vote for socialism is a vote for Al Qaeda.
Decidng that a right-wing government has dealt with terrorism incompetently is a vote for Al Qaeda.
Deciding that Iraq was a mistake is a vote for Al Qaeda.
I'm sorry, am I the only one who sees all of the above as non-sequiturs?"
Here, I've got another non-sequitur for you, "An alteration in the Manhattan skyline means we have to invade Afghanistan and Iraq" (it is the same war after all, isn't it?).
Going to that level of abstraction to avoid bad news and remain chirpy is willfull blindness.
SteveL: People say what they say. I'm less concerned about a political leader saying that Iraq is a failure than I am with what they actually do--and the man has been in office for what, all of five minutes?
I'm going to repeat one more time that it is far too early to decide what the fallout fromt his will be, and it is every bit as ridiculous for the right to be shrieking that this is a disaster as it is for the Left to try to claim that the coalition is falling apart and that Bush is a failure.
An election's been held and a peaceful transition of power has occurred and the new government now deserves a chance to prove itself. I'm tired of repeating such an obvious truth.
Carl: Right, because we aren't fighting for democracy and self-determination for free peoples, and because if you support the war you're never allowed to disagree with anything.
I'm not "chirpy," by the way. I'm just not so wobbly and weak-kneed that I think that a minor disagreement in the coalition, which is all this is, amounts to a major body blow against the West--and I'm rational enough to see that there are plenty of ways this could wind up swinging against the enemy in the long run.
You remind me of my annoying friend Ara Rubyan, who harps on every single setback as proof that Bush is incompetent and "weak on the war." (Of course he then turns around and rationalizes support people like Howard Dean, but that's another discussion.) Leading me to my fundamental observation:
People who are bound and determined to arrive at a certain conclusion will find ways to arrive at it.
One coalition member whose populace was against the Iraq invasion has decided to leave the coalition at the end of June unless we turn Iraq over to the U.N., but has otherwise promised a determined fight against terrorism. That is ALL that has happened. So why don't we give them at least another five minutes before loudly declaring them Quislings or predicting doom for the West?
By the way: Chirp! Chirp! ;-)
Ann Coulter made a good comment about the "democratic" elections in Spain after the attack:
The New York Times called the Spanish election "an exercise in healthy democracy." And an ATM withdrawal with a gun to your head is a "routine banking transaction." Instead of vowing to fight the people who killed their fellow citizens, the Spanish decided to vote with al-Qaida on the war. A murdering terrorist organization said, "Jump!" and an entire country answered, "How high?"
I think she makes a very good point.
"People who are bound and determined to arrive at a certain conclusion will find ways to arrive at it."
Exactly, so instead of recognizing that a well timed act of terror drove the Spanish, who according to the polling data were all set to re-elect the PP, into the arms of the socialists and a direct repudiation of American leadership in the WOT--you want to discuss if some generic vote in some generic place for a generic socialist party is a victory for AQ.
I'm not saying it is a decisive victory for the bad guys. I'm not saying it means the end of civilization. I'm just saying that they won a battle and it would behoove us to recognize the fact so that we can take steps to prevent it from happening again.
Dean, let me state that I don't disagree with you that Zapatero will be a formidable foe to the terrorists, and that he has every bit of right to prove himself. I too find the shrill noises of the right over his victory to be irritating. (I mean, the man is a Socialist, anyway, what was he ever going to have in common with Denny Hasert?)
But Zapatero's logic makes little sense to me. It's not OK to have his troops in the "fiasco" while the US is leading, but, he's OK with leaving them there if that paragon of efficiency the UN steps in. What is that, if not a nice anti-US populist ploy?
I mean, does Zapatero believe the world is better off without Madass or not? Does he think that the US is an "occupying power" but the UN (no doubt working with exactly the same coalition) isn't?
And I cannot imagine Kerry stating who he would like to see running other countries. That was just idiotic. Won't it suck for Mr. Zapatero if he finds he WON'T be working with his world leader of choice.
He just seems like an ass, is all. Good luck to him and the people of Spain.
Stevel:
“But Zapatero's logic makes little sense to me. It's not OK to have his troops in the "fiasco" while the US is leading, but, he's OK with leaving them there if that paragon of efficiency the UN steps in. What is that, if not a nice anti-US populist ploy?”
You’ve already answered your own question: “I mean, the man is a Socialist…”
He thinks an international occupation under UN auspices (even if the US takes the leading role it inevitable would) is infinitely better than a US “coalition” occupation. Not only would Zapatero see more as better in any international effort that involved invasion and occupation, but he would telegraph nearly all Europeans’ concerns about the unilateral projection of US power based solely upon what the US decides is in it’s – or even the world’s – best interest. Go figure.
And Dean, we’ll know in about 10 years whether on not we’re “fighting for democracy and self-determination for free peoples” by measuring the size of our military footprint in Iraq.
Fair enough, shep, do we use Germany as the yardstick, compare the number of Allied troops in Germany post-WW2, per capita, to troops in Iraq on the same basis?
Only if we're staring down a two hundred division, nuclear-armed United Islamic Fundamentalist Republic, John.