Influencing Al Qaeda

Hi John,

Well we might not always agree, but I want to back the point you make here 100%. I came to the same conclusion in the comments column over at Fistful. This is an extremely flawed argument.

Taken to its most logical and most absurd conclusion: we should be giving Master Classes to Al Qaeda, trying to teach them something or other.

In particular this seems to reveal that many people haven’t understood the first thing about what we are dealing with here. This is not the IRA or ETA: it is non-negotiable terrorism.

By this I don’t mean that negotiating with terrorists is adviseable, but simply that in the case of Al Qaeda there is nothing even to negotiate about. This is why I think it is important to differentiate between different classes of terrorism. If not you are simply punching in the dark.

People are talking a whole load of tripe about why people voted the way they did and what the likely implications are.

The sad reality is that while Spain was in the forefront of the coalition of the willing, the Spanish people were kept remarkably in the dark about who Al Qaeda was and just what OBL might be trying to do.

What happened last Thursday was a rude awakening, and people were shocked and angry. Angry about having heard speech after speech over the last three years about what you might call ‘low level terrorism’, and virtually nothing in the way of preparation for the big battle to come. A battle which is inevitable not due to the Iraq war, but due to Spain’s geographic situation and the history of her relations with North Africa and the Arab world. When half of Spain is painted green in the maps OBL shows to the world, this is not just something funny.

I second the point on recruiting. It is a commonly held belief in the Arab world that the West is decadent and therfore prone to retreat in the face of adversity. The change in Spanish government, apparently as a result of Al Qaeda’s action (or at the very least Al Qaeda can credibly make that claim) tends to confirm that misconception.

But more important is the effect this has on Arabs or others in the Middle East who might be willing to resist the take over of their countries by militant Islamist forces. It seems to me that Al Qaeda can now suggest that the West cannot be counted on for steadfast support. A few bombs at the right time, and you will be left all alone with us……. Wouldn’t it be better to be on our side, or at least not resist?

“The change in Spanish government, apparently as a result of Al Qaeda’s action (or at the very least Al Qaeda can credibly make that claim) tends to confirm that misconception [that the West is weak and decadent]. ”

Misconception? I think not. The American Right is back in full Traitorous-Appeaser mode, calling for the several of all ties with unreliable Old Europe, and branding the Spaniards as Enemies. The Arab Street browsing through the rightwing blogosphere must be chortling with glee at the ease with which warhawk sentiment can be turned into a counterproductive, divisive frenzy. And all that without detonating a single bomb on US soil.

A salubrious lesson for any terrorist planning a November attack on US soil.

I disagree with the dismissive comment about Steyn. The problem is that it’s not just Steyn; almost every American editorialist to the right of center wrote something similarly repulsive over the past few days, and after Madrid the media seem to have collectively swung back to the unquestioned idea that the right is uniquely entitled to benefit politically from terrorist attacks.

It’s hard for me to express how unhealthy this is. I’d allowed myself recently to think that the US had returned sufficiently to rationality that another large attack on Americans, God forbid, might actually be perceived as the administration failure that it would be; but I’ve been disillusioned about that. George W. Bush currently has no political incentive to prevent terrorism. That is terrifying in itself.

John,

You’re falling for – or at least exploiting – the exact same fallacy as pro-war types when they argue that going to war with a Muslim country wouldn’t increase the Al Qaeda threat because Al Qaeda wasn’t going to change its mind about killing us anyway.

That’s quite true, but what I’m sure you would point out in that case is that the point is not so much the effect on Al Qaeda, but the effect on its target audience: war against a Muslim country could increase sympathy for AQ among Muslims. Similarly the point here is that the apparently successful manipulation of the result boosts AQ’s credibility among its target audience, who will presumably be pleased that a pro-American government has been voted out.

Now I am aware of the dangers of knee-jerk cries of “appeasement!”. For example, I am a firm supporter of Palestinian self-determination – I believe the Israeli occupation is utterly unjustifiable and must end, unilaterlally if necessary. But this is a matter of principle. Equally if I were American I’d probably hold my nose and vote Kerry, even if Bush being thrown out would give AQ some temporary satisfaction/propaganda.

Besides, forget about what the effect of the Spanish election on the AQ issue might be. Isn’t it disturbing enough of itself if (as I believe) an election has been deliberately altered by an act of massive violence?

I can’t help but fear that people here seem so concerned with fighting the right – whose arguments or hetoric might well be wrong – they’re not applying their usual intellectual rigour to the matter.

I’m not trying to be provocative, it just seems so clear to me, that although the logic is potentially insidious, the electorate were intimidated by the bombers. (Even if the PP deserved to lose.)

“Isn’t it disturbing enough of itself if (as I believe) an election has been deliberately altered by an act of massive violence?”

James, it is inevitable that acts of massive violence will have political consequences. The *whole point* of terrorist attacks is to frighten people, often into otherwise irrational behavior.

*It works*. There will *always* be people so scared by a terrorist attack that they will vote for an anti-war party, for instance, and in a closely-contested election this might be enough to tip the balance. Shouting “appeasment, appeasement” from the rooftops will not alter this basic fact of nature.

It is pointless to worry whether a terrorist attack will have political repercussions – it will – or whether al-Qaeda will be pleased by the results – they will – because the damage will already have been done. The bombs have exploded, and the election is over.

The only sane course of action is to make the consequences as undesirable for al-Qaeda as possible. This means sympathy, solidarity, rapproachment with the Zapateros government, and gentle diplomatic pressure when the short term grief has passed.

Crying appeasement and failure before the bodies have been buried is pointless, counterproductive and it gives al-Qaeda the impression that they have already won (talk about near-instant gratification – cries of ‘woe is us’ mere days after the attack!)

Congratulating Zapateros on his victory, offering condolences, pledging support to help Spain find the perpetrators and – quietly, a few weeks later – diplomatic pressure on Spain to remain in Iraq would do far more to neutralize the damage al-Qaeda caused, both in terms of perception, and in reality.

But instead of displaying solidarity, we openly call Zapateros’ election “a victory for al-Qaeda”.
Well talk about crowning the King. If the Spaniards’ reaction was appeasement, this is surrender.

I agree with this point, except that there’s more to it. Earlier this week I wrote about another angle to the problem in this entry at my blog.

If we assume there are functioning al-Qaeda or other terrorist cells in the United States and Western Europe, the question is not “What will they do next?” but “Why haven’t they done more?” The Madrid attacks could easily have been done in the United States; any of us can think of ten possible scenarios for similar attacks that are highly plausible.

This means that these groups are making choices about when to attack and not-attack. Which means that it is still relevant to think about what the conditionalities are in relation to the decision to make an attack. On the other hand, I’d also say that none of the people spouting off about the Spanish elections, of whatever persuasion or position, have even the faintest insight into the “tactical mind” of al-Qaeda cells. I know I don’t–and that’s in part because I assume that each cell has its own internal calculus.

But this also means that a conversation about “what actions might make a particular attack more likely” is still a legitimate one–as long as it doesn’t confuse an attempt to discern the conditionality of a particular attack into an argument about whether terrorists can be entirely dissuaded from attacking if only we follow the proper course of action. This is plainly wrong–as Donald Johnson says, this is a “total struggle”; there is nothing we can choose to do that will indefinitely prevent attacks.

If we do not know what actions might play a role in triggering attacks, and we accept that this is an unconditional struggle, then we should just do what we would be inclined to do anyway (including electing whomever we want to office) and try to read the tea leaves to the extent that is prudent and possible to prevent or forestall attacks.

Continuing to support failed policies or leaders out of fear that al Qaeda will perceive any change on our part as a victory is simply abject, craven surrender to terrorism.

“The idea, that by doing what al Qaeda (supposedly) wants1 we are sending a message that will influence them to do more of the same directly contradicts the overwhelming evidence that al Qaeda is unconditionally committed to terroristic war against us, and cannot be dissuaded from it (evidence that has been stressed more on the right of the blogosphere than anywhere else).”

Agreed: AQ — as they are referred to in these pages — has dedicated itself to our destruction and cannot be dissuaded by appeals to reason, compassion, humanity, prudence or anything else we hold dear.

However, it doesn’t follow from this that AQ is blind to signals that its campaign of destruction is succeding. If AQ believes that the Spanish election is a signal of victory this will encourage them. And, as I commented earlier, it’s immaterial whether the election was in fact a victory for AQ or not. So long as AQ believes it to be so, it is a gain for them. The subtleties we discuss here — was the PP bound to lose even before the bombing? did Aznar’s mishandling of bombing or his ties with Bush throw the election? — may, in the long run, turn out to be of great importance. But in the short run, how can anyone deny that is a victory for AQ?

I don’t see this as a right/left issue, although inexplicably (to me) it seems to break down along political lines.

“I think the election headline should have been – Spainish Say No to Al Qaeda, Populars. Al Qaeda hoped to keep Azhar in office because he helped them get rid of Saddam. They miscalculated Spain’s response. (This interpretation has the same numbers of facts backing it up as the ones you here on Fox News). ”

Wrong. Please see this for instance . Al Qaeda specifically outlined a strategy of bombing Spanish troops to try to topple the Anzar government in the hopes of replacing it with the Socialist government which they specifically suggest has a foreign policy that Al Qaeda likes better.

This doesn’t answer the question of ‘appeasement’ but it certainly sheds light on the question of what specific political goals Al Qaeda hoped to obtain.

“Congratulating Zapateros on his victory, offering condolences, pledging support to help Spain find the perpetrators and – quietly, a few weeks later – diplomatic pressure on Spain to remain in Iraq would do far more to neutralize the damage al-Qaeda caused, both in terms of perception, and in reality.”

The perceptual damage was already done by Zapatero repeatedly, loudly and very publically trumpeting the desired foreign policy change.

I’ve been reading comments about the bombing and the elections in Spain and have not yet seen one person make reference to a very obvious parallel.
What country routinely has terrorist bombings/attacks, often before elections?
You ought to consider the example of Israel here.
Certainly no one would call Sharon an appeaser—
the only people appeased by Sharon’s policies are undertakers. And when election draws nigh and the terrorists ramp up the attacks in Israel, support for Sharon gets stronger, and he coasts to another victory…. and with it, more success?
Guess again.
I think the Spanish people made a completely correct calculation:they got rid of a government which had not protected them; which politicized the deats of 200 people to try to influence the election; and which wasted 2 years that could have been spent attacking Al Qaeda by dithering in Iraq.

Similarly, the Israelis would do well to demonstrate a learning curve with regards to Sharon, even when there are terrorist attacks.
Sharon is not the answer for Israel, nor is the Bush Iraq War the answer to Al Qaeda.

“This is a classic tactic. A public leader who makes an act is to blame, not the person who points the finger at the acts. When the emperor wears no clothes it isn’t the fault of the boy who points it out. ”

But Sebastian, perception is everything.

Al-Qaeda isn’t going to view it as nuanced as you are: all they’re going to see is that you (and every pro-war editorial) have placed the crown firmly on Osama’s head, and are busy burning all bridges that might one day take Zapatero over to your side.

It didn’t necessarily have to be a victory for al-Qaeda, but shouting that al-Qaeda won and all is lost (however true you might think it to be) has placed you firmly in the camp of the fatalistic surrender monkeys.

And, I might add, Sebastian, Zapateros hasn’t actually *done* anything yet. He’s proposed to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq but *he hasn’t actually done it yet*.

So, seeing the damage has not yet been done, do you think calling him a cowardly appeaser might help him reconsider the error of his ways *before* he actually goes and withdraws Spanish troops?

Who said all is lost? Al Qaeda won a big victory in this particular battle. That doesn’t mean all is lost, that just means that Al Qaeda won a big victory. And they don’t need me to tell them. They already know that.

The idea that they need me to point out to them that they had victory is silly.

I need to point it out to YOU because you don’t seem to understand it. They already know that they won a battle. You apparently do not.

My mention of it adds zero to their understanding of the battle.

And the damage that is going to be done by this incident is already done. Zapateros, through his IMMEDIATE announcement of withdrawal has confirmed to Al Qaeda that the Spanish minister thought the issue was vitaly important–just as they did. If he had waited till June and then made the announcement, he could arguably have set it in a different light. He isn’t going back on the announcement which highlights (correctly in view of the bombing) what he believes won him the election. I know you aren’t so foolish as to actually believe it, so please don’t pretend.

Donald: You’d be shocked if you went to a few ISO meetings. There you would find the sorts of people on the far left whom Hitchens is usually responding to in his writing. Generally, people who believe al Qaeda can be appeased also believe al Qaeda is simply a violent reaction to US policies abroad — they find it inconceivable that al Qaeda is pursuing its own depraved agenda. Those who believe this are not marginal by any means — they’re just not well represented in the blogosphere. Had you gone to the World Social Forum last December in India, you would have encountered 80,000 of them.

I vaguely recall an analogy from Noam Chomsky that the US intervening in Kosovo for humanitarian reasons is akin to al Qaeda bombing Washington over the atrocities in East Timor. The logic implies that AQ cares about US policy in East Timor.

“I suppose the answer to that would be for the new Spanish government to demonstrate it is serious about fighting Al Qaeda even if it disagrees with Bush about the way this should be done.”

Sheesh, over at my blog I got practically whipped up and down for that suggestion.

The problem is that there is very little in the way of strong action apart from the US that Spain could do unless there is some enormous change in EU policy. They can’t do much about Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Frankly they weren’t even doing that much in Iraq. So at this point there is very little he could do to signal a strong move against Al Qaeda. He can do damage to civil rights within Spain itself I suppose, but the whole problem with the policing approach is that the threats come in from the outside.

Bp, the fact that Zapateros had a well known platform only indicates that he did not change his own mind in response to the bombings. The fact that he won when he was not expected to before the bombings suggests that enough Spanish voters were inspired to vote for him by the bombings to make a difference in the outcome. The fact that his policy is well known is exactly why Al Qaeda acted to help him. You have seen the CNN report on the Al Qaeda bombing policy which targeted Spain for that very reason, right? Or do you discount it for some reason? Al Qaeda changed an election in a way that helped their foreign policy. That isn’t good.

To rajeev,

I don’t know anything about whatever the ISO is, but I read Chomsky and like-minded people and none of them that I’ve read think of Osama as a freedom fighter. The point of his AQ analogy is that he doesn’t think the US cares about human rights, not that he thinks AQ does. You might find the analogy wrong or offensive, but he’s not defending Osama, but accusing the US of state terrorism. In fact, Chomsky’s view of Osama and his goals is basically the same as those of Hitchens and every other rational person–Osama is a bloodthirsty fanatic who wants to overthrow the theocracy in Saudi Arabia and replace it with an even worse theocracy.

I suppose there probably are some crazed leftists who think Al Qaeda is a collection of freedom fighters, since you can generally dredge up someone somewhere who believes any stupid proposition you can imagine, but what I think you usually get in terrorism discussions are convenient misreadings of other’s positions because it’s easier to burn down strawmen. I’ve been on the receiving end of online arguments where someone accused me thinking that America deserved 9/11, which was interesting given that like many people in the NYC area I spent much of 9/11 in a nightmarish state of misery and fear trying to find out if any of my friends had been killed. (None were.) There’s a subtle distinction people miss between saying “Isn’t it terrible that America is implicated in state terror overseas?” and saying “Isn’t it great that my friends and now my wife live or work in an area targeted by terrorists bent on killing as many people as they possibly can? Boy, do we ever have it coming, don’t we?”

In reality, probably most of us lefties have a kind of pragmatic attitude towards Osama’s gang–kill them or capture them, but don’t bother talking with them, except as prisoners who might have useful information. And yeah, weaken their support base by dealing with whatever legitimate grievances Muslims may have.

As for whether 9/11 was a response to American policy overseas or the actions of a group pursuing its own depraved agenda, there’s no reason why it couldn’t be both. In fact, it clearly was. Osama was offended by the US presence in Saudi Arabia, so he plotted the murder of thousands of innocent people. He wanted to attract support in the Arab world, so he tacked onto his list of supposed motives the Palestinian plight and the sanctions on Iraq, but from what I remember reading in far leftist sources, this was transparently hypocritical–he was hoping to stir up Muslim anger by pointing to issues he didn’t really care about himself. (And no, as already mentioned, no crime of ours would justify 9/11.)

Now what I have seen from some lefties are defenses of suicide bombing in Israel, on the supposed grounds that it’s the only way the Palestinians have to fight back. I think the argument is both immoral and foolish, but presumably don’t have to make that case here. (Well, maybe I do. Murdering children is self-evidently evil and morality aside , it will only harden Israel’s position.) The people who defend Palestinian suicide bombing see it as a legitimate tactic of war and claim it shouldn’t be compared to 9/11, because the Palestinians have legitimate grievances and Osama does not. I think this is a minority opinon on the far left (Chomsky opposes Palestinian terror, for instance), but I have seen it , while I never see defenses of 9/11. Maybe they are more common overseas, where it’s presumably easier to dehumanize Americans, the way we Americans often dehumanize Arabs. (I’ve seen ordinary Americans react to condemnations of the Iraqi sanctions by saying that they wish “all those people” were dead.)

To Sebastian–
.

Did Al Qaeda try to influence the vote? I don’t have cable and didn’t see the CNN report, but given the timing, it seems likely they had something like that in mind. But if terrorism was my deciding issue, I’d have picked the party I trusted more, without caring what Al Qaeda thought. Whether the Spanish voters made the right decision based on that criterion is something I don’t know enough about to judge. I know enough about Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to know that those are the two countries that should concern us the most with respect to terrorism, but not enough to say what the US or the EU should do about it. (As you say, Spain can’t do much.)

So as a kind of honorary guest blogger, my original post was just long enough to make the one legitimate point I had to make, but it arguably didn’t cover all the relevant considerations.

bp,

I think AQ and its target audience is perfectly able to draw conclusions from the Spanish elections without the help of the blogosphere – so claiming that we shouldn’t say appeasement even IF it is appeasement (a word I haven’t used by the way) doesn’t cut much mustard.

Equally I don’t suppose that anything said here will make terrorist acts politically inconsequential – in fact I don’t even say they should be politically inconsequential.

Nonetheless I am stunned and frustrated at the apparent nonchalence of many at the possibility that an electorate has been deliberately persuaded to change its mind by an act of mass murder. This nonchalence is only explicable to me if bad faith or partisan motives are presumed on the part of those who express concern at the hypothesis.

I can only protest that I am guilty of neither.

If using carrots to persuade people not to join terrorist groups is appeasement, then in some cases we should start appeasing. Osama and his sort can’t be appeased (unless we want to support vicious theocracies, which we shouldn’t), but their potential support base can be decreased. One way to appease Palestinians and Muslims who might otherwise support terrorism is by evacuating Israeli settlements, for instance. The Palestinian demand for a state is just and should be satisfied. As a side effect satisfying it should decrease support for suicide bombings. People worried about democratic elections which lead to increased support for terror ought to be petrified every time Israel has an election, but for some reason most aren’t. That does seem like bad faith.

There might be reason for concern over the Spanish elections if Al Qaeda receives more support because it is seen as a victory for them. That doesn’t mean the Spanish should have voted differently from the way they did.

I’ve read most of Chomsky’s political books and articles and find myself agreeing with him the majority of the time, though not always. I’ve also read a lot of criticism thrown at him, much of it inaccurate and used to argue with people about it. Big waste of time. So far as I can tell, people who dislike Chomsky nearly always put the worst possible (or even impossible) interpretation on his words and no amount of argument will change people’s minds. I know he doesn’t think Osama cares about human rights–the portrait I painted of Osama in my previous post is basically a paraphrase of something I remember Chomsky writing.

I should have thought about college kids when I said no lefty thinks Osama is a freedom fighter. It’s kind of a truism to say that college kids tend to be more extreme and more obnoxious no matter what position they take, whether it is college Republicans or college radicals. I’d expect that college students who idolize Chomsky probably go further than their idol, usually further in a stupid way–I remember one Chomsky admirer at ZNET, for instance, say that the Palestinians should just go all out with suicide bombing attacks and Chomsky replied that this was a great idea if you wanted massive suffering on both sides with no one winning. The questioner obviously didn’t expect Chomsky’s tart response. And then there are also those young anti-globalization protestors who think they’re striking a blow for freedom by smashing a MacDonald’s window. I’m not bashing the anti-globalization movement, just admitting that yeah, there are always people who smash windows or maybe think Osama is a “freedom fighter” and somehow imagine they’re fighting for the oppressed. I don’t hang around or read such people (except for the occasional defender of Palestinian terrorism), but they’re no doubt out there. I do read Noam and he isn’t one of them.

On the aid idea, I think terrorism would decrease if we showered the world with aid, but I don’t think it would stop Osama or the most hardcore members, because they want an extremely repressive Islamic theocracy. The US has a lot of innocent blood on its hands and we are also derelict in fighting disease and poverty overseas, but this doesn’t mean that if we were saints there wouldn’t be crazed killers in the world who’d be worse than us if they had the power. They have to be stopped and this will involve killing some of them and catching the rest. And we’ll need a military too, because some whackos might have a country behind them. There might, however, be fewer people willing to support Hitler/Osama/Saddam types if we do the aid-showering thing. I’m pretty close to Chomsky on this, from all that I’ve read him say on the subject.

Anyway, you can have the last word in this thread. I let myself defend Noam now and then, but decided some time back it was more productive just to defend my own far lefty views instead, rather than get bogged down arguing about whether Chomsky really meant this or that. Besides, as I said before, sometimes I think he’s wrong, or partly wrong. Of course I do have my moments of weakness where I jump to his defense, this being one of them.