There’s good reason to be wary of applying historical analogies to current events – comparing the Iraq war and Vietnam is usually as loaded and unhelpful as, say, comparing the Iraq war and World War II. However, there’s one way in which the US debate about Iraq is starting to look like the debate about Vietnam. It’s becoming ever less focused on Iraq as an actual place (to the extent that it ever was) and ever more concerned with Iraq as a battlefield in a vague and ill-defined war against the forces of evil, in which any setback gives succour to the enemy.
Even after the conduct of the Vietnam war became indefensible, many argued against pulling out because they said that a US defeat would embolden the forces of international Communism. Similarly, there’s a lot of talk today among the war blogs about Spanish “appeasement” and how a Spanish withdrawal from Iraq will strengthen and encourage al Qaeda. As John has already “said”:https://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001514.html, this interpretation does some violence to the actual motives of Spanish voters. Nor are the Socialists wimps on terrorism – the main reason that they lost power in 1996 was because of their vicious and illegal tactics in the ‘dirty war’ against ETA (torture, kidnapping, murder etc). If this is a victory for al Qaeda, it’s not a victory because the Spanish are seeking to appease terrorism. It’s a victory because it will be perceived by the current US administration and its supporters as being a defeat.
Update: see also “Jim Henley”:http://www.highclearing.com/archivesuo/week_2004_03_14.html#005161.
Update 2: Also “Jacob Levy”:http://volokh.com/2004_03_14_volokh_archive.html#107937019778104920, a supporter of the Iraq war, who’s written the most sensible and judicious post on Spain and ‘appeasement’ that I’ve read so far.
{ 30 comments }
rd 03.15.04 at 6:10 pm
Its right not to fall into the mindset that any retreat or reversal is necessarily a “victory for the terrorists.” But when a retreat or reversal is directly sparked by a terrorist attack, its hard to see it any other way. There were all kinds of reasons to oppose Aznar and his participation in Iraq, as has been pointed out at length. But the fact remains that these considerations didn’t become salient for a plurality of Spanish voters until a terrorist attrocity. Whatever you thought about the Iraq war, this strikes me as an ominous instance of terrorism’s ability to shift politics to their liking in Western democracies. The only other precedent that comes to mind is the successful tag team effort of Jewish and Palestinian extremists in 1995 and 1996 to undermine Israel’s Labor government through terrorism and violence.
John Bragg 03.15.04 at 6:12 pm
Also highly relevant is that it will be seen by our Islamist enemies as a victory for them, a display of Western weakness. They will be encouraged, as they were by the weak responses to previous attacks from the Teheran hostage crisis to the Cole bombing. From Somalia, our enemies learned (or thought they learned, operationally the same thing) that if you kill 18 Americans they will leave the country. They learned over the last year that if you bomb a UN complex, they will run away. Now, they have learned that if you bomb a US ally’s capital, the ally will abandon the US.
Homeland Security will be very busy in October. I hope they’re busy enough.
Sebastian Holsclaw 03.15.04 at 6:47 pm
“It’s a victory because it will be perceived by the current US administration and its supporters as being a defeat.”
No it will be seen as a victory for terrorism by people in the Middle East. It is a common trope by both the left and the right that the War on Terrorism will be fought in the hearts and minds of the people in the Middle East. We disagree about how to conduct that fight, but practically everyone with a shred of understanding knows that is the real battleground.
For Al-Qaeda, this is a win on that battleground. 50 layers of nuance about premature blaming of the ETA or Socialists not being soft on international terrorism is not going to make it to that battleground. In that arena, Al-Qaeda scored a victory.
The Socialists can mitigate that victory only by showing that a change in government will not lessen Spanish involvement in the War on Terror. They have already announced a withdrawal from Iraq.
But Iraq isn’t a part of the War on Terror, you say. Once again, pay attention to the battleground of the Middle Eastern hearts and minds. Do they make sharp distinctions between the two? No.
I guess my only hope is that Spain will take clear action in other fronts. But what? Are they going to spearhead an attack on Saudi Arabia? Even politically? I doubt it. Are they going to take dramatic action against Pakistan? No. Are they going to crack down on civil liberties inside the country? Maybe. But will Al-Qaeda see that as a loss? No. So on the battlefield which matters most, this is absolutely an Al-Qaeda win.
Conrad Barwa 03.15.04 at 6:53 pm
However, there’s one way in which the US debate about Iraq is starting to look like the debate about Vietnam. It’s becoming ever less focused on Iraq as an actual place (to the extent that it ever was) and ever more concerned with Iraq as a battlefield in a vague and ill-defined war against the forces of evil, in which any setback gives succour to the enemy.
Another potential similarity are the regional implications; it is possible to see the plan for a greater more democratic and liberal Middle East, based on a reconstructed and democratic Iraq, as a sort of domino theory in reverse – where if Iraq goes democratic and liberal, somehow this will spread to the rest of the states in the region. Needless to say this kind of thinking had some worrying implications the first time around as well as now, part of which is the tendency for these conflicts to spill over borders, here arguments that WMD might have been smuggled into Syria or that Iran should now be targeted have some uncomfortable echoes to the way in which Cambodia and to a lesser extent Laos were slowly dragged into the Vietnam war with an end to supposedly bringing a more decisive solution. Domino theories that rely on ideologically charged change should be avoided, as far as possible when looking at state-level actors I think.
Even after the conduct of the Vietnam war became indefensible, many argued against pulling out because they said that a US defeat would embolden the forces of international Communism.
There is a sense though, in which this might be more defensible in the current context; many of the war’s supporters believe that or endorsed the war on it being able to topple a bad regime and putting something better in its place. At least for many Leftists who supported the war, they were under few illusions as to the US and allies suddenly becoming altruistic humanitarian military powers but argued that the war should be backed regardless; in this sense unless a proper democratic handover is organised, pulling out before could indeed have severely negative consequences. Unlike South Vietnam, there isn’t even a semi-legitimate regime to hand over power to and intervention there, one could also argue was based on the fear that any democratic elections would have resulted in a victory for the Communists or radical Nationalists. The way things stand in Iraq at the moment, it is unclear as to who would ultimately come to power from any future elections, though I assume that it will reflect a more balanced representation of the different Iraqi communities than was the case in the past. The only problem that remains is the mechanics of how best to organise a transition and whether the US can be trusted to do this with an eye to what is best for Iraqis rather than other considerations.
William 03.15.04 at 7:00 pm
However, there’s one way in which the US debate about Iraq is starting to look like the debate about Vietnam. It’s becoming ever less focused on Iraq as an actual place (to the extent that it ever was) and ever more concerned with Iraq as a battlefield in a vague and ill-defined war against the forces of evil, in which any setback gives succour to the enemy.
See, for example, this Tacitus post, where he says exactly that:
I have argued that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, initially connected only on an arguable conceptual level, are now inseparable parts of the same campaign. The inability to recognize this — and the concurrent inability to grasp that defeat in one arena heartens and directly aids the enemy in the other — is a surefire sign of one’s politics overriding one’s sense.
I normally have a deep respect for Tacitus, but this just scares me.
Sam 03.15.04 at 7:06 pm
The original post, especially its title, calls to mind Hans Morgenthau, the political realist whose 1948 book, Politics Among Nations, had a major influence on US international relations thinking. Although I have long struggled against the amorality of his thinking, in the face of Bush’s foreign policy, he is looking pretty good these days. Take his “fifth principle of political realism:”
“Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe.”
All of the talk about attacking the “evil doers,” and the “God is on our side” posturing (Kerry was actually asked this question in one of the primary debates) obfuscates strategic thinking. The Spanish decision should be understood as a mass calculation of Spanish interests, not a reflection of Spanish morality. Indeed, if Bush had kept closer watch on US interests, perhaps we would not have expanded the mess by attacking the Evil One in Iraq.
BigMacAttack 03.15.04 at 7:18 pm
I really, really, enjoyed the CT posts on this subject but I have to point out the very obvious
No one should be happy with the way a significant minority of the Spanish electorate voted and their reasons for doing so.
Now the majority of the Spanish electorate was not influenced by the bombing. They had made up their minds about who they were going to vote for and voted for them.
However a significant minority of the Spanish electorate changed its vote. The PP was out in front. If the polls can be trusted they would have won the election.
They very clearly and deliberately agreed to change their countries policy in regards to Iraq in response to the murders. They have very clearly shown that Spanish policy can be changed by terrorist attacks. If terrorists murder enough Spanish citizens they can influence the Spanish government to adopt at least one of their positions.
Al-Qaeda’s terrorism worked and everyone should be concerned that it worked. Even if they are happy with the new policies no one should be happy that the terrorists influenced Spain to adopt those policies.
Rajeev Advani 03.15.04 at 7:39 pm
It’s becoming ever less focused on Iraq as an actual place (to the extent that it ever was) and ever more concerned with Iraq as a battlefield in a vague and ill-defined war against the forces of evil, in which any setback gives succour to the enemy.
It’s not as “vague and ill-defined” as you would like it, unfortunately. Interconnected terrorist cells operate simultaneously in Iraq and Madrid. You can always count on conservatives harping on about some unremarked upon evil — but don’t let your reaction to them obscure the fact that there IS a connection, and this threat is not vague in the least. It’s in Iraq, and it’s in Madrid.
I’ve found that the people most likely to describe the Iraq war as you did are those most skeptical about the whole idea of democratization reducing terror in the region. Are you cynical about the possible success of reconstruction, or do you think that reconstruction of Iraq will have no effect on terror? How on earth is this war ill-defined?
Kieran Healy 03.15.04 at 8:56 pm
I talked about the difficulty with policies that are too important to fail (and where any setback is equivalent to aiding the enemy) last September.
bryan 03.15.04 at 9:07 pm
First, a quick question: could it be that the moroccans caught were actually sahrawis? http://i-cias.com/e.o/sahrawis.htm
and
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020305/2002030519.html
The sahrawi cause has long been considered as a potential breeding ground for anti-western terrorists.
Now on to the fun stuff:
The current talking points seem to revolve around
Al Quaeda now knowing that all they have to do is to bomb spain to get spain to back down, how do they know this? because supposedly spain has backed down. So this ‘appeasement’ is represented as being bad for spain because now supposedly Al Quaeda will be bombing spain right and left to get them to do what they want. What do they want exactly, the only thing I could think of is help taking down the U.S, I don’t think Spain will agree to attack the U.S at the behest of Al Quaeda no matter how many bombs get set off. So that ain’t gonna go anywhere.
Henry 03.15.04 at 9:20 pm
Kieran – yeah – had simultaneously forgotten that you’d made that point and internalized it as my own starting point for understanding the problem. I reckon that you make the point that I’m trying to make better than I did.
john bragg 03.15.04 at 9:49 pm
The Islamists have learned that terrorism is an effective way of changing election outcomes, and thus of influencing infidel governments. Further attacks on Spain may be unlikely, since their only remaining objective would be to leave Islamist cells in Spain unmolested.
But the US has an election coming up, too.
John Smith 03.15.04 at 10:01 pm
We are increasingly aware of just how crappy US intelligence was on Iraqi WMD – to which a large effort, including the UN inspection teams, was devoted for a decade and more – and of (to put it mildly) strengthening suspicions of bad faith on the part of the US Adminstration in using that intelligence.
Is intel on Al Qaida so much better – and being handled so much more responsibly by USG – that anyone can be confidently predicting that this or that is a victory for AQ? And how much of that intel is available to you and me?
A modicum of analysis suggests that the Spaniards are appeasers line relies, in default of actual evidence, on emotion and moral blackmail.
There is also the question how AQ might make operational use of their supposed power to induce appeasement…
Sebastian Holsclaw 03.15.04 at 10:06 pm
It is the classic blackmail problem. You may not get hit up for money for a couple of years now that you gave in. But they will come back.
“I talked about the difficulty with policies that are too important to fail (and where any setback is equivalent to aiding the enemy) last September.”
This isn’t a case where any setback is equivalent to aiding the enemy. This is a case where Al Qaeda can claim to have made a direct (and for Al Qaeda positive) effect on a Western election. Great for recruiting. Excellent for cowing those would oppose them. Great for them overall. I am fairly sure that the bombings were originally intended as a “we’re still here” type of gesture. It was intended to prove that they weren’t completely impotent. But what they got out of it was far more than that. And that is an unfortunate happenstance that the War on Terror didn’t need. It isn’t about ‘aiding the enemy’. I’m not talking about intentions.
rdb 03.15.04 at 11:16 pm
Why wasn’t withdrawal of American troops from Saudi Arabia – an Al Quaida demand, appeasement too?
Didn’t Cheney say deficits don’t matter so surely it can’t have been the costs involved.
Sebastian Holsclaw 03.15.04 at 11:41 pm
RDB, the Spanish can elect whomever they choose. It is the circumstances of their choice and the reversal of their choice based on 200 murders that makes it a victory for Al Qaeda. Are you suggesting that US troops left for a purpose other than invading Iraq? If you would care to explain I would be happy to engage. But before you begin, remember that bin Laden acts as if Iraq is part of the war on terror even if you choose to believe that it is not.
Matt Weiner 03.16.04 at 12:22 am
Sebastain, you’re putting the cart before the horse. Many people say that one of the benefits of invading Iraq was to enable us to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia. See the Jacob T. Levy post that Henry links–and one of the points JTL cites is that the troops were an irritant that helped Al-Qaeda recruitment.
Sebastian Holsclaw 03.16.04 at 12:42 am
I’m confused. We moved the airbases and command structure before the war. We phased almost all of our troops into Kuwait before the war. Did we withdraw from Saudi Arabia in response to 9-11? No. We did it because Saudi Arabia chose not to be helpful in the war on terror or against Iraq (as if they were cleanly different).
Did Spain announce their withdrawal in response to M11, absolutely. And even if they did not the 72 hour timing is such that Al Qaeda still gets a total win out of it.
anon 03.16.04 at 1:15 am
Sebastian, I find myself frustrated by your seeming imperviousness to logic and rationality when it comes to “war on terror” issues. The battle is indeed for “hearts and minds” in the Moslem world. But you seem to be assuming that the uncommitted masses in the Moslem world are slavering at the bit to engage the West violently, and need only the most minor evidence of “weakness” to do it. In other words, you are assuming that the Muslim majority are already your enemies and are kept in check only by their own cowardice. Once you buy this script then war and violence are the only way to go. The “rationality” of war is just the playing out of the implicit assumption that the whole world is your enemy and is disciplined only by fear.
How about this instead: the great majority of Muslims in the world just want to live their lives, like the majority of people anywhere else. Al Qaeda is a small fanatical minority within the Muslim world that is trying to convince the rest of the Muslim population that Western Christians will not let Muslims live their lives in peace, so that Muslims must defend themselves. Their major recruiting tool is Western intervention in the Muslim world. The more there is of it, the more radicalized the Muslim population becomes, the more reasonable Al Qaeda looks and the more recruiting they can do.
The best tactic against this is viciously punishing *actual* terrorists when they are found and leaving the rest of the Muslim world alone. By electing a government that wants to pull out of Iraq, in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of the Spanish population (who also just want to live their lives), Spain may well be pursuing a more rational anti-terror strategy than we have been.
You say you are a libertarian. Yet you seem to have little appreciation for the many benefits of just leaving other people in distant lands the hell alone. Unless, of course, they, personally, actually are terrorists.
neudoxis 03.16.04 at 2:15 am
Muslims are not champing at the bit to viciously attack Europe. They are champing at the bit to viciously attack Israel. Spain has been cowed into fully accepting a neutral stance no matter what the Muslims will do against Israel (or the United States). As Europe is learning that a vocal detachment of the US is, by itself, not sufficient for peace from the militant factions of Muslims, she will take it a step further and allow the destruction of Israel for final “appeasement”.
The Spaniards voted to protect themselves. It was in their short term interest to do so. They will likely see no further violence from Al Qaeda directed them.
Europe wants peace for itself above all. But, woe! At what future cost to the world!
Carlos 03.16.04 at 3:23 am
John Bragg, good to see you!
Here’s my take on it: I don’t care what those f****rs think. They’re terrorists; their opinions are worthless to me.
I think it starts and ends there.
C.
brian 03.16.04 at 4:03 am
Anon, your observation about the good intenions of the vast majority of Muslim people is correct and does you credit, but if we are concerned about further acts of violence, then it is the small minority harboring thoroughly ROTTEN intentions who we should be concerned about. The fact is, AQ’s demands require active acquiesence on the part of the West; simply laying low as you suggest won’t cut it, and I’m afraid attacks would only continue. Catching the terrorists is a no-brainer (we are in agreement), but given the track record so far, thats not always gonna work.
In the end, the best we can do (aside from refreaining from bone-headed policies which inflame the situation — I agree with you there as well) is to make the act of terrorism as futile and difficult as possible, and therein lies the problem with the Spanish election. Now, if I were asked to blow myself up, I’d want to know I was accomplishing something (killing tourists wouldn’t be enough). But, hey, shifting the course of an entire nation by influencing its democratic process — boy there’s something worth dying for (if you’re inclined toward that sort of thing).
We can debate whether or not this is a correct assessment, but, sadly, this is one debate where someone is going to get proven right or wrong. Elections are regular events. Either the bombs go off or they don’t.
Matt McIrvin 03.16.04 at 4:24 am
The warblogger outrage over the Spain vote establishes that terrorists can easily destroy the United States by attacking us whenever we do something stupid or self-destructive. Then we’ll be morally obligated to continue, indeed intensify, those self-destructive policies in order not to be capitulating to the terrorists. It’s diabolically clever! Watch me hit myself with this brick!
Christophe B. 03.16.04 at 6:46 am
Neudoxis is probably right. In the long term, the Islamists would dearly love to reverse their “defeat” at the hands of the crusaders, but their short term goal is to eliminate what they see as our proxy in the Middle East, the sons of apes, i.e. Israel. It is at once a harder target but a more attainable goal. And, paradoxically, it can be accomplished, or at least advanced, by attacking the more pliable crusaders. The question is, who’s next?
No Preference 03.16.04 at 6:53 pm
Juan Cole has a trenchant post today that effectively answers the argument that the election in Spain was a victory for al Qaeda.
The election was a blow to Bush’s so-called “War on Terror”, but very likely a victory for sane resistance to terror. If so, al Qaeda will find the election results to be a very expensive “victory” in the long term.
No Preference 03.16.04 at 6:54 pm
I guess my only hope is that Spain will take clear action in other fronts. But what? Are they going to spearhead an attack on Saudi Arabia? Even politically? I doubt it. Are they going to take dramatic action against Pakistan? No.
sebastian, how does fighting terrorism equate to waging war on Saudi Arabia? The Saudi regime is the number one target of Osama bin Laden. It looks as though you buy into the notion of a civilizational struggle as advertised by the neocons. This is insane. Think for a minute – what would the effect of an unprovoked attack on Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca and Medina, have on Muslim opinion worldwide?
Sebastian Holsclaw 03.16.04 at 8:41 pm
No preference, Saudi Arabia is also the number one monetary sponsor.
But no, of course I’m not suggesting that Spain, or anyone attack Saudi Arabia. I understand the symbolism of ‘defenders of Mecca and Medina’. I’m saying that the Socialist Party has no foreign policy designed to deal with Islamist terrorism. Withdrawing from Iraq isn’t fighting terrorism. Even if you believe that Iraq is irrelevant it doesn’t count as fighting against terrorism. The Socialist government cannot effectively dispel the notion of appeasement while announcing their dramatic foreign policy change because the only way to do so would be to vigorously attack Islamist terrorism in some other way. They have no foreign policy options which let them do so.
No Preference 03.16.04 at 9:36 pm
I think that Spain will likely “vigorously attack Islamist terrorism” by pursuing the people who committed the bombings, and following up closely with related countries like Morocco. Drama is not always good. It may be better to have an undramatic foreign policy than a “foreign policy designed to deal with Islamist terrorism” like Bush’s, which arguably has created more terrorists than it has eliminated. Perhaps the Spanish people have clicked to that. If so, good for them.
It’s not that I don’t think that Islamic terrorism is a problem. It’s that I think that the Bush “War on Terrorism” is really a bundle of different agendas, some of them very misguided, that the rest of the world rightly distrusts.
A new poll from the Pew Research Center just came out that shows that Bush is viewed favorably in only one of nine countries surveyed. That country is the US.
A Year After the Iraq War.
Sigivald 03.16.04 at 11:40 pm
no preference: Which agendas are misguided, and why is mistrust of them “rightful”, particularly?
Why worldwide popularity polls should matter regarding policy has never been clear to me. Winning the cold war was “unpopular” in Europe, if I recall, was it not?
“Arguably”, Bush’s policy created more terrorists than it has killed/captured/deterred?
Well, let’s hear the argument. Ideally one with some sources. And are these new terrorists “kids who don’t like America because a bomb killed their pet goat”, replacing “trained and battle-hardened muj veterans or bombmakers trained by the best international islamism has to offer”? Quality matters, too. (Though I doubt the actual number has increased; if it’s even remained the same, quality is almsot certain to have decreased.)
(Henry: The Vietnam war was defensible to the end, even if some few specific methods of fighting it might not have been. But, hey, I’ve always been of the crazy idea that Communist dictatorship is a Bad Thing. Even, in fact, a Worse Thing Than War. I imagine many, nay most, of those killed in the post-war purges would agree.)
No Preference 03.17.04 at 4:16 am
Which agendas are misguided, and why is mistrust of them “rightfulâ€
Bush’s National Security Strategy for the US with its vision of US world dominance through military supremacy; endorsement of “preventive war”; and contempt for multilateralism is misguided. The notion that we have some right to transform the Middle East by force is misguided; it’s actually an Israeli idea.
Why worldwide popularity polls should matter regarding policy has never been clear to me.
No country can take on the rest of the world and win.
Even, in fact, a Worse Thing Than War.
Have you been in a war?
Actually, the best response to you is an excerpt from Juan Cole’s post Did al-Qaeda Win the Spanish Elections?
. . .No, it is a defeat only for the Bush administration and the Neoconservative philosophy of Perpetual War. They hold that the US, the UK and Turkey are the only permanent allies and shifting coalitions “of the willing” are put together for particular wars, depending on who can be cajoled, bribed or bamboozled into joining up. This system of US-led shifting coalitions removes all restraint on US militarism. If you have permanent allies, like Germany and France, you might have to pay attention to them. If all you have is a shifting coalition, you can do what you please when you please. Multilateralists are like a set of married couples who are old friends; the Neocons’ unilateral superpower is like Hugh Hefner, surrounded by a constantly changing bevy of hand-picked “girlfriends.”
Unfortunately for this adolescent power fantasy, the real world does not reward naked power and action solely in self-interest. NATO and the United Nations have hung the US out to dry in Iraq, ensuring that its troops take the brunt of the ongoing insurgency.
Comments on this entry are closed.