Thoughts in my pocket like grains of sand

I think that the reaction to events in Spain has been heavily colored by the timing wrt elections. Between the bombings and the elections, I saw a mixture of sorrow and sympathy and “find the people who did this and make them pay”, and precious little else.

Having just visited Harry’s Place, I see that Juan Sanchez makes a similar point here.

For 3b: it’s about how it’s played. One can disagree with the decision without claiming that those who made it are, essentially, traitors, which is the underlying basis for the complaint. They aren’t saying that the Socialists would be bad leaders; they’re saying that the very choice is cowardly, if not simply evil. It’s also disingenuous, but that’s a different issue.

I agree that it SHOULD be silly, as it should be unthinkable. There is simply too rich a history of “screw the voters, we’ll give them the government WE think is appropriate” out there to assume such, especially with all the Cold Warrors at the helm of the executive branch right now.

Well, if I can put it this way, the committment was made when the main pretext was the claim about WMDs (yes, yes, it wasn’t really about them, so you might say), which was as yet unproven. Now that there were no WMDs to be found, the terms of that committment might well be considered to be void.

Ironically, if Spain’s threat to pull out spurs the US to finally submit a resolution to the UN, it’ll spread the risk amongst a wider number of countries, and reduce the overall risk to Spain, and incidentally, the US. Turn a perceived negative into a positive.

How many sides are there?
Us, them, and cowards of all stripes?
Is that three? Or two and some inconsequentials?
Who was responsible for the Ashoura bombings in Karbala?
Us, them, or somebody else?
The “war” in Iraq is over. So why are so many people still getting killed there?
In the local hometown newspaper they list the military casualties every day, and every day there’s a little paragraph that says there are no figures on Iraqi civilian casualties because the government won’t release them.
It’s as though they’re not dying.
Why does everything keep sounding like it was scripted?
Is it possible there are more reasons, more levels to these events than can fit into the vocabulary of a ten year-old?

Who’s desperate?
Who’s playing for keeps?

This election was held in Spain, wasn’t it?

The party that was ejected had been in power for eight years, right?

Is it entirely out of the question, quite completely out of the realm of discourse, that the people of Spain, a rather substantial fraction of whom were out in the street last week, talking to each other, decided all by themselves that they’d be better off in any number of ways with a new government?

Sincerest apologies to readers from countries whose governments are not also decided by popular elections.

This election was held in Spain, wasn’t it?

The party that was ejected had been in power for eight years, right?

Is it entirely out of the question, quite completely out of the realm of discourse, that the people of Spain, a rather substantial fraction of whom were out in the street last week, talking to each other, decided all by themselves that they’d be better off in any number of ways with a new government?

bad jim: bravo, exactly what I meant…

You kept hearing how Aznar was hated by a big bunch of the Spanish population long before both the attacks and the Iraq war.

Just like, say, Blair or Berlusconi or Bush. These are countries where big parties run, it’s normal they should come close in polls, it’s normal there should be a change every few years…

Again, one of those things those crying out “Al Qaeda have won” completely forget about how elections work. Amazing.

“They don’t, however, inspire much confidence, either—assuming you’re looking for a wartime president determined to take the fight to the enemy at all, of course.”

Again, what specifically do you think Kerry would not do which Bush might. Attack Iran? Syria?

“Again, what specifically do you think Kerry would not do which Bush might.”

That’s an odd “again” since the question I replied to concerned “appeasement,” which doesn’t involve not doing something.

As for what I in particular worry “that Kerry would not do which Bush might”: anything whatsoever involving the use of force in the absence of planet-wide approbation and negligible political risk.

Fill in any specific future confrontation (with Syria, Iran, NK, etc.) that comes to mind.

Now that worry–based as it is entirely on a handful of Kerry’s public statements, and contradicted by others–may be in error. I certainly hope it proves so, should Kerry ever actually become president.

Thanks for the reply, Dan. Of course the use of force per se is not a good. It has to be viewed in terms of its likely achievements and its risks.

You many indeed question Kerry’s inability to make politically risky choices. We won’t know unless (until?) he is President. On the other hand, I would just point out that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were considered particularly risky at the time for President Bush; if anything the conventional wisdom was that they would improve his political standing. So I think the jury is still out whether President Bush is willing to make politically risky choices when it comes to the use of force.

I think you also have to factor into your reasoning that Kerry is likely to find it easier to get other countries’ approval to use force, and that President Bush is likely to more easily receive other countries’ condemnation should he suggest its use. There is a benefit in the first and a cost in the second. The cost in the second includes trigger shyness – that President Bush will be more reluctant to use force because of the strain it puts on U.S. relations with other countries.

To be specific take Iran. After the capture of Baghdad, the Europeans put President Bush on notice that an attack on Iran would be the end of the Atlantic Alliance. We don’t know if that’s what prevented it or not, but it didn’t happen, or at least not yet. In any case any Bush Administration initiative to tackle Iran is and will be viewed with suspicion by others – and that fact by itself is a drag on American action. If Kerry comes in and agrees that force may be necessary in dealing with Iran, European governments are likely to listen more closely.

Let me echo and elaborate on the concerns Dan expersses. The concern, briefly, is that Kerry will shy from the use of force even when force is the best or only way to accomplish important security objectives.

Why do ‘hawks’ think this? Well, in addition to the public statements cited above, Kerry has a track record: he was a supporter of the nuclear freeze, he voted against the first Gulf War. To hawks, these appear as wrong positions, and lead many to conclude that that Kerry will be generally suspicious of and adverse to the exercise of American military power.

I hasten to addL: that’s not an obviously wrong suspicion to have, of course. Nor does Kerry’s biography make it an unreasonable ‘default setting’ for him personally.

Nonetheless, if one believes, as hawks do, that the United States and the West faces threats from terrorists, and hostile states, and further, that those threats are often best met via the exercise of force, then Kerry doesn’t seem like the man of the hour.

For example, it is clear to me that had Kerry been president, Saddam Hussein would still be in power. You may think that’s better, but I don’t.

Further, I am not convinced that had Kerry been president, the Taliban would have been toppled –sanctioned yes, bombed maybe, delta force actions against Al Queda bases, for sure. We forget that regime change in Afghanistan did in fact take substantial political will to accomplish — there was substantial criticism of the reliance on corrupt Nothern Alliance allies, reliance on air power, bombing during Ramadan, etc.

I suspect that Kerry supporters and Bush foes will think I am wrong on the facts: Kerry would have toppled the Taliban and would have ousted Hussein, but in a better fashion. But again, this is a man who voted against the first gulf war, and supported the nuclear freeze. So you can see why hawks are concerned.

baa: Political elections shouldn’t be a question of rewarding candidates for past actions, but a question of choosing who will do best in the future. Maybe Saddam Hussein would still be in power had Kerry been President – hard to test the veracity of that counterfactual. If you’d like, give President Bush a gold watch for the good deed. But since Hussein is already gone, the 2004 election shouldn’t turn on his eviction, but on whether Bush or Kerry is better placed to deal with, for two, N. Korea and Iran.

the right, by attacking citizens of a sovereign country who disagree with them, by calling them ?Appeasers!? and ?Cowards!?, is doing AQ?s work for them, and advancing the very aims of the bombers.

Exactly. Right on. Ditto. Me too.

Imho, you are toast as soon as you take in account terrorists’ in the political discourse.

You never can be sure of what they really want because they can think strategically too : do they really prefer bush as stated in their last declaration? Or is it to boost kerry? Or finally bush after people came to think they want kerry?

I don’t see how you could escape that mirror game for each and every of their statement regarding political life. Nothing to gain, and they get the political player status through terror.

Democracies shouldn’t care one way or another, at the risk of weakening themselves, who the terrorists prefer in power, what their political options are, what their political discourse is.

The appeasement(tm) screams by the usuals fourteen-in-the-head lead only to that : giving political relevance to al qaida.

Andrew,

Interesting comments. And I can’t quarrel with them, really. As far as they go. (With the exception of your curious assertion that “conventional wisdom” didn’t view the invasions and occupations of both Afghanistan and Iraq as “particularly risky.” I recall quite the opposite: somber to shrill media predictions about humanitarian catastrophes, new Vietnams, massive military and civilian casualties, Somalia-like urban massacres, etc.. To my mind, any democratic leader who launches a war in spite of such fear and trembling must necessarily rank “politics” low on their list of foreign policy priorities. Whatever else might be said about them or their policies.)

All that in mind, let me clear: I’m convinced that, as you noted, Kerry “is likely to find it easier to get other countries’ approval,” than Bush, and that “European governments are likely to listen more closely” to him than they would to Bush, if ever “Kerry comes in and agrees that force may be necessary.”

My worry (and apparently baa’s, and a few others on this list) revolves instead around whether Kerry would ever propose that meaningful force is necessary. As opposed to may be necessary, at some future date, possibly, assuming all and sundry agree that all other options have been exhausted, and no one uses a veto at the UN, and so on.

In other words, I’ve no doubt that John Kerry is more diplomatic than George Bush–a fairly uncontroversial observation that nevertheless seems to have constituted the greater part of your reply.

I’m worried that John Kerry will never dare anything militarily undiplomatic.

Diplomacy “per se is not a good” either, after all.

Especially during wartime. Which is why I also fear that the next presidential election will be decided primarily by how many voters still believe we’re even at war.

I’d much prefer perfect unanimity on that fundamental question. I’d prefer both candidates were interchangeable on that score. If for no other reason than because only then could I properly enjoy watching Bush lose.

As for what I in particular worry “that Kerry would not do which Bush might”: anything whatsoever involving the use of force in the absence of planet-wide approbation and negligible political risk.

First, there is no basis whatsoever in the historical record for this concern. Indeed, the evidence is extremely strong (in contrast) that domestic political concerns have been shockingly important in the military policy of the Bush administration.

Second, Dan, you are implicitly setting up (or buying into) a false dichotomy: “multilateral” has never meant “don’t do anything unless everyone agrees”.

I want an agressive, multilateral, assault on terrorism that combines military, law enforcement, judicial, and diplomatic elements because it is the only type of approach that will work.

Tough talk and bluster might make you feel safer, Dan, but when fused to a thoroughly incompetent foreign/military policy it is doing nothing more than increase our level of risk.

By failing to acknowledge that many of those who oppose Bush are doing so because his policies are just plane wrong and inneffective (“the greatest strategic blunder in American history”–Google it if you haven’t read it already), Dan, you are not contributing to making the US safer–you are doing AQ’s work for them.

“The argument that the right is showing contempt for democracy by decrying the results of the Spanish election is silly.

OK, then how about this argument: the right, by attacking citizens of a sovereign country who disagree with them, by calling them “Appeasers!” and “Cowards!”, is doing AQ’s work for them, and advancing the very aims of the bombers. ”

This entire argument is utterly preposterous. Is the Left really suggesting that questioning other nations’ political choices is unacceptable, if those political choices were made in a democratic vote? Presumably, then, it is unacceptable for foreign citizens to question the American president? As mentioned, for US citizens to question the far Right in Austria? The entire argument isn’t right, wrong, kinda right, kinda wrong. Its absurd.

“The apocalyptic Neocon/Theocon ideological synthesis embraced by the president is the source of the tremendous division within the country and the cause of our alienation from the world at large. That’s it. There is no other comparable source of the peril of disintegration that we face. Frighteningly, this is still only vaguely appreciated by American voters.”

Another utterly asinine statement. “If everyone agreed with me, there would be no conflict!” is factually true, of course, but is it even remotely a policy statement? “Agree with me and there won’t be any more disagreements” as a campaign slogan? A moral argument?

Steve

Apparently, Ted is really Samuel R. Delaney.

“By the way, the damage to the economy from 9/11 was well over $500 billion” — do you have a cite for this? The number you’re suggesting is close to 5% of GDP, which seems pretty high to me.

I think the moral of this story is that the Silver Surfer is obviously a coward and an appeaser for not joining the Avengers.

I do think that terrorists need to be pursued aggressively, but I don’t see that Bush’s actions are actually reducing and/or eliminating terrorism.

The 1993 WTC bombing was handled as a criminal investigation and was resolved through a cooperative effort. The perpetrators were found guilty exactly one year after the bombing took place.

I’m guessing that the response of Bush supporters would then be that Clinton didn’t do enough to pursue more terrorists. Maybe they’re right. But the Republican party would not have supported any action that Clinton took for any reason, purely on an ideological basis.

When I look at the Bush administrations response to terror, I see a one trick pony. Bombing, shooting, killing. They don’t seem to care about the how and why of 9/11 – a significantly larger amount of money was spent investigating Bill Clinton than has been spent investigating 9/11. I would like to see a much more comprehensive response to the threat of global terrorism, and I fear Bush, who never admits to any kind of failure, will not ever pursue any action other than bombing, shooting and killing.

I spoke to a staunch Bush supporter about this very topic, and he suggested that if we bomb, shoot and kill the terrorists, that would solve the problem. Of course, that is assuming that there is a finite number of terrorists, and that our actions won’t anger any of their friends and family members and possibly radicalize some people into taking similar action against the United States. People have very long memories – my Irish father gets spitting mad when he thinks about things the English did Ireland 800 years ago. In the U.S., the Confederate flag is still a hot issue – many people are still fighting the Civil War/War of Northern Aggression.

I think the Bush response to terror is a short term response that will just lead to us having to fight this battle again in 20 years, when a new generation of Iraqis revisit what the U.S. is doing right now.

tew:“By the way, the damage to the economy from 9/11 was well over $500 billion” — do you have a cite for this? The number you’re suggesting is close to 5% of GDP, which seems pretty high to me.

Cites? well you got me there; I remember hearing that number, which may be high.

If you Google “Financial Impact” 9/11, you will see that costs to NYC alone were 80-100 billion, with insurance claims alone over $50 billion.
I am also thinking about costs to the airline industry, stock market, etc., which lasted at least a year, so 5% of the GDP may not be out of line.

I have no response, really, to the portions of your own reply passionately rebutting statements I never made.

That’s cool. Funny, too, because I was just thinking the same thing about Steve’s comments about me. Much of what we all post is based an attempt to intuit a larger context, so it’s often in the “if the shoe fits” category. If you say it doesn’t, I believe you. You’ll get no argument from me.

I’m also immune to arguments, from any quarter, that suggest my complicity with terrorists should I dare to doubt them.

Ah, but here you are responding to something I did not say: “complicity” is not the same thing as “doing their work for them”. It is possible to do the latter quite unintentionally. I did not doubt for one second your good intentions.

So you approved of the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan?

Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no.

It would be fascinating to examine such evidence. Please don’t keep it all to yourself. (But please don’t wax on about Haliburton and Enron and Brown & Root and so on. I’ve just eaten.)

Well, OK. Just saying “Iraq” sums it up pretty well, actually.

We can save a discussion of war profiteering and DOD pork doled out to important constituencies until after you’ve digested your meal.

Okay, then, mandarin, we can look at the Madrid bombings and the Mount Lebanon Hotel and all the dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians as evidence of Bush’s failure to stop terrorism as well.

There is evidence, you know, that the Bush administration ignored warnings regarding terrorist activity prior to 9/11. (see: http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,600843,00.html, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/05/1028157909817.html, http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2002/time080402b.html)

I don’t think the Bush administration, which has blown its credibility world-wide after the lead-up to the Iraq war with the imaginary WMDs, can pursue terrorists in a multi-faceted way. This is not just America’s problem, this is the world’s problem, and the divisive Bush administration will not gain the cooperation needed to fight terrorism because they have isolated themselves. What Bush supporters see as moral clarity, his ability to see things only in black and white, I see as a tremendous weakness.

I love this argument that the Spanish election result was not, in itself, a victory for Al Quaeda, but that when conservative commentators *call* it a victory for Al Quaeda, that *is* a victory for Al Quaeda.

The next move in this debate would be for conservative commentators to argue that when they say that the Spanish election result is a victory for Al Quaeda, that is not, in itself, a victory for Al Quaeda, but that when the left *calls* their calling it a victory for Al Quaeda a victory for Al Quaeda, that *is* a victory for Al Quaeda.

I leave the next round as an exercise for the reader.

But seriously. Does anyone really believe that the terrorists would have to check out David Brooks’ column and Andrew Sullivan’s blog before deciding whether or not they got their way in Spain?

Regarding the war on terror, what policies or actions are you afraid that President John Kerry might actually adopt that could reasonably be described as “appeasement”?

Let’s say that there is an attack on our embassy in Vienna by a previously unknown terrorist group. Subsequently, we locate a substantial training ground for this group in India, but the Indian government will not allow us to attack it. I believe that Bush would attack that camp anyway and that Kerry would not. Now whether we should attack or not is certainly a valid question, and I don’t expect very many people here to agree with me, but I would much rather have a President that does what he thinks is right and then deals with the political fallout than one who allows foreign governments harbor groups that have declared war on us.

Mario, your example is one of the reasons why I don’t feel safer with Bush at the helm. I have no doubt he would be willing to antagonize a nuclear power by attacking them. That way lies madness, IMO. I think a Democratic administration would do more to get the Indian govnerment to cooperate with us to take down the organization without having to bomb anyone.

So much of this discussion depends on questions of fact concerning which people have nothing but their ideological prejudices to guide them.

Many are convinced that Bush has neglected counterterrorism in favor of the Iraq war. Matt Weiner, for example, says that “we are only just moving to 24-7 attempts to catch bin Laden.”

But how does he know this? Because it is only lately that he has been reading about it in the newspapers?

I don’t think anyone outside the intelligence services has the faintest idea whether Bin Laden is alive or dead, let alone whether or not we are allocating an appropriate level of resources to hunting him down.

More generally, I see just about zero *evidence* one way or the other concerning whether international anti-terrorist cooperation has suffered under Bush, whether Al Quaeda has been strengthened or weakened, whether their recruitment is up or down, whether we have missed important anti-terrorist opportunities because of Iraq, etc.

Just a lot of posturing.

On 3B.

I am a right-winger and i do think that many on my side are showing contempt for democracy. It is one thing to disagree with the outcome of an election. It is something quite different to accuse the electorate who voted that way of being appeasers, cowards, Quislings, etc. Especially when the average blog-pundit knows almost nothing about the election except the result.

maurinsky: Mario, your example is one of the reasons why I don’t feel safer with Bush at the helm. I have no doubt he would be willing to antagonize a nuclear power by attacking them. That way lies madness, IMO. I think a Democratic administration would do more to get the Indian govnerment to cooperate with us to take down the organization without having to bomb anyone.

I completely understand that position, but I want to make a couple of things clear in my example. First, he would not be attacking India, but a camp in its territory, although that would certainly be antagonistic anyway. Second, it is important that, as a part of this hypothetical, India will never allow the US to act, regardless of any President’s diplomatic attempts. It wouldn’t be fair to simply say that Kerry would get them to cooperate; I’m saying that it can’t happen. What would he do then?

Better analogy: paid arsonists keep torching your house. Kerry wants to prosecute the arsonists after the fact and (with luck) catch some of them before they succeed. Bush wants to make the house more fire-resistant and go after the folks that pay the arsonists.

Ted,

I will try to add to Dan’s well articulated repsonse as to, ‘what policies or actions are you afraid that President John Kerry might actually adopt that could reasonably be described as “appeasement”?’ although I can gaurantee I won’t be as articulate.

Simply put, I am afraid that Sen. Kerry, in an effort to win back friends internationally and repair relations, will move the front line in the WOT back here to the US (unintentionally).

How? Let me explain.

Many would argue (and have done so repeatedly) that we have diverted resources from AQ/Afghanistan when we decided to invade Iraq (even though Iraq was not a terrorist threat). I won’t argue that SOME resources were diverted. But there are two key things to keep in mind:

1) 9/11 changed how we viewed states like Iraq that had sponsored terror (e.g. the palenstinians) and had accumulated and used WMDs in the past. As Pres. Bush stated, we could no longer wait for these states to BECOME an imminent threat. We needed to head that off. Hence the administrations focus on Iraq.

2) By going after Iraq, we move the frontline in the WOT to Iraq and out of our backyard. We have seen hundreds/thousands of foreign fighters infiltrate Iraq in an attempt to do battle with the US. I for one, am much more comfortable with having our best and bravest conduct that battle in the Middle East than I am having that battle conducted here in our cities and suburbs by police

Now, so what specifically do I see Sen. Kerry doing. I see him not only engaging the international community in Iraq (which I think is a good thing), but I see him handing over control of that situation (which I think is a bad thing). Once that handover is done, I see the international community taking a much more conciliatiry approach with the insurgents. After a period of time (maybe a year or two), we will remove a vast majority of our troops currently stationed in Iraq. Once that happens, I believe that we will see an increase in the numbeer of terrorist attacks domestically because AQ will still work to accomplish their goal of converting or killing all infidels (with the US being the Great Satan).

Now, one could argue that once we are out of Iraq we will have more resources to hunt down AQ. Potentially true, but I am not sure if the same resources used in Iraq can be used in the mountains of Pakistan.

From my perspective, there are two ways to destroy AQ:

1) One is head on. With our superior fire power and training, I think we win eventually (although it will be a costly battle).

2) The other way, is through developing democracies where we have the locals help us to root them out. We are seeing some of this in Iraq and Pakistan, but we need more. That is why it is so important to show the Middle East that democracy can work. Once they realize they can fight back against the terrorists (with international help) and have a chance at a decent life (for themselves and thier families), I believe that they will choose that route.

Sure there will be some hardcore fundamentalists, but those views can also be changed over time as people become more empowered and have a chance to rule their own destiny.

fredrik, one obvious difference between your perspective and mine is that you think Bush’s actions have made things safer. I disagree. I think there are a lot of ways to pursue terrorists, but Bush’s actions indicate he is only interested in pursuing them in one way. I think it will take a combination of law enforcement, intelligence, military force, improved cooperation with our allies (along with increasing the number of our allies), reducing fundamentalism, which is a threat to democracy, and spreading the positive aspects of a free democracy and free and fair trade around the world.

There is no follow-up plan. This is evident in the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq – they are great with the bombs dropping portion of the program, but the follow-up, the rebuilding – there is no clear plan.

As I keep thinking about this, I keep thinking that a secondary victory for the terrorists is that the Bush administration and their friends in Congress are focusing on the results of the election as the primary victory for the terrorists while ignoring the explosions. I really don’t think terrorism is a partisan issue! There isn’t only one right way to fight terrorism!

People–Iraq did not fund the anti-American terrorists. Those of you who are taking this line should be asking why Bush hasn’t confronted Saudi Arabia. Those of you who are taking the rogue state with WMDs line should be asking why Bush Administration officials spent so long denying that there was a North Korean crisis while hyping the Iraqi threat beyond all the available facts.

Well, the “North Korea crisis” was largely manufactured by North Korean posturing to avoid multilateral talks in favor of bilateral negotiation with the U.S. that would leave us holding the bag for yet another unenforceable agreement that Japan, China, and South Korea weren’t on board with.

As for Saudi Arabia, given that the financial support of AQ by regime-associated figures has been reduced and the regime seems to be making a serious effort against AQ (contrast Iraq’s tolerance of AQ affiliate Ansar al-Islam within its sovereign borders), I think there has been substantial progress on that front. Not as much as one might desire, mind you, but short of having the troops roll into Mecca or lending support to internal pro-democracy dissidents (and hoping that, when the dust settles, they’re running the place instead of Osama) I’m not sure how much more leverage could be exerted on the decentralized Saudi monarchy. Of course, everyone has been predicting the imminent self-destruction of Saudi Arabia for the last two decades (for very sound reasons, I might add), and nothing has happened yet.

On the importance of regimes: AQ’s continued success depends largely on the tacit and explicit support of state actors for “breathing room,” materiel and logistics. You can either change the attitudes of regimes (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan) or the regimes themselves (Iraq, Afghanistan), and the appropriate tactic varies based on a variety of factors. No major terror group has ever been effective over the long run without state support.

Maurinsky,

I think there are a lot of ways to pursue terrorists, but Bush’s actions indicate he is only interested in pursuing them in one way.

On what basis do you think that? I just don’t see it the same way — I see the Bush administration prosecuting the war in a multitude of ways; with police, intelligence, diplomacy, and military means.

I think it will take a combination of law enforcement, intelligence, military force

I agree. And this is exactly what is done!

improved cooperation with our allies (along with increasing the number of our allies)

This is a tricky part. I’ll stipulate that the Bush administration could be more diplomatic, and the administration could and should do much better explaining the big picture, but which traditional allies aren’t supporting us in the war on terrorism (e.g. by sharing intelligence)?

Also, bear in mind that more allies is not inherently good; each sovereign nation has its own interests, its own capabilities, its own political dynamics and so on. The more allies, the less likely is it that everyone can agree on what to do, and it’s all too easy to end up in a situation where the coalition defines the mission.

On a related note, Eugene Volokh points out that we should carefully consider the dangers of giving our allies veto power (or other significant influence) over your foreign policy; “an enemy that couldn’t break down our resolve could still stop us from doing what needs to be done by breaking down the resolve of one of the veto-owning countries.”

I disagree about the lack of a follow-up plan too. Reconstruction in both Afghanistan and Iraq is happening, it’s proceeding extremely well, and it’s happening rapidly and with minimal losses of life. What is your frame of reference when you claim there is/was no plan? Has any nation-building in history progressed faster, better and/or with less confusion and loss of life than Afghanistan and Iraq?

Chris, I think that something else that can keep a terrorist organization moving aside from state support is support of the population. For example, in Northern Ireland, the IRA would not have been as successful without a populace willing to support the terrorists with safe houses, by keeping quiet when police came looking for information, etc.

The same thing happens in the U.S. with our domestic terrorists who are almost always right-wing terrorists – Eric Rudolph, for example, was given a safe haven by people who agree with his radical philosphy that killing doctors who perform abortions is God’s work. It doesn’t have to be simply state support that provides sustenance to terrorist groups. Al Qaida in particular seems to be able to get support from radical Islamic fundamentalists no matter where they are located.

fredrik, I’m not really well educated on how previous efforts at nation-building have gone, so I will have to defer an answer on that question. But I’m not even convinced that we are finished with the fighting in Iraq, considering we are still losing soldiers and hotels are getting exploded, etc. The Taliban still has a significant amount of power in Afghanistan.

And I don’t take the whole lead-up to the war on Iraq as lightly as hawks do. If Saddam did not have WMDs at all, we were lied to. If Saddam did have WMDs but they were gone by the time we got there – well, where are they now? We will clearly not agree on this issue, because you trust the Bush administration and I don’t trust the Bush administration.

I’m not ecstatic about Kerry, and I hope he articulates a specific plan for fighting terrorism soon (if he hasn’t already – I haven’t kept up with his statements). But I’m not only voting on the terror issue. I’m voting against the direction in which Bush is taking this country. I like well funded public schools, I like religious freedom, I have no problem with gay marriage, I am deeply concerned about the Bush administrations inability to create jobs, and I don’t like the leaders that Republicans choose in Congress, amongst other reasons. Kerry’s not my ideal, but he’s on my side on most of the issues that have immediate impact on my life.

Fredrik Nyman

I think your comment sums up what I’ve heard from Bush’s defenders: “Better analogy: paid arsonists keep torching your house. Kerry wants to prosecute the arsonists after the fact and (with luck) catch some of them before they succeed. Bush wants to make the house more fire-resistant and go after the folks that pay the arsonists.”

Myself, I’m opposed to Bush. One of the reasons is that I think you are confusing Bush’s rhetoric with his actions.

What are Bush’s actions?

1. Well, his most significant act regarding Al Qaeda since 2002 has been to divert military resources to Iraq, instead of finishing up Osama’s group in Afghanistan and Peshawar. Your analogy implies that Kerry would use traditional law enforcement methods against Al Q. instead of using military methods, but in fact it is Bush that is using law enforcment methods, and has been since Tora Bora.
2. Let’s grant for a second that Iraq and Al Qaeda were great allies. I would disagree, but let’s hypothesize that that is true. What sense would it make, then, to allow a mobile force that can strike, as we have seen it strike, against your allies and demoralize them, to remain structurally sound? That is what Bush’s policy has done. You can either believe that is true, or you can come up with some other explanation for what happened in Madrid. As a military matter, though, Al Q.’s surprisingly easy time in recruiting a group of Moroccans to produce chaos and destruction in the heart of one of the coalition allies speaks volumes about the failure of the Bush administration to roll up terrorist networks. As does the proceeding hits on Istanbul, Casablanca and Riyadh.
2. But the terrorist incidents are minor compared to the greater strategic damage that occured because Bush allowed al qaeda a hiatus. This has thrust us into ever greater dependence on Pakistan, at a time when we know that Pakistan has disseminated REAL weapons of mass destruction in the most damaging way possible. If Osama had been vigorously pursued in 2002, mobilizing the entire resources of the coalition that was in Afghanistan — if, in other words, the Bush administration had continued to view Al Qaeda through a military lens — we would be in a much stronger position to punish Pakistan for its outrageous behavior. But we can’t. We have no levers, and we have been, essentially, captured by the unpopular military dictatorship. In effect, we are simply replicating what Bush himself called the “unsuccessful” policy of the past in the Middle East by putting ourselves in a situation where we are isolated from those democratic elements in Pakistan that should be our allies. Hence, they are alienated from us. Result: the danger of terrorist groups in Pakistan has increased.
3. Now, hypothesize that the antiwar position was right, and that Saddam H. was not connected to Al Qaeda in any but the most trivial way. If that is true, what would we expect when Saddam H. is captured by the Americans? Well, if Iraq is still a frontier of violence, we would expect that Al Qaeda like elements will rush in to the vaccuum created by Saddam’s defeat. That is precisely what happened.
4. A competent leadership would consider scenario 3 and have taken measures to counter-act it. Unfortunately, the Iraqis themselves complain that the americans haven’t really sealed the borders, haven’t penetrated the groups that are operating in Iraq, and certainly haven’t denied these groups weapons.
So it seems to me, to take your analogy, that the Bush administration has acted like a fire inspector smoking a big fat cigar and flicking his matches over by the gasoline cans. It is a failure on the level of politics, a failure on the level of strategy, and a failure to leverage America’s real power, both military and “soft.”

The problem for Bush supporters is that they refuse to adhere to a constant metric to measure success or failure. In my opinion, the immediate post 9/11 metric set up by Bush was correct — destroying Al Qaeda. His manifest inability to do so — in fact, his diversion of resources from this vital task — is reason enough to vote him out of office.

Also I would like to note that law enforcement is best at assigning blame after a crime and incarcerating the criminal to prevent further crime. It is much worse at actual interdiction (witness the failure of most anti-drug laws). A primary law enforcement focus dooms us to catching terrorists after the fact, which in the eventual biological or nuclear situation will be a cold comfort. If the whole world really were like a Western country, perhaps we could trust that approach–though I probably wouldn’t. But when terrorists can hide out in other countries with impunity (And Iraq absolutely allowed this for non Al Qaeda terrorists even if there is some question about Al Qaeda itself) reliance on interdiction is foolish.

Kerry is absolutely someone who believes in the law enforcement focus.

Sebastian, I’m curious why you think that Kerry will only be defensive. I just went to the website and read his most recent speech. Certainly, presidential candidates say a lot of things while they’re campaigning (recall GWB saying he was opposed to nation building), but Kerry said some things that I approve of.

“We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests.

But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military – but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.”

Maybe Kerry waffles (like every politician – I know that the folks at DailyKos put together a lengthy list of Bush’s waffles), but we already know that the Bush administration is willing to mislead, omit information, and outright lie, so I don’t think we’ll do much worse on that front under a Democratic president.

Mr. Nyman,
Why do you think North Korea began building nukes in January 2001?
I THINK WE AGREE THAT THEY’VE BEEN WORKING ON THEM RIGHT ALONG. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THE CHIEF EFFECT OF STRATEGIST BUSH *SAYING* HOSTILE THINGS AND *DOING* NOTHING WAS TO ACCELERATE THE PROGRAM. EXCEPT THAT, AS YOU SUGGEST, THEY WERE PROBABLY ALREADY RUNNING AS FAST AS THEIR LITTLE LEGS WOULD CARRY THEM.
Also, you say it is “only in recent months” that the US has begun serious attempts to get six-way talks going with the US, NK, SK, Japan, Russia, and China?
MY POINT IS THAT ADMINSTRATION HAWKS SUCCEEDED ONLY IN DELAYING THE TALKS THAT WERE THE ONLY SENSIBLE APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM.

Finally, the US and South Korea do not quite seem to be on the same page with regards to North Korea; there is still considerable South Korean support for appeasementthe sunshine policy towards North Korea.
YES. AND HOW ODD THAT OUR SECURITY IS MORE IN JEOPARDY FROM NK’S ACTIONS THAN IS SOUTH KOREA’S. OR, BETTER PUT, HOW ODD THAT SOUTH KOREA, WHO BEARS THE BRUNT OF THE THREAT, IS LESS READY TO THREATEN FORCE THAN IS THE WORLD’S ONLY SUPERPOWER, I.E., THE WORLD’S MOST SECURE POWER–SECURE AGAINST ATTACKS WITH A RETURN ADDRESS.
What exactly is the US doing wrong with North Korea? Too multilateral? Too unilateral? Too diplomatic? Too hardline? Too deferential to its allies South Korea and Japan in pushing for diplomacy?
WELL, IF THE US REALLY WANTS TO STOP THE NUCLEAR PROGRAM, THERE’S ONLY ONE WAY: (A) GIVE THE REGIME CREDIBLE ASSURANCES WE WON’T ACT TO REMOVE IT, AND (B) GIVE GENEROUS BRIBES IN THE FORM OF AID, IN AMOUNTS THAT AT LEAST EQUAL WHAT THEY COULD GET FROM THE SALE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Nyman,
The merits of your arguments aside—I certainly don’t have an answer about NK—you are wrong to say that the U.S. upheld its side of the 1994 agreements. As a matter of fact, even under Clinton, NK was not getting all the promised aid, and I believe this was given as a reason for ramping up the nuclear program.

Maurinsky, I believe Kerry’s history in the Senate suggests an overwhelming preference toward defensive and passive approaches. His 1991 vote on Iraq is classic. He wanted time for economic sanctions to ‘remove’ Saddam from Kuwait. That was never going to work. His current pose regarding his 2002 vote on Iraq is also revealing. He suggests that it wasn’t really a war vote, it was just a threat to the UN. He was for the strategically stupid (sorry guys) unilateral nuclear freeze idea.

You quote this: “We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. If I am President, I will be prepared to use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests.

But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military – but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.”

Maybe I am too suspicious. It sounds like a classic “Yes, But” argument. It is precisely like: Of course we strongly denounce terrorism, but Israel must be careful not to escalate the cycle of violence by overreacting to the guerrilla activity which unfortunately killed 30 schoolchildren yesterday. (I know, I know this isn’t a realistic quote. Most leftist commentators wouldn’t mention the number of schoolchildren killed.) In fact it is quite reminiscent of Zapatero’s recent statement. I paraphrase but this time I don’t think I distort: Fighting terrorism will be my number one priority. The only action I’m announcing however is the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

When an argument is in ‘yes, but’ form, you usually aren’t missing anything if you omit everything before the ‘but’.

Chris,
If you’re going to be pissy about supposed logical errors, why are you unable to grasp that an administration that is gung-ho unilateralist is not necessarily acting strongly against terror? The unilateral decision to attack Iraq has been compared to some of the worst strategic decisions in military history, and has not aided on bit in the hunt for Al Qaeda.

Nyman, I believe that part of the aid Clinton was withholing was nuclear—the U.S. was supposed to
supply help in building nuclear reactors, as long as those could not be used to make weapons.
Interestingly, Rumsfeld was keen on selling plutonium producing reactors to North Korea, as recently as 2000.

Sebastian, you really can’t make an argument without some tendentious lob at the opposition, can you? A reasonable person can look at Sharon’s record, which for 50 years has been that no opportunity for escalation of hostilities must be unmet, and could come away thinking that Sharon doesn’t have much to offer besides bloodshed.
If you happen to be one of those people who cheer when a large bomb is dropped on a dwelling, killing many innocents, and having the possibility of killing one terrorist, then I admire you—-it takes a large mind to hold contradictions as you do.

About Kerry: your material is pretty weak.
Kerry didn’t support one Iraq, and voted for the authorization bill for the recent war.
Given what the administration said about the threat from Iraq, you can’t blame him for voting yes this time, and it certainly doesn’t make him look weak. Unfortunately, the administration simply lied outright to get the vote. We know now that the Senate was privately briefed on intelligence that Iraq had UAV’s capable of reaching our shores to deliver chemical and biological weapons.

Thank God, Bush didn’t lie about getting a blow job, or someone would be REALLY mad!

For marky:

You asked, ‘Chris, If you’re going to be pissy about supposed logical errors, why are you unable to grasp that an administration that is gung-ho unilateralist is not necessarily acting strongly against terror? The unilateral decision to attack Iraq has been compared to some of the worst strategic decisions in military history, and has not aided on bit in the hunt for Al Qaeda.’

While I will respect that the above may be your opinion on the matter, it is factually incorrect.

By definition, unilateralist means; ‘A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies.’ Now, you may feel that what was done in Iraq was unilateral, but you would be wrong. As I previsouly mentioned, there are more than 30+ countries involved in the ‘coalition’: some provide troops (e.g. England, Australia, Poland, Spain), some provide use of bases and air rights (e.g. Turkey, Germany, Kuwait, etc.) and some provide intangibles such as Intelligene (e.g. Pakistan).

In addition, there was substantial consultation on the issue of Iraq. Substantial efforts were made to get a consensus opinion. But, just as you and I might not agree on all issues, the UN was unable to see eye to eye on this issue.

Now, you may feel that without a UN Resolution, that we do not have legitimacy in Iraq. Again, that is an opinion and this being a free country – you are entitled to that opinion.

So I have clearly showed that the actions taken were not unilateralist!

Now, as to you saying that, ‘decision to attack Iraq has been compared to some of the worst strategic decisions in military history.’ I am not sure where you got this from, if you have a specific reference then please present it. Otherwise, I will take that as another opinion of yours and not based upon facts.

How, from a military execution perspective, would someone possibly be able say that it was a bad decision? It was one of the swiftest battles in history, the casualty rate was incredibly low (especially if you look at the combat related fatalities vs. total fatalities) and we accomlished our missions goals ahead of schedule.

Now, you may feel that ‘strategically’ it was bad, but I am not sure I understand what you mean by ‘strategically’? I would argue (and I previsouly have) that it was a very smart strategic decision because it moved the front line of the WOT out of your and my neighborhood and into a theatre of combat that we better equiped to fight on.

Again, you may disagree, but I don’t see you presenting any evidence to support your assertion (although the lack of domestic attacks and our success in killing foreign fighters lends credence to my arguement).

Finally, you state that the war in Iraq has not aided us ‘one bit in the hunt for Al Qaeda’. Again, I will have to respectfully disagree. I think that by attracting Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq, to do battle with our troops, we have slowed them in the execution of their plans (here I assuming that they have further plans to kill all infidels as they have previously stated). Yes, there have been some recent spectacular attacks by Al Qaeda cells (namely Spain), but logically one can deduce that if we are engaging 20%, 30% or 40% of their supporters in the Iraq theatre of battle, those same people are not able to follow through in their plans of blowing up another major target outside of that theatre.

Now, in addition to that, I feel that there are opportunities for us to capture Al Qaeda members in the Iraq theatre and interrogate them – possibly leading to breakthroughs in hunting down their leadership (such as Bin Laden).

This may seem like a strategic misstep to you, but then I would ask, ‘what would you propose we do to addres not only terrorist organizations, but also terrorist states?’

Chris, your argument with me seems to be with things other people have said, instead of me. “One of the great mysteries to me, is how some can blame the current administratin for being to ‘gun ho and unilateralist’ and yet in the next breathe say that they aren’t doing enough.” Well, it turns out I’m not ‘some.’ Not to pick on Roger, but PUH-LEESE — don’t respond to my comments by attributing to me what other people say. In fact, my personal views recede before the facts of the case.

One thing you got right, however. Bush’s problem is a mix. On the one hand, not gung ho enough, on the other hand, gung ho in the wrong direction.

1. The distinction between military and law enforcement methods is a bit bogus. Both depending on eliminating perpetrators of terrorist acts. One is simply a more intense method that uses all the equipment and forms of the military to battle terrorists — the other uses methods of detection, employs, sporadically, paramilitary units, and is not as uniform in the pressure it brings against a terrorist force. Both, really, are needed. Tough talk by the right disguises the fact that Bush has abjectly ceded the ground to law enforcement methods against Al Q. because he missed the opening to use the advantage accrued by having overwhelming force on the ground. This is simple, it is decisive, and the result has been, as anybody could have predicted, the resurgence of terrorist activity, such that wiping out Al Q. now will probably only dent the dispersed group.

2. However, your description of the situation in Afghanistan in 2002 is pure fantasy,from your own notion of what is entailed by police action to what is entailed by military action. “To me, there is a big difference between policing someone and investigating crimes/attacks after the fact (a tact that Keer seems more likely to take) vs. continuing to pursue with military means.” Say what? In the next sentence, you then describe our continuing activity in Afghanistan as — precisely — police activity, on the model of American police cooperation in Colombia, which is what Kerry has talked about in the past:

“I am Sure, we would love to have AQ come out ‘in the open’ in Afghanistan, so we could engage our superior fire power. But the reality is, they have withdrawn to a different country (Pakistan) and we have chosen not to pursue into a region that is not friendly to the Us and our troops (seems like a smart thing to me). No need to press and risk your people lives unnecesarilly.”

So you are totally against those bad law enforcement methods, and you are also totally for them.

Huh, let’s see, whose lives are at risk? I count the people of Riyadh, Baghdad, Istanbul and Madrid so far. As well as a continuing insurgency in Afghanistan. But a “friendly power” (that just happened to create and put in place the Taliban) has to be respected, while Iraq has to be invaded. Wow, I love this logic. It is like the joke about the guy who lost his wallet in a dark alley, so he went into a lighted street to find it, because the illumination is better.

3. “Roger than goes on to blame the current administration for not being aggresive enough in stomping out terror worldwide. ‘… As a military matter, though, Al Q.’s surprisingly easy time in recruiting a group of Moroccans to produce chaos and destruction in the heart of one of the coalition allies speaks volumes about the failure of the Bush administration to roll up terrorist networks. As does the proceeding hits on Istanbul, Casablanca and Riyadh.’So Roger, were not doing enough? So, we should take the fight where ever it goes? Even onto allies lands? Should we be the force of good all over the world? Should we be the world’s police? Their military protector?”

Actually, Chris, you have spotted the fatal flaw in relying entirely on the military option to combat Terrorism. Welcome to the real world. Here, we should have been much more aggresive in setting up an association between our law enforcement forces and those of other countries to track down and get terrorists. Perhaps we could have used the 200 million to 400 million we’ve overpayed Halliburton to do this.

4. The war in Iraq was a huge mistake, but it happened. Kerry, as well as any american president, can’t get out of it. First of all, the U.S. interests in the Middle East would take a hit that would be extremely bad for the U.S. economy. Thus, he has every reason to proceed with setting up a nation there that at least has a semblance of a friendly relationship with the U.S. On the other hand, there is no point in trying to set up one that reflects Bush’s conservative ideology, with private enterprise for all, and its hostility to Iran and Syria. The former idea has been abandoned by the Bushies, finally; the latter is the last gasp of a neocon strategy that never did make any sense.

As for the War in Iraq being the same as the war on terrorism — if this is true, Bush’s administration has been astonishing incompetent in preparing to fight it on both fronts, with 400 billion dollars at its disposal, and should be voted out for their numerous and critical failures; if false, they have diverted critical forces at a critical time from a fight we can’t avoid, due to a failure of policy and imagination. They’ve made all Western nations more unsafe, and they respond to their massive failure to secure us by accusing those who point this out of appeasement.
Got to get rid of these people, Chris.

Just a quick thought, sebastian:
If you’re not going to be intellectually honest, please don’t respond to me. I didn’t say I was referring only to Sharon’s actions as P.M.
Sharon has a 50 year record of butchering Arabs, as you well know. While he wasn’t prime minister in the early 80’s, he was a general, and had authority when Israeli troops allowed the Phalangists to massacre Palestinians at Sabra and Shatilla. The record from BEFORE Sharon became prime minister showed what kind of leader he would be.

Actually, don’t bother trying to be factually accurate, because I likely won’t be reading your messages in the future. Just for the record, the Israelis droppped a bomb on an apartment building solely because a certain person was living there, not because of a bomb factory.
Also, there have been public assassinations by helicopters which have resulted in high civilian casualty rates. Discussing the proper response to terrorism with people who insist on lying about the facts is not helpful.

Chris, you mentioned that Al Qaeda fighters have been attracted to Iraq. Just curious, but is Madrid a city in Iraq? The evidence that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq is spotty at best.
As a matter of fact, the implication of the Zarqawi letter from a few weeks ago is that Al Qaeda is having difficulty operating in Iraq.
The name for the theory you have about Iraq is the “flypaper” theory, which the Bush administration was touting with great fervor several months ago. While I’m aware of many thousands of casualties in Iraq since the end of the war, I’m not aware of a single member of Al Qaeda being caught in Iraq. It makes me stop to think—what about you?

Matt Weiner: Iraq did not fund the anti-American terrorists. Those of you who are taking this line should be asking why Bush hasn’t confronted Saudi Arabia.

Shhh… Don’t even go there. Forbidden entry.

Though, Iraq did fund some terrorist groups, it seems. Gave refuge to a few most wanted items too.

But yeah, the Saudi issue is very thorny. To say the least.

rajeev: On 3b: Calling an entire nation cowardly, short-sighted, and silly is still not contempt for democracy. Pretending that a democracy is so delicate that it cannot stand these comments both insults and belittles the democracy in question. The point of democracy is open controversy, so let them have it. Enough rules about what constitutes “fair discourse.”

Hmm, I think you missed the point.

Personally I don’t care if anyone ‘insults’ Spain or any other country I am attached to or live in or whatever. It’s not a matter of being delicate and fair discourse as in having to be gentle and corny about one’s political opinions.

It’s a matter of what makes sense and what doesn’t.

You tell me, when there’s two big parties coming so close in elections, and getting a difference of only 4%, what sense does it make to be so damn certain that the terrorist attacks swinged the vote? And what sense does it make to ignore the fact Aznar alienated many people with his ETA-blaming coverup attempt? What sense does it make to ignore that after 8 years at the government, the PP stood a high change to be ousted anyway? What sense does it make to ignore Zapatero’s sly annoucenemnt on troops withdrawal doesn’t change a thing about Iraq or Spain’s position, since the whole current operation in Iraq will have changed already by June 30, as that’s precisely the date when the UN and NATO take over and more control is handed to Iraqi forces? Or is that decision short-sighted too? But it’s a decision the US took.

So, ok, it’s not “contempt for democracy” to ignore all that and say the Spanish vote was appeasement to Al Qaeda, victory for Al Qaeda, or even “short-sighted”.

It’s just plain nonsense and ignorance. To put it non-delicately, as you asked.

MC: Any decision, whether by the US or Spain or any other country, to hamper the efforts at reconstruction in Iraq — even symbolically as Spain did — are short-sighted. It doesn’t matter if the decision is made by a democracy, a dictator, or an alien authority from Mars. And when I call the Spanish short-sighted, of course I’m referring only to those who desire a troop pull-out.

I’m glad you expressed yourself non-delicately, by the way.

rajeev: but so far there has not been, or been enforced, any decision to hamper anything at all.

Will you consider the facts for once? Zapatero says, we pull out on 30 June unless the situation changes. 30 June is when the whole situation with the military in Iraq was *already* scheduled to change to include UN and NATO contribution.

Unless Zapatero’s next move is “threatening” to pull out unless they get Bob Geldof and Bono and Elton John involved as well, I don’t see where the hampering is?

But ok, let’s assume Spain has *already* pulled out – which it hasn’t, but let’s assume. They’ve been there one whole year,right? Now, I suppose expecting an “ok, fair enough, and thank you guys for all you contributed so far!” may be too much, but, even if what is going to change after 30 June was not *already* scheduled to change…

… is it or is it not the Spanish new government’s sacrosanct right to enforce their own policies on their own military and decide one year of presence is enough?

Or are they supposed to take orders directly from Washington? No really, the nerve.

– and again, what Zapatero described as “withdrawal or UN” is *exactly* what has already been announced by Rumsfeld & co.

Just try and fit that little factoid into your tunnel vision, maybe.

rajeev: I’m not having any fight at all, I’m perfectly cheerful, thank you very much.

I just find it so striking you keep dismissing as “irrelevant” the very factors that most directly characterised the Spanish elections – the 42%-38% results, Aznar’s behaviour after the attacks, the whole background of Spanish politics, the fact June 30 was already scheduled to mark UN contribution, which reduces Zapatero’s announcement to a mere rhetorical trick, and no hampering at all – if you see UN intervention itself as hampering, then blame the US for making that decision.

You dissmiss all of those facts and keep insisting there is going to be “hampering” of efforts in Iraq.

That just looks very obtuse and short-sighted on your part.

What’s ‘symbolical’ hampering? There’s either real hampering, or not. Right now, the real hampering to efforts to rebuild Iraq comes from terrorists and religious fundamentalists, and that raises more questions on how exactly that rebuilding should be managed – that is very much an open issue, no matter what one thought of the war.

Recall his line: “La ocupación está siendo un fiasco.” If Zapatero stays in for the long-haul, if he shows a commitment to Iraq, then that’s terrific — but why damage everything with such foolish rhetoric?

Oh, excuse me, so you’re saying no politicians should express the opinion that the intervention in Iraq didn’t produce good results?

You may not agree with that conclusion, but it’s a perfectly legitimate line. You can’t say that it’s foolish, otherwise you’re demanding that everyone has only one opinion, one position, and one that is necessarily of 100% approval of how the US is managing the situation in Iraq. Now that kind of demand is foolish, and completely ignores the nature of political debate.

Besides, aren’t there political forces in the US who are also saying the very same thing as in that Zapatero line?

Should they all say things are perfect? Where would the debate be?

It doesn’t matter what you think is the most sensible view. You can’t assume that a view you do not consider sensible *equals* “hampering” efforts or favouring terrorists; you can’t assume there’s only one way to fight terrorism or deal with the million issues about democracy in Iraq, one policy that is right, and that it coincides with the current US one. Otherwise, you’re saying bye bye to the very essence of political debates in democracies.

Even if you fundamentally approve of the US approach in Iraq (and I do too, for instance – emphasis on fundamentally), you’ll have to concede there’s room for discussion and improvement? Especially since more than one country is involved, and everyone has to factor in the consequences that intervention in Iraq has had or will have on their own country, not just on Iraq and the world at large.

That’s what I meant by not demanding Spain simply takes orders from Washington. They have a right to have a say too. Even if it differs from the Bush party line. This is not just about America, you know.

Well, to make on thing clear: again I’m all for debate, and love hearing criticism of the occupation effort from those who believe it is fundamentally important. I agree that on a tactical level there have been major setbacks.

But here’s where you’re misreading me. When I say that Zapatero’s line was foolish, and that it hampers efforts in Iraq (I’ll drop the ‘symbolic’ tag), I’m not saying that Spain shouldn’t have a say in the reconstruction, or that the Bush line is the only line. If Spain were to come forth and strongly suggest a new direction of progress, say a reversion to the pre-Ramadan 7 points, then I’ll think fine that’s a worthy contribution to the political debate (of course, even if Bush disagrees with it)

But when Zapatero comes out and calls the entire effort a fiasco, a statement that the majority of Iraqis would even disagree with, I can’t help but think that he’s callously playing with the lives of Iraqis for political benefit. Zapetero’s line is foolish; it is nothing but empty cynicism to dampen worldwide support for reconstruction. By calling the occupation a fiasco he is putting it in a very unpopular light, and the last thing the Iraqi people need are more members of the “peace movement” holding up “end the military occupation now” signs, oblivious to the fact that this so-called occupation is the best opportunity the Iraqi people have had in decades.

And as I explained above, by calling a line foolish I am not ever implying that the world should unyieldingly follow Bush’s orders — I don’t even agree with Bush, particularly concerning his all-to-convenient June 30th pullout date. But by vocally criticizing the June 30th pullout date, am I hampering efforts in Iraq? Not at all, I’m just pushing for a better reconstruction. And Zapatero? When he calls the occupation a fiasco (a patently false statement), what is he accomplishing? Is he out there providing better suggestions for reconstruction, or just throwing political red meat to his base at the expense of the Iraqi people?

(For fairness in the above comparison, graciously ignore the fact that my voice is far far less audible or important than Zapatero’s…)

PS. I know very well it’s not just about America. It’s about Iraq first and foremost.