The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20040402082419/http://www.janegalt.net:80/blog/archives/004634.html

March 17, 2004

silhouette3.JPG From the desk of Jane Galt:

Did the Spanish elections incentivize terror?

Over on Crooked Timber, John Quiggin is arguing that the altered outcome of the Spanish election will not increase the number of terror attacks in the West, although it may affect their placement or timing:

I thought this point by Donald Johnson responding to Chris’ post on the Spanish election (and disregarded in subsequent comments) was valuable enough to justify more prominence.
If al Qaeda has the capability to plant bombs and kill hundreds of people, they’re going to do it however they interpret the Spanish election. They might plant their bombs before elections if they think they can influence them, or they might plant their bombs where there are large crowds on some special date, or they might choose some big symbolic target again, like the Pentagon or the WTC. The point is to stop them, not to worry about how they might read election results except to the extent that understanding what they think might give clues on what their next target is going to be.
Exactly right. The idea, that by doing what al Qaeda (supposedly) wants1 we are sending a message that will influence them to do more of the same directly contradicts the overwhelming evidence that al Qaeda is unconditionally committed to terroristic war against us, and cannot be dissuaded from it (evidence that has been stressed more on the right of the blogosphere than anywhere else). They cannot be influenced, only incapacitated.

Call me a doctrinaire neoclassicist, but something in me rebels at the notion that dramatically increasing the payoff of a given activity will not, at least on the margin, produce more of that activity.

Even assuming that the leadership of Al-Qaeda is so thoroughly evil that they wish to inflict maximum damage whether or not it has any effect whatsoever, their suppliers, of capital and labour, surely are at least somewhat responsive to effectiveness. Al Qaeda now has a wonderful new sales pitch for its financers: Give us money. We can alter the outcome of elections. It has an even better recruiting tool: your work may be dangerous, but look how much effect a few people can have!.

The conservative argument is generally applied to appeasement. I don't embrace it quite as fully as many of my warblogging companions--I think that there is probably some level of change that could convince Al Qaeda to stop targeting us, although I don't think that the minimum level (complete military and economic withdrawal from the Middle East) is either practical or desireable, and I am open to the argument that the change required might be totally unacceptable to a free society: stop making those dangerous cultural exports; stop outperforming the Middle East economically; stop being non-Muslim. But again, even if the leadership of Al Qaeda is so thoroughly evil that absolutely nothing we could ever do, short of signing up for their church and declaring Osama the Grand High Leader of Everything, would make a difference to their plans, it seems obvious to me that well short of that, the interest of Osama's financial backers and angry young men would begin to dry up. That doesn't mean that I think it is a good idea to attempt this sort of appeasement. I most emphatically do not think that, for I think that the cost would be far too high--and the act of appeasement would invite other extremists to try their hands at terror. But that doesn't mean I think it is technically impossible. It isn't; merely highly undesireable.

The question, then, is whether or not the Spanish vote lowers the risk of terror attack, by making the angry young men less angry; or raises it, by increasing the payoff to an attack. Judiciously, I'd say the latter. The number of troops Spain has in Iraq is trivial, and as many bloggers have pointed out, Al Qaeda's sad obsession with "the tragedy of Al-Andalus" will keep Spain on its target list for sometime to come. Meanwhile, the Spanish electorate has sent the message to all sorts of terror groups--not just Al-Qaeda--that a well timed bomb can get results.

This applies whether or not the Spanish people were attempting to appease Al-Qaeda in their vote. Bloggers on the right have been too quick to throw accusations of cowardice; it seems more likely that the PP shot themselves in the foot by trying to hang the attack on ETA. But bloggers on the left have spent far too much time trying to psychoanalyzing the Spanish voter, spinning delicate arguments about fine distinctions of intent. This is totally irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the Spanish voters were thinking when they threw the PP out, because Al-Qaeda is going to interpret the results in the way most favourable to itself, especially in the fundraising and recruiting drives that will be key to staging more results. Anyone who has worked at any medium-sized organization knows that when a big project comes off, precious few moments are devoted to debating whether it was the result of The Master Plan, or serendipity. Even less will the raw recruits who will be expected to carry out the bombings, or donors who will be expected to finance them, be encouraged to think about how effective they really were. Since most of those donors and recruits live in countries with tightly controlled media, they won't have much counterweight to Al-Qaeda's most compelling argument: terror works.

Posted by Jane Galt at March 17, 2004 02:46 PM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound links
Comments

This argument looks plausible enough, but how about my other example: Bush's withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia? The presence of these troops was, by all account, the grievance that turned Osama against the West, but their withdrawal doesn't seem to have affected al Qaeda either way - at least I have never seen it referred to in the various statements purporting to come from them.

Posted by: John Quiggin on March 17, 2004 03:00 PM

I think at this point it's very hard to sort out the various effects of the Iraq invasion, the Afghanistan operation, and so forth. On the one hand, we've clearly smashed their infrastructure enough to force a change in targets and tactics. On the other hand, Iraq may have made people in the Middle East angrier and more receptive to recruitment. On the third hand, it may have scared governments enough to deny Al Qaeda both financing and a base for operations. . . by the time you try to separate out the second and third order effects of other actions from the troop withdrawal, and it starts to look like a problem in macroeconomics . . . ;-)

I'd argue that the withdrawal, on its own, probably had some little effect in lessening financial/recruiting effectiveness. It may be too little to be measurable, and the threshhold for producing a measurable decline in financing/recruits by "appeasement"-type activities is probably, IMHO, too high to be worth considering, even before you consider the incentives this offers other potential terror groups. But that does not symmetrically imply that the incentive effect of appeasement is also to small to be measurable; it's certainly possible, but seems less likely to me.

Posted by: Jane Galt on March 17, 2004 03:18 PM

Come on, John, that's fatuous: The withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia was a direct result of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and everyone knows it. Do you think that having *more* US troops in the Middle East, running an Arab country provides incentive for terrorism?

If they even tried to portray that as a positive, they'd be laughed at.

Posted by: gek on March 17, 2004 03:27 PM

Nobody knows why a few percent of the Spanish electorate changed their minds, or even, with absolute certainty, whether they did change their minds. I suspect it was a mix of factors. As you rightly note, however, it doesn't matter. What matters, as you also rightly note, is what those who like to blow up civilians believe. Whether Spain's election turned on this mass murder is irrelevant to the fact that many,many potential murderers, and not just Al Queda followers, now more strongly believe in the utility of mass murder, or have had that strong belief greatly reinforced. All in all, it is a thoroughly depressing turn of events.

Posted by: Will Allen on March 17, 2004 03:36 PM

How do you say "Peace in our time!" in Spanish?

Cowards.

Posted by: RMc on March 17, 2004 04:17 PM

I feel horrible. In October 2000 AQ attacked a United States warship. Then i voted for the opposition party.

I helped cause 9-11.

Posted by: craig henry on March 17, 2004 04:30 PM

> stop being non-Muslim

That's the clincher, isn't it? This seems to be a non-negotiable part of their position. Remember what that Indonesian Muslim bigwig said, when asked if he had any words of condolence for the families of the Bali victims? "They should convert to Islam."

Posted by: Kirk Parker on March 17, 2004 04:36 PM

Doubtful. The question is whether, from the terrorists' point of view, the new government is more or less conducive to their goals than the old one. In the case of the 2000 election in the United States, I don't think a strong case can be made either way. That isn't true in the case of the Spanish election.

Posted by: Kyle Haight on March 17, 2004 04:36 PM

This argument, though, presupposes that al Qaeda gives a good goddamn who runs Spain. I'd respectfully suggest that Osama bin Laden sees no difference between the Popular Party and the Socialists, since they've all just been infidels since the Moors were defeated. AQ creates terror for the sake of terror, not to elect center-left governments.

What Zapatero has proposed is withdrawing from the occupation of Iraq, not from the WOT. That latter war is being waged on a stage much larger than Iraq and by police/intelligence agencies, not armies.

And RMc, was Reagan a coward for pulling out of Lebanon? What great feats of bravery have you performed lately?

Posted by: apostropher on March 17, 2004 04:38 PM

This argument, though, presupposes that al Qaeda gives a good goddamn who runs Spain. I'd respectfully suggest that Osama bin Laden sees no difference between the Popular Party and the Socialists, since they've all just been infidels since the Moors were defeated. AQ creates terror for the sake of terror, not to elect center-left governments.

What Zapatero has proposed is withdrawing from the occupation of Iraq, not from the WOT. That latter war is being waged on a stage much larger than Iraq and by police/intelligence agencies, not armies.

And RMc, was Reagan a coward for pulling out of Lebanon? What great feats of bravery have you performed lately?

Posted by: apostropher on March 17, 2004 04:41 PM

Terrorists have known that terror 'works' (at least in a narrow sense) for quite a while. I can't think of an administration that has done more to ensure that than Reagan's who not only gave them weapons (Iran Contra) but allowed a few bombings to change his foreign policy (Beirut).

But it seems to me Jane that even if you are right, and AQ takes the elections as a 'positive' the relevant question is, so what? Why should Spanish voters care what AQ thinks? Yes, it may result in more bombings. But they have to weigh that against the alternative. If the voters feel that the PP played politics with the bombing (as it appears many did) why would they want to vote for them?

Posted by: GT on March 17, 2004 05:03 PM

"Since most of those donors and recruits live in countries with tightly controlled media, they won't have much counterweight to Al-Qaeda's most compelling argument: terror works."

I think the marginal effect on those who might want to offer resistance to Al Qaeda in the Middle East itself might be even worse. Al Qaeda can credibly suggest that the support of the West can be easily disrupted.

"This argument, though, presupposes that al Qaeda gives a good goddamn who runs Spain. I'd respectfully suggest that Osama bin Laden sees no difference between the Popular Party and the Socialists, since they've all just been infidels since the Moors were defeated. AQ creates terror for the sake of terror, not to elect center-left governments."

This an odd argument. Of course Osama thinks they are all infidels anyway. But given the fact that he can't elect himself as head of the Spanish government it is quite obvious that he would prefer to have a government that won't mess with him outside of their own borders.

Regarding the US soldiers out of Saudi Arabia issue there are two points. First the timing was very different. We did not announce a withdrawl less than a week after 9-11. We didn't leave until almost 2 full years later. Second there is the purpose of the withdrawal. It is obvious even to scary conspiracy theorists that the troops were withdrawn to support further troops in support of the Iraq campaign. But the timing is the big issue. One day after an election which was heavily influenced by Al Qaeda, the announcement is made that Al Qaeda gets its wish.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw on March 17, 2004 05:06 PM

Everyone and every team starts off even at the beginning of the season -- anyone can win the pennant,cup,trophy, whatever (at least in theory, and often in fact).

The same is true for Presidential elections. There are advantages to incumbency, and disadvantages as well. But, by and large, the candidates start off on an equal footing and stay there until "events" take charge -- or one makes a misstep. Each such "singularity" may become the "turning point" in the election, from which victory and defeat inexorably flow.

I think the turning point in GWB's first election was in the (I don't remember which) Gore/GWB debate when Gore tried to tweak our President with Texas's lack of a 'hate' crime law,re: the dragging-to-death murder of a black man by some red-necks. GWB's simple response (to the effect) "We know how to handle murderers in Texas, we put them to death". Gore lapsed into stunned silence, looking visibly diminished.

I think the turning point in this Presidential election may have been the Spanish socialists victory this weekend past -- and their vow to end hostilities with the terrorists (until they strike again?).

The question in most thinking American minds immediately becomes: what would happen to us if we elected Kerry? Piss and moan as they might, no matter how the Democrats avow they would stay the course in Iraq, no one will believe that they would carry the fight to the enemy. Iran would be permitted to build their atomic bombs. Eventually, Washington,DC or New York would be hit.

RIP, John Forbes Kerry

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 17, 2004 05:23 PM

All evidence, from captured communications to observed behavior, suggests that Al Queda views American defeat in Iraq, defined as failue of Iraq to become a functioning state with a degree of self-government by the population, as vital to Al Queda's strategy. Thus, Al Queda's leadership likely views any action which weakens the U.S., in regards to it's own Iraq strategy, as a benefit to Al Queda. This isn't suprising, since Al Queda's goal is to reinstitute the caliphate, and having a functioning state with democratic processes in the heart of the Persian gulf isn't consistent with such a goal.

Having Spain withdraw from Iraq is thus helpful to Al Queda. This doesn't mean that Spaniards are cowards, although no doubt some are, as cowards comprise a part of every population. It was only a few percentage points that switched among the electorate, and there really isn't any way to know with precision what the cause was. The point is that those who set off the bombs, and many who are inclined to set off bombs, likely believe that the bombs were the cause. We thus will have more bombs set off, because perceived success breeds imitative behavior.

Posted by: Will Allen on March 17, 2004 05:33 PM

This an odd argument. Of course Osama thinks they are all infidels anyway. But given the fact that he can't elect himself as head of the Spanish government it is quite obvious that he would prefer to have a government that won't mess with him outside of their own borders.

Zapatero hasn't signalled a disengagement from the War on Terror, he is signalling a disengagement from the occupation of Iraq. Those are two entirely different enterprises. All our king's horses and all our king's men in Iraq didn't stop the bombings in Bali or Madrid or Riyadh or anywhere else.

While AQ elements are apparently now present in Iraq, they pretty clearly weren't there before the invasion. I'll wager they aren't behind most of the current violence in Iraq. The problem is that AQ exists in much the same sense that EarthFirst exists. It isn't a state, it isn't an incorporated entity, it isn't even clear that some of the groups have the first knowledge of others flying the same banner.

The struggle against AQ and its brethren will not be won or lost in Iraq. Engaging there is a tactical decision, not a strategic one. Bush and bin Laden have identified one another as arch-nemeses, so ipso facto anything that is seen as a blow to one pleases the other. That doesn't mean the rest of the world is obligated to get caught up in that pathology.

Posted by: apostropher on March 17, 2004 06:10 PM

This an odd argument. Of course Osama thinks they are all infidels anyway. But given the fact that he can't elect himself as head of the Spanish government it is quite obvious that he would prefer to have a government that won't mess with him outside of their own borders.

Zapatero hasn't signalled a disengagement from the War on Terror, he is signalling a disengagement from the occupation of Iraq. Those are two entirely different enterprises. All our king's horses and all our king's men in Iraq didn't stop the bombings in Bali or Madrid or Riyadh or anywhere else.

While AQ elements are apparently now present in Iraq, they pretty clearly weren't there before the invasion. I'll wager they aren't behind most of the current violence in Iraq. The problem is that AQ exists in much the same sense that EarthFirst exists. It isn't a state, it isn't an incorporated entity, it isn't even clear that some of the groups have the first knowledge of others flying the same banner.

The struggle against AQ and its brethren will not be won or lost in Iraq. Engaging there is a tactical decision, not a strategic one. Bush and bin Laden have identified one another as arch-nemeses, so ipso facto anything that is seen as a blow to one pleases the other. That doesn't mean the rest of the world is obligated to get caught up in that pathology.

Posted by: apostropher on March 17, 2004 06:12 PM

This an odd argument. Of course Osama thinks they are all infidels anyway. But given the fact that he can't elect himself as head of the Spanish government it is quite obvious that he would prefer to have a government that won't mess with him outside of their own borders.

Zapatero hasn't signalled a disengagement from the War on Terror, he is signalling a disengagement from the occupation of Iraq. Those are two entirely different enterprises. All our king's horses and all our king's men in Iraq didn't stop the bombings in Bali or Madrid or Riyadh or anywhere else.

While AQ elements are apparently now present in Iraq, they pretty clearly weren't there before the invasion. I'll wager they aren't behind most of the current violence in Iraq. The problem is that AQ exists in much the same sense that EarthFirst exists. It isn't a state, it isn't an incorporated entity, it isn't even clear that some of the groups have the first knowledge of others flying the same banner.

The struggle against AQ and its brethren will not be won or lost in Iraq. Engaging there is a tactical decision, not a strategic one. Bush and bin Laden have identified one another as arch-nemeses, so ipso facto anything that is seen as a blow to one pleases the other. That doesn't mean the rest of the world is obligated to get caught up in that pathology.

Posted by: apostropher on March 17, 2004 06:14 PM

Grrr. I'm sorry about the double posts. Something on my end seems to be having some grand struggle with your comments.

Posted by: apostropher on March 17, 2004 06:17 PM

The people in AQ are sociopaths and psychotics. They don't have any kind of rationality, so it's impossible to rationally analyse what they will do. The only way to handle AQ is to exterminate them. Those who think otherwise will be AQ's victims.

Posted by: shamus on March 17, 2004 06:59 PM

RUDYARD KIPLING
(Born December 30, 1865, Died January 18, 1936)

Dane-Geld
A.D. 980-1016

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!"

Posted by: Robert Schwartz on March 17, 2004 07:01 PM

I contend that the only way that we are going defeat Al Qaeda is to apply massive amounts of pressure to those Muslims who don't really believe the road to heaven is lined with virgins. In other words- fight fire with fire.......AQ attacks us infidels, we quietly kill a few non-cooperative middle level Muslim leaders. After awhile they'll certainly get the message-"AQ attacks us,we kill you" Let them do some of the heavy lifting. Oh.....I lived in Europe for three years-they are, for the most part, mouthy cowards that hide behind a faux intellectualism-sorta like our current democrats/socialists.

Posted by: Gawdamman on March 17, 2004 07:35 PM

I think apostropher has it exactly right. Al Qaeda, et al, are so opposed to the fundamental underpinnings of western democracy that any incremental change in the political direction of any particular government is not going to be the tripwire that means the end to terrorism in that location.

This is likely NOT true in places like Iraq or Iran, where bombers of various stripes might reasonably assume that their actions might actually disrupt the governmental process to an extent that furthered Al Qaeda's political aims.

But to think that Al Qaeda cares one whit whether Aznar or Zapatero is in power in Spain, or whether Bush or Kerry is in power in the U.S. or whether Blair stays or goes in Britain is preposterous. If the opportunity strikes, they will. It is the ability to strike, the ability to inflict pain on the "infidels" that gives them legitimacy on the Arab street and serves as a powerful promotional tool for angry, disaffected, disillusioned Islamic youth.

In America, our fighting forces recruit via "An Army of One" ads we watch during breaks in the evening news. In Iraq, and elsewhere, it is the evening news itself that serves as a recruitment tool. In both cases, the "advertisements" will continue to run regardlessof who is in office.

Posted by: crockmeister on March 17, 2004 07:35 PM

Will the Spanish election results increase terrorist activity? The argument that the terrorists are already maxed out in their capacity to bomb ignores the possibility that new terrorists will be attracted to the market. Sure, maybe AQ is maxed out. What about ETA, the IRA, the Red Brigade, and new groups yet to be formed? Having raised the PERCEIVED profit from terrorist activity, the Spanish electorate has invited new players to the field.

Posted by: David Walser on March 17, 2004 08:54 PM

And RMc, was Reagan a coward for pulling out of Lebanon? What great feats of bravery have you performed lately?

At least I'm not an apologist for Socialists who enable terrorists.

Get over yourself.

Posted by: RMc on March 17, 2004 09:01 PM

All attempts to explain man's inhumanity to man have historically been fruitless. I suspect trying to explain why the islamofascists hate non-Islamics and why they merely despise Islamic non-islamofascists will be equally fruitless. Apparently the only good non-islamofascist is a dead non-islamofascist, from their perspective.

The islamofascists have declared war on everyone else. The challenge is to get everyone else to realize they are involved in a war; and, that they had best act accordingly or they will perish or be subjugated. Even the French may eventually come to realize that they are in a war, whether it suits their delicate sensibilities or not. Hopefully it will not take them as long as it did the last time.

One of the main reasons why these problems exist and persist is that the organization created after WWII to assure that WWII would be "the war to end all wars" apparantly cannot tell the difference between peace and ap-peace-ment. While one could compose a litany to support this assertion, the image of the "blue hats" observing and recording ethnic cleansing and genocide rather than preventing it is sufficient for my purposes. A complete and accurate historical record of a genocide is a very poor alternative to preventing it.

The UN motto would appear to be: "Resolutions without Resolution". While the US Senate has often been characterized as a debating society, it all too frequently actually accomplishes something of dubious value. The UN is far more of a debating society, but it appears to accomplish nothing; and, worse, appears unwilling to seriously try to do so, or to much care that it does not. I realize that it is difficult for the dictators of various stripes represented in the UN to conceive of "dropping the hammer" on other dictators represented in the UN, making the UN largely a dictators' protection racket.

Two of the UN's biggest projects are interesting illustrations of its fecklessness: Israel (60 years ago) and Korea (50 years ago). These are two glowing examples of the UN's glorious contributions to world peace. The Clinton Administration tried to deal unilaterally with each of these "tar babies" in its time, with no success. The Bush Administration tried early to peel itself away from the Arab/Israeli "peace process", but was unable to resist the clarion calls of those who had tried and failed earlier. It has done a better job of resisting the clarion call for further unilateral ap-peace-ment in the case of North Korea. Both of these issues are the UN's "tar babies", although it has proven itself unwilling to deal with Israel and totally incapable of even addressing North Korea. I would count Iraq as strike three, although others might choose Rawanda or the Balkans for that "honor". However, it's three strikes regardless. Time to build a monument to the Iraq "oil for palaces, payola and weapons" program along the East River and move on.

Posted by: Ed Reid on March 17, 2004 09:32 PM

The most dispassionate, honest, well-reasoned analysis of the Spanish vote I have read yet, and I have read a bunch. Thank you Jane, it was a pleasure to come across this at the end of the day.

And congratulations at being added to Bainbridge blogroll, may it bring you traffic

Posted by: bob mcmanus on March 17, 2004 09:38 PM

So Al-Qaeda can have no conceivable interest in the election of Western governments that are less likely to pursue a military solution to the problem of terrorism? No conceivable interest in the election of Western governments that might fail to act against them until it is too late?

Are people really capable of that level of naivete?

Sure, they want to destroy us. But it will be far easier to destroy us if we let our guard down and allow ourselves to be ruled by those whose "nuanced" thinking will likely lead to to the same fate as the ultimate nuanced thinker: Hamlet.

Posted by: Winston_Smith on March 17, 2004 11:11 PM

The people in AQ are sociopaths and psychotics. They don't have any kind of rationality, so it's impossible to rationally analyse what they will do.

Dr. Rita Rational has authorized me to aggressively swing a baseball bat around your person while screaming like a banshee. To you it will seem sociopathic and psychotic, but since the goal of the Institute for Logical Reasoning is to promote logical reasoning and the silence of your unconcious state will further that goal, it is quite rational to us.

If that approach sounds too painful for your tastes, meditate on the difference between fanaticism and accomplishing its ends for a couple hours, and after an obvious epiphany is reached we shall converse further.

Posted by: Logical Reasoning Fairy on March 18, 2004 12:04 AM

"It doesn't matter what the Spanish voters were thinking when they threw the PP out, because Al-Qaeda is going to interpret the results in the way most favourable to itself, especially in the fundraising and recruiting drives that will be key to staging more results."

but it does--to spanish voters. you focus on one side of this game. there are two players in this game--the terrorists and the nation they attempt to terrorize. if one accepts the arguement that spain decided to withdraw from iraq so as to focus its resources on the WOT, then this results in a different outcome to the one you hypothesize. an equivalent change would be if this country spent $200 billion on homeland defense rather than on invading iraq. we could, of course, call americans in that case "cowards" for making that choice, or we could argue that by strengthening domestic intelligence and security they in fact change the game that america would be playing with terrorists. if spain redoubles its efforts to engage terrorism more vigourously (more coordination and resources), one could argue that rather than provide an incentive to hit spain more, it actually lowers the incentive to hit spain(chance of success is low and chance of well targeted retailiation higher). this appears to be the spanish strategy right now--change the game payoff structure.

what i think this argument hinges on: if you believe that the iraq invasion was not a vital gog in the WOT, the spanish position and withdrawal makes a lot of sense. if you hold that iraq is a vital--most vital?-- part of the WOT (if we fail here, we fail anywhere and everywhere...) than the spanish are gutless wonders whose desertion makes america's task that much harder to keep the world safe.

i wonder if it is getting to the point where this "arguement" (the necessity for invading iraq as part of the WOT) is becoming a matter of faith rather than something that can be argued through reason.

cheers

Posted by: cas on March 18, 2004 12:38 AM


The question in most thinking American minds immediately becomes: what would happen to us if we elected Kerry? Piss and moan as they might, no matter how the Democrats avow they would stay the course in Iraq, no one will believe that they would carry the fight to the enemy. Iran would be permitted to build their atomic bombs. Eventually, Washington,DC or New York would be hit.

RIP, John Forbes Kerry

Posted by Norman Rogers

I'm sick of wingers holding out the threat of nonexistent WMDs. I'll vote for whoever I please. As far as I am concerned, George W. Bush has done a spectacularly lousy job as president, and there is no way in hell he will ever get my vote.

Posted by: Orbitron on March 18, 2004 01:04 AM

I like Cas's comment above. I personally feel that the invasion of Iraq (given how it was handled) has turned out to be ineffectual and even counterproductive in the war on terror. I thus view the Spanish as having elected a government that is determined to pursue the war on terror more effectively than the Bush government does. Note that the Spanish are still in Afghanistan, and I suspect they will be pursuing the fight against terrorists quite effectively within Europe. I would not like to be an AQ member in Spain now. I think overall these election results are likely to help the cause.

I blame the Bush administration for having set out on a course that alienates our allies, and thus makes it extremely tempting for them to part ways from the U.S. Again, note that this bombing did NOT shake the Spanish resolve to remain in Afghanistan, a conflict that *was* clearly related to the fight against AQ. If the Spanish population saw the connection between Iraq and the fight against terror, I strongly suspect that their resolve to stay in Iraq would have been strengthened. But because the Bush administration is pushing a policy that is seen as a U.S. imperial power play rather than a legit attack on terrorists, the Spanish parted ways from us in disgust as soon as they had to pay any costs at all.

Finally, note that an obsession with avoiding "appeasement" (whatever that is supposed to be) also allows terrorists to manipulate your actions. Palestinian extremists who desire the destruction of Israel instead of a peace settlement have been regularly manipulating Israeli hard-liners into power for a while now. All they do is set off a bomb when it looks like peace talks might be gaining momentum.

Posted by: MQ on March 18, 2004 01:12 AM

I like Cas's comment above. I personally feel that the invasion of Iraq (given how it was handled) has turned out to be ineffectual and even counterproductive in the war on terror. I thus view the Spanish as having elected a government that is determined to pursue the war on terror more effectively than the Bush government does. Note that the Spanish are still in Afghanistan, and I suspect they will be pursuing the fight against terrorists quite effectively within Europe. I would not like to be an AQ member in Spain now. I think overall these election results are likely to help the cause.

I blame the Bush administration for having set out on a course that alienates our allies, and thus makes it extremely tempting for them to part ways from the U.S. Again, note that this bombing did NOT shake the Spanish resolve to remain in Afghanistan, a conflict that *was* clearly related to the fight against AQ. If the Spanish population saw the connection between Iraq and the fight against terror, I strongly suspect that their resolve to stay in Iraq would have been strengthened. But because the Bush administration is pushing a policy that is seen as a U.S. imperial power play rather than a legit attack on terrorists, the Spanish parted ways from us in disgust as soon as they had to pay any costs at all.

Finally, note that an obsession with avoiding "appeasement" (whatever that is supposed to be) also allows terrorists to manipulate your actions. Palestinian extremists who desire the destruction of Israel instead of a peace settlement have been regularly manipulating Israeli hard-liners into power for a while now. All they do is set off a bomb when it looks like peace talks might be gaining momentum.

Posted by: MQ on March 18, 2004 01:15 AM

Sorry for the double post!!

Also, a request...Jane, could you please not use "incentive" as a verb? I feel this should be a bipartisan issue. Thank you.

Posted by: MQ on March 18, 2004 01:18 AM

cas and MQ - I think you both missed the main thrust of Jane's original post: It matters not what motivated Spain's voters. As long as terrorist groups and their supporters feel the Madrid bombings brought down the Spanish government and caused the withdrawal of Spain's troops from Iraq, the potential to "profit" from terror will have gone way up. This will most likely attract more entrants into the terror market -- in all parts of the world.

You may be right. If Spain's new approach dramatically increases the likelihood of getting caught before a terrorist can pull off his attack, over time this new approach may lower the level of terrorist activity. That's a very big if. In the short run (until terrorists learn that their chance of getting caught have increased), terrorist activity will most likely increase.

I have little hope that Spain's new approach will work. Their new leader wants to treat this as a law enforcement problem. The terrorists are fighting a war and Spain wants to hand out jail sentences. The terrorists are packing AK-47s and Spain thinks it's a knife fight. I think the terrorists will win such an uneven battle every time.

One last thing, you can't have it both ways. If Iraq was such a distraction in the war on terror, why is Osama so upset about Saddam being replaced by a democracy? If Spain's fewer than 1,500 troops were a big enough issue to cause the bombings in Madrid, Iraq must have been very important to the terrorists. If it was so important to them, it's hard to maintain fighting the Iraq war was a distraction from the war on terror. The Iraq war was simply a part of the larger war on terror.

Posted by: David Walser on March 18, 2004 02:05 AM

Orbit tells us: I'm sick of wingers holding out the threat of nonexistent WMDs. I'll vote for whoever I please. As far as I am concerned, George W. Bush has done a spectacularly lousy job as president, and there is no way in hell he will ever get my vote.

Vote for whom you please, Orbit. I was commenting on the likely effect the Spanish surrender will have on American voters. It’s a practical impossibility for either candidate to garner less than 40% of the popular vote, so your in ‘good’ company.

As for your silliness: Were Libya’s chemical, biological, and atomic weapons development programs nonexistent? Is the PRNK’s? Pakistan’s? Iran’s? Those of us (most Americans, by far) who choose not to bury our heads understand that the only way to deal with these kinds of horrific threats is to “carry the fight to the enemy”.

So, watch John Forbes Kerry twist slowly in the wind. He’s got an impossible straddle – supporting the effort in Iraq, watching the situation get better, while criticizing GWB for taking the fight to the enemy – yet somehow claiming he (JFK) would do the same.

Indeed, this was the turning point (the 'event' experienced politicians fear) -- R.I.P. John Forbes Kerry

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 18, 2004 08:16 AM

supporting the effort in Iraq, watching the situation get better

Hmm, I guess my cable company doesn't carry that channel.

criticizing GWB for taking the fight to the enemy – yet somehow claiming he (JFK) would do the same.

Let's see, the declared enemy is purportedly somewhere along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan, but 1/2 of our army is 1500 miles away in Iraq. For every $1 spent on Afghanistan chasing the Islamic fundamentalists who have been setting off the bombs, we have spent over $100 invading and occupying what was formerly one of the most secular states in the region.

That's taking it to them alright. But only if you assume that every player in the region is essentially interchangeable.

Posted by: apostropher on March 18, 2004 09:31 AM

This is Thomas Schelling's multi-person prisoners' dilemna. Terrorism would be much reduced if every state could credibly threaten that a bombing in its country would be met by the government doing the opposite of what the terrorists want. That's in the long-run interest of everyone.

But the short-run individual interest of every state is to get the terrorists to go somewhere else. So there is an incentive to go along with what they want as long as it isn't outrageous.

If the terrorist goals are limited and reasonable, this might not be a bad result. But if the goal is the expulsion of all infidels from the historic house of Islam--or the extension of Dar-al-Islam to the entire world, then there is no reasonable way to buy them off.

Posted by: Roger Sweeny on March 18, 2004 09:43 AM

hi david,
i think i can accept your claim that "This will most likely attract more entrants into the terror market -- in all parts of the world." whilst at the same time maintaining that a game requires us to look at what both players do. if the spanish are successful, all those wold be terrorists might give it away. maybe not.

i like roger's multi-person prisoner's dilemma argument. one question i have is that this would imply that terrorists are looking for low cost opportunities to inflict horrific damage. if spanish reputation, resource allocation, etc. are considered believable, terrorists will go elsewhere. those other countries have two choices. do nothing or little, or actuallly beef up there own anti-terrorist resources. why wouldn't it be rational for those countries to do exactly that? and if they do, what happens to roger's outcome?

i am assuming that whether or not the terrorists are fanatical (or crazy), that they are rational optimizers. they will strike were the defenses are weakest, the resources required to undertake operations are lowest, and the chance of success highest.

on this basis, i don't predict that poland will be subject to serious terrorist threat anytime soon. its a homogenous white european catholic society, where islamic individuals would tend to stick out and where the level of coordination needed to cary out a major attack might be more easily noticed and the cell subsequently discovered (sorry for the stereotyping).

Posted by: cas on March 18, 2004 10:20 AM

mq's point re appeasement is imminently sensible.

Posted by: cas on March 18, 2004 10:27 AM

>How do you "peace in our time" in Spanish?

How do you say it in Mercan?

"Export death and destruction to the four corners of the Earth."

Posted by: hcls on March 18, 2004 11:08 AM

You leftist/communist pussies need to pack your bags and get outta here...before we sic our daughters on you!

Posted by: Gawdamman on March 18, 2004 12:31 PM

Terrorists do not operate in a vacuum. They need a safe area for training, cash, financial services, access to weapons and ammunition etc. Some weapons, particularly biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons, can *only* be manufactured by states.

Terrorists without state support are just a terrible menace inflicting carnage on civilians -- civilization will probably survive.

Terrorists *with* state support can set off a car-nuke in NYC and Western civilization is in very real peril indeed.

I agree with the posters that the terrorists cannot be deterred -- after all, how do you deter one who loves death -- but their state supporters certainly can be deterred.

Libya began cooperating because Gaddafi likes being 1) alive and 2) in power. Undoubtedly American credibility in taking out terrorist-sponsoring governments helped focus his mind, and Musharraf's as well.

Spain's election will be used by Al Quaeda to 1) gather support and 2) calm the fears of (deterrable) state sponsors of terror. They have also marked themselves as a soft target.

Appeasement will be as successful today as it was in the 30s.

Posted by: winterspeak on March 18, 2004 12:32 PM

"But to think that Al Qaeda cares one whit whether Aznar or Zapatero is in power in Spain, or whether Bush or Kerry is in power in the U.S. or whether Blair stays or goes in Britain is preposterous."

At least so far as Spain is concerned this is incorrect. We have two separate indications that they care: the strategy outline which specifically targets Spanish troops for bombing in the hope of bringing the Socialists into power, and the truce predicated on Zapatero following through on his promise to withdraw troops.

Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw on March 18, 2004 01:39 PM

Hmm, I guess my cable company doesn't carry that channel.

Probably not, they find more pleasure in sensationalizing every miscelleaneous bombing or gunman attack that occurs. This does not invalidate the assertion that the Iraqi situation is, on the whole and for the present time at least, getting better.

Posted by: anony-mouse on March 18, 2004 03:26 PM

Jane,
Your economic analysis of terrorism and the Spanish elections seems to me to cut to the heart of the issues. It was a pleasure to read. Gary Becker would be proud!
Cheers,
A Fellow U of C Alum

Posted by: Average Joe on March 18, 2004 03:30 PM

Apostrophe tells us:

1. Hmm, I guess my cable company doesn't carry that channel. (the channel apostrophe would be obliged to watch for him to become cognizant of the improving situation in Iraq).

Have you thought of going satellite? Or, you could try reading a bit more – television is a particularly poor means to learn of current events. Or maybe you’re one of those guys who just hate America and wishes Saddam was still in power.

2. the declared enemy is purportedly somewhere along the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan

HALLLOOOO! The enemy is in Afghanistan? OOOH! You really do lead a cloistered life. Ya see, Al Quaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, the Baathists, and sundry hangers-on have determined that they must prevent a functioning democracy from taking root in Iraq.

So they collectively have obliged our President by choosing to commit their atrocities where we have 150,000 troops quartered. You really don’t get out much, do you?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 18, 2004 04:31 PM

For those on the 'Spain isn't appeasing terrorists because they're still in Afghanistan' schtick, here's what Zapatero actually said:

“Fighting terrorism with bombs, with Tomahawk missiles, isn't the way to beat terrorism, but the way to generate more radicalism.”

That doesn't sound limited to Iraq.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on March 18, 2004 05:27 PM

For those on the 'Spain isn't appeasing terrorists because they're still in Afghanistan' schtick, here's what Zapatero actually said:

“Fighting terrorism with bombs, with Tomahawk missiles, isn't the way to beat terrorism, but the way to generate more radicalism.”

That doesn't sound limited to Iraq.

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on March 18, 2004 05:28 PM

Gee Patrick,

Can you give us a cite that demonstrates appeasement works? All the history that I know tells us that people stop fighting when they know they're beaten -- not when they think they're winning.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 18, 2004 07:28 PM

cas and MQ - I think you both missed the main thrust of Jane's original post: It matters not what motivated Spain's voters. As long as terrorist groups and their supporters feel the Madrid bombings brought down the Spanish government and caused the withdrawal of Spain's troops from Iraq, the potential to "profit" from terror will have gone way up. This will most likely attract more entrants into the terror market -- in all parts of the world.

No, it is you that have missed the point. What Cas is saying is that the spanish people brought down an ineffective goverment, and replaced it with a better one vis a vis the 'war' on terror.

The question is whether or not AQ will percieve it that way. And, since they have not drunk the right-wing group-think cool-aid they most likely will. It's a mistake to think that AQ will not recognise their own advantage here. Bush's strategy in the WOT has been an almost complete failure. You can be sure that AQ knows this and wants more than anything for Bush to remain in charge and to be able to waste his allies resources as well as his own.

It's an assumption (and not a very smart one) to think that AQ intended to throw the election to the PPOE. It's far more likely that they intented to prop up the PP, whose support was slipping more and more as the election day approached.

Posted by: Bones on March 18, 2004 07:28 PM

cas and MQ - I think you both missed the main thrust of Jane's original post: It matters not what motivated Spain's voters. As long as terrorist groups and their supporters feel the Madrid bombings brought down the Spanish government and caused the withdrawal of Spain's troops from Iraq, the potential to "profit" from terror will have gone way up. This will most likely attract more entrants into the terror market -- in all parts of the world.

No, it is you that have missed the point. What Cas is saying is that the spanish people brought down an ineffective goverment, and replaced it with a better one vis a vis the 'war' on terror.

The question is whether or not AQ will percieve it that way. And, since they have not drunk the right-wing group-think cool-aid they most likely will. It's a mistake to think that AQ will not recognise their own advantage here. Bush's strategy in the WOT has been an almost complete failure. You can be sure that AQ knows this and wants more than anything for Bush to remain in charge and to be able to waste his allies resources as well as his own.

It's an assumption (and not a very smart one) to think that AQ intended to throw the election to the PPOE. It's far more likely that they intented to prop up the PP, whose support was slipping more and more as the election day approached.

Posted by: Bones on March 18, 2004 07:31 PM

Bonehead KNOWS that Al Q & co. will perceive that the motivation for the slim majority in Spain voting out the incumbent ruling party was because it was ineffective.

Because? they have not drunk the right-wing group-think cool-aid? And, AQ knows this and wants more than anything for Bush to remain in charge and to be able to waste his allies resources as well as his own.

And, Bush's strategy in the WOT has been an almost complete failure.

Gee, Boner. What do you think GWB's successes and failures are? Please, tell us.

And, please don't forget to cover the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, Libya's renunciation of WMD, and the foiling of dozens of plots on our soil. Please, tell us. And, if you can point to anyone else who truly believes that Al Quaida desires to see George W. Bush re-elected, well ...
BWAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 18, 2004 07:45 PM

Jane, I think you are right on target,

"It doesn't matter what the Spanish voters were thinking when they threw the PP out, because Al-Qaeda is going to interpret the results in the way most favourable to itself,"

So, the question becomes, how do we stop them? Reasoning with them is as effective as appeasing a virus. If we could even identify who they are, identifying their real motivation or what we could give them in a negotiation that would bring them into the fold of peaceable peoples is impossible to discern! Are only choices are to both destroy those that act as terrorists and show the next generation that life is worth living. A stick and carrot approach; punish the evil ones, and reward the innocent with hope, education, and the opportunity to pursue happiness.

Posted by: RDJ on March 18, 2004 08:14 PM

I must remember to proofread my posts, "Are only choices " in my previous post should have read, Our only choices, of course. And I dropped some punctuation, sorry.

Posted by: RDJ on March 18, 2004 08:23 PM

It's an assumption (and not a very smart one) to think that AQ intended to throw the election to the PPOE. It's far more likely that they intented to prop up the PP, whose support was slipping more and more as the election day approached.

Speaking of Kool Aid, Bones, note that your assertion of 'what really happened' is no more premised on facts than any other speculation here, therefore -

Lately, now, you've got me thinking
What's that stuff that you've been drinking?
Is it water? Is it wine?
I think it might be turpentine!

(childrens' jumprope rhyme, possibly adapted from an old pub chourus)

Now for stupidity on the other side of the fence -- Norman Rogers, curb your dog, the aggressive little twit didn't even notice that Patrick wasn't defending appeasement per se. The Principles of Logical Reasoning will be sending out a ninja hit squad in short order if you don't chill, and you won't like what they'll do to that dog.

Posted by: Logical Reasoning Fairy on March 18, 2004 10:34 PM

Dear Fairy,

I've re-read Patrick's comment and my response -- and I think it's you who is mistaken. Here's what Patrick wrote:

Zapatero said, “Fighting terrorism with bombs, with Tomahawk missiles, isn't the way to beat terrorism, but the way to generate more radicalism.” That doesn't sound limited to Iraq.

I can't see how anyone could take Patrick's comment as other than his endorsing Zapatero and him telling us, "don't fight back -- you'll only make them mad."

I understand you think you're much smarter than I, Fairy, so please parse this in another way for us and explain your reasoning?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 19, 2004 07:22 AM

No, Norman, I think the LRF is right. Patrick criticized the "Spain isn't appeasing terrorists" line, and quoted Zapatero as opposing bombs and Tomahawk missiles, which, as Patrick implied, sounds like Zapatero is criticizing the war in Afghanistan. I think you and he are on the same side here.

Posted by: Katherine on March 19, 2004 10:48 AM

Katherine and LRF are both correct. I was directing my comments to people who are pushing this line:

" Note that the Spanish are still in Afghanistan, and I suspect they will be pursuing the fight against terrorists quite effectively within Europe."

Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan on March 19, 2004 12:18 PM

Sorry, I misunderstood.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 19, 2004 07:52 PM

We provide a comprehensive list of e-pharmacies to help you get the best Online Levitra Cialis Viagra deals. Cheap Levitra, in all clinical trials, has proven to be extremely successful.Each Levitra pill may work in as quickly as 16 minutes and may work for up to 24 hours, far surpassing the length of Viagra's effects which is an average of 4 hours. Buy Levitra http://www.one-levitra.com http://www.one-cialis.com http://www.one-levitra.com

Posted by: levitra on March 26, 2004 05:32 PM

Online Cialis Levitra Viagra has been an eventual success in Europe since its introduction in Early 2003.Cialis will now be available in US soon. You may buy Cialis through various registered pharmacies. Also try levitra , buy levitra cheap levitra http://www.one-levitra.com/ http://www.one-cialis.com/levitra.htm/ or visit these sites for news and side effects : cheap cialis http://www.one-cialis.com/

Posted by: cialis on March 26, 2004 05:32 PM

Online Tramadol is one of the most prescribed treatments for pain in the world. More than 55 million people have taken cheap Tramadol to relieve their back pain, shoulder pain, and other chronic conditions. By acting on parts of the brain that trigger pain, and by reducing the size of pain signals that travel throughout the body, Tramadol provides powerful pain relief in just minutes! Buy Tramadol Now or visit this site: http://www.top-tramadol.com!

Posted by: tramadol on March 28, 2004 09:26 AM
Post a comment
















Bravenet Hit Counter