Posted on 03/14/2004 3:39:01 PM PST by Eurotwit
NO ONE will say it publicly, but both sides of politics know that the barbarous events in Spain have the potential to affect Australia amid the heightened sensitivities of an election year.
Even as the Spanish bury their dead, here the judgments are quietly being made: which side will the re-emergence of the issue of terrorism benefit at the ballot box?
Conventional wisdom dictates that the nation, gripped by fear and memories of the Bali bombing, will turn to the "man of steel", John Howard, his steady hands the only choice to guide the country through these dark days.
But it's been a long time since George W. Bush burdened Howard with that epithet on the plains of Crawford, Texas. And since then, much has happened to undermine the Australian Government's case for going to war with Iraq and its credibility more broadly on the issue of terrorism.
Given this changed climate the resurgence of a global terrorist threat, as evidenced by the attacks in Madrid, might well rebound on Howard. He could find himself in the same position as his putative Spanish counterpart, Mariano Rajoy, whose support was being tested overnight in scheduled national elections.
The right-wing Spanish Government of outgoing Prime Minister, Jose Maria Aznar, has been accused, at worst of lying and at best rushing to judgment over its insistence the bombings are likely to have been the work of the Basque separatist group, ETA. Rajoy, Aznar's handpicked successor, has been running hard on the administration's record of cracking down on ETA.
If ETA is responsible, Rajoy is expected to be the longer-term political beneficiary. But if al-Qa'ida is to blame the equation would change dramatically. "M-11" – as the attacks are now being called – would immediately revive debate over Aznar's unpopular decision to take Spain to war in Iraq in support of the US. He would be indicted as the man who made the events in Madrid inevitable. With Aznar widely seen as Rajoy's patron, collateral damage to his successor would likely follow.
If al-Qa'ida's involvement in Madrid is confirmed, on this side of the globe it will also make Howard's argument that Australia is not a terrorist target because of its role in Iraq that much more unsustainable.
Even more brittle will be his pre-war claim that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq would make the world safer against the threat of terror.
Immediately following the Madrid atrocity, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock began pushing Howard's standard case for denying Australia might be specifically targeted for supporting the US in Iraq.
That case revolves around conceding we are a terrorist target – but only because we represent, along with the US, so-called "western values".
"We're a target of al-Qa'ida because of what we stand for and that's always clear," Ruddock said. "I mean, if you look at recent events you have seen tragedies in Turkey, Morocco, Saudi Arabia. This idea that you can be an apologist for al-Qa'ida by suggesting that in some way we can be targeted because we fought for the freedom of the Iraqi people can in no way I think be accepted."
Ruddock is right – but only up to a point; that point being Morocco. The bomb attack on the British consulate and British bank, HSBC in Istanbul in November last was seen as being directly linked to Turkey's decision to allow the US to use its air bases during the war in Iraq. The physical targets may have been British but the location ensured many Turks died as well.
In the case of Saudi Arabia, the desert monarchy is the US's staunchest ally in the Middle East. It too was a reluctant supporter of the war in Iraq.
If al-Qa'ida continues to work its dread in countries both sympathetic to Washington and directly supportive of the campaign to topple Saddam Hussein, Howard's "values" argument will look increasingly thin in the event of a terrorist attack here.
Certainly, Labor is increasingly confident that just because the country is once again talking about terrorism does not automatically mean that Howard gains and it loses. Says one senior Opposition figure: "What we've done over the past months is take a couple of layers of paint off Howard and debase his credibility.
"I mean, he just can't shout the words 'national security!' and get away with it any more."
Clearly, Howard's reason for making war against Iraq was a mirage. His claim that war would reduce the incidence of international terror has not eventuated. No weapons of mass destruction have been found, and still the devastating attacks continue.
And, depending on the final verdict as to who was responsible for the Madrid blasts, Howard's argument that we are not a terrorist target because of our part in the coalition of the willing is looking increasingly shaky.
At the ALP national conference in January, some senior ALP figures were wondering privately whether a terrorist attack on the Athens Olympics could be Howard's fourth-term "Tampa".
That fear rested on the assumption that Howard held an unbeatable lead on the issue of national security. Those that count within Labor no longer believe that's the case. If they're right, the contest come October will simply be that much closer.
If these leaders don't get out there and make this point, the terrorists will be emboldened and death will follow.
They said terrorism is their number one priority or some such thing, but since its a Liberal (a.k.a. socialist) saying it, we know it must be 100% a lie, since its a fact of nature that Liberals lie always, its like ducks taking to water.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.