Posted on 03/14/2004 4:55:32 PM PST by Eurotwit
The thumping defeat inflicted upon the Right-wing Popular Party in yesterday's Spanish elections was a blow for the war on terrorism. Jose Maria Aznar, the outgoing prime minister, took big risks to back the United States after September 11, and most especially to send troops to Iraq. Even his decision to take on his home-grown insurgency in the Basque country went against the grain of much elite opinion. He may well have mishandled last week's terrorist atrocities in Madrid. But whoever was responsible - whether al-Qaeda or ETA - will be pleased to have intervened so successfully in a democratic ballot. Spaniards died in industrial quantities, and the first instinct of many voters was to take it out on their government. If terrorism has succeeded there, where will be next?
The election will be remembered as heralding the rise of ‘‘euro isolationism''. Large numbers of Spanish voters succumbed to the delusion that if Mr Aznar, had not lent support to the Anglo-American coalition, then their homeland would be safer. The credibility of the government was affected, as in this country, by the apparent failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This, in turn, impacted upon the public trust placed in their interpretation of who was responsible for last week's atrocities. It also appears that elements in the Spanish security forces were angered by what they considered to be their government's opportunism in initially blaming the more obviously unpopular target of Eta (rather than al-Qa'eda) and went over the heads of the Interior Ministry to speak to the opposition Socialists and to the press. They seem to have based their reasoning upon the need to alert Europe as a whole to the Islamist threat, but the effect appears to have been to hand victory for the Socialists who have taken a far less robust view of the war on terror.
Why do such wide swathes of Spanish - and, indeed, British opinion - take a "nothing to do with us, Guv'' view of international terrorism? Partly, it has been a failure of communication, not least of American public diplomacy. The European Left, no less than Islamist polemicists, has for years been besmirching the United States as the ‘‘Great Satan''; and, in the face of that, most American missions have for much of the time emitted little more than a pip-squeak. Above all, the Americans and sympathetic European governments have not managed to convey the idea that there is no policy shift which they might undertake that would appreciably alter Islamist behaviour. The idea abounds that if the West somehow withdrew from Iraq or transferred more wealth to the mases of the Maghreb that all of this would stop. De-ideologised, post-modern man is particularly bad at grasping the ideological nature of its foes. The fact that many Islamists believe in reversing the reconquista of the Iberian peninsula appears to have made little difference to millions of Spaniards. The desire not to take our enemies at face value, in word and deed, is the hallmark of much of contemporary Europe.
Same applies to the Left in this country.
AQ will now attack the next weakest link.........Italy.
Spain got whacked ......and tucked tail and ran.
Ironically, this is a self-correcting mistake. It will only be clear to the Spaniards and the rest of the Europeans that complacency will not stop a determined enemy after they have suffered more bloody attacks from the islamo-nutballs.
The Europeans never learn. This is a reply of the early stages of WWII. It took the fall of France to wake up the Euro-morons to the reality that placating Hitler would only encourage him and not bring peace.
Will we elect our own post-modernist this November?
I think the failure is not so much in our diplomacy, as in Europe's overweening self-interest. It's next to impossible to talk to people who have their fingers in their ears.
Thomas Jefferson had the same problem convincing The Old World (Europeans) to co-operate with America in resisting the attacks and demands for tribute of the Barbary Pirates.
In the early 1800's, the European countries took turns being gleeful and fearful, depending on whether the pirates were attacking them or attacking another European country rather than them.
The Barbary pirates had a great "divide and conquer" strategy. Just like the Islamists have today.
"Jefferson's plan for an international coalition [against the Barbary Pirates] foundered on the shoals of [European] indifference and a belief that it was cheaper to pay the tribute than fight a war."---Gerard W. Gawalt, Manuscript Division, Library of CongressWe must remember this...
By 1800 a new slogan was beginning to appear across the new country, "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute." ...See citation for above quote at:Dutch "expert": Netherlands Safe from Terrorism"After the conclusion of the Napoleonic wars, which ended in 1815, inspired by America's example, Great Britian and Holland ended their policies of appeasement by bombarding Algier's fleet and fortresses."
The continued existence of this African piracy was indeed a disgrace to Europe, for it was due to the jealousies of the powers themselves. France encouraged them [Barbary pirates] during her rivalry with Spain; and when, she had no further need of them [the Barbary pirates] were supported against her by Great Britain and Holland.In the 18th century British public men were not ashamed to say that Barbary piracy was a useful check on the competition of the weaker Mediterranean nations in the carrying trade. When Lord Exmouth sailed to coerce Algiers in 1816, he expressed doubts in a private letter whether the suppression of piracy would be acceptable to the trading community.
See citation for above quote at:Dutch "expert": Netherlands Safe from Terrorism
Likewise, those with their hands in each others pockets.
Oddly, I remain optimistic on this front at the moment. I see no evidence to suggest that the American people have fallen as far as their European contemporaries (residents of Santa Monica and the Upper West Side of Manhattan excluded of course). There is every reason to believe that Bush is going to win in November. And, more importantly, he is going to win because of his aggressive stance with regard to the Islamo-nutballs.
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.