Reality Check (Spanish Troops In Iraq...less than one percent of the force)

Roger L Simon ^ | March 15, 2004 | Roger L Simon

[conservativecorner]

DRUDGE REPORT this morning lists the occupying force numbers for the individual countries in Iraq. Although Drudge, being a yellow journalist, uses the term "sizable hole" for what the Spaniards will leave when they depart, they are at 1300 soldiers presently less than one percent of the force. placing them at number six on the list between the Ukraine at 1600 and the Netherlands at 1100. Their departure will be largely symbolic.

Of course the level of that symbolism is the important question. And what transpires from here on out is wildly unpredictable. Although Francis Fukuyama and others told us history was at its end, clearly they were dreaming (Who can blame them?-ed.). Despite a temporary victory in the Spanish election, this action may prove to have been the Islamofascists biggest mistake. They may have checkmated themselves. What do they do next? One more similar act in Europe or the USA may turn the majority of the Western world Jacksonian. We shall see, I'm afraid.

UPDATE: Meanwhile (hat tips: Mike and Rick Ballard), Poland is standing firm: "Revising our positions on Iraq after terrorists attacks would be to admit that terrorists are stronger and that they are right (to pursue attacks)," Prime Minister Leszek Miller told a news conference in the Polish town of Tarnow. More to come--obviously.

[narby]

Al Qaeda's attack in Spain, because Spain had supported the US in Iraq, should be all the proof needed that Iraq is definitly a part of the War on Terror.

[KantianBurke]

Their departure will be largely symbolic.

As was their presence.

[breakem]

I think it bodes ill for Spain and the rest of Europe, rather than us.

[KantianBurke]

agreed.

[raloxk]

"I think it bodes ill for Spain and the rest of Europe, rather than us."

it bodes ill for everyone

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Remember before the war began, when Rumsfeld said we weren't dependent upon the British forces? Diplomatically, he probably shouldn't have said that, Blair was in a tight spot. And yet, Rumsfeld was right. :)

[breakem]

I was not very clear. I was referring the the article about number of troops in Iraq.

[Longbow1969]

"Of course the level of that symbolism is the important question."

The problem here is that the relatively smallish force Spain had commited in Iraq was really about symbolism anyway.

The fact that Spain intends to cut and run, while vocally saying the entire effort in Iraq was a mistake from the start, is far more damaging and infact outweighs any help they were to us from the beginning.

This piece accurately points out that in purely military terms the likely loss of the Spaniards is not terribly significant, unfortunatly that was never really the main point anyway.

"Despite a temporary victory in the Spanish election, this action may prove to have been the Islamofascists biggest mistake. They may have checkmated themselves."

Putting the best face on a setback is helpful now and again, but the reality is that no matter how we may attempt to polish the turd handed to us, at the end of the day it is still a steaming pile of bad news all around.

"One more similar act in Europe or the USA may turn the majority of the Western world Jacksonian."

Hehehehe. One more? I'll bet it takes a lot more than that. Though, in the end, Mr. Simon is correct, Europeans will be forced to face up to Islamic terror. It is just going to take a much higher death toll before they are dragged kicking and screaming into the fray.

Longbow

[Alberta's Child]

You're right.

We can't have it both ways -- if their departure is going to be symbolic, then so was their presence. How can we possibly criticize Spain for "capitulating" to terrorists when their involvement in Iraq was merely symbolic? I think it was perfectly reasonable for Spaniards to decide that 200 civilian casualties (or even 2) was too steep a price to pay for a symbolic military presence in Iraq.

[KantianBurke]

sshh! you'll get flamed for speaking such thoughts. "The Spanish are cowards" is the correct mindthink. :>

[Dane]

We can't have it both ways -- if their departure is going to be symbolic, then so was their presence. How can we possibly criticize Spain for "capitulating" to terrorists when their involvement in Iraq was merely symbolic? I think it was perfectly reasonable for Spaniards to decide that 200 civilian casualties (or even 2) was too steep a price to pay for a symbolic military presence in Iraq

It's not the 1,300 men. It is the message that is sent. Support the war against terrorism, we bomb you. And the cowardly Spanish response only gives the terrorists the message that terrorism works for the terrorists.

You and KB can be the ones with your heads in the sand. Both of you can post some more and shout your praise for the Spanish electorates vote for terrorism.

[Alberta's Child]

The Spanish aren't really any different than we Americans are.

Think for a moment about the elections in Spain this past weekend, and tell me how the Spanish electorate behaved any differently after the Madrid bombings last week than Ronald Reagan behaved after the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed in 1983.

By its very nature, any affluent society like ours is always susceptible to the strong-arm tactics of terrorism. You need look no further than New York City to see this phenomenon at work. People in places all over this country that weren't directly impacted by 9/11 were the strongest supporters of this so-called "war on terror," long after the New York City Council had already concluded that cigarette smoke was the greatest threat to the city's existence.

[Dane]

Think for a moment about the elections in Spain this past weekend, and tell me how the Spanish electorate behaved any differently after the Madrid bombings last week than Ronald Reagan behaved after the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed in 1983

The attack didn't happen in some far away land. It happened in New York City on 9/11/01 and Madrid on 3/11/04. The Spanish gave into the horrible terrorism that happened on their home soil.

Not exactly the definition of bravery, IMO.

[KantianBurke]

alright Dane, I'm only going to say this to you once more:

Has Spain up till the election of the Socialists been a stalwart ally of the US? Yes.

Was Iraq tied up with Al Queda? Yes.

Was our war in Iraq justified? Yes.

Could we have taken down and occupied Iraq by ourselves? Yes. Rummy was clear on this. We did not need any foreign help. And yet in order to make our non-UN sponsored role appear more palatable, Bush went hunting for other countries to sign up. Symbolic occupiers. Spain sent 1300 troops.

Did the Spanish people believe the WOT was connected to Iraq? No. And they were very much against having 1300 troops be invovled. It was a politically dangerous move by Asnzar.

Which brings me to the point which seems to enrage you - In the interests of keeping such a great ally on our team, Bush should NOT have badgered Spain into sending a symbolic number of their men to Iraq. They were of no practical value to begin with. And Al Queda was able to intelligently take advantage of their presence and an upcoming election to deprive Bush of a key coalition partner.

It was a mistake. It was a meaningless gesture that we are paying dearly for.

[Alberta's Child]

In August of 1999 Bill Clinton issued formal pardons to 16 members of the Puerto Rican terrorist group known as the Armed Forces of National Liberation (known by its Spanish initials FALN). This group was responsible for 130 bombings throughout the U.S. in the 1970s and early 1980s.

Bill Clinton was never taken to task for this unprecedented "capitulation" in the face of terrorism. In fact, he traipses around the world to this day (with the full protection of the U.S. Secret Service), earning about $8 million per year making idiotic speeches to anyone who is willing to pay a whore's price to hear him.

Knowing all of this, who the f#ck is the United States to lecture any other country in the world about "capitulating to terrorists?"

[Dane]

Which brings me to the point which seems to enrage you - In the interests of keeping such a great ally on our team, Bush should NOT have badgered Spain into sending a symbolic number of their men to Iraq. They were of no practical value to begin with. And Al Queda was able to intelligently take advantage of their presence and an upcoming election to deprive Bush of a key coalition partner

And how do you know Anzar was "badgered". He was a staunch ally. I guess it could never occur to you that Anzar was doing the right thing, damn the consequences.

Your pitiful rationalization that this is Bush's fault, is as pitiful as the demos.

Blame Bush and excuse the terrorists. JMO, you would fit in just fine with the 43% of Spainiards who voted socialist.

[Dane]

Bill Clinton was never taken to task for this unprecedented "capitulation" in the face of terrorism. In fact, he traipses around the world to this day (with the full protection of the U.S. Secret Service), earning about $8 million per year making idiotic speeches to anyone who is willing to pay a whore's price to hear him

Yes he was here on FR and on talk radio. It was the mainstream press that never reported on it.

Your rationalizations are really getting desperate and pathetic, IMO.

[redhawk]

Spain may have only committed 1200 troops to Iraq but the mission they're performing is very important. They took over security for a populated area (don't remember the name of the towns) along the mail supply route (MSR) Tampa. I just returned from Iraq in December and before the Spanish arrived our convoys were being diverted around these towns down 100 miles of rough road because we didn't have the troops to secure this area. When Spain withdraws their troops they will have to be replaced with someone very quickly. Don't make the mistake of thinking that we can just cough up another 1200 soldiers and equipment to take over their mission, it takes time to get people in place.

[Alberta's Child]

Yes he was here on FR and on talk radio.

That's not "taken to task." He should have been impeached, convicted, and locked up for the rest of his life.

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the U.S. pretty much lost whatever moral authority it may have once had when it allowed that jack@ss to do all the damage he did while he was in office.

These aren't "rationalizations," either. I've got no reason to defend Spanish voters in any way -- I'm simply pointing out the sanctimonious hypocrisy of people in this country who are so quick to point out the splinter in someone else's eye without first addressing the beam in our own.