Posted on 03/16/2004 9:13:25 PM PST by Congressman Billybob
Spain has just had its own 9/11, literally. The population of the US is almost eight times as large as that of Spain. So a fair comparison is that on 3/11 Spain suffered the equivalent of 1,600 dead and 12,000 injured. And in response to that, Spain has retreated from the war against terror. Does the US face the possibility of a Madrid mistake, especially in the weeks leading up to the November presidential election?
I had the extreme displeasure last week of hearing Professor Beau Grosscup of California State University at Chico, arguing on TV that we should “understand” the position of the terrorists, and on that basis we should “negotiate” with them. The host of the program on which this educated fool appeared missed the opportunity to ask the good professor whether we should have negotiated with Emperor Tojo, or with Der Fuhrer Adolf Hitler, because that’s exactly where his views would have led sixty years ago.
Grosscup is a “Professor of International Relations.” To have a clue about how anyone could look at modern history as he does, here is the title of his doctoral dissertation: “Isolationism and American Foreign Policy. A study of the debate over isolationist trends in US foreign policy, utilizing a Wittgensteinian scheme of explication and a comparative analysis of Chinese, Japanese, British and US foreign policies.” As Tom Lehrer once said of mathematicians, it is important to understand “how they got that way.”
The situation in Spain prior to its 3/11 bombings was that Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar’s Popular Party was headed for a close but solid win. Mr. Aznar, who had been a staunch ally of the US and a supporter of the war on terrorism, was expected to hand the reins of government over to his hand-picked successor. Then came the attacks. Three days later the Spaniards voted out the Popular Party and handed the government over to the Socialist, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who had announced in advance that he would pull Spain’s token 1,500 troops out of Iraq. It was, as many commentators have pointed out, a “clear win for the terrorists.”
What if anything does the Spanish experience suggest, as Americans approach our own election in the fall?
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon. There are various types of terrorists, but they share one common characteristic. They will murder Americans in the largest numbers they can, with the goal of forcing the US to change various of its foreign policies. (Some have “loftier” goals, which are either the destruction of America, or the destruction of Western Civilization generally.) The principal source of terrorists is Al Qaeda, plus support from some nations like Iran, the Palestinian Authority, and Syria, and apparently in cooperation with other groups like ETA, and the IRA. Because of their common intent and methods, I describe them collectively as “the terrorists.”
What is the experience of the terrorists in attacks on Americans? It’s almost universal that America can be backed off, with the blood of its own citizens and soldiers. The Beirut Airport bombing: President Reagan ordered the retreat. The Somalia slaughter: Bill Clinton ordered the retreat. The respective bombings of the Khobar Towers and the USS Cole: Bill Clinton did relatively nothing in response.
Based on experience, terrorists could take the American response to 9/11 – to fight back vigorously – as an exception to the general rule that America is a paper tiger. They could well conclude that another series of attacks, culminating with multiple events of mass murder in the weeks before our election, could produce a Madrid result in the US.
This assumption requires only two preconditions: that the American election is close, and that if John Kerry should defeat President Bush, American policy will then retreat from all-out assault on the terrorists. My personal view is that the 2004 election will not be close, and that President Bush will be reelected in an Electoral College landslide. But only a few commentators share that view. Therefore, until and unless polls close to the election should show that a landslide is in the offing, take it as true that the election will be close.
Then the question of whether the terrorists will attack again in the US with intent to change American foreign policy depends primarily on the apparent views of John Kerry, the soon-to-be Democrat candidate for President. Kerry’s mantra is “multinationalism.” But in his hands that word does not mean what the dictionary says, “involving several, or many, nations.”
The terrorists have just used mass murder to pick off Spain from the list of nations supporting the war on terror (unless NAME changes his stated position). The proposed withdrawal of Spain has taken down two of three Central American nations which follow Spain’s lead. But the war on terror still involves about 50 nations. It was, and is, multinational.
The Kerry position is explained more in his references to the United Nations. To date, to the extent that his position on this or any other subject can be pinned down, Kerry wants the US to cease being a global leader and instead to act against terrorism only if the UN first takes a decisive stand. The history of the United Nations, and of its failed predecessor the League of Nations, is almost universal in that it will not act decisively on the subject of war. The only exception is the Korean War, when the USSR quit the Security Council in a huff, China was still represented by an anti-communist government, and the resolution to go to war in Korea therefore passed.
That exception has no application today. To wait for decisive action by the UN is simply a more “nuanced” form of retreat. When, not if, the UN failed to act, the US would then begin its retreat, in a Kerry administration. We would then have our own Madrid mistake.
So, with the sad example of Spain fresh in mind, and given the current situation in the American presidential election, it’s logical to expect the terrorists to do the following: Send four or so independent teams into the US (through Canada or Mexico, take your choice). Each team would have a separate assignment with no knowledge of any of the others, except they would have a single target date for the attacks. Clearly, the terrorists have the money for the quarter-million dollar or so stake for each mission, and have the expendable men to form the attack teams.
Since 9/11, all terrorist attacks on American interests have occurred overseas. There are good reasons for that. Security on the home front is better than anywhere else in the world. Technology is better. The various federal and state police agencies are better trained and more reliable than those elsewhere in the world. American interests everywhere in the world are “soft targets” compared to targets in the US.
But if the operational goal of the terrorists is to bloody the nose of America, as it has just done with Spain, they must attack in Washington, D.C., the heart of the enemy. I don’t think such attacks, if they come, will be restricted to D.C. But the Capitol will be on the short list, with perhaps multiple teams assigned there to assure at least one “success.”
Because security is best on the home front, the terrorists are reluctant to attack here. They have lost more of their assets and personnel in (failed) attempts in the US in the past year than in their more “successful” such attacks in Iraq. The terrorists are inflicting a higher blood price when they commit their efforts elsewhere in the world, than in the US. They would have to have some promise of a Spanish result here, to commit to new and massive attacks on American soil.
What can we do, as Americans, to lower the odds that such attacks will be made here in an effort to change our foreign policies? There are only two steps to change that equation in the minds of the terrorists. One is to smoke out the position of candidate Kerry, which could be a long and laborious task as recent events demonstrate; to get him to commit to continuing the war on terrorism REGARDLESS of what the UN does or doesn’t do.
Failing that, the only other alternative is to bury candidate Kerry in the polls, so it is clear even to the terrorists that he will not possibly be elected. That way, no attacks here could possibly change American foreign policy to their benefit. The terrorists need to know, well in advance of the 2004 election, that they cannot force us to make the Madrid mistake.
To begin the process of (partially) inoculating ourselves against such attacks based on such thinking by the terrorists, this question needs to be asked of candidate Kerry at every possible opportunity, until a clear and absolute answer emerges:
“Senator Kerry, if terrorists launch multiple and major attacks in Washington, D.C. and other cities in the days or weeks leading up to the November election, what precise steps would you take as President in response to such attacks if you are elected? Please discuss Spain in your answer.”
I believe that at least some members of the press will recognize the critical nature of this subject, and will ask this question until a clear answer is obtained. Since thousands of American lives are potentially at risk, I hope the entire American press will not fail on this point. Most will. Let’s see if some leaders arises in the American press.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.
- 30 -
©) 2004, Congressman Billybob & John Armor. All rights reserved.
And VHAW, wrote a spectaculare rant, which I would be proud to claim as my ow3n, if I were not as honest a person as I am. I couldn't have written a better one, if I had tried to do so, for a week.
BRAVA,again, VHAwife.
All's well, we all know it was meant as a compliment. :-)
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.