Something Rotten In Europe

Reason ^ | March 23, 2004 | Cathy Young

[neverdem]

March 23, 2004 Something Rotten In Europe The appearance of appeasement in Spain Cathy Young Maybe it was just a coincidence that the March 11 train bombings in Madrid came exactly 2 1/2 years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington, D.C.—and, for an added frisson, exactly 911 days after 9/11. Maybe it was a deliberate, harrowing message to the West. Even without this eerie detail, the images of death and destruction in Spain were bound to evoke echoes of America's Sept. 11. For many Americans, though, the solidarity quickly turned to bafflement and even bitterness at the Spanish people's reaction. After the election-eve revelation that the bombings had been carried out by Al Qaeda to punish Spain for its participation in the US war effort in Iraq, the voters did not stand tough and rally around the government led by pro-war Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar. Instead, they threw out Aznar's Popular Party, which had led in the polls before the attack, and backed the antiwar Socialists. The prime minister-elect, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, has already called the war "a fiasco" and pledged to withdraw the small contingent of Spanish troops from Iraq unless the United Nations takes over by June 30. Much of the US commentary on these events has expressed sentiments ranging from concern to dismay to anger. The election results have been widely seen as a capitulation, a craven surrender in the war on terror. Conservatives have been especially scathing: "This weekend's election was Spain's most inglorious hour since the restoration of democracy," wrote David Frum in his online diary at National Review Online. "Terrorists have often attempted to intimidate free peoples—almost invariably without success. Now at last they have won. And they will be back." A Wall Street Journal editorial was starkly subtitled, "The bombers 'voted,' and Aznar's party lost in Spain." Others caution that the situation cannot be reduced to such a simplistic formula. To a great extent, the Spanish vote represented a backlash against the Aznar government's brazen attempt to mislead the public and manipulate the media in order to blame the bombing on ETA, a Basque terrorist group. The outrage over the attack and the cover-up spurred very high voter turnout—in particular, among disaffected, left-leaning young people. What's more, some polls suggest that the Popular Party's lead had started to erode in the days before the attack. And yet, undeniably, the outcome was influenced by anger at the government for getting involved in a war that about 90 percent of the population opposed, and thus apparently putting its people in harm's way. At Reason, Julian Sanchez writes that this should not necessarily be seen as appeasement. The war in Iraq, he argues, is not the same as the war on terror; Zapatero has vowed to pursue tough antiterror measures and stressed that Spanish troops will stay in Afghanistan. Sanchez wonders if all the hue and cry about Spanish appeasement and surrender is really self-defeating, since it does assure the terrorists that they have won. That's all very well. But if perceptions matter as much as actions, shouldn't Zapatero have been careful to avoid the perception that his pledge to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq—even if, in his view, it is based on sound policy considerations—was a capitulation to terrorism? Nor is it very reassuring to hear Zapatero say that terrorism must not be fought "with bombs [and] Tomahawk missiles" but, rather, "by the state of law" (whatever that means). The Euro-bashing that has become fashionable in the United States of late can be irritating; but on such occasions, it is hard not to conclude that something is rotten in the states of Europe. Romano Prodi, the chief of the European Commission, responded to the Madrid bombings by saying, "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." An editorial in The Guardian, a leading British newspaper, scoffed, "Are those who perpetrated the commuter train bombings to be hunted down and smoked out of their lairs...?" and preached about the need to "get beyond the them and us, the good guys and the bad guys." Of course, that applies only when the bad guys are terrorists; the same concern is not extended to the Israelis, who are slammed in the same editorial for responding to terrorism with retribution. The United States, and President Bush in particular, have often been accused of an overly simplistic, black-and-white approach to complex international conflicts. But if this is moral complexity, I'll take a black-and-white approach any time. Cathy Young is a Reason contributing editor. This column appeared in the Boston Globe on March 22, 2004.

[neverdem]

"Something Rotten In Europe", indeed, it stinks.

[Eala]

and, for an added frisson, exactly 911 days after 9/11.

Nope. It was 912 days. 911 days passed between 9/11/2001 and 3/11/2004.

[Malesherbes]

The European reaction to the "assassination" of Yassin was typical. Even Britain joined in the condemnation. Yassin was a terrorist, like Osama, and he was a "spiritual leader" only insofar as he inspired hatred.

The truth is that every major European country, Britain included, now has millions (yes, millions) of Moslems inside their borders, unassimilated, alienated, and ready to explode. Europe - pacifist, socialist, increasingly senile, and economically stagnant - is scared to death.

[thoughtomator]

It works out to something like 19 days and 13 hours between them, given the time zone difference. So to say it was 911 days later is indeed correct.

[thoughtomator]

(OOPS! typed in wrong number above...)

It works out to something like 911 days and 13 hours between them, given the time zone difference. So to say it was 911 days later is indeed correct.

[Eala]

So you're rounding 911.54 down to 911? Or simply truncating? *\;-)

[thoughtomator]

Truncating =) 3/11 was the 912th day, which is 911 days (and change) after 9/11.

[BartMan1]

ping

[SledgeCS]

And that something in Europe is rotten is surprising...

98% of France is rotting or at least smells that way. I still do not understand the European superiority mindset. They were attacked and most of Europe followed the frogs attitude of war, "We Surrender. We Bend over, Please be nice to us."

If Al-queda does have 1-2 nuke suitcase bombs, would one of them being set off from the Eiffel tower wake them up. I personally don't think so, I figure the peasants would rise up, overthrow the governments and make Islam the official religion. They they would cower in their homes, hoping the new leaders would allow them to pay their new taxes and 2nd class citizens, and be left in peace.

SledgeCS

[Bon mots]

But wait, it was Muslims and Arabs, and they invented the zero, so if you start counting at zero...

JUST KIDDING!

[mrustow]

See also:

Did 311 = 911? Spain's Surrender, and the Destiny of Europe
by Nicholas Stix
Men's News Daily
21 March 2004

If Europe cannot rouse itself to fight back, after it has been attacked on its own soil, we may conclude that the cowardice we saw after 911 was not merely the expression of anti-Americanism and opportunism, but of a deeper paralysis, which is now in its terminal stage. And so, I weep for Europe.

Europe's paralysis is best expressed in the combination of two seemingly contradictory statements, one by David Brooks and the other by Edward Luttwak:

"Now all European politicians will know that if they side with America on controversial security threats, and terrorists strike their nation, they might be blamed by their own voters." (Brooks)

"Any [European] politician who invokes Madrid to demand a withdrawal from Iraq will be inviting terrorist attacks to prove his point." (Luttwak)

Both statements may co-exist in the same universe of discourse, the universe of weakness, the universe of defeat. The vicious circle of weakness dominating European thought is countered by the virtuous circle of strength that George W. Bush has expressed: America takes the battle to al Qaeda & Co. We kill some of their members, and capture others, from whom we get the intelligence necessary to kill and capture other terrorists, and so on. That may seem simplistic, but in fact, a nation will either gain the advantage or steadily decline, in the war on terror; a stalemate is not an option. Strength will compound strength, or weakness will compound weakness....

[happygrl]

Thanks for the post by Nicholas Stix.

Did it have its own thread ?

If not, it certainly deserves one. It was devastatingly on target.

FWIW, when a good friend won a trip to France several years ago and asked me if I had a request in terms of a souvenir, I told her, No. I asked her only that, each time she entered a church or cathedral, that she pray for the French, that they would return to a living faith, not a dead one exemplified by their churches, cum museums.