Will We Face a Madrid Mistake?

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.

About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.

In light of what just happened in Spain, your article paired with the one written by Insight on 3-1-04 pointing out the E-mail Kerry's camp sent out that reached Tehran. I'd say Kerry's views are extremely dangerous!

Hope I've contributed in "Smoking" out his position. Kerry is dangerous!

He wants to apologize to the terrorists and CRAWL in bed with them to appease them! Even after 9-11

READ ON!!
_________________________________________________________
Kerry Will Abandon War on Terrorism
Posted March 1, 2004
By Kenneth R. Timmerman

Sen. Kerry´s language has emboldened anti-American officials in Iran.

The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.

In a sweeping foreign-policy address to the Council on Foreign Relations in December, Kerry called the U.S. war on terror as conceived and led by President George W. Bush "the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history." Kerry's remarks were widely praised by journalists. The Associated Press headlined its report on his speech, "Kerry Vows to Repair Foreign Relations." The Knight Ridder news service noted that the new focus on foreign policy "plays to Kerry's strength." None of the major U.S. dailies found Kerry's unusually strident language at all inappropriate. "Kerry Vows to Change U.S. Foreign Policy; Senator Describes Steps He Would Take as President," the Washington Post headlined ponderously.

Presidential contenders have criticized sitting presidents in times of war before, but what's unique today is that "it has become the rule, not the exception," says Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation. "With a few notable exceptions, you have almost the entire Democratic Party hierarchy that opposes what Bush is doing in the most vitriolic and emotional terms."

Heritage presidential historian Lee Edwards called it "not a foreign-policy analysis but a polemical speech, filled with inflammatory rhetoric that is disturbing and beyond the pale. What this suggests is that Mr. Kerry wants to take us back to President [Bill] Clinton and his U.N.-led multilateral policies."

Kerry promised to spend the first 100 days of his administration traveling the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his "radically wrong" policy, and seek "cooperation and compromise" with friend and foe alike. Borrowing language normally reserved to characterize "rogue" states, Kerry said he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations."

Perhaps frustrated that his radical departure from the war on terror was not getting much attention in the trenches of Democratic Party politics, Kerry ordered his campaign to mobilize grass-roots supporters to spread the word. In one e-mail message, obtained by Insight and confirmed as authentic by the Kerry camp, the senator's advisers enlisted overseas Democrats to launch a letter-writing and op-ed campaign denouncing the Bush foreign-policy record.

"'It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world," the message states. "America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others."

The e-mail succeeded beyond the wildest dream of Kerry's handlers - at least, so they tell Insight. It was immediately picked up by the Mehr news agency in Tehran, and appeared the next day on the front page of a leading hard-line daily there.

"I have no idea how they got hold of that letter, which was prepared for Democrats Abroad," Kerry's top foreign-policy aide, Rand Beers, tells Insight. "I scratched my head when I saw that. The only way they could have gotten it was if someone in Iran was with Democrats Abroad."

The hard-line, anti-American Tehran Times published the entire text of the seven-paragraph e-mail under a triumphant headline announcing that Kerry pledged to "repair damage if he wins election." By claiming that the Kerry campaign had sent the message directly to an Iranian news agency in Tehran, the paper indicated that the e-mail was a demonstration of Kerry's support for a murderous regime that even today tops the State Department's list of supporters of international terrorism.

According to dissident Ayatollah Mehdi Haeri, who fled Iran for Germany after being held for four years in a regime prison, Iran's hard-line clerics "fear President Bush." In an interview with Insight, Haeri says that President Bush's messages of support to pro-democracy forces inside Iran and his insistence that the Iranian regime abandon its nuclear-weapons program "have given these people the shivers. They think that if Bush is re-elected, they'll be gone. That's why they want to see Kerry elected."

The latest Bush message, released on Feb. 24, commented on the widely boycotted Iranian parliamentary elections that took place the week before. "I am very disappointed in the recently disputed parliamentary elections in Iran," President Bush said. "The disqualification of some 2,400 candidates by the unelected Guardian Council deprived many Iranians of the opportunity to freely choose their representatives. I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime's efforts to stifle freedom of speech, including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers in the run-up to the election. Such measures undermine the rule of law and are clear attempts to deny the Iranian people's desire to freely choose their leaders. The United States supports the Iranian people's aspiration to live in freedom, enjoy their God-given rights and determine their own destiny."

The Kerry campaign released no statement on the widely discredited Iranian elections, reinforcing allegations from pro-democracy Iranian exiles in America that the junior senator from Massachusetts is working hand-in-glove with pro-regime advocates in the United States.

Kerry foreign-policy aide Beers tried to nuance the impression that Kerry was willing to seek new ties with the Tehran regime and forgive the Islamic republic for 25 years of terror that began by taking U.S. diplomats hostage in Tehran in 1979 and continues to this day with Iran's overt support and harboring of top al-Qaeda operatives. Just the day before the e-mail message was sent to the Mehr news agency, Beers told a foreign-policy forum in Washington that Kerry "is not saying that he is looking for better relations with Iran. He is looking for a dialogue with Iran. There are some issues on which we really need to sit down with the Iranians."

The word "dialogue" immediately gives comfort to hard-liners, says Ayatollah Haeri. While Beer's comments went unnoticed by the U.S. press, they were prominently featured by the official Islamic Republic News Agency in a Feb. 7 dispatch from Washington.

In an interview with Insight, Beers went even further. "We are prepared to talk to the Iranian government" of hard-line, anti-American clerics, he insisted. "While we realize we have major differences, there are areas that could form the basis for cooperation, such as working together to stop drug production in Afghanistan."

Beers has a special history in Washington. A longtime National Security Council aide who served President Clinton and was carried over by the Bush White House, he resigned as the war in Iraq began in March 2003. Just weeks later, he volunteered for the Kerry campaign. The Washington Post heralded him in a profile as "a lifelong bureaucrat" who was an "unlikely insurgent." Yet the Post acknowledged that he was a "registered Democrat" who by resigning at such a critical moment was "not just declaring that he's a Democrat. He's declaring that he's a Kerry Democrat, and the way he wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss [Bush] out of office."

Talking to Insight, Beers compares Kerry's proposal to begin talks with Iran to the senator's earlier advocacy of renewing relations with Vietnam after the Vietnam War: "No expectations, eyes wide open."

With Iran, which is known to be harboring top al-Qaeda operatives, Beers says "there is no way to have a deal without having the hard-liners as part of the dialogue. We are prepared to talk to the hard-line element" as part of an overall political dialogue with the Iranian regime.

The Kerry policy of seeking an accommodation with the regime is not new, says Patrick Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has been tracking Iran policy for two decades. "Kerry's approach is that of many in Europe who think you must entice rogue regimes. Enticement only works if it is followed up with the notion that there would be a penalty if they didn't behave. I see nothing of that in Sen. Kerry's statements."

For Aryo Pirouznia, who chairs the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, Kerry's offer to negotiate with hard-liners in the regime smacks of lunacy. "America is incredibly popular with the Iranian masses, so this is a grave mistake for a short-term benefit," Pirouznia says. "To the regime, this sends a message that America is willing to make a deal despite the blood of Americans who were murdered in Dhahran [Saudi Arabia] and are being killed today in Iraq by so-called foreign elements. And to Iranians, it shows that the old establishment may be back in power, a return to the Carter era."

Pirouznia's Texas-based support group, which worked closely with protesting students during the July 1999 uprising in Tehran, sent an open letter to Kerry on Feb. 19 noting that "millions of dollars" had been raised for the Democratic Party by Iranian-American political-action committees and fund-raisers with ties to the Tehran regime. "By sending such a message directly to the organs and the megaphones of the dictatorial Islamic regime, you have given them credibility, comfort and embraced this odious theocracy," Pirouznia says. "You have encouraged and emboldened a tyrannical regime to use this as propaganda and declare 'open season' on the freedom fighters in Iran."

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a senior writer for Insight.

Here is the link to this story. At the bottom of the page is a link to "John Kerry's Iranian American Fund-Raisers."

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/03/16/Politics/Kerry.Will.Abandon.War.On.Terrorism-621288.shtml

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.