May 13, 2004
Spanish Retreat from the War on Terrorism
I was willing to give the Spanish a little bit of wiggle room on Zapatero’s implementation of the Spanish withdrawal from Iraq. I really tried to give Zapatero the benefit of the doubt here and here.
But I think I may have to revise my opinion.
First I thought Zapatero was just fulfilling a campaign promise to withdraw troops from Iraq if there wasn't a UN force there. I thought that he had a very poor sense of diplomatic timing with respect to the war on terrorism when he decided to make all of his early major speechs about the issue only days after Al Qaeda successfully bombed the Madrid train stations. Al Qaeda explicitly got the foreign policy change they wanted, and that victory could have been muted a bit by changing the policy quietly. Zapatero didn't do that, but I thought it might have been mere bad diplomatic judgment rather than real appeasement or a withdrawal from the war on terror.
Later he decided to withdraw his troops even earlier than expected, which seemed strange in light of the US-UN negotiations regarding troops. But he promised to double his forces in Afghanistan, so arguably (though I didn't really believe it since the Spanish commitment to Afghanistan was miniscule anyway) he wasn't retreating from the War on Terrorism.
But now it is becoming apparent that Zapatero really just wants to pretend that he can disengage from the War on Terrorism completely:
On Afghanistan, Moratinos said Spain supported the peacekeeping mission there because - unlike that of Iraq - it had a U.N. mandate, was under the command of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and had the legitimate mission of fighting terrorism.
"Bin Laden is not in Iraq. Bin Laden is in Pakistan or Afghanistan," Moratinos told the Telecinco television network.
But the government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is only exploring options for possibly increasing its 120-man contingent in Afghanistan. "For now no decision has been made," Moratinos said.
This is clearly an attempt to back away from adding even a paltry 120 additional men in Afghanistan. For those who employ their political skepticism only to attack Bush, when your defense minister says that you will be doubling the troops and two weeks later you specifically address that with a 'no decisions have been made', you are clearly signalling that unless there is a huge public outcry you aren't standing by the previously announced policy.
As I said before, the damage of the Al Qaeda propaganda victory caused by being able to plausibly claim that they changed the outcome of a Western election and got the foreign policy they desired could only be contained by a strong Spanish front somewhere other than Iraq. It is becoming clearer that Spain will not be doing that. They are retreating from the War on Terror.
Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw at May 13, 2004 03:15 AMSebastian, sounds like a leader who takes his first duty as representing the interests and will of his people. Not a bad rule to follow if that is what he is doing. Have you seen any polls indicating where the Spanish public majority lies on this issue?
I know Bush says he doesn’t respond to polls, but, his actions like backing off quietly from programs that did not poll well like colonies on Mars and an “No Amnesty” Amnesty for illegals speaks louder than his words.
Posted by: David R Remer at May 13, 2004 05:03 AMHeaven forbid the Spanish government obey the electorate that elected them - an electorate that’s had far greater and longer experience with terrorism at home than the United States has.
Posted by: ceejayoz at May 13, 2004 01:24 PMZapatero has promised to fight terrorism, but uh-oh, there on television is Musab al-Zarqawi, mastermind of the Madrid bombings, beheading infidels in Iraq. I wonder what bold anti-terrorism measure Zapatero has in mind, since he hasn’t got the nerve to fight where those who attacked his country are. Perhaps he’ll muster the same courage that Jaques Chirac has shown and ban little girls from wearing head-scarves? What a bold blow for Spanish dignity that would be!
I give even the American left enough credit to say that they wouldn’t be against fighting in Iraq if they knew for certain that Osama bin Laden was there directing the actions of Al Qaida.
Posted by: Martin at May 13, 2004 11:13 PMZapatero has promised to fight terrorism, but uh-oh, there on television is Musab al-Zarqawi, mastermind of the Madrid bombings, beheading infidels in Iraq. I wonder what bold anti-terrorism measure Zapatero has in mind, since he hasn’t got the nerve to fight where those who attacked his country are.
Funny you should say that!
… the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger…Posted by: ceejayoz at May 13, 2004 11:59 PM… Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam…
Um, ceejayoz, I thought the left’s postion was that there were no Al Qaida terrorist camps to bomb in Iraq? Could it be that the MSNBC quote you supply is Karl Rove’s propaganda?
Al Qaida, you remember, perpetrated 9-11, and isn’t it the left’s most fundamental position that there was absolutely no, none, oh-please-don’t-say-it, connection between Iraq and Al Qaida after 9-11?
And now you’re not only admitting that this connection existed, but insisting that Bush should have launched preemptive attacks against Iraq much sooner? A refreshing reversal of the left’s standard postion to say the least.
If Bush really had gone home after his inaugural, taken off his tie, picked up the red telephone and ordered waves of Stealth bombers to head for Iraq, do you think this would have garnered him the support from the left that he currently lacks? I for one am furious at him for missing this opportunity to be a unifier instead of a divider.
Posted by: Martin at May 14, 2004 12:50 AMI thought the left’s postion was that there were no Al Qaida terrorist camps to bomb in Iraq?
Nope - the position was that there was no link between Al Qaeda and the Hussein government. It was well known that Al Qaeda groups operated in camps in Northern Iraq - not under Hussein’s control.
Had Bush said “here are the Al Qaeda camps in Northern Iraq, we’re gonna take them out” we’d have supported that. He didn’t do that.
Nice dodge of the point at hand, by the way.
Posted by: ceejayoz at May 14, 2004 01:22 AM…we’d have supported that. He didn’t do that.
ceejayoz, I highly doubt that you would have supported Bush in this war under any circumstances.
Martin and Sebastian are right. The Spanish left is not that much different from the left here in the US. If Kerry is elected he will pullout just as Zapatero is pulling out.
He says he won’t, but that’s just the side of the fence he’s on today. Tommorrow things will be ‘so bad’ and Bush will have ‘screwed it up so much’ that he will have no other choice in his mind but to cut and run.
There are reports resurfacing about Mohamed Atta’s meetings with Iraqi intelligence in Prague.
Mohammed Atta applied for a visa to visit the Czech Republic on May 26, 2000 in Bonn, Germany According to Czech visa records, Atta identified himself as being a “Hamburg student.” Since a visa was not necessary to catch a Czech plane to the US, Czech intelligence concluded he had business in the Czech Republic.Posted by: Eric Simonson at May 14, 2004 01:58 AMJust prior to leaving for the U.S., Atta made 2 trips to the Czech Republic in 2000. The first was on May 30, where he went without a visa to the transit lounge of Prague International Airport; the second was by bus to Prague on June 2 with visa BONN200005260024.
On April 4, 2001, Atta checked out of the Diplomat Inn in Virginia Beach and cashed a check for $8,000 from a SunTrust account, according to the FBI. Atta was not seen again in America by any witness before April 11, 2001.
ceejayoz, I highly doubt that you would have supported Bush in this war under any circumstances.
Why? I fully, 100% supported the war in Afghanistan because the case for war was adequately made, without deception. We liberals aren’t as single-minded and ideologically locked as you conservatives are… the fact that we’re not “yay war” doesn’t mean we can’t realize the difference between the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Got any more reputable sources on the Atta-Iraq link? The various intelligence organizations seemed to have put that one to rest a long time ago.
Posted by: ceejayoz at May 14, 2004 09:20 AMEric, that report was discredited months ago, along with much of the rest of your case for war in Iraq. If I didn’t already know your politics, your faith in the faulty intelligence that was used to justify this invasion would be difficult to understand.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 17, 2004 08:26 AM
