In his new
book, Chomsky says, the United States only likes Democracy when it results in outcomes favorable to us.
In line with this thesis, it makes sense that when Spain's people spoke, and the news was anti-Bush, the reaction was to shoot the messenger.
In today's New York Time's, David Brook's says
The Spanish government was conducting policies in Afghanistan and Iraq that Al Qaeda found objectionable. A group linked to Al Qaeda murdered 200 Spaniards, claiming that the bombing was punishment for those policies. Some significant percentage of the Spanish electorate was mobilized after the massacre to shift the course of the campaign, throw out the old government and replace it with one whose policies are more to Al Qaeda's liking.
On the same page Alan Luttwack says
It must be said: Spanish voters have allowed a small band of terrorists to dictate the outcome of their national elections. . . . [Winner] José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, campaigned on a pledge to withdraw the 1,300 Spanish troops stationed in Iraq if the United Nations did not assume control of the occupation. Mr. Zapatero's call was not merely to avoid more casualties, but to affirm that the Iraq war was an act of imperialist aggression that Spain should never have supported.
Luttwack attacks this position arguing that
the Zapateros of Europe, . . . seem bent on validating the crudest caricatures of "old European" cowardly decadence.
Luttwack then offers his version of hope.
Paradoxically, Mr. Zapatero can redeem Spanish democracy only if he repudiates the popular mandate he received and announces that there will be no withdrawal from Iraq because of any act of terrorism, Muslim or Basque.
What will the rest of Europe do? For politicians in countries like Italy, with both strong anti-American movements and troops in Iraq, the risks are obvious. Any politician who invokes Madrid to demand a withdrawal from Iraq will be inviting terrorist attacks to prove his point.
Interestingly, neither mention Zapatero's statement that fighting terrorism will be the first business of his government. In this omission these two articles seem to nicely summarize the right's position on Iraq and terror, which may mirror how the issue will be played in the event of terror attacks on US soil.
1. The Iraq Invasion and Occupation and Al Quaeda are now linked. To be tough on terror means being tough on Iraq. To be tough on Iraq means un-questioning fealty to the United States.
In response, Zapatero did not say he was withdrawing from Iraq no matter what, he said he was withdrawing from Iraq UNLESS, the United States made real steps to transfer power and authority to the world (via the UN) relinquishing its imperial aspirations.
2.Real leaders ignore the will of the people. Aznar was a tough minded realist, because he ignored the more than 90% of his population that opposed the war in Iraq. Other leaders who ignore the popular will of their nations (Blair in the UK, Bersculoni in Italy, etc) are to be applauded. Leaders who listen to the populace are to be ignored.
In response, the world virtually universally supported the war on Al Queada, and virtually as universally rejected the attack on Iraq as a trumped up charge and an act of military aggression. Real leadership was shown by leaders of Turkey, France, Russia, and Germany, who in the face of enormous pressure from the US, listened to their people and refused to capitulate to a war they viewed as rushed and ultimately bad for world security.
3. Any withdraw, or compromise on Iraq is equal to capitulation to Al Quaeda.
Forget the arguments about how our occupation of Iraq helps Al Quaeda recruit converts. From now on, no matter the idiocy of the policy, our only choice is to press forward or risk aiding the terrorists.
4. Finally, most pernicious. Changing leadership in the wake of terror rewards the terrorists.
This argument states that essentially no matter how bad a leader may be, or how completely he ignores the will of his people, the random violence perpetrated by a splinter group of Jihad Islam should be allowed to dictate that we keep them in place. In fact, we should remove the power to chose our leaders entirely from the populace, and hand it over in totality to Al Quaeda. Through Terrorist acts Al Quaeda should be allowed to stifle political debate and expression, and limit our choice on who to lead us in difficult times. Terrorists (by the timing of their attacks) should even be able to force us to keep leaders we perceive as weak on terror, because to change leadership in the wake of an attack "Rewards Terror".
I say no, and I say watch it. The likelihood of a terrorist attack on US soil between now and the election may be as high as it has ever been. But terrorists must not be allowed to stifle political debate and dissent.
Bush like Aznar is weak on terror, his war on Iraq was the wrong policy at absolutely the worst time, his persistence in excluding potential allies makes us weaker, not stronger, and makes it more likely that terror will occur in this country.
Spain's people were right to reject Aznar. He ignored the will of his people and backed a pig-headed war against the best interest of his country, and put Spanish soldiers and civilian lives at risk to forward Bush's (unstated) goals. This policy came back to bite Spain in the ass, and Spain's people wisely recognized it.
The argument that Spain's people "chose wrongly", or that Spain's Democracy "Failed" by getting rid of Aznar is false, and dangerous to the political process in this country.
Nations have the right to choose their leaderships, and no event requires utter loyalty to failed and ignorant policies in the name of so-called "unity against terror".