Today I'm a little busy, so there will be a guest blogger filling in for me, my girlfriend. She's sitting around doing nothing, while I frantically scramble around. Without more babbling, here she is:
Sometimes Michael Ledeen just gets it, and this is one of those times. While others think of ways to either attack the Spanish electorate for being coerced by terrorists or praise them for ousting a war supporter, he understands that whatever the reason it doesn't matter. It's the perception that counts and what the executioners of the attack take away from it.
Iraq is just the first marker on the way to defeating the the Terror Masters. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria must all fall before there can be victory, and the longer we drag this out the harder it will be on everybody.
There are two competing explanations for the Spanish vote on Sunday: Either the Spaniards were intimidated by the terrorists, or they punished Aznar for trying to trick them into thinking it was the Basques, when he had strong evidence that the jihadists were involved. I rather think it was the latter -- it would be hard for me to think of Spaniards as easily intimidated -- but whichever is correct, the political consequences are the same. The terror masters believe that they have successfully toppled a Western government by the use of force, and that will encourage them to do more of it.
Even if the Spaniards had the best intentions, the whiplash was caused by the attack is the perception. Now that there's precedent, it will happen again. Last year Krauthamer whote about how these people only understand power and violence. Trying diplomacy with them is like trying to speak to a deaf man. They vote with explosives and body bags. A free and peaceful Iraq is the last thing they want, and they hope that the more death they can cause the weaker we will be, hoping that we turn and run allowing an Islamic revolution to make Iraq into another Iran. Spain has just given them that perception.
We will no doubt learn a lot more about the specific components of the terror network that operated in Spain, but one important element in the story has been universally ignored in the Western press to date. Judge Balthazar Garzon, who has been a tower of strength in Spain's antiterrorist campaign (against jihadists and ETA as well) publicly announced several weeks ago that the evidence unmistakably pointed to the fact that al Qaeda has reconstituted itself in Iran. The mullahs do not take kindly to this sort of exposure, and if, as is quite likely, they were involved in the network that struck Madrid, this would have been an additional motive, and an additional reason for satisfaction at the results.
As for incoming prime minister Zapatero, the new hero of the European and American Left, his original proclamations -- retreat from Iraq and willingness to sign the draft of the European constitution -- have been both feckless and foolish. Feckless because he would have been in an excellent position to obtain considerable favors and concessions from Bush if he had said "let's talk, and see if there is an acceptable compromise," while now he is so firmly committed to his position of total appeasement that it is very difficult for him to back off. And foolish, because Aznar had held out against enormous Franco-German pressure to sign a constitution that would give Spain a position weaker than their current standing in the European Union. If Aznar had ever decided to accept the document, he could have exacted a considerable price for it, but Zapatero has sold out for an empty bowl. He will have to beg for his porridge.
Less than one might have expected from a law professor. But perhaps his quasi-official nickname, "Bambi," is psychologically as well as physically accurate.
So the previously sound "new Europe" has been deprived of its strongest pillar, and undoubtedly the other two principal supporters of the war against terror, Italy and Poland, are imminent targets. If the terrorists are as cabalistic as it seems (the eerie fact that March 11 arrived exactly 911 days after 9/11 has been noted, and should be underlined), then one possible target date is 6/11 -- six being an inverted nine -- which comes a couple of days before the Italian vote for the European parliament. Probably a good day to visit Baghdad.
It is not easy to judge the mood in Washington from this distance, but many of the public statements from our leaders are a bit disconcerting. Like the Europeans, the administration, Congress, and the media are narrowly focused on the consequences for our efforts in Iraq. But Iraq is only one battlefield in a larger war, and we cannot solve Iraq without bringing down the terror masters in Damascus and Tehran, without bringing freedom to Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The peoples of those countries know it and show that they know it. In the past few days there have been enormous demonstrations against the tyrants in Syria and Iran. Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets, demanding freedom. (And do not listen to the sly journalists who tell you, accurately so far as it goes, that these demonstrations grew out of unrest in a soccer stadium in Syria, or from frustration at being prevented from celebrating the traditional Iranian New Year, Norooz; that only tells you about the spark, but the enormity of the inflammable material is the important thing. Mere soccer hooligans don't demand the political transformation of the country.)
It's hard to pinpoint the start of the latest round of riots. For months there have been sporadic clashes, but as one dies down another flares up. Satellite dishes, officially banned but tolerated, have started to be confiscated again because of concerns about Persian abroad media creating unrest by broadcasting video of clashes unreported by state media sources. Last year the signal of a station was jammed by the Iranian leadership for the second time, going after the source of their problem.
This administration has been carrying on for some time now about the importance of democratizing the Middle East. It follows ineluctably that we should be supporting these freedom fighters in the streets of our worst, and most totalitarian enemies in the region. But instead, the State Department sends diplomats to calm the situation in Syria, and our diplomats cluck their tongues about the unpleasantness in Iran.
The quickest way to fix Iraq is to "fix" Iran and cut off one of the necks of terrorisms that many heads grow out of. Without support from Iran, Sistani would just be twisting in the wind, and the Islamic Revolution in Iran proven a failure would allow those in Iraq to see where that path leads. It would be one less place for Bin Laden to hide.
About which there are two things that need to be said. First, we are indeed at war, but this president does not have a war cabinet. This kind of behavior is business as usual for Foggy Bottom; it is not what we need to destroy our enemies. Second, Secretary of State Powell by now owes the Iranian people profound apologies for the many times he has failed to vigorously support them, and proclaim regime change in Tehran to be our heart's desire. This policy is more urgent than ever, given the events in Madrid. It should be our policy even if there were no war against terror, simply because the mission of America is to support freedom whenever we can. We are not there yet, not by a long shot.
Ledeen's version of regime change does not include military action, but instead a supporting role by funding international Persians to deal with the problem as they think is best and possibly give diplomatic support to Iranian dissident forces. People and groups have come forward to propose a referendum-like vote to oust or reorganize the current government, but I am unsure how free such a vote would be.
And so we drift on, led by a president with uniquely good instincts and rare courage, but who seems not to understand that many of his people are weakening the strength of his message and even, on occasion, acting in a direction counter to what he has long said was our national mission.
The terrorists will now be encouraged to strike whenever and wherever they can. We cannot possibly defend all their possible targets. This war cannot be won by playing defense, which is a chump's game. We have once again been offered a glorious opportunity to take the offensive, by supporting all those brave Syrians and Iranians who are crying out for freedom. Will we betray them again? Only the president can insist on supporting them, because it is clear that the others will not.
If we do not, the wheel will turn once again. The terrorists will strike, we will debate, and it will all become ever more difficult and costly. Meanwhile, innocents die and hopes dwindle, and our enemies march on, convinced that the West does not have the will to resist.
As I wrote when Baghdad fell and most believed that a glorious victory was at hand, we can still lose this thing.
Faster, please.
Much faster. There can either be a long grinding low intensity conflict with lukewarm results, or there can be a quick decisive defeat of the Terror Masters.
I'm in here somewhere.