I put "Al Qaeda" in quotations because it was not in fact Al Qaeda that perpetrated the attacks, but an affiliated Moroccon group. Al Qaeda is really just a convenient construction for something that is not - and probably never was - a coherent organization in the first place. But I digress. The real point of this diary entry is what those involved wanted to achieve.
Much has been said about how the Islamists wanted the Socialists to win. I don't think this is the case. I don't necessarily think they wanted the PP to win either. What I DO think they wanted to achieve was to ignite the kind of finger pointing and squabbling that has occurred in the attack's - and particularly the election's - aftermath. If there was a "rational" goal in the bombing, it was to foment a heated debate within the "Western" world about the appropriate steps to combat terrorism. Everybody - or almost everybody - does not want this kind of thing to persist. Its not a question of whether socialists, liberals, or conservatives wouldn't be "tough" on terrorism. All of them would. None of these groups are about to surrender their respective countries to Islamist demands - to suggest otherwise is silly. But they tried to reignite the kind of divisions that had laid more or less dormant since the end of the Iraq War.
The blame here goes all around. I think the Spanish are wrong to withdraw their troops from Iraq. But I also think the Bush administration shares a lot of blame for the way it has conducted itself in diplomatic circles. The "Bush doctrine" is obviously a needless paper tiger that is clearly not being applied - not against Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and any other number of countries that have a known terrorist presence - and it won't be unless another major terrorist attack occurs on American soil, in which case, it won't be a "preemptive strike." All it does is alienate much of popular European opinion. Frankly, Kerry's approach will be different mainly as a matter of nuance. He is clearly much more capable of understanding and smooth talking Europeans than Bush is. Indeed, Bush is pure Texas swagger, a man who had never left North America before becoming President. Is this really the man we want to lead us in times like this? If Kerry was president, he could take a - by European standards, even British standards - hawkish stance while at the same time repairing the kinds of divisions that Islamic terrorists prey upon in the West. Bush and co have a complete tin ear in this regard - and accordingly, they the United States less able to create the kind of "united front" needed to face radical/nihilistic Islamic terrorism. More than military operations, fighting terrorism requires not allowing terrorists to effect the functioning of Civil Society. This, at least in the short run, is probably the biggest key to combatting terrorism and its goals, and in this regard, John Kerry will be much more able than George W. Bush.
Ben P