Interesting piece by Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute in
The Australian.
WHEN the US assembled its international coalition to topple Iraq's Saddam Hussein a year ago, it relied on governments willing to override their people's wishes. Washington's aggressive war received popular support in no country other than Kuwait and Israel.
Now Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar's Popular Party has paid the ultimate political price for backing the Bush administration, losing an election that it was expected to win. Other US allies, including Australia's John Howard, might eventually meet the same end.
He makes the argument that Al Qa'ida's terrorism is now somewhat systematic:
To the contrary, turning Iraq into an unstable allied protectorate garrisoned by the US and allied states created both a new battleground with, and a new grievance for, terrorists. Blow-back to America's friends as well as the US seemed inevitable.
Australia was the first target, with the Bali bombing. British sites were hit alongside synagogues in Istanbul, Turkey. Most recent was the monstrous attack on the Madrid train station. With evidence suggesting an al-Qa'ida connection, Spaniards blamed the government for turning them into a target. It is bad enough to take a nation into war based on a mistake or lie. It is horrific to do so when the result is to bring war back to the home front.
And he's also saying that US Iraq Hawks' reaction to the events in Spain is providing another argument for terrorists to attack other "Coalition" countries for political impact:
US hawks are already decrying alleged allied weakness. Not only did prime minister Aznar's party lose yesterday, but incoming Socialist Party Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero announced that he plans to withdraw Spain's 1300 troops from Iraq when their tour ends in July.
As a result, some pro-US, pro-Iraq war commentators argue that the Spanish election result is terrible news. It shows, in the words of one hawk, that: "The Europeans are willing to be cowed by terror into voting for appeasers. Message to terrorists: commit terrorism on the eve of elections, say you're doing it to punish the government for standing by the US, and you can drive a wedge between Western allies."
And he then points out the obvious:
he real wedge, however, reflects Washington's demand that allied states act contrary to allied interests. Spain, along with Australia and the rest of the civilised world, often have cause to work with America.
But it was not in Spain's or Australia's interest to back war against Iraq. Alas, they are likely to pay the price for Washington's misguided policies that have made brutal, murderous terrorism more, rather than less, likely.
Good article - and I'm a bit surprised to see it in The Australian, which is part of the Rupert Murdoch empire. Sign of the times?