June 30

The less worthy half of the right side of the blogosphere is having a severe case of "The people have spoken, the bastards!" over the Spanish election results today. Here are a few of the more egregious examples:

Stanley Kurtz: "Appeasement and shame, they[sic] name is Spain. This people lives an ocean away from us. Yet they have brought shame on all of us."

Michael Graham: "Does anyone know the Spanish word for "coward?" "

Jonah Goldberg: "But when the Spanish people basically shout "We're sorry" after having 200 of their people blown to smithereens, then the terrorists have won."

Andrew Sullivan: "BIN LADEN'S VICTORY IN SPAIN--It's a spectacular result for Islamist terrorism, and a chilling portent of Europe's future."

Instapundit: "TERRORISTS HAVE SUCCEEDED IN TOPPLING THE SPANISH GOVERNMENT. Jeff Jarvis observes: " In any case, it's a damned shame that terrorists can have an impact on the election and can help bring in the side they apparently wanted."

Eric Olsen has more thoughts on what is, I'm afraid, a bad day for the forces of civilization."

Roger Simon: "Meanwhile, it is a beautiful day in Los Angeles and I walk out on my deck, looking across the Hollywood Hills at Runyon Canyon, but my mind is in Madrid, at its splendid Puerta del Sol where I have spent so many wonderful days and where sadly fascists have walked before and for too long. But this time they are not under the flag of Generalissimo Franco. This time, ironically, they rally behind the words of a man, Osama bin Laden, whom El Caudillo would have reviled. But of course the cry of both men is the same: Viva la muerte!"

What, exactly, is the basis for these accusations?

1) Terrorist attacks affected the outcome of an election. This seems true, and to the extent that it's true it's unfortunate.

But. First, it's only part of the truth. Voters were also reacting to the government's handling of the attacks, which did not look impressive from this side of the Atlantic.

Second, does anyone honestly believe this is the first time an assassin or a terrorist changed the outcome of an election? Have you ever heard of the Israeli elections after Rabin's assassination--actually, most Israeli elections in recent years--the 2001 New York mayoral race, the 2002 midterms, and I know not how many others? You don't think 9/11, or God forbid another attack, will affect the 2004 presidential election? Bush sure thinks it will, to judge by his ads.

I think it's fair to say that they don't think the problem is that the outcome changed because of terrorism. It's that the outcome shifted in what they see as the wrong direction because of terrorism. Specifically, 2) the party of Bush's supporter in the Iraq war lost, and 3) the new government may withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq.
I really don't care about #2. Yes, when the leader of your party goes to war against the wishes of 90% of your population, a war they oppose for reasons of morality and self interest--you risk suffering for it at the polls. Cry me a river. If Spaniards believed that the Iraq war was right or necessary or just, I don't think the bombings would have weakened their support. But they never believed that, and on Friday the stakes suddenly got a lot higher.

#3 is a problem, for reasons Edward enumerated in his post. I don't think they should withdraw.

But instead of calling an entire country cowards and fascists, 3 days after the worst terrorist attack in its history, let's try to talk them out of it. And let's get some &^%$$&%$ perspective.

Spain has 1500 troops in Iraq. The new government has announced plans to withdraw them on June 30.

We have--I don't know the exact number. Close to one hundred times as many troops. And we are also planning things for June 30. That's the scheduled date for "ending the occupation" or "handing over sovereignty to the Iraqis". I use quotation marks because I have no bloody clue what that means in practice. Are we withdrawing all our troops? I assume not, since that would be horrendously irresponsible & news reports seem to indicate that we won't. Are we withdrawing any of our troops? If so, how many? Thousands, tens of thousands, 1/4, 1/3?

The interim constitution says that:
"• The transitional government will contain checks and balances and adhere to the doctrine of separation of powers.

• Transitional executive authority will consist of the presidency and a council of ministers, including the prime minister.

• The transitional legislative authority will be vested in a national assembly, which will pass laws and help select and oversee the executive authority. The assembly will be freely elected by the people of Iraq, under an electoral system designed to give 25% of seats to women."

But we can't hold elections before we leave. Are we going to pick a president? Not Chalabi, I hope? Or will we let the IGC pick one? What if they won't agree? Or will transfer sovereignty to the whole IGC? But is a 25 member committee with rotating heads of state really going to be able to govern an unstable country? Is Bremer leaving the country, or will he stay on as an advisor? What about all the U.S. contracts and contractors?

Maybe I'm just under-informed. If someone can answer these questions for me, I'd honestly love to know. But I don't think the administration has given any of these answers. I think they're unquestionably weighing the November elections heavily in making these decisions--in fact I think it's the reason we have the 6/30 deadline in the first place.

And the Cornerites and friends are worried that 1500 troops from Spain leaving will mean defeat for the forces of civilization? Guys, get serious. The forces of civilization have got much bigger things to worry about.

As for # 4) Maybe it wasn't a vote for appeasement, but it will be perceived as such and embolden Al Qaeda. First response: it's possible. But I think we should recognize that Al Qaeda will try to murder as many of us as possible for the foreseeable future no matter what we do. Bin Laden has said he wants to kill 4 million Americans, including at least 1 million children. You think he's going to add or subtract from this goal based on Spanish voters' choice of their democratic, secular, completely non-Islamic government? They're suicidal murderers. They will kill as many of us as possible, whenever they are able. Take this as a given. We aren't going to scare them out of attacking us any more than we can talk them out of it by acceding to their demands. So at most, this affects the timing of attacks, and I'm even skeptical about that.

Second response: Can you say self-fulfilling prophecy? Do you think, just possibly, that screaming about how this is a victory for bin Laden will lead to the perception that this is a victory for bin Laden? If Al Qaeda does develop a habit of attacking right before elections, I really hope the party that loses the vote will outgrow the need to b*tch about what a crushing victory for the terrorists this was, or what worthless appeasers/idiotic warmongers our former ally turns out to be. It's unfair, immature, and destructive.

UPDATE: via Henry Farrell, Jacob Levy says it shorter and better than I did. Excerpt:
"Part of what it is to maintain a free society in wartime is to retain the ability to switch back and forth between the credible patriotic governing parties. "Don't switch horses in midstream," Lincoln's re-election campaign slogan, can't have more than prudential weight.. While I might think that Britons were wrong on the merits to throw Winston Churchill out of office while World War II was still being fought, their doing so didn't constitute any kind of victory for the Axis. The U.S. Presidency changed party hands five times during the Cold War, with none of those representing a victory for the Soviets"

Comments

[praktike]

Welcome back, Katherine.

[Edward]

For any US pundit to chastise the people of Spain for how they voted is the height of arrogance. But all these criers of woe for how the terrorists have won should keep in mind that, very much as our own current President proves, politicians say one thing to get elected and then often do something entirely different once in power. Between the loyalty to the US they've displayed so far and the cloud of grief under which they voted, I think it behooves US pundits to choose their words a little more carefully about this (my own UPDATE to Harley's comments on an earlier post being a good example of why).

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Your #4 is the important point but you go off the track about why it is important.

It will be perceived and in fact touted by Al-Qaeda as a victory. They can now argue that they both toppled an unfriendly government, and that they caused a change in Middle Eastern foreign policy to be more to their liking by killing 200 people.

This is not ONLY important because it will cause them to believe that killing civilians advances their political goals. It is also important because it will cause some in the Middle East who are not Al-Qaeda memebers to believe the same. It is important in recruiting, because it shows that Al-Qaeda is still a force--both politically and in their ability to deliver bombs. It is important because it lets Al-Qaeda intimidate those who might resist them by suggesting that the West is weak--by suggesting that they will never be able to count on us for help. You constantly remind us that the real battle in the war on terror is in the hearts and minds of those in the Middle East. From THAT perspective this is absolutely a huge victory for Al-Qaeda.

Your "self-fulfilling prophecy" idea is in direct tension with the paragraph above it. How they couch the victory is as much a part of Al-Qaeda's extremism as is their desire to kill civilians. Either you can take that into account or not. But you can't take it into account in one paragraph and then discount in on the next.

[Emilio]

As a Spaniard, I think it's quite rich for U.S. right-wingers to lecture a country whose dictator they supported for over 35 years on democracy. Having said that, the swing voters revolted against a perceived gross mismanagement of the blame by the government. Most people in Spain agree that if the government had gone easier on the blame game right after the attacks and not had an orgy of "ETA did it" accusations, they would still be in power. As a result of this coverup (national TV, which is government controlled, for instance, did not interrupt the Saturday evening movie with the special broadcast by the Interior Ministry regarding the purported Al-Qaeda tape), swing voters decided to vote against the Popular Party. And despite reports, it wasn't as clear-cut as it appears. The Popular Party received 94% of the vote it received in 2000, so the margins were only affected by a limited yet powerful minority.

Furthermore, Saturday evening and Sunday morning were the height of perceived government stonewalling and coverup. A poll carried out on Saturday afternoon still gave the victory to the governing PP by a limited margin.

The Aznar government lost the election all by itself by its arrogance and coverup.

[Edward]

The Aznar government lost the election all by itself by its arrogance and coverup.

That's sort of the message we're getting between the lines Emilio, but thanks for confirming it.

[Katherine]

Sebastian--you're absolutely right that it's not only Al Qaeda's hearts and minds we have to worry about. But hearts and minds arguments are so hard to separate from your own views. I am much more certain that the Iraq war increased Al Qaeda's recruiting, but without proof that's impossible to obtain, neither of us will ever believe the other. (I at least have that Pew Global attitudes survey, but I bet you still don't believe me.)

I think the destructive effect of the "victory for Al Qaeda" hand wringing is to further isolate the U.S., not to aid Al Qaeda recruiting. If Al Qaeda was trying to influence the election--which I'm not convinced of--I think that was their purpose.

[Slartibartfast]

Well, I hardly think that Spain can be held responsible for Al Qaeda's post hoc logical fallacies. What Al Qaeda thinks is pretty much irrelevant to how Spain has chosen to vote in this election.

Unless, of course, Spain chose to vote the way it did to appease Al Qaeda. The presumption of this appeasement, though, is a circular argument and quite without any logical basis.

I, VRWC Deathbeast, have spoken. Take heed, righties of the blogosphere.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Unless, of course, Spain chose to vote the way it did to appease Al Qaeda. The presumption of this appeasement, though, is a circular argument and quite without any logical basis."

No logical basis? That is the stated basis of the 'we shouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq because it makes us a target' crowd.

"I am much more certain that the Iraq war increased Al Qaeda's recruiting, but without proof that's impossible to obtain, neither of us will ever believe the other."

Al Qaeda can now credibly claim to have toppled a Western government with a foreign policy that it doesn't like. Al Qaeda can now credibly claim that it caused a Western power to change its foriegn policy. Al Qaeda can now credibly claim evidence that the decadent West can be cowed into retreat by (as they would a put it) a mere 200 killed. And you would have me believe that this is not vastly important in a society which is still heavily ruled by tribal ideas? Are you quite serious?

[Thorley Winston]

Sebastian Holsclaw wrote:

Al Qaeda can now credibly claim to have toppled a Western government with a foreign policy that it doesn't like. Al Qaeda can now credibly claim that it caused a Western power to change its foreign policy. Al Qaeda can now credibly claim evidence that the decadent West can be cowed into retreat by (as they would a put it) a mere 200 killed. And you would have me believe that this is not vastly important in a society which is still heavily ruled by tribal ideas? Are you quite serious?

In which case the election results and near reversal in the policy of one of America’s closest allies after a terrorist attack were probably more favorable to Al-Qaeda recruitment than the overthrow of a decadent socialist dictatorship in Iraq who murdered Muslims and Arabs by the thousands and whose leader was seen to surrender rather than go out fighting like his sons.

[Phil]

For any US pundit to chastise the people of Spain for how they voted is the height of arrogance.

To be fair, the U.S. polity has taken no end of shit from European talking heads over the last three years about electing Bush.* And now we've got John Kerry claiming that foreign heads of state are calling him up to urge him on to victory. What's good for the goose is good for el ganso, no?

*You know what the asterisk is for. Don't start.

[Harley]

Phil,

I don't remember anyone accusing us of being cowards or fascists as a result.

And besides, he wasn't elected*, he was selected.

*I got your asterisk, right here! :)

[Moe Lane]

"I don't remember anyone accusing us of being cowards or fascists as a result."

Indeed, to receive that particular kind of abuse you really had to look to the domestic antiwar movement. At least, every time I was called a coward or a fascist (and I was, on a good number of occasions) it was by an hardshell antiwar type...

Moe

[Moe Lane]

...which still doesn't mean that I should unfairly judge the rest of the antiwar movement by their rotten apples, true enough.

[Slartibartfast]

No logical basis? That is the stated basis of the 'we shouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq because it makes us a target' crowd.

So, you agree or disagree?