Lo and Behold, the Sky Is Not Falling

Via Tacitus.

So Prime Minister-elect José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero does not seem to spell immediate doom for all of Spain, Europe, and the rest of the civilized world:

Spain's New Leader May Send More Troops to Afghanistan

After all the "Spanish Flee" type libeling across the blogosphere the last few weeks, I think a particularly alarmist segment of the world owes the Spanish people a collective apology.

This compromise strikes me as particularly clever and politically shrewd:

Less than two weeks after the deadly train bombings in Madrid, the incoming prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, wants to signal his commitment to fight terrorism and show the United States that Spain remains a loyal ally, said one of the sources, a high-ranking party official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

He added that the new government wants "to send a message that the Socialists do not believe in appeasement."

I look forward to similarly refreshing ingenuity from the pending Kerry Administration.

Comments

[Thorley Winston]

Anyone care to make a wager as to whether the number of new Spanish troops to be deployed in Afghanistan will be less than, equal to, or greater than the number to be removed from Iraq?

I’ll take “less than.”

[Edward]

I’ll take “less than.”

So it has to be the same or more than? Regardless of how many would be "appropriate"?

Are you among the folks who consider Spain "appeasers"? Just curious as to whether you're trying to justify an earlier opinion or simply always so pessemistic.

[SDAI-Tech1]

I look forward to similarly refreshing ingenuity from the pending Kerry Administration.

Your optimism is a refreshing change. What's more, it's simply superb to see such optimism raise its head without any consideration for expectations.

Such optimism! It's put a smile on my face.

[rilkefan]

Kerry will probably find it necessary to act more hawkish than Bush in some ways to maintain credibility in office.

[Edward]

Such optimism! It's put a smile on my face.

Happy Days are Here Again!

[Thorley Winston]

Edward wrote:

So it has to be the same or more than?

If Spain withdraws 1300 troops but instead gives us a considerably smaller number in Afghanistan instead, somehow I doubt that this “clever compromise” is going to be met with quite the same adulation from those who are not predisposed to laud any action from a European ally which they can spin as a repudiation of a policy of the Bush administration.

Regardless of how many would be "appropriate"?

That depends on whether you were among those folks who criticized the Bush administration for supposedly not having enough troops in Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Just curious as to whether you are holding the Spaniards to a double standard or you actually believe that given the terrain, logistics, and the scope of the mission there are enough troops to do the job.

Are you among the folks who consider Spain "appeasers"? Just curious as to whether you're trying to justify an earlier opinion or simply always so pessemistic.

Neither, I do however recognize the shallowness of premature praise of this “clever compromise” and attempts at one-upmanship when none of those lauding it appear to have the foggiest notion as whether it actually merits any praise or instead represents a net reduction in Spain’s commitment.

[Edward]

Thorley, you have a way of sucking the joy out of a topic for me. It's the subtle (and not so subtle) ad hom's in your text, if you're curious as to why that is.

Let's start with the premise that the number of troops Spain may send to Afghanistan should be an "appropriate" number. By writing that you're willing to bet it will be fewer than 1300, you're both criticizing Spain without any information to base it on and missing the point that 1300 is not some magic number.

Just as it behooves you to wait and see if Spain somehow betrays their overall commitment to the war against terror before waging they'll do so as a defense of the misguided criticism of the past few weeks, it behooves Spain to listen to the US regarding how many troops would be the most beneficial in Afghanistan. If they comply with that number, will you be satisfied?

[Thorley Winston]

Edward wrote:

Thorley, you have a way of sucking the joy out of a topic for me. It's the subtle (and not so subtle) ad hom's in your text, if you're curious as to why that is.

Actually, I thought it was because I have already thought through my arguments before I post whereas you seem to just throw stuff out there to see what sticks.

;)

Let's start with the premise that the number of troops Spain may send to Afghanistan should be an "appropriate" number. By writing that you're willing to bet it will be fewer than 1300, you're both criticizing Spain without any information to base it on and missing the point that 1300 is not some magic number.

I am asking people whether they think that Spain’s overall commitment as a result of this “clever compromise” will end up being the same, more, or less than what the previous government provided. “1300” represents the number of troops the Spanish government has pledged to remove from Iraq. In which case before praising them for pledging to send more troops to Afghanistan, it would seem logical to first determine if the increase in Spanish forces in Afghanistan is equal to, less than, or greater than what they are removing from Iraq.

Just as it behooves you to wait and see if Spain somehow betrays their overall commitment to the war against terror before waging they'll do so as a defense of the misguided criticism of the past few weeks, it behooves Spain to listen to the US regarding how many troops would be the most beneficial in Afghanistan. If they comply with that number, will you be satisfied?

If make a commitment to a position where I have to provide twenty hours of service a week and decide that I will no longer serve in that position but I will accept one where I know that I will only need to provide fifteen hours of service a week, that still represents a net reduction in my service of five hours a week.

The only thing we know right now is that the new Spanish government is pledging to withdraw 1300 troops from Iraq and increase their forces in Afghanistan by an undisclosed amount. I think it is perfectly fair (in fact essential) to determine whether the new undisclosed amount results in a net reduction, net increase, or the same level of commitment as the previous government. If they are trying to switch their commitments to an area in which they believe they will have to make less of a commitment (in terms of troops deployed) then it would still represent a net reduction in their commitment and should be seen as such.

[sidereal]

You're using the term 'commitment' extensively, Thorley. And it begs the question, commitment to what? You (I assume) believe it is commitment to the War on Terror. However, it is clear that neither the populace nor the (now) government of Spain believes that Iraq is an essential battleground in the War on Terror. Therefore, from that perspective, their commitment to the War on Terror is increasing, as each soldier removed from Iraq results in a loss of 0.

Now you can disagree with that perspective, and I'm sure you do. But that entails a belief that they are mistaken, not that they are weak or uncommitted, a fact that their increased commitment to Afghanistan illuminates. Which, I believe, is the point of Edward's post.

[Edward]

I have already thought through my arguments before I post whereas you seem to just throw stuff out there to see what sticks.

That's rich coming from someone who's basing his criticism in this tread on a hunch that Spain's still worthy of disdain despite this effort "to send a message that the Socialists do not believe in appeasement."

[scoooby]

Maybe the Spanish realized something Richard Clarke knew a while back...

They were fighting the WOT on the wrong front lines...

[EDG]

Thorley, in my eyes the issue here is not one of overall commitment but of useful commitment. To abscond with your example: if I decide that in my current, 20-hour-a-week position, I'm not getting anything done, and my time would be better spent elsewhere; and if I decide to remain with the company but in a different department, and the HR director says, "That's fine, but we can only offer you 15 hours a week in the other department" - yes, my overall commitment (in terms of time spent) has gone down, but my useful commitment (in terms of efficiency and goals achieved) will have gone up, despite the fact that I'm working fewer hours.

If your measurement of a nation's commitment to the War On Terror is how many individual soldiers they have deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's fine, and it's a perfectly valid metric - but it isn't the only metric.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

If Spain commits to the War on Terror outside of Iraq in a meaningful way, that will illustrate that their policy was not appeasement. I have in fact made that very argument before .

I also note that the current Afghanistan position was not Zapatero's initial position. Could the change have been influenced by the charges that he was appearing to appease Al Qaeda?

I also note that Zapatero has yet to define the size of the commitment, so it is still difficult to tell how the Zapatero moves should interpreted.

[James Casey]

Thorley, Edward had you on

it behooves Spain to listen to the US regarding how many troops would be the most beneficial in Afghanistan. If they comply with that number, will you be satisfied?

Iraq and Afghanistan are different places with different needs. Putting 1300 Spanish soldiers into Afghanistan would be ridiculous.