Friday, March 19, 2004
Bush speech transcript: 'No neutral ground'
Anniversary of U.S.-led invasion of Iraq
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Friday marked the anniversary of the war in Iraq with a White House speech to diplomats from 84 countries.
The following is a transcript of his remarks:
BUSH: Good morning, and thanks for coming. Laura and I are pleased to welcome you all to the White House.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
Members of my National Security Council are here, members of the administration, members of our armed forces, members of the United States Congress.
Thank you for being here.
Ladies and gentlemen.
I particularly want to thank the members of the diplomatic corps who are here, thank the ambassadors for coming today. We are representing 84 countries, united against a common danger, and joined in a common purpose.
We are the nations that have recognized the threat of terrorism, and we are the nations that will defeat that threat.
Each of us has pledged before the world, we will never bow to the violence of a few. We will face this mortal danger and we will overcome it together.
As we meet, violence and death at the hands of terrorists are still fresh in our memory. The people of Spain are burying their innocent dead. These men and women and children began their day in a great and peaceful city, yet lost their lives on a battlefield, murdered at random and without remorse.
Americans saw the chaos and the grief and the vigils and the funerals, and we have shared in the sorrow of the Spanish people.
Ambassador Ruperez, please accept our deepest sympathy for the great loss that your country has suffered.
The murders in Madrid are a reminder that the civilized world is at war. And in this new kind of war, civilians find themselves suddenly on the front lines.
In recent years, terrorists have struck from Spain to Russia, to Israel, to East Africa, to Morocco, to the Philippines and to America. They've targeted Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen. They've attacked Muslims in Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. No nation or region is exempt from the terrorist campaign of violence.
Each of these attacks on the innocent is a shock and a tragedy, and a test of our will. Each attack is designed to demoralize our people and divide us from one another.
And each attack much be answered, not only with sorrow, but with greater determination, deeper resolve, and bolder action against the killers. It is the interest of every country and the duty of every government to fight and destroy this threat to our people.
There is a dividing line in our world, not between nations and not between religions or cultures, but a dividing line separating two visions of justice and the value of life.
On a tape claiming responsibility for the atrocities in Madrid, a man is heard to say, "We choose death while you choose life." We don't know if this is the voice of the actual killers, but we do know it expresses the creed of the enemy. It is a mindset that rejoices in suicide, incites murder and celebrates every death we mourn.
And we who stand on the other side of the line must be equally clear and certain of our convictions. We do love life, the life given to us and to all. We believe in the values that uphold the dignity of life: tolerance and freedom and the right of conscience. And we know that this way of life is worth defending.
There is no neutral ground -- no neutral ground -- in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death.
The war on terror is not a figure of speech. It is an inescapable calling of our generation.
The terrorists are offended not merely by our policies, they're offended by our existence as free nations.
No concession will appease their hatred. No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands. Their ultimate ambitions are to control the peoples of the Middle East and to blackmail the rest of the world with weapons of mass terror.
There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy. Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates terrorist violence and invites more violence for all nations.
The only certain way to protect our people is by united and decisive action.
In this contest of will and purpose, not every nation joins every mission or participates in the same way. Yet every nation makes a vital contribution, and America is proud to stand with all of you as we pursue a broad strategy in the war against terror.
We're using every tool of finance, intelligence, law enforcement and military power to break terror networks, to deny them refuge and to find their leaders.
Over the past 30 months, we have frozen or seized nearly $200 million in assets of terror networks. We've captured or killed some two-thirds of Al Aida's known leaders, as well as many of Al Aida's associates in countries like the United States or Germany or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Thailand.
We're taking the fight to Al Aida allies, such as Ansar al-Islam in Iraq, Jemaah Islamiah in Indonesia and Southeast Asia. Our coalition is sending an unmistakable message to the terrorists, including those who struck in Madrid: These killers will be tracked down and found. They will face their day of justice.
Our coalition is taking urgent action to stop the transfer of deadly weapons and materials. America and the nations of Australia and France and Germany and Italy and Japan and the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore and Norway have joined in the Proliferation Security Initiative, all aimed to bind together to interdict lethal materials transported by air or sea or land.
Many governments have cooperated to expose and dismantle the network of A.Q. Khan, which sold nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea.
By all of these efforts, we are determined to prevent catastrophic technologies from falling into the hands of an embittered few.
Our coalition is also confronting the dangerous combination of outlaw states, terrorist groups and weapons of mass destruction.
For years, the Taliban made Afghanistan the home base of Al Aida. And so we gave the Taliban a choice: to abandon forever their support for terror or face the destruction of their regime.
Because the Taliban chose defiance, our coalition acted to remove this threat, and now the terror camps are closed and the government of a free Afghanistan is represented here today as an active partner in the war on terror.
The people of Afghanistan are a world away from the nightmare of the Taliban. Citizens of Afghanistan have adopted a new constitution guaranteeing free elections and full participation by women. The new Afghan army is becoming a vital force of stability in that country. Businesses are opening. Health care centers are being established. And the children of Afghanistan are back in schools -- boys and girls.
This progress is a tribute to the brave Afghan people and to the efforts of many nations.
NATO, including forces from Canada, France, Germany and other nations, is leading the effort to provide security. Japan and Saudi Arabia have helped to complete the highway from Kabul to Kandahar, which is furthering commerce and unifying the country.
Italy is working with Afghans to reform their legal system and strengthening an independent judiciary.
Three years ago, the people of Afghanistan were oppressed and isolated from the world by a terrorist regime. Today, that nation has a democratic government and many allies, and all of us are proud to be friends of the Afghan people.
Many countries represented here today also acted to liberate the people of Iraq. One year ago, military forces of a strong coalition entered Iraq to enforce United Nations demands, to defend our security, and to liberate that country from the rule of a tyrant.
For Iraq, it was a day of deliverance. For the nations of our coalition, it was the moment when years of demands and pledges turned to decisive action.
Today, as Iraqis join the free peoples of the world, we mark a turning point for the Middle East and a crucial advance for human liberty.
There have been disagreements in this matter among old and valued friends. Those differences belong to the past. All of us can now agree that the fall of the Iraqi dictator has removed a source of violence, aggression and instability in the Middle East.
It's a good thing that the demands of the United Nations were enforced, not ignored with impunity. It is a good thing that years of illicit weapons developed by the dictator have come to the end. It is a good thing that the Iraqi people are now receiving aid instead of suffering under sanctions. And it's a good thing that the men and women across the Middle East looking to Iraq are getting a glimpse of what life in a free country can be like.
There are still violent thugs and murderers in Iraq, and we're dealing with them. But no one can argue that the Iraqi people would be better off with the thugs and murderers back in the palaces.
Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open? Who would wish that more mass graves were still being filled? Who would begrudge the Iraqi people their long-awaited liberation?
One year after the armies of liberation arrived, every soldier who has fought, every aid worker who has served, every Iraqi who has joined in their country's defense can look with pride on a brave and historic achievement.
They've served in freedom's cause. And that is a privilege.
Today in Iraq, a British-led division is securing the southern city of Basra. Poland continues to lead the multi-national division in south-central Iraq. Japan and the Republic of Korea -- of South Korea have made historic commitments of troops to help bring peace to Iraq.
Special forces from El Salvador and Macedonia and other nations are helping to find and defeat Baathist and terrorist killers. Military engineers from Kazakhstan have cleared more than a half a million explosive devices from Iraq. Turkey is helping to resupply coalition forces.
All of these nations and many others are meeting their responsibilities to the people of Iraq. Whatever their past views, every nation now has an interest in a free, successful, stable Iraq.
And the terrorists understand their own interest in the fate of that country. For them, the connection between Iraq's future and the course of the war on terror is very clear. They understand that a free Iraq will be a devastating setback to their ambitions of tyranny over the Middle East. And they've made the failure of democracy in Iraq one of their primary objectives.
By attacking coalition forces, by targeting innocent Iraqis and foreign civilians for murder, the terrorists are trying to weaken our will. Instead of weakness, they're finding resolve.
Not long ago, we intercepted the planning document being sent to leaders of Al Aida by one of their associates, a man named Zarqawi. Along with the usual threats, he had a complaint. "Our enemy," said Zarqawi, "is growing stronger, and his intelligence data are increasing day by day. This is suffocation."
Zarqawi's getting the idea. We will never turn over Iraq to terrorists who intend our own destruction. We will not fail the Iraqi people, who have placed their trust in us. Whatever it takes, we will fight and work to assure the success of freedom in Iraq.
Many coalition countries have sacrificed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the fallen soldiers and civilians are sons and daughters of Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, the United Kingdom and the United States.
We honor their courage. We pray for the comfort of their families. We will uphold the cause they served.
The rise of democratic institutions in Afghanistan and Iraq is a great step toward a goal of lasting importance to the world. We've set out to encourage reform and democracy in the greater Middle East as the alternatives to fanaticism, resentment and terror.
We've set out to break the cycle of bitterness and radicalism that has brought stagnation to a vital region and destruction to cities in America and Europe, and around the world.
This task is historic and difficult. This task is necessary and worthy of our efforts.
In the 1970s, the advance of democracy in Lisbon and Madrid inspired democratic change in Latin America.
In the 1980s, the example of Poland ignited a fire of freedom in all of Eastern Europe.
With Afghanistan and Iraq showing the way, we are confident that freedom will lift the sights and hopes of millions in the greater Middle East.
One man who believed in our cause was a Japanese diplomat named Katsuhiko Oku. He worked for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Mr. Oku was killed when his car was ambushed.
In his diary he described his pride in the cause he had joined. "The free people of Iraq," he wrote, "are now making steady progress in reconstructing their country, while also fighting against the threat of terrorism. We must join hands with the Iraqi people in their effort to prevent Iraq from falling into the hands of terrorists."
This good, decent man concluded, "This is also our fight to defend freedom."
Ladies and gentlemen, this good man from Japan was right. The establishment of a free Iraq is our fight. The success of a free Afghanistan is our fight. The war on terror is our fight. All of us are called to share the blessings of liberty and to be strong and steady in freedom's defense.
It will surely be said of our times that we lived with great challenges. Let it also be said of our times that we understood our great duties and met them in full.
May God bless our efforts.
Anniversary of U.S.-led invasion of Iraq
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Friday marked the anniversary of the war in Iraq with a White House speech to diplomats from 84 countries.
The following is a transcript of his remarks:
BUSH: Good morning, and thanks for coming. Laura and I are pleased to welcome you all to the White House.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
Members of my National Security Council are here, members of the administration, members of our armed forces, members of the United States Congress.
Thank you for being here.
Ladies and gentlemen.
I particularly want to thank the members of the diplomatic corps who are here, thank the ambassadors for coming today. We are representing 84 countries, united against a common danger, and joined in a common purpose.
We are the nations that have recognized the threat of terrorism, and we are the nations that will defeat that threat.
Each of us has pledged before the world, we will never bow to the violence of a few. We will face this mortal danger and we will overcome it together.
As we meet, violence and death at the hands of terrorists are still fresh in our memory. The people of Spain are burying their innocent dead. These men and women and children began their day in a great and peaceful city, yet lost their lives on a battlefield, murdered at random and without remorse.
Americans saw the chaos and the grief and the vigils and the funerals, and we have shared in the sorrow of the Spanish people.
Ambassador Ruperez, please accept our deepest sympathy for the great loss that your country has suffered.
The murders in Madrid are a reminder that the civilized world is at war. And in this new kind of war, civilians find themselves suddenly on the front lines.
In recent years, terrorists have struck from Spain to Russia, to Israel, to East Africa, to Morocco, to the Philippines and to America. They've targeted Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen. They've attacked Muslims in Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. No nation or region is exempt from the terrorist campaign of violence.
Each of these attacks on the innocent is a shock and a tragedy, and a test of our will. Each attack is designed to demoralize our people and divide us from one another.
And each attack much be answered, not only with sorrow, but with greater determination, deeper resolve, and bolder action against the killers. It is the interest of every country and the duty of every government to fight and destroy this threat to our people.
There is a dividing line in our world, not between nations and not between religions or cultures, but a dividing line separating two visions of justice and the value of life.
On a tape claiming responsibility for the atrocities in Madrid, a man is heard to say, "We choose death while you choose life." We don't know if this is the voice of the actual killers, but we do know it expresses the creed of the enemy. It is a mindset that rejoices in suicide, incites murder and celebrates every death we mourn.
And we who stand on the other side of the line must be equally clear and certain of our convictions. We do love life, the life given to us and to all. We believe in the values that uphold the dignity of life: tolerance and freedom and the right of conscience. And we know that this way of life is worth defending.
There is no neutral ground -- no neutral ground -- in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death.
The war on terror is not a figure of speech. It is an inescapable calling of our generation.
The terrorists are offended not merely by our policies, they're offended by our existence as free nations.
No concession will appease their hatred. No accommodation will satisfy their endless demands. Their ultimate ambitions are to control the peoples of the Middle East and to blackmail the rest of the world with weapons of mass terror.
There can be no separate peace with the terrorist enemy. Any sign of weakness or retreat simply validates terrorist violence and invites more violence for all nations.
The only certain way to protect our people is by united and decisive action.
In this contest of will and purpose, not every nation joins every mission or participates in the same way. Yet every nation makes a vital contribution, and America is proud to stand with all of you as we pursue a broad strategy in the war against terror.
We're using every tool of finance, intelligence, law enforcement and military power to break terror networks, to deny them refuge and to find their leaders.
Over the past 30 months, we have frozen or seized nearly $200 million in assets of terror networks. We've captured or killed some two-thirds of Al Aida's known leaders, as well as many of Al Aida's associates in countries like the United States or Germany or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Thailand.
We're taking the fight to Al Aida allies, such as Ansar al-Islam in Iraq, Jemaah Islamiah in Indonesia and Southeast Asia. Our coalition is sending an unmistakable message to the terrorists, including those who struck in Madrid: These killers will be tracked down and found. They will face their day of justice.
Our coalition is taking urgent action to stop the transfer of deadly weapons and materials. America and the nations of Australia and France and Germany and Italy and Japan and the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore and Norway have joined in the Proliferation Security Initiative, all aimed to bind together to interdict lethal materials transported by air or sea or land.
Many governments have cooperated to expose and dismantle the network of A.Q. Khan, which sold nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and North Korea.
By all of these efforts, we are determined to prevent catastrophic technologies from falling into the hands of an embittered few.
Our coalition is also confronting the dangerous combination of outlaw states, terrorist groups and weapons of mass destruction.
For years, the Taliban made Afghanistan the home base of Al Aida. And so we gave the Taliban a choice: to abandon forever their support for terror or face the destruction of their regime.
Because the Taliban chose defiance, our coalition acted to remove this threat, and now the terror camps are closed and the government of a free Afghanistan is represented here today as an active partner in the war on terror.
The people of Afghanistan are a world away from the nightmare of the Taliban. Citizens of Afghanistan have adopted a new constitution guaranteeing free elections and full participation by women. The new Afghan army is becoming a vital force of stability in that country. Businesses are opening. Health care centers are being established. And the children of Afghanistan are back in schools -- boys and girls.
This progress is a tribute to the brave Afghan people and to the efforts of many nations.
NATO, including forces from Canada, France, Germany and other nations, is leading the effort to provide security. Japan and Saudi Arabia have helped to complete the highway from Kabul to Kandahar, which is furthering commerce and unifying the country.
Italy is working with Afghans to reform their legal system and strengthening an independent judiciary.
Three years ago, the people of Afghanistan were oppressed and isolated from the world by a terrorist regime. Today, that nation has a democratic government and many allies, and all of us are proud to be friends of the Afghan people.
Many countries represented here today also acted to liberate the people of Iraq. One year ago, military forces of a strong coalition entered Iraq to enforce United Nations demands, to defend our security, and to liberate that country from the rule of a tyrant.
For Iraq, it was a day of deliverance. For the nations of our coalition, it was the moment when years of demands and pledges turned to decisive action.
Today, as Iraqis join the free peoples of the world, we mark a turning point for the Middle East and a crucial advance for human liberty.
There have been disagreements in this matter among old and valued friends. Those differences belong to the past. All of us can now agree that the fall of the Iraqi dictator has removed a source of violence, aggression and instability in the Middle East.
It's a good thing that the demands of the United Nations were enforced, not ignored with impunity. It is a good thing that years of illicit weapons developed by the dictator have come to the end. It is a good thing that the Iraqi people are now receiving aid instead of suffering under sanctions. And it's a good thing that the men and women across the Middle East looking to Iraq are getting a glimpse of what life in a free country can be like.
There are still violent thugs and murderers in Iraq, and we're dealing with them. But no one can argue that the Iraqi people would be better off with the thugs and murderers back in the palaces.
Who would prefer that Saddam's torture chambers still be open? Who would wish that more mass graves were still being filled? Who would begrudge the Iraqi people their long-awaited liberation?
One year after the armies of liberation arrived, every soldier who has fought, every aid worker who has served, every Iraqi who has joined in their country's defense can look with pride on a brave and historic achievement.
They've served in freedom's cause. And that is a privilege.
Today in Iraq, a British-led division is securing the southern city of Basra. Poland continues to lead the multi-national division in south-central Iraq. Japan and the Republic of Korea -- of South Korea have made historic commitments of troops to help bring peace to Iraq.
Special forces from El Salvador and Macedonia and other nations are helping to find and defeat Baathist and terrorist killers. Military engineers from Kazakhstan have cleared more than a half a million explosive devices from Iraq. Turkey is helping to resupply coalition forces.
All of these nations and many others are meeting their responsibilities to the people of Iraq. Whatever their past views, every nation now has an interest in a free, successful, stable Iraq.
And the terrorists understand their own interest in the fate of that country. For them, the connection between Iraq's future and the course of the war on terror is very clear. They understand that a free Iraq will be a devastating setback to their ambitions of tyranny over the Middle East. And they've made the failure of democracy in Iraq one of their primary objectives.
By attacking coalition forces, by targeting innocent Iraqis and foreign civilians for murder, the terrorists are trying to weaken our will. Instead of weakness, they're finding resolve.
Not long ago, we intercepted the planning document being sent to leaders of Al Aida by one of their associates, a man named Zarqawi. Along with the usual threats, he had a complaint. "Our enemy," said Zarqawi, "is growing stronger, and his intelligence data are increasing day by day. This is suffocation."
Zarqawi's getting the idea. We will never turn over Iraq to terrorists who intend our own destruction. We will not fail the Iraqi people, who have placed their trust in us. Whatever it takes, we will fight and work to assure the success of freedom in Iraq.
Many coalition countries have sacrificed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Among the fallen soldiers and civilians are sons and daughters of Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, the United Kingdom and the United States.
We honor their courage. We pray for the comfort of their families. We will uphold the cause they served.
The rise of democratic institutions in Afghanistan and Iraq is a great step toward a goal of lasting importance to the world. We've set out to encourage reform and democracy in the greater Middle East as the alternatives to fanaticism, resentment and terror.
We've set out to break the cycle of bitterness and radicalism that has brought stagnation to a vital region and destruction to cities in America and Europe, and around the world.
This task is historic and difficult. This task is necessary and worthy of our efforts.
In the 1970s, the advance of democracy in Lisbon and Madrid inspired democratic change in Latin America.
In the 1980s, the example of Poland ignited a fire of freedom in all of Eastern Europe.
With Afghanistan and Iraq showing the way, we are confident that freedom will lift the sights and hopes of millions in the greater Middle East.
One man who believed in our cause was a Japanese diplomat named Katsuhiko Oku. He worked for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. Mr. Oku was killed when his car was ambushed.
In his diary he described his pride in the cause he had joined. "The free people of Iraq," he wrote, "are now making steady progress in reconstructing their country, while also fighting against the threat of terrorism. We must join hands with the Iraqi people in their effort to prevent Iraq from falling into the hands of terrorists."
This good, decent man concluded, "This is also our fight to defend freedom."
Ladies and gentlemen, this good man from Japan was right. The establishment of a free Iraq is our fight. The success of a free Afghanistan is our fight. The war on terror is our fight. All of us are called to share the blessings of liberty and to be strong and steady in freedom's defense.
It will surely be said of our times that we lived with great challenges. Let it also be said of our times that we understood our great duties and met them in full.
May God bless our efforts.
We have to decide right now.
-
Some might think while reading the following lines that pain and anger are talking on my behalf but I wouldn’t feel such internal peace like this moment. Last night I sat for a long time looking for a solution to this crisis.
How can we face these bloody brutal crimes? It’s so clear; the enemies of humanity have the determination and made up their mind to the extent that they’re ready to kill themselves together with the others.
They’re testing the patience of the freedom lovers on earth and they’re ready to do anything. That’s why we should also put our minds together and there’s no room here in this war for the hesitant. Every one has to define his position and no one can be neutral about this war.
Yes, the hesitant and the neutral will gain some temporary peace but I’m sure that the war will not take a long time to knock on their doors. It’s just a matter of time.
It’s become clear that everyone except the coalition and Iraqis want Iraq to be the only battlefield and that war doesn’t spread to other regions. And I’m sure and you’re sure -even if we lack the evidence- that we know who’s behind this and who will benefit from failing this leading experience in Iraq.
Logic says so.
Ok, we in Iraq have made up our minds and we’ll never miss the “good old days” and so do the people and troops of the coalition but in my opinion this should not go on this way; we have to move the war again to enemy’s land who found other shelters to hide in and attack from.
Well, this idea may seem horrifying to many people but this is the best way we can handle those criminals. The battle in Iraq will not reach an end until other files are started to be dealt with.
Rushing to open the next file is the only way to face the situation. I know that the American administration knows this and they said that clearly “the war will last for a long time on many fronts and we have to be always one step ahead of terrorism until we destroy it in its last shelter”
We know who are feeding the instability and now they’re frightened after their people started to move directly towards demanding their rights.
To be frank, I’m talking about Syria here. The Ba’ath dictatorship regime there is dying every day from panic about the great democratic evolution in Iraq. And this evolution is having its influence on the Syrians, that’s why the dictator decided to kill the dream in Iraq and will keep working to fail it or at least delay it.
Yesterday we lost tens and the media keep hatefully repeating that the IP, Americans and their allies are failing to provide security to the Iraqis. While the day before when the dictator in Syria murdered tens of his own people who are looking forward to freedom (by the hands of the Syrian security men) we never heard anyone saying that the dictator failed to provide security for his own people.
Strict dealing with the Syrian file and tightening the circle around the Ba’ath regime there will fade their plans and evil visions about Iraq.
Some might say that this war will never end and we’ll be obliged to fight more, lose more blood and spend more money. And I’m with you on this but the question here is who started the war in the first place? Remember this. They declared the war and they attacked New York and they will attack again if they were left free. They’re betting on the reluctance and fear of some nations and they were further encouraged by the decisions of some shortsighted European countries.
The more we kneel to them the more intensely they attack. Offering tributes will only strengthen the terrorists’ insistence on their war. As for those reluctant who put the task on the shoulders of the UN, those want nothing but hiding their fear from the challenge. When could the UN solve a crisis?
The UN is a total failure and handing responsibilities to her is fleeing from these responsibilities.
At least we (the directly concerned parts) should think and decide to eliminate any hesitant attitude from our minds. We started this war and we know it will bring so many hardships but we have to face these. Stopping in the middle of the road is a disaster to the whole world.
The terrorists want us to live for the moment without looking up to the future and now we should show everyone our seriousness and determination.
- By Mohammed.
-
Some might think while reading the following lines that pain and anger are talking on my behalf but I wouldn’t feel such internal peace like this moment. Last night I sat for a long time looking for a solution to this crisis.
How can we face these bloody brutal crimes? It’s so clear; the enemies of humanity have the determination and made up their mind to the extent that they’re ready to kill themselves together with the others.
They’re testing the patience of the freedom lovers on earth and they’re ready to do anything. That’s why we should also put our minds together and there’s no room here in this war for the hesitant. Every one has to define his position and no one can be neutral about this war.
Yes, the hesitant and the neutral will gain some temporary peace but I’m sure that the war will not take a long time to knock on their doors. It’s just a matter of time.
It’s become clear that everyone except the coalition and Iraqis want Iraq to be the only battlefield and that war doesn’t spread to other regions. And I’m sure and you’re sure -even if we lack the evidence- that we know who’s behind this and who will benefit from failing this leading experience in Iraq.
Logic says so.
Ok, we in Iraq have made up our minds and we’ll never miss the “good old days” and so do the people and troops of the coalition but in my opinion this should not go on this way; we have to move the war again to enemy’s land who found other shelters to hide in and attack from.
Well, this idea may seem horrifying to many people but this is the best way we can handle those criminals. The battle in Iraq will not reach an end until other files are started to be dealt with.
Rushing to open the next file is the only way to face the situation. I know that the American administration knows this and they said that clearly “the war will last for a long time on many fronts and we have to be always one step ahead of terrorism until we destroy it in its last shelter”
We know who are feeding the instability and now they’re frightened after their people started to move directly towards demanding their rights.
To be frank, I’m talking about Syria here. The Ba’ath dictatorship regime there is dying every day from panic about the great democratic evolution in Iraq. And this evolution is having its influence on the Syrians, that’s why the dictator decided to kill the dream in Iraq and will keep working to fail it or at least delay it.
Yesterday we lost tens and the media keep hatefully repeating that the IP, Americans and their allies are failing to provide security to the Iraqis. While the day before when the dictator in Syria murdered tens of his own people who are looking forward to freedom (by the hands of the Syrian security men) we never heard anyone saying that the dictator failed to provide security for his own people.
Strict dealing with the Syrian file and tightening the circle around the Ba’ath regime there will fade their plans and evil visions about Iraq.
Some might say that this war will never end and we’ll be obliged to fight more, lose more blood and spend more money. And I’m with you on this but the question here is who started the war in the first place? Remember this. They declared the war and they attacked New York and they will attack again if they were left free. They’re betting on the reluctance and fear of some nations and they were further encouraged by the decisions of some shortsighted European countries.
The more we kneel to them the more intensely they attack. Offering tributes will only strengthen the terrorists’ insistence on their war. As for those reluctant who put the task on the shoulders of the UN, those want nothing but hiding their fear from the challenge. When could the UN solve a crisis?
The UN is a total failure and handing responsibilities to her is fleeing from these responsibilities.
At least we (the directly concerned parts) should think and decide to eliminate any hesitant attitude from our minds. We started this war and we know it will bring so many hardships but we have to face these. Stopping in the middle of the road is a disaster to the whole world.
The terrorists want us to live for the moment without looking up to the future and now we should show everyone our seriousness and determination.
- By Mohammed.
The Price of Freedom in Iraq
By DONALD H. RUMSFELD
WASHINGTON
This week, as we mark the one-year anniversary of the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, it is useful to recount why we have fought. Not long ago I visited South Korea, just as the Korean government was debating whether to send troops to Iraq. In Seoul, I was interviewed by a Korean journalist who was almost certainly too young to have firsthand recollection of the Korean War. She asked me, "Why should Koreans send their young people halfway around the globe to be killed or wounded in Iraq?"
As it happened, I had that day visited a Korean War memorial, which bears the names of every American soldier killed in the war. On it was the name of a close friend of mine from high school, a wrestling teammate, who was killed on the last day of the war. I said to the reporter: "It's a fair question. And it would have been fair for an American to ask, 50 years ago, `Why should young Americans go halfway around the world to be killed or wounded in Korea?' "
We were speaking on an upper floor of a large hotel in Seoul. I asked the woman to look out the window — at the lights, the cars, the energy of the vibrant economy of South Korea. I told her about a satellite photo of the Korean peninsula, taken at night, that I keep on a table in my Pentagon office. North of the demilitarized zone there is nothing but darkness — except a pinprick of light around Pyongyang — while the entire country of South Korea is ablaze in light, the light of freedom.
Korean freedom was won at a terrible cost — tens of thousands of lives, including more than 33,000 Americans killed in action. Was it worth it? You bet. Just as it was worth it in Germany and France and Italy and in the Pacific in World War II. And just as it is worth it in Afghanistan and Iraq today.
Today, in a world of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and states that sponsor the former and pursue the latter, defending freedom means we must confront dangers before it is too late. In Iraq, for 12 years, through 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions, the world gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to avoid war. He was being held to a simple standard: live up to your agreement at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war; disarm and prove you have done so. Instead of disarming — as Kazakhstan, South Africa and Ukraine did, and as Libya is doing today — Saddam Hussein chose deception and defiance.
Repeatedly, he rejected those resolutions and he systematically deceived United Nations inspectors about his weapons and his intent. The world knew his record: he used chemical weapons against Iran and his own citizens; he invaded Iran and Kuwait; he launched ballistic missiles at Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain; and his troops repeatedly fired on American and British aircraft patrolling the no-flight zones.
Recognizing the threat, in September 2002 President Bush went to the United Nations, which gave Iraq still another "final opportunity" to disarm and to prove it had done so. The next month the president went to Congress, which voted to support the use of force if Iraq did not.
And, when Saddam Hussein passed up that final opportunity, he was given a last chance to avoid war: 48 hours to leave the country. Only then, after every peaceful option had been exhausted, did the president and our coalition partners order the liberation of Iraq.
Americans do not come easily to war, but neither do Americans take freedom lightly. But when freedom and self-government have taken root in Iraq, and that country becomes a force for good in the Middle East, the rightness of those efforts will be just as clear as it is today in Korea, Germany, Japan and Italy.
As the continuing terrorist violence in Iraq reminds us, the road to self-governance will be challenging. But the progress is impressive. Last week the Iraqi Governing Council unanimously signed an interim Constitution. It guarantees freedom of religion and expression; the right to assemble and to organize political parties; the right to vote; and the right to a fair, speedy and open trial. It prohibits discrimination based on gender, nationality and religion, as well as arbitrary arrest and detention. A year ago today, none of those protections could have been even imagined by the Iraqi people.
Today, as we think about the tens of thousands of United States soldiers in Iraq — and in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world fighting the global war on terrorism — we should say to all of them: "You join a long line of generations of Americans who have fought freedom's fight. Thank you."
Donald H. Rumsfeld is the secretary of defense.
By DONALD H. RUMSFELD
WASHINGTON
This week, as we mark the one-year anniversary of the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, it is useful to recount why we have fought. Not long ago I visited South Korea, just as the Korean government was debating whether to send troops to Iraq. In Seoul, I was interviewed by a Korean journalist who was almost certainly too young to have firsthand recollection of the Korean War. She asked me, "Why should Koreans send their young people halfway around the globe to be killed or wounded in Iraq?"
As it happened, I had that day visited a Korean War memorial, which bears the names of every American soldier killed in the war. On it was the name of a close friend of mine from high school, a wrestling teammate, who was killed on the last day of the war. I said to the reporter: "It's a fair question. And it would have been fair for an American to ask, 50 years ago, `Why should young Americans go halfway around the world to be killed or wounded in Korea?' "
We were speaking on an upper floor of a large hotel in Seoul. I asked the woman to look out the window — at the lights, the cars, the energy of the vibrant economy of South Korea. I told her about a satellite photo of the Korean peninsula, taken at night, that I keep on a table in my Pentagon office. North of the demilitarized zone there is nothing but darkness — except a pinprick of light around Pyongyang — while the entire country of South Korea is ablaze in light, the light of freedom.
Korean freedom was won at a terrible cost — tens of thousands of lives, including more than 33,000 Americans killed in action. Was it worth it? You bet. Just as it was worth it in Germany and France and Italy and in the Pacific in World War II. And just as it is worth it in Afghanistan and Iraq today.
Today, in a world of terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and states that sponsor the former and pursue the latter, defending freedom means we must confront dangers before it is too late. In Iraq, for 12 years, through 17 United Nations Security Council resolutions, the world gave Saddam Hussein every opportunity to avoid war. He was being held to a simple standard: live up to your agreement at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war; disarm and prove you have done so. Instead of disarming — as Kazakhstan, South Africa and Ukraine did, and as Libya is doing today — Saddam Hussein chose deception and defiance.
Repeatedly, he rejected those resolutions and he systematically deceived United Nations inspectors about his weapons and his intent. The world knew his record: he used chemical weapons against Iran and his own citizens; he invaded Iran and Kuwait; he launched ballistic missiles at Iran, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain; and his troops repeatedly fired on American and British aircraft patrolling the no-flight zones.
Recognizing the threat, in September 2002 President Bush went to the United Nations, which gave Iraq still another "final opportunity" to disarm and to prove it had done so. The next month the president went to Congress, which voted to support the use of force if Iraq did not.
And, when Saddam Hussein passed up that final opportunity, he was given a last chance to avoid war: 48 hours to leave the country. Only then, after every peaceful option had been exhausted, did the president and our coalition partners order the liberation of Iraq.
Americans do not come easily to war, but neither do Americans take freedom lightly. But when freedom and self-government have taken root in Iraq, and that country becomes a force for good in the Middle East, the rightness of those efforts will be just as clear as it is today in Korea, Germany, Japan and Italy.
As the continuing terrorist violence in Iraq reminds us, the road to self-governance will be challenging. But the progress is impressive. Last week the Iraqi Governing Council unanimously signed an interim Constitution. It guarantees freedom of religion and expression; the right to assemble and to organize political parties; the right to vote; and the right to a fair, speedy and open trial. It prohibits discrimination based on gender, nationality and religion, as well as arbitrary arrest and detention. A year ago today, none of those protections could have been even imagined by the Iraqi people.
Today, as we think about the tens of thousands of United States soldiers in Iraq — and in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world fighting the global war on terrorism — we should say to all of them: "You join a long line of generations of Americans who have fought freedom's fight. Thank you."
Donald H. Rumsfeld is the secretary of defense.
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Axis of Appeasement
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
The new Spanish government's decision to respond to the attack by Al Qaeda by going ahead with plans to pull its troops from Iraq constitutes the most dangerous moment we've faced since 9/11. It's what happens when the Axis of Evil intersects with the Axis of Appeasement and the Axis of Incompetence.
Let's start with the Axis of Evil. We are up against a terrible nihilistic enemy. Think about what the Islamist terrorists are doing: they are trying to kill as many people in Iraq and elsewhere as possible so the U.S. fails in Iraq, so Iraq collapses into civil war, so even a glimmer of democracy never takes root in the Arab world and so America is weakened.
But if they are so bad, why aren't we doing better? It has to do with the pigheadedness of the Bush team and the softheadedness of many allies. Regarding the Bush team, let me say yet again: We do not have enough troops in Iraq, and we never did. From the outset, the Bush Pentagon has treated Iraq as a lab test to prove that it can win a war with a small, mobile high-tech Army. Well, maybe you can defeat Saddam that way, but you can't build a new Iraq — and control its borders to prevent foreign terrorists from coming in — with so few troops, especially when you disband the Iraqi Army on top of it.
Don't tell me we have enough troops in Iraq when our soldiers are getting picked off daily by roadside bombs, when our aid workers are getting murdered and when Iraqis are getting massacred by suicide missions. Don't tell me we are not fighting this war on the cheap when our diplomats in Baghdad don't have enough armored cars, cellphones, bulletproof vests or escort troops to protect them as they try to travel around the country. We are now paying for the contradiction between Mr. Bush's two great projects: his war on taxes and his war on terrorism.
Yes, we can still win this, but right now, despite Paul Bremer's heroic success in helping Iraqis forge a progressive interim constitution, we can still lose it. If we do, it will be largely due to the Pentagon's inability to secure Iraq, which has encouraged Iraqis to turn to sectarian militias for security, undermining nation-building and planting the seeds of civil war. Second, it will be because we have so few real allies. As Spain proves, we had a few friendly governments, but most people in Europe and Asia have never been with the Bush team — especially when it continues to insist that we are going to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify the war. It's time for the Bush team to admit it was wrong about this and move on.
Unless President Bush dispenses with his discredited argument for the war — W.M.D. — no one will hear or listen to what I believe was always the only right argument for the war and is now the only rationale left: to depose the genocidal Saddam regime in order to partner with the Iraqi people to build a decent government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world — because it is the pathologies and humiliations produced by Arab misgovernance that are the root causes of terrorism and Muslim extremism.
Spain is planning to do something crazy: to try to appease radical evil by pulling Spain's troops out of Iraq — even though those troops are now supporting the first democracy-building project ever in the Arab world.
I understand that many Spanish voters felt lied to by their rightist government over who was responsible for the Madrid bombings, and therefore voted it out of office. But they should now follow that up by vowing to keep their troops in Iraq — to make clear that in cleaning up their own democracy, they do not want to subvert the Iraqis' attempt to build one of their own. Otherwise, the Spanish vote will not be remembered as an act of cleansing, but of appeasement.
My dream is that the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Spain announce tomorrow that in response to the Madrid bombing, they are sending a new joint force of 5,000 troops to Iraq for the sole purpose of protecting the U.N.'s return to Baghdad to oversee Iraq's first democratic election.
The notion that Spain can separate itself from Al Qaeda's onslaught on Western civilization by pulling its troops from Iraq is a fantasy. Bin Laden has said that Spain was once Muslim and he wants it restored that way. As a friend in Cairo e-mailed me, a Spanish pullout from Iraq would only bring to mind Churchill's remark after Chamberlain returned from signing the Munich pact with Hitler: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
The new Spanish government's decision to respond to the attack by Al Qaeda by going ahead with plans to pull its troops from Iraq constitutes the most dangerous moment we've faced since 9/11. It's what happens when the Axis of Evil intersects with the Axis of Appeasement and the Axis of Incompetence.
Let's start with the Axis of Evil. We are up against a terrible nihilistic enemy. Think about what the Islamist terrorists are doing: they are trying to kill as many people in Iraq and elsewhere as possible so the U.S. fails in Iraq, so Iraq collapses into civil war, so even a glimmer of democracy never takes root in the Arab world and so America is weakened.
But if they are so bad, why aren't we doing better? It has to do with the pigheadedness of the Bush team and the softheadedness of many allies. Regarding the Bush team, let me say yet again: We do not have enough troops in Iraq, and we never did. From the outset, the Bush Pentagon has treated Iraq as a lab test to prove that it can win a war with a small, mobile high-tech Army. Well, maybe you can defeat Saddam that way, but you can't build a new Iraq — and control its borders to prevent foreign terrorists from coming in — with so few troops, especially when you disband the Iraqi Army on top of it.
Don't tell me we have enough troops in Iraq when our soldiers are getting picked off daily by roadside bombs, when our aid workers are getting murdered and when Iraqis are getting massacred by suicide missions. Don't tell me we are not fighting this war on the cheap when our diplomats in Baghdad don't have enough armored cars, cellphones, bulletproof vests or escort troops to protect them as they try to travel around the country. We are now paying for the contradiction between Mr. Bush's two great projects: his war on taxes and his war on terrorism.
Yes, we can still win this, but right now, despite Paul Bremer's heroic success in helping Iraqis forge a progressive interim constitution, we can still lose it. If we do, it will be largely due to the Pentagon's inability to secure Iraq, which has encouraged Iraqis to turn to sectarian militias for security, undermining nation-building and planting the seeds of civil war. Second, it will be because we have so few real allies. As Spain proves, we had a few friendly governments, but most people in Europe and Asia have never been with the Bush team — especially when it continues to insist that we are going to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify the war. It's time for the Bush team to admit it was wrong about this and move on.
Unless President Bush dispenses with his discredited argument for the war — W.M.D. — no one will hear or listen to what I believe was always the only right argument for the war and is now the only rationale left: to depose the genocidal Saddam regime in order to partner with the Iraqi people to build a decent government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world — because it is the pathologies and humiliations produced by Arab misgovernance that are the root causes of terrorism and Muslim extremism.
Spain is planning to do something crazy: to try to appease radical evil by pulling Spain's troops out of Iraq — even though those troops are now supporting the first democracy-building project ever in the Arab world.
I understand that many Spanish voters felt lied to by their rightist government over who was responsible for the Madrid bombings, and therefore voted it out of office. But they should now follow that up by vowing to keep their troops in Iraq — to make clear that in cleaning up their own democracy, they do not want to subvert the Iraqis' attempt to build one of their own. Otherwise, the Spanish vote will not be remembered as an act of cleansing, but of appeasement.
My dream is that the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Spain announce tomorrow that in response to the Madrid bombing, they are sending a new joint force of 5,000 troops to Iraq for the sole purpose of protecting the U.N.'s return to Baghdad to oversee Iraq's first democratic election.
The notion that Spain can separate itself from Al Qaeda's onslaught on Western civilization by pulling its troops from Iraq is a fantasy. Bin Laden has said that Spain was once Muslim and he wants it restored that way. As a friend in Cairo e-mailed me, a Spanish pullout from Iraq would only bring to mind Churchill's remark after Chamberlain returned from signing the Munich pact with Hitler: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
To Die in Madrid
The nutty logic that says Spain provoked Islamist terrorism.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 15, 2004, at 12:28 PM PT
I can remember when I was a bit of an ETA fan myself. It was in 1975, when a group of Basque militants assassinated Adm. Carrero Blanco. The admiral was a stone-faced secret police chief, personally groomed to be the successor to the decrepit Francisco Franco. His car blew up, killing only him and his chauffeur with a carefully planted charge, and not only was the world well rid of another fascist, but, more important, the whole scheme of extending Franco's rule was vaporized in the same instant. The dictator had to turn instead to Crown Prince Juan Carlos, who turned out to be the best Bourbon in history and who swiftly dismantled Franco's entire system. If this action was "terrorism," it had something to be said for it. Everyone I knew in Spain made a little holiday in their hearts when the gruesome admiral went sky-high.
The Basque country, with its historic capital in Guernica, had been one of the main battlegrounds against Hitler and Mussolini in their first joint aggression in Spain, and many European families adopted Basque orphans and raised money for the resistance. It is tedious to relate the story of ETA's degeneration into a gangster organization that itself proclaims a fascist ideology of Basque racial uniqueness, and anyway one doesn't need to bother, since nobody any longer argues that there is a "root cause" of ETA's atrocities. In the face of this kind of subhuman nihilism, people know without having to be told that the only response is a quiet, steady hatred and contempt, and a cold determination to outlast the perpetrators while remorselessly tracking them down.
However, it seems that some Spaniards, and some non-Spanish commentators, would change on a dime if last week's mass murder in Madrid could be attributed to the Bin-Ladenists. In that case not only would there be a root cause—the deployment of 1,300 Spanish soldiers in the reconstruction of Iraq—but there would also be a culpable person, namely Spain's retiring prime minister. By this logic, terrorism would also have a cure—the withdrawal of those Spanish soldiers from a country where al-Qaida emphatically does not desire them to be.
Try not to laugh or cry, but some spokesmen of the Spanish left have publicly proposed exactly this syllogism. I wonder if I am insulting the readers of Slate if I point out its logical and moral deficiencies:
Many Spaniards were among those killed recently in Morocco, where a jihadist bomb attack on an ancient Moorish synagogue took place in broad daylight. The attack was on Morocco itself, which was neutral in the recent Iraq war. It seems a bit late to demand that the Moroccan government change sides and support Saddam Hussein in that conflict, and I suspect that the Spanish Communist and socialist leadership would feel a little sheepish in making this suggestion. Nor is it obvious to me that the local Moroccan jihadists would stop bombing if this concession were made. Still, such a concession would be consistent with the above syllogism, as presumably would be a demand that Morocco cease to tempt fate by allowing synagogues on its soil in the first place.
The Turkish government, too, should be condemned for allowing its Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to visit the shattered synagogue in Istanbul after the latest mass murder (thus becoming, incidentally, the first Turkish prime minister ever to do so). Erdogan is also the first prime minister ever to be elected on an Islamist ticket. Clearly, he was asking for trouble and has not yet understood al-Qaida's conditions for being allowed to lead a quiet life. Not that he hadn't tried—he prevented the U.S. Army from approaching Baghdad through what is now known as the Sunni Triangle. He just hasn't tried hard enough.
It cannot be very long now before some slaughter occurs on the streets of London or Rome or Warsaw, as punishment for British and Italian and Polish membership of the anti-Saddam coalition. But perhaps there is still time to avoid the wrath to come. If British and Italian and Polish troops make haste to leave the Iraqis to their own "devices" (of the sort that exploded outside the mosques of Karbala and Najaf last month), their civilian cousins may still hope to escape the stern disapproval of the holy warriors. Don't ask why the holy warriors blow up mosques by the way—it's none of your goddam crusader-Jew business.
The other countries of NATO, which has now collectively adopted the responsibility for Afghanistan, should reconsider. As long as their forces remain on the soil of that country, they are liable to attract the sacred rage of the Muslim fighters. It will not be enough for Germany and France to have stayed out of Iraq. They cannot expect to escape judgment by such hypocritical means.
French schools should make all haste to permit not just the veil but the burqa, as well as to segregate swimming pools and playgrounds. Do they suppose that they deceive anybody when they temporize about God's evident will? Bombings will follow this blasphemy, as the night succeeds the day. It is written.
I find I can't quite decide what to recommend in the American case. I thought it was a good idea to remove troops from Saudi Arabia in any event (after all, we had removed the chief regional invader). But, even with the troops mainly departed, bombs continue to detonate in Saudi streets. We are, it seems, so far gone in sin and decadence that no repentance or penitence can be adequate. Perhaps, for the moment, it's enough punishment, and enough shame, just to know that what occurred in Madrid last week is all our fault. Now, let that sink in.
The nutty logic that says Spain provoked Islamist terrorism.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 15, 2004, at 12:28 PM PT
I can remember when I was a bit of an ETA fan myself. It was in 1975, when a group of Basque militants assassinated Adm. Carrero Blanco. The admiral was a stone-faced secret police chief, personally groomed to be the successor to the decrepit Francisco Franco. His car blew up, killing only him and his chauffeur with a carefully planted charge, and not only was the world well rid of another fascist, but, more important, the whole scheme of extending Franco's rule was vaporized in the same instant. The dictator had to turn instead to Crown Prince Juan Carlos, who turned out to be the best Bourbon in history and who swiftly dismantled Franco's entire system. If this action was "terrorism," it had something to be said for it. Everyone I knew in Spain made a little holiday in their hearts when the gruesome admiral went sky-high.
The Basque country, with its historic capital in Guernica, had been one of the main battlegrounds against Hitler and Mussolini in their first joint aggression in Spain, and many European families adopted Basque orphans and raised money for the resistance. It is tedious to relate the story of ETA's degeneration into a gangster organization that itself proclaims a fascist ideology of Basque racial uniqueness, and anyway one doesn't need to bother, since nobody any longer argues that there is a "root cause" of ETA's atrocities. In the face of this kind of subhuman nihilism, people know without having to be told that the only response is a quiet, steady hatred and contempt, and a cold determination to outlast the perpetrators while remorselessly tracking them down.
However, it seems that some Spaniards, and some non-Spanish commentators, would change on a dime if last week's mass murder in Madrid could be attributed to the Bin-Ladenists. In that case not only would there be a root cause—the deployment of 1,300 Spanish soldiers in the reconstruction of Iraq—but there would also be a culpable person, namely Spain's retiring prime minister. By this logic, terrorism would also have a cure—the withdrawal of those Spanish soldiers from a country where al-Qaida emphatically does not desire them to be.
Try not to laugh or cry, but some spokesmen of the Spanish left have publicly proposed exactly this syllogism. I wonder if I am insulting the readers of Slate if I point out its logical and moral deficiencies:
Many Spaniards were among those killed recently in Morocco, where a jihadist bomb attack on an ancient Moorish synagogue took place in broad daylight. The attack was on Morocco itself, which was neutral in the recent Iraq war. It seems a bit late to demand that the Moroccan government change sides and support Saddam Hussein in that conflict, and I suspect that the Spanish Communist and socialist leadership would feel a little sheepish in making this suggestion. Nor is it obvious to me that the local Moroccan jihadists would stop bombing if this concession were made. Still, such a concession would be consistent with the above syllogism, as presumably would be a demand that Morocco cease to tempt fate by allowing synagogues on its soil in the first place.
The Turkish government, too, should be condemned for allowing its Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan to visit the shattered synagogue in Istanbul after the latest mass murder (thus becoming, incidentally, the first Turkish prime minister ever to do so). Erdogan is also the first prime minister ever to be elected on an Islamist ticket. Clearly, he was asking for trouble and has not yet understood al-Qaida's conditions for being allowed to lead a quiet life. Not that he hadn't tried—he prevented the U.S. Army from approaching Baghdad through what is now known as the Sunni Triangle. He just hasn't tried hard enough.
It cannot be very long now before some slaughter occurs on the streets of London or Rome or Warsaw, as punishment for British and Italian and Polish membership of the anti-Saddam coalition. But perhaps there is still time to avoid the wrath to come. If British and Italian and Polish troops make haste to leave the Iraqis to their own "devices" (of the sort that exploded outside the mosques of Karbala and Najaf last month), their civilian cousins may still hope to escape the stern disapproval of the holy warriors. Don't ask why the holy warriors blow up mosques by the way—it's none of your goddam crusader-Jew business.
The other countries of NATO, which has now collectively adopted the responsibility for Afghanistan, should reconsider. As long as their forces remain on the soil of that country, they are liable to attract the sacred rage of the Muslim fighters. It will not be enough for Germany and France to have stayed out of Iraq. They cannot expect to escape judgment by such hypocritical means.
French schools should make all haste to permit not just the veil but the burqa, as well as to segregate swimming pools and playgrounds. Do they suppose that they deceive anybody when they temporize about God's evident will? Bombings will follow this blasphemy, as the night succeeds the day. It is written.
I find I can't quite decide what to recommend in the American case. I thought it was a good idea to remove troops from Saudi Arabia in any event (after all, we had removed the chief regional invader). But, even with the troops mainly departed, bombs continue to detonate in Saudi streets. We are, it seems, so far gone in sin and decadence that no repentance or penitence can be adequate. Perhaps, for the moment, it's enough punishment, and enough shame, just to know that what occurred in Madrid last week is all our fault. Now, let that sink in.
Time to Save an Alliance
By Robert Kagan
Tuesday, March 16, 2004; Page A21
The terrorist attack in Madrid and its seismic impact on the Spanish elections this past week have brought the United States and Europe to the edge of the abyss. There's no denying that al Qaeda has struck a strategic and not merely a tactical blow. To murder and terrorize people is one thing, but to unseat a pro-U.S. government in a nation that was a linchpin of America's alliance with the so-called New Europe -- that is al Qaeda's most significant geopolitical success since Sept. 11, 2001.
The unhappy reality is that a significant number of Spanish voters seem to have responded to the attacks in Madrid exactly as al Qaeda hoped they would. They believed their government's close cooperation with the United States, and specifically with the Bush administration in Iraq, had brought the wrath of the terrorist organization on them, and that the way to avoid future attacks was to choose a government that would withdraw from Iraq and distance itself from the United States. Other European peoples and governments have quietly flirted with this kind of thinking in the past, and not just recently but throughout the 1990s. But Spaniards have now made this calculus public. If other European publics decide that the Spaniards are right, and conclude that the safer course in world affairs is to dissociate themselves from the United States, then the transatlantic partnership is no more.
Already there are statements by top European leaders that have the ring of dissociation. In a clear swipe at U.S. policy, European Commission President Romano Prodi commented in the wake of the Madrid attacks: "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Terrorism, he said, "is infinitely more powerful than a year ago." So apparently Prodi accepts al Qaeda's logic, too.
In the coming days and weeks, Europeans will close ranks with Spain and express common European solidarity against al Qaeda terrorism. But there is a real danger that many Europeans will not extend the solidarity across the Atlantic. Some may argue, at least implicitly, that separation from the United States is one effective, nonviolent defense against future terrorist attacks.
Needless to say, that would be a disaster for the United States. The Bush administration needs to recognize it has a crisis on its hands and start making up for lost time in mending transatlantic ties, and not just with chosen favorites. The comforting idea of a "New Europe" always rested on the shifting sands of a public opinion, in Spain and elsewhere, that was never as favorable to American policy as to the governments. The American task now is to address both governments and publics, in Old and New Europe, to move past disagreements over the Iraq war, and to seek transatlantic solidarity against al Qaeda.
John Kerry has an important role to play now, too. The temptation for Kerry and his surrogates to use events in Spain to bolster their arguments against President Bush's foreign policy may be irresistible. But Kerry should think hard before he pushes the point too far. After all, he could be president next January. If Europeans respond to the attack in Spain by distancing themselves from the United States, a divided and dysfunctional West will be his inheritance. Like Bush, Kerry should move the transatlantic conversation beyond the Iraq war to the common war against al Qaeda.
But the problem is not all on the American side, and neither is the solution. Responsible heads in Europe must understand that anything that smacks of retreat in the aftermath of this latest attack could raise the likelihood of further attacks. Al Qaeda's list of demands doesn't end with Iraq. The attack in Madrid was not just punishment for Spain's involvement in Iraq but for involvement with the United States in the war on terrorism. Al Qaeda's statement taking credit for the bombings in Madrid condemned Spain's role in Afghanistan, too. Al Qaeda seeks to divide Europe and the United States not just in Iraq but in the overall struggle. It seeks to convince Europeans not only that the use of force in Iraq was mistaken but that the use of force against terrorism in general is mistaken and futile -- just as Prodi is arguing. Are Europeans prepared to grant all of al Qaeda's conditions in exchange for a promise of security? Thoughts of Munich and 1938 come to mind.
The incoming Spanish government has declared its intention to move away from the United States and back to the "core of Europe," meaning France and Germany. Presumably Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder will welcome their new ally in Old Europe. But presumably they also know that dissociation from the United States in the wake of the Madrid bombings will be a disaster for Europe. If the United States cannot fight al Qaeda without Europe's help, it is equally true that Europe can't fight al Qaeda without the United States. If Europe's leaders understand this, then they and Bush should recognize the urgency of making common cause now, before the already damaged edifice of the transatlantic community collapses.
Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is the author of "Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order." He writes a monthly column for The Post.
By Robert Kagan
Tuesday, March 16, 2004; Page A21
The terrorist attack in Madrid and its seismic impact on the Spanish elections this past week have brought the United States and Europe to the edge of the abyss. There's no denying that al Qaeda has struck a strategic and not merely a tactical blow. To murder and terrorize people is one thing, but to unseat a pro-U.S. government in a nation that was a linchpin of America's alliance with the so-called New Europe -- that is al Qaeda's most significant geopolitical success since Sept. 11, 2001.
The unhappy reality is that a significant number of Spanish voters seem to have responded to the attacks in Madrid exactly as al Qaeda hoped they would. They believed their government's close cooperation with the United States, and specifically with the Bush administration in Iraq, had brought the wrath of the terrorist organization on them, and that the way to avoid future attacks was to choose a government that would withdraw from Iraq and distance itself from the United States. Other European peoples and governments have quietly flirted with this kind of thinking in the past, and not just recently but throughout the 1990s. But Spaniards have now made this calculus public. If other European publics decide that the Spaniards are right, and conclude that the safer course in world affairs is to dissociate themselves from the United States, then the transatlantic partnership is no more.
Already there are statements by top European leaders that have the ring of dissociation. In a clear swipe at U.S. policy, European Commission President Romano Prodi commented in the wake of the Madrid attacks: "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Terrorism, he said, "is infinitely more powerful than a year ago." So apparently Prodi accepts al Qaeda's logic, too.
In the coming days and weeks, Europeans will close ranks with Spain and express common European solidarity against al Qaeda terrorism. But there is a real danger that many Europeans will not extend the solidarity across the Atlantic. Some may argue, at least implicitly, that separation from the United States is one effective, nonviolent defense against future terrorist attacks.
Needless to say, that would be a disaster for the United States. The Bush administration needs to recognize it has a crisis on its hands and start making up for lost time in mending transatlantic ties, and not just with chosen favorites. The comforting idea of a "New Europe" always rested on the shifting sands of a public opinion, in Spain and elsewhere, that was never as favorable to American policy as to the governments. The American task now is to address both governments and publics, in Old and New Europe, to move past disagreements over the Iraq war, and to seek transatlantic solidarity against al Qaeda.
John Kerry has an important role to play now, too. The temptation for Kerry and his surrogates to use events in Spain to bolster their arguments against President Bush's foreign policy may be irresistible. But Kerry should think hard before he pushes the point too far. After all, he could be president next January. If Europeans respond to the attack in Spain by distancing themselves from the United States, a divided and dysfunctional West will be his inheritance. Like Bush, Kerry should move the transatlantic conversation beyond the Iraq war to the common war against al Qaeda.
But the problem is not all on the American side, and neither is the solution. Responsible heads in Europe must understand that anything that smacks of retreat in the aftermath of this latest attack could raise the likelihood of further attacks. Al Qaeda's list of demands doesn't end with Iraq. The attack in Madrid was not just punishment for Spain's involvement in Iraq but for involvement with the United States in the war on terrorism. Al Qaeda's statement taking credit for the bombings in Madrid condemned Spain's role in Afghanistan, too. Al Qaeda seeks to divide Europe and the United States not just in Iraq but in the overall struggle. It seeks to convince Europeans not only that the use of force in Iraq was mistaken but that the use of force against terrorism in general is mistaken and futile -- just as Prodi is arguing. Are Europeans prepared to grant all of al Qaeda's conditions in exchange for a promise of security? Thoughts of Munich and 1938 come to mind.
The incoming Spanish government has declared its intention to move away from the United States and back to the "core of Europe," meaning France and Germany. Presumably Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder will welcome their new ally in Old Europe. But presumably they also know that dissociation from the United States in the wake of the Madrid bombings will be a disaster for Europe. If the United States cannot fight al Qaeda without Europe's help, it is equally true that Europe can't fight al Qaeda without the United States. If Europe's leaders understand this, then they and Bush should recognize the urgency of making common cause now, before the already damaged edifice of the transatlantic community collapses.
Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is the author of "Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order." He writes a monthly column for The Post.
Rewarding Terror in Spain
By EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
HEVY CHASE, Md.
It must be said: Spanish voters have allowed a small band of terrorists to dictate the outcome of their national elections. This is not how democracies are supposed to react when they are attacked by fanatics. Americans were visibly united and hardened by Sept. 11; the Italians overcame deep political differences to unify in their determination to crush the Red Brigades; Israeli cohesion has only been increased by decades of terrorism. When threatened by a violent few, democratic political communities will normally react by enforcing the will of the many.
For many years, this has been the Spanish answer to the Basque separatist movement. But it was not the response to last week's bombings.
Before the attacks, the polls forecast a victory for Mariano Rajoy of the Popular Party, for the very good reason that he was the chosen successor of Prime Minister José María Aznar, who has led Spain on the path of modernization and prosperity with almost universally acknowledged success. Three days before the elections, Mr. Rajoy seemed to be headed for victory over José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, who campaigned on a pledge to withdraw the 1,300 Spanish troops stationed in Iraq if the United Nations did not assume control of the occupation. Mr. Zapatero's call was not merely to avoid more casualties, but to affirm that the Iraq war was an act of imperialist aggression that Spain should never have supported.
Even those who view the Iraq war as a strategic error for the United States — and I'm one of them — cannot take seriously the Zapateros of Europe, who seem bent on validating the crudest caricatures of "old European" cowardly decadence. It was an act of colossal irresponsibility for the Socialists and the Spanish news media to excoriate the Aznar government for asserting that ETA, the Basque separatist movement, was probably behind the attacks.
Were the Socialists certain Al Qaeda was involved? No, but saying so made it easier to convince voters that the bombs had been placed by Muslims angry that Spain had sided with the United States in the war — and that the only way to make things right would be to get out of Iraq.
Whatever their motivation, the Socialists' argument was fundamentally flawed. Osama bin Laden and other Islamists had identified Spain as a priority target years before the Iraq war. Under Muslim law, no land conquered by Islam may legitimately come under non-Muslim rule. For the fanatics, Spain is still Al Andalus of the Middle Ages, which must be re-claimed for Islam by immigration and intimidation. Even if the bombs were placed by Islamists, the idea that Spain was attacked solely because of Mr. Aznar's support for the Iraq war is simply wrong.
And even if ETA is found to be responsible — something that seems increasingly unlikely given the direction of the investigation — the damage has been done. The Spanish political community has failed the test of terrorism — it has bowed to the violence of the few. Weakness tends to invite further attack. In this regard, Spain is vulnerable. It still rules the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the North African coast, which Islamists view as Christian colonies on Muslim soil. Having seen what bombs can do, they might be tempted to see if a few more explosions can induce the Spanish to withdraw. Similarly, ETA may well decide that another massacre or two will persuade the Spanish government to accept its demands.
Paradoxically, Mr. Zapatero can redeem Spanish democracy only if he repudiates the popular mandate he received and announces that there will be no withdrawal from Iraq because of any act of terrorism, Muslim or Basque.
What will the rest of Europe do? For politicians in countries like Italy, with both strong anti-American movements and troops in Iraq, the risks are obvious. Any politician who invokes Madrid to demand a withdrawal from Iraq will be inviting terrorist attacks to prove his point. What's more, it's unlikely that this strategy will work politically. The Spanish literally had no time to reflect between the Madrid bombings and the election. With more time, other nations are more likely to react as democracies usually do: by rejecting terrorists and their deluded causes.
Edward N. Luttwak is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
By EDWARD N. LUTTWAK
HEVY CHASE, Md.
It must be said: Spanish voters have allowed a small band of terrorists to dictate the outcome of their national elections. This is not how democracies are supposed to react when they are attacked by fanatics. Americans were visibly united and hardened by Sept. 11; the Italians overcame deep political differences to unify in their determination to crush the Red Brigades; Israeli cohesion has only been increased by decades of terrorism. When threatened by a violent few, democratic political communities will normally react by enforcing the will of the many.
For many years, this has been the Spanish answer to the Basque separatist movement. But it was not the response to last week's bombings.
Before the attacks, the polls forecast a victory for Mariano Rajoy of the Popular Party, for the very good reason that he was the chosen successor of Prime Minister José María Aznar, who has led Spain on the path of modernization and prosperity with almost universally acknowledged success. Three days before the elections, Mr. Rajoy seemed to be headed for victory over José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party, who campaigned on a pledge to withdraw the 1,300 Spanish troops stationed in Iraq if the United Nations did not assume control of the occupation. Mr. Zapatero's call was not merely to avoid more casualties, but to affirm that the Iraq war was an act of imperialist aggression that Spain should never have supported.
Even those who view the Iraq war as a strategic error for the United States — and I'm one of them — cannot take seriously the Zapateros of Europe, who seem bent on validating the crudest caricatures of "old European" cowardly decadence. It was an act of colossal irresponsibility for the Socialists and the Spanish news media to excoriate the Aznar government for asserting that ETA, the Basque separatist movement, was probably behind the attacks.
Were the Socialists certain Al Qaeda was involved? No, but saying so made it easier to convince voters that the bombs had been placed by Muslims angry that Spain had sided with the United States in the war — and that the only way to make things right would be to get out of Iraq.
Whatever their motivation, the Socialists' argument was fundamentally flawed. Osama bin Laden and other Islamists had identified Spain as a priority target years before the Iraq war. Under Muslim law, no land conquered by Islam may legitimately come under non-Muslim rule. For the fanatics, Spain is still Al Andalus of the Middle Ages, which must be re-claimed for Islam by immigration and intimidation. Even if the bombs were placed by Islamists, the idea that Spain was attacked solely because of Mr. Aznar's support for the Iraq war is simply wrong.
And even if ETA is found to be responsible — something that seems increasingly unlikely given the direction of the investigation — the damage has been done. The Spanish political community has failed the test of terrorism — it has bowed to the violence of the few. Weakness tends to invite further attack. In this regard, Spain is vulnerable. It still rules the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the North African coast, which Islamists view as Christian colonies on Muslim soil. Having seen what bombs can do, they might be tempted to see if a few more explosions can induce the Spanish to withdraw. Similarly, ETA may well decide that another massacre or two will persuade the Spanish government to accept its demands.
Paradoxically, Mr. Zapatero can redeem Spanish democracy only if he repudiates the popular mandate he received and announces that there will be no withdrawal from Iraq because of any act of terrorism, Muslim or Basque.
What will the rest of Europe do? For politicians in countries like Italy, with both strong anti-American movements and troops in Iraq, the risks are obvious. Any politician who invokes Madrid to demand a withdrawal from Iraq will be inviting terrorist attacks to prove his point. What's more, it's unlikely that this strategy will work politically. The Spanish literally had no time to reflect between the Madrid bombings and the election. With more time, other nations are more likely to react as democracies usually do: by rejecting terrorists and their deluded causes.
Edward N. Luttwak is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Al Qaeda's Wish List
By DAVID BROOKS
am trying not to think harshly of the Spanish. They have suffered a grievous blow, and it was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre. Nonetheless, here is what seems to have happened:
The Spanish government was conducting policies in Afghanistan and Iraq that Al Qaeda found objectionable. A group linked to Al Qaeda murdered 200 Spaniards, claiming that the bombing was punishment for those policies. Some significant percentage of the Spanish electorate was mobilized after the massacre to shift the course of the campaign, throw out the old government and replace it with one whose policies are more to Al Qaeda's liking.
What is the Spanish word for appeasement?
There are millions of Americans, in and out of government, who believe the swing Spanish voters are shamefully trying to seek a separate peace in the war on terror.
I'm resisting that conclusion, because I don't know what mix of issues swung the Spanish election during those final days. But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable. I don't care what the policy is. You do not give terrorists the chance to think that their methods work. You do not give them the chance to celebrate victories. When you do that, you make the world a more dangerous place, for others and probably for yourself.
We can be pretty sure now that this will not be the last of the election-eve massacres. Al Qaeda will regard Spain as a splendid triumph. After all, how often have murderers altered a democratic election? And having done it once, why stop now? Why should they not now massacre Italians, Poles, Americans and Brits?
Al Qaeda has now induced one nation to abandon the Iraqi people. Yesterday the incoming Spanish prime minister indicated he would pull his troops out of Iraq unless the U.N. takes control. The terrorists sought this because they understand, even if many in Europe do not, that Iraq is a crucial battleground in the war on terror. They understand what a deadly threat the new democratic constitution is to their cause. As Abu Musab al-Zarqawi wrote in his famous memo, where there is democracy, there is no pretext for murder. Where there is liberty, there is no chance for totalitarian theocracy.
Perhaps Al Qaeda will win new recruits as a result of this triumph. But even if it does destroy Afghanistan and Iraq, it still will not stop. Retreating nations like Spain will still not be safe. For Al Qaeda's mission is not about one country or another. It is existential. "You love life and we love death," the purported terrorists said in the videotape found in Madrid.
There will be other aftershocks from the Spanish election. The rift between the U.S. and Europe will grow wider. Now all European politicians will know that if they side with America on controversial security threats, and terrorists strike their nation, they might be blamed by their own voters.
Many Americans and many Europeans will stare at each other in the weeks ahead with disbelieving eyes. For today more than any other, it really does appear that Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus.
If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party? Does anyone doubt that Americans and Europeans have different moral and political cultures? Yesterday the chief of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, told Italy's La Stampa, "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Does he really think capitulation or negotiation works better? Can you imagine John Kerry or George Bush saying that?
Nor is America itself without blame. Where was our State Department? Why hasn't Colin Powell spent the past few years crisscrossing Europe so that voters there would at least know the arguments for the liberation of Iraq, would at least have some accurate picture of Americans, rather than the crude cowboy stereotype propagated by the European media? Why does the Bush administration make it so hard for its friends? Why is it so unable to reach out?
This is a watershed event. It will change how Al Qaeda thinks about the world. It will change how Europeans see the world. It will constrain American policy for years to come.
By DAVID BROOKS
am trying not to think harshly of the Spanish. They have suffered a grievous blow, and it was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre. Nonetheless, here is what seems to have happened:
The Spanish government was conducting policies in Afghanistan and Iraq that Al Qaeda found objectionable. A group linked to Al Qaeda murdered 200 Spaniards, claiming that the bombing was punishment for those policies. Some significant percentage of the Spanish electorate was mobilized after the massacre to shift the course of the campaign, throw out the old government and replace it with one whose policies are more to Al Qaeda's liking.
What is the Spanish word for appeasement?
There are millions of Americans, in and out of government, who believe the swing Spanish voters are shamefully trying to seek a separate peace in the war on terror.
I'm resisting that conclusion, because I don't know what mix of issues swung the Spanish election during those final days. But I do know that reversing course in the wake of a terrorist attack is inexcusable. I don't care what the policy is. You do not give terrorists the chance to think that their methods work. You do not give them the chance to celebrate victories. When you do that, you make the world a more dangerous place, for others and probably for yourself.
We can be pretty sure now that this will not be the last of the election-eve massacres. Al Qaeda will regard Spain as a splendid triumph. After all, how often have murderers altered a democratic election? And having done it once, why stop now? Why should they not now massacre Italians, Poles, Americans and Brits?
Al Qaeda has now induced one nation to abandon the Iraqi people. Yesterday the incoming Spanish prime minister indicated he would pull his troops out of Iraq unless the U.N. takes control. The terrorists sought this because they understand, even if many in Europe do not, that Iraq is a crucial battleground in the war on terror. They understand what a deadly threat the new democratic constitution is to their cause. As Abu Musab al-Zarqawi wrote in his famous memo, where there is democracy, there is no pretext for murder. Where there is liberty, there is no chance for totalitarian theocracy.
Perhaps Al Qaeda will win new recruits as a result of this triumph. But even if it does destroy Afghanistan and Iraq, it still will not stop. Retreating nations like Spain will still not be safe. For Al Qaeda's mission is not about one country or another. It is existential. "You love life and we love death," the purported terrorists said in the videotape found in Madrid.
There will be other aftershocks from the Spanish election. The rift between the U.S. and Europe will grow wider. Now all European politicians will know that if they side with America on controversial security threats, and terrorists strike their nation, they might be blamed by their own voters.
Many Americans and many Europeans will stare at each other in the weeks ahead with disbelieving eyes. For today more than any other, it really does appear that Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus.
If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party? Does anyone doubt that Americans and Europeans have different moral and political cultures? Yesterday the chief of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, told Italy's La Stampa, "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Does he really think capitulation or negotiation works better? Can you imagine John Kerry or George Bush saying that?
Nor is America itself without blame. Where was our State Department? Why hasn't Colin Powell spent the past few years crisscrossing Europe so that voters there would at least know the arguments for the liberation of Iraq, would at least have some accurate picture of Americans, rather than the crude cowboy stereotype propagated by the European media? Why does the Bush administration make it so hard for its friends? Why is it so unable to reach out?
This is a watershed event. It will change how Al Qaeda thinks about the world. It will change how Europeans see the world. It will constrain American policy for years to come.
Campaign of Terror
by Robert Lane Greene
By no stretch is it a good thing for the integrity of democracy when an elected government publicly announces that it will renege on one of its central campaign planks immediately after taking office. But if ever there was a moment that required a government to do exactly that, it has now arrived in Spain. In the wake of yesterday's election, in which the opposition Socialists swept to a come-from-behind victory just days after an Al Qaeda attack on Madrid, the obvious question will be whether the terrorist group's first attempt to meddle in Western electoral politics was a success. And the obvious answer--given that before the attacks the incumbent center-right Popular Party (PP) was leading in polls and that the PP's support of the war in Iraq was one of the campaign's defining issues--seems to be yes.
But that answer isn't wholly correct--at least not yet. It is still not too late for the incoming Socialist government to deny Al Qaeda an election victory: The Socialists must under no circumstances pull Spanish troops out of Iraq by the summer, as they said they might do during the campaign. If they do not break this promise, they will be allowing Al Qaeda to dictate policy outcomes in a democratic country--which will surely encourage further attacks in democratic countries, especially those that were part of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. The Socialists have a right to their views on the war. But they also have an obligation to the community of free nations, all of which will suffer the consequences if Al Qaeda believes it can use bombs to play electoral politics. For the moment, that obligation trumps the promise the Socialists made to Spanish voters.
To be sure, it is not clear that the bombings alone determined the election's outcome. The ruling government's response to the bombings--which seemed incompetent at best, dishonest at worst--helped swing the election to the Socialists. It now appears beyond question that the attack was the work of Al Qaeda, but the government initially insisted that the bombings were the work of the Basque separatist group ETA. Immediately following the attack, the interior minister said there was "no doubt" ETA was behind the attacks. He backed off that statement when a van was found with bomb detonators as well as tapes of Koranic verses in Arabic--but he, as well as Prime Minister José María Aznar, continued to call ETA the primary focus of investigation during the next few days.
They made these claims despite the fact that the attacks bore none of ETA's hallmarks. They were far bigger than any in ETA's history: The deadliest ETA bombing had killed 21 in a supermarket in 1987, whereas 200 died in last week's massacre. ETA has made a practice of warning the public before any attack that was likely to kill civilians; the group also usually claimed responsibility soon after bombs exploded. It did neither this time: In fact, a spokesman for the group's political wing quickly denied responsibility, while a group claiming affiliation to Al Qaeda took credit in a letter to a London-based Arab newspaper. Then there was the physical evidence: On Friday, investigators determined that an unexploded bomb did not have the same type of detonator or explosive normally used by ETA. Despite this evidence--and despite the fact that multiple simultaneous bombings are a hallmark of Al Qaeda's style--the government continued to call ETA the likeliest suspect until the day before the election. At that point, with the arrest of three Moroccans and two Spanish citizens of Indian origin, the government was forced to admit that the bombings were probably the work of Islamists.
Whether or not Aznar's government lied on purpose, the perception that it misled voters was unavoidable, because the current dynamics of Spanish politics meant that an ETA attack would have helped the PP, while an Al Qaeda attack would have boosted the opposition. Why? The PP's hard line against ETA has been popular with voters; an attack showing that Basque extremists remained a deadly threat would have helped the party that appeared tougher on them. On the other hand, an attack by Al Qaeda would have created the impression that Spain was a target because of its support of the war in Iraq--a war that Aznar backed despite its unpopularity with the Spanish public. Hence, the PP's immediate and incorrect fingering of Basque separatists looked politically self-serving, whether or not it really was.
As a result, one could argue about whether it was the Al Qaeda attack or the government's botched response that opened the door for the Socialists. But it's an irrelevant debate because, whatever the truth, Al Qaeda itself will perceive that it influenced the outcome of the election--and the group's perception will determine how it acts in the future. Believing that it has influenced the results in Spain, Al Qaeda may be tempted to play politics in other countries where governments supported the war. Will the group move on to Britain or Italy? Or America's allies in Eastern Europe? What about America itself?
All of which is why the Socialists, under the leadership of incoming prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, must back away from one of their central promises to Spanish voters. The Socialists had pledged to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq by the summer if the United Nations did not give them a stronger mandate. But a withdrawal of the troops would be an unmitigated disaster, proving to the bombers that Westerners' nerves are easily broken, and that terrorists can dictate policy outcomes in democratic countries. Zapatero has promised that his first priority in office will be to "combat all forms of terrorism." But pronouncements are not enough. Al Qaeda wants Western troops out of Iraq; Spain must not appear to be delivering what Al Qaeda wants.
The United States and Britain must do their parts to give Zapatero the political cover he needs to go back on his campaign promise. France and Russia, veto-wielding Security Council members that have experienced Muslim terror and have now promised to help Spain fight it, must do the same. They must work quickly to craft a Security Council resolution that strengthens the organization's blessing of the coalition's efforts. While it is unlikely that the United Nations will take a major political role in Iraq at this point, a strong symbolic resolution could give Zapatero enough political cover to extend the stay of Spain's troops. If not, a Spanish retreat from Iraq, traceable directly to the massacre in Madrid, would mean that March 14 will go down in history as Al Qaeda's first-ever victory at the ballot box.
by Robert Lane Greene
By no stretch is it a good thing for the integrity of democracy when an elected government publicly announces that it will renege on one of its central campaign planks immediately after taking office. But if ever there was a moment that required a government to do exactly that, it has now arrived in Spain. In the wake of yesterday's election, in which the opposition Socialists swept to a come-from-behind victory just days after an Al Qaeda attack on Madrid, the obvious question will be whether the terrorist group's first attempt to meddle in Western electoral politics was a success. And the obvious answer--given that before the attacks the incumbent center-right Popular Party (PP) was leading in polls and that the PP's support of the war in Iraq was one of the campaign's defining issues--seems to be yes.
But that answer isn't wholly correct--at least not yet. It is still not too late for the incoming Socialist government to deny Al Qaeda an election victory: The Socialists must under no circumstances pull Spanish troops out of Iraq by the summer, as they said they might do during the campaign. If they do not break this promise, they will be allowing Al Qaeda to dictate policy outcomes in a democratic country--which will surely encourage further attacks in democratic countries, especially those that were part of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. The Socialists have a right to their views on the war. But they also have an obligation to the community of free nations, all of which will suffer the consequences if Al Qaeda believes it can use bombs to play electoral politics. For the moment, that obligation trumps the promise the Socialists made to Spanish voters.
To be sure, it is not clear that the bombings alone determined the election's outcome. The ruling government's response to the bombings--which seemed incompetent at best, dishonest at worst--helped swing the election to the Socialists. It now appears beyond question that the attack was the work of Al Qaeda, but the government initially insisted that the bombings were the work of the Basque separatist group ETA. Immediately following the attack, the interior minister said there was "no doubt" ETA was behind the attacks. He backed off that statement when a van was found with bomb detonators as well as tapes of Koranic verses in Arabic--but he, as well as Prime Minister José María Aznar, continued to call ETA the primary focus of investigation during the next few days.
They made these claims despite the fact that the attacks bore none of ETA's hallmarks. They were far bigger than any in ETA's history: The deadliest ETA bombing had killed 21 in a supermarket in 1987, whereas 200 died in last week's massacre. ETA has made a practice of warning the public before any attack that was likely to kill civilians; the group also usually claimed responsibility soon after bombs exploded. It did neither this time: In fact, a spokesman for the group's political wing quickly denied responsibility, while a group claiming affiliation to Al Qaeda took credit in a letter to a London-based Arab newspaper. Then there was the physical evidence: On Friday, investigators determined that an unexploded bomb did not have the same type of detonator or explosive normally used by ETA. Despite this evidence--and despite the fact that multiple simultaneous bombings are a hallmark of Al Qaeda's style--the government continued to call ETA the likeliest suspect until the day before the election. At that point, with the arrest of three Moroccans and two Spanish citizens of Indian origin, the government was forced to admit that the bombings were probably the work of Islamists.
Whether or not Aznar's government lied on purpose, the perception that it misled voters was unavoidable, because the current dynamics of Spanish politics meant that an ETA attack would have helped the PP, while an Al Qaeda attack would have boosted the opposition. Why? The PP's hard line against ETA has been popular with voters; an attack showing that Basque extremists remained a deadly threat would have helped the party that appeared tougher on them. On the other hand, an attack by Al Qaeda would have created the impression that Spain was a target because of its support of the war in Iraq--a war that Aznar backed despite its unpopularity with the Spanish public. Hence, the PP's immediate and incorrect fingering of Basque separatists looked politically self-serving, whether or not it really was.
As a result, one could argue about whether it was the Al Qaeda attack or the government's botched response that opened the door for the Socialists. But it's an irrelevant debate because, whatever the truth, Al Qaeda itself will perceive that it influenced the outcome of the election--and the group's perception will determine how it acts in the future. Believing that it has influenced the results in Spain, Al Qaeda may be tempted to play politics in other countries where governments supported the war. Will the group move on to Britain or Italy? Or America's allies in Eastern Europe? What about America itself?
All of which is why the Socialists, under the leadership of incoming prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, must back away from one of their central promises to Spanish voters. The Socialists had pledged to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq by the summer if the United Nations did not give them a stronger mandate. But a withdrawal of the troops would be an unmitigated disaster, proving to the bombers that Westerners' nerves are easily broken, and that terrorists can dictate policy outcomes in democratic countries. Zapatero has promised that his first priority in office will be to "combat all forms of terrorism." But pronouncements are not enough. Al Qaeda wants Western troops out of Iraq; Spain must not appear to be delivering what Al Qaeda wants.
The United States and Britain must do their parts to give Zapatero the political cover he needs to go back on his campaign promise. France and Russia, veto-wielding Security Council members that have experienced Muslim terror and have now promised to help Spain fight it, must do the same. They must work quickly to craft a Security Council resolution that strengthens the organization's blessing of the coalition's efforts. While it is unlikely that the United Nations will take a major political role in Iraq at this point, a strong symbolic resolution could give Zapatero enough political cover to extend the stay of Spain's troops. If not, a Spanish retreat from Iraq, traceable directly to the massacre in Madrid, would mean that March 14 will go down in history as Al Qaeda's first-ever victory at the ballot box.
Experts: War on terrorism could spawn new enemies
Splinter groups may rise from crackdown on al Qaeda, they warnFrom Kelli Arena
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, March 16, 2004 Posted: 1:54 AM EST (0654 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It is possible the U.S.-led war on terror has created new enemies of Western governments and societies by splintering al Qaeda, according to counterterrorism experts.
Some U.S. government officials go so far as to say that even if Islamic fundamentalists are eventually found responsible for the train bombings in Spain last week, the effort to identify one particular group may be futile.
"This is not like the Gambino crime family, a Mafia family, where if you just arrest the leaders it goes out of business," said Peter Bergen, a CNN terrorism expert and author of "Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden."
"This is more like a mass movement, and you can arrest as many people as you want. But it's very hard to arrest the movement of ideas."
One U.S. counterterrorism official said an al Qaeda connection to the Madrid bombings has been established. It was reported Monday that one of the five men arrested may have ties to an al Qaeda-linked bombing in Morocco last year.
"We do know that there is a connection to al Qaeda. We have verified that," said Asa Hutchinson, U.S. undersecretary for homeland security. "The extent of responsibility and whether any other terrorist organization is involved has yet to be determined." (Full story)
But experts such as MJ Gohel, a terrorism specialist at the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a London-based think tank, suggest the term al Qaeda is just shorthand for a complex global terror network.
"What we are dealing here with is an ideology," Gohel said. "It is a global jihad movement composed of al Qaeda and many affiliated terrorist groups. All of these groups are autonomous."
Terrorism experts have long said al Qaeda was made up of loosely affiliated groups. But most attacks, including those of September 11, 2001, could eventually be traced back to Osama bin Laden or other terrorist leaders.
As President Bush put it this month: "Some two-thirds of al Qaeda's key leaders have been captured or killed. The rest of them hear us breathing down their neck."
Now, counterterrorism officials say one of their biggest concerns is how U.S. actions such as the war in Iraq are motivating new recruits bound by a common goal: to destroy Western secular society.
Both government and private experts are bracing for what they say will be a war that could last for generations.
Splinter groups may rise from crackdown on al Qaeda, they warnFrom Kelli Arena
CNN Washington Bureau
Tuesday, March 16, 2004 Posted: 1:54 AM EST (0654 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It is possible the U.S.-led war on terror has created new enemies of Western governments and societies by splintering al Qaeda, according to counterterrorism experts.
Some U.S. government officials go so far as to say that even if Islamic fundamentalists are eventually found responsible for the train bombings in Spain last week, the effort to identify one particular group may be futile.
"This is not like the Gambino crime family, a Mafia family, where if you just arrest the leaders it goes out of business," said Peter Bergen, a CNN terrorism expert and author of "Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden."
"This is more like a mass movement, and you can arrest as many people as you want. But it's very hard to arrest the movement of ideas."
One U.S. counterterrorism official said an al Qaeda connection to the Madrid bombings has been established. It was reported Monday that one of the five men arrested may have ties to an al Qaeda-linked bombing in Morocco last year.
"We do know that there is a connection to al Qaeda. We have verified that," said Asa Hutchinson, U.S. undersecretary for homeland security. "The extent of responsibility and whether any other terrorist organization is involved has yet to be determined." (Full story)
But experts such as MJ Gohel, a terrorism specialist at the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a London-based think tank, suggest the term al Qaeda is just shorthand for a complex global terror network.
"What we are dealing here with is an ideology," Gohel said. "It is a global jihad movement composed of al Qaeda and many affiliated terrorist groups. All of these groups are autonomous."
Terrorism experts have long said al Qaeda was made up of loosely affiliated groups. But most attacks, including those of September 11, 2001, could eventually be traced back to Osama bin Laden or other terrorist leaders.
As President Bush put it this month: "Some two-thirds of al Qaeda's key leaders have been captured or killed. The rest of them hear us breathing down their neck."
Now, counterterrorism officials say one of their biggest concerns is how U.S. actions such as the war in Iraq are motivating new recruits bound by a common goal: to destroy Western secular society.
Both government and private experts are bracing for what they say will be a war that could last for generations.
Monday, March 15, 2004
The Spanish Apology
The results of Sunday's election in Spain, in which the pro-American Popular party was voted out of office in an upset by a Socialist party profoundly at odds with American policy in Iraq and elsewhere, doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Economics wasn't the issue. Job creation and education weren't topics of widespread debate. The war in Iraq, which the conservative Aznar government strongly supported, despite the overwhelming opposition of most Spaniards, had largely evaporated as a factor in the polls before the voting. Not even the horrible terror attacks of Thursday did much to change voters' minds.
The thing that made the difference to Spanish voters was the growing apprehension that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks. In the first few hours after the atrocity, homegrown ETA terrorists were blamed by the government for the attacks. If true, this would have strengthened the government's strong antiterrorist position. But subsequent evidence of possible al Qaeda involvement — evidence mostly unverified and still under investigation — was used by the Socialists in noisy street demonstrations supported by Spain's left-wing press as proof that al Qaeda was targeting Spain because of its support of the U.S. in Iraq and that the government had lied in claiming the ETA was the culprit, despite the fact that potential Arab involvement had been discovered by the outgoing government. BBC reports from Madrid cast the election as a referendum not just on the war, but on whether or not Spanish voters were willing to face the consequences of joining the war on terrorism.
They were not. Spanish voters went to the polls to apologize for their government's actions. There was no other issue on the ballot. The results bode ill for America's antiterrorism campaign. As the Daily Telegraph reports today, the new Spanish prime minister has signaled his desire to move away from the U.S.; withdrawing troops from the Coalition in Iraq was one of the Socialists' main campaign promises, and indeed, it was one of the first acts announced by the new government. By the time you have lunch today, reports the BBC with some satisfaction, Spanish troops will be packing their bags to go home.
But the reaction in the left-wing European press is predictable. The Guardian had already sounded the note the night before the elections in an editorial that reflected the Spanish mood accurately: "We need to take the fight against terror out of America's hands. We need to get beyond the them and us, the good guys and the bad guys, and seek a genuinely collective response. Europe should seize the moment that America failed to grasp." As Spain's left-wing El Pais celebrated the Socialists' "unprecedented" victory, in Libération, the defeat was seen as the price of Aznar's "lies" about al Qaeda culpability. Suddeutsche Zeitung told readers that Aznar was being punished for supporting America's antiterrorism policies in Iraq and elsewhere. In the Independent, Robert Fisk reminded his readers that "The West was warned." He's not referring to September 11, of course.
The ultimate wisdom of allowing al Qaeda terrorism to determine national elections is still to be seen. But as the Socialists in Spain get "beyond the them and us, the good guys and the bad guys," and attempt to find the common ground they have with whomever killed 200 innocent citizens and wounded 1,400 others, that country's apology for supporting the war on terrorism will be heard with appreciation by al Qaeda — and ETA, the IRA, Hamas, and every other terrorist organization in the world.
The results of Sunday's election in Spain, in which the pro-American Popular party was voted out of office in an upset by a Socialist party profoundly at odds with American policy in Iraq and elsewhere, doesn't leave much room for interpretation. Economics wasn't the issue. Job creation and education weren't topics of widespread debate. The war in Iraq, which the conservative Aznar government strongly supported, despite the overwhelming opposition of most Spaniards, had largely evaporated as a factor in the polls before the voting. Not even the horrible terror attacks of Thursday did much to change voters' minds.
The thing that made the difference to Spanish voters was the growing apprehension that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks. In the first few hours after the atrocity, homegrown ETA terrorists were blamed by the government for the attacks. If true, this would have strengthened the government's strong antiterrorist position. But subsequent evidence of possible al Qaeda involvement — evidence mostly unverified and still under investigation — was used by the Socialists in noisy street demonstrations supported by Spain's left-wing press as proof that al Qaeda was targeting Spain because of its support of the U.S. in Iraq and that the government had lied in claiming the ETA was the culprit, despite the fact that potential Arab involvement had been discovered by the outgoing government. BBC reports from Madrid cast the election as a referendum not just on the war, but on whether or not Spanish voters were willing to face the consequences of joining the war on terrorism.
They were not. Spanish voters went to the polls to apologize for their government's actions. There was no other issue on the ballot. The results bode ill for America's antiterrorism campaign. As the Daily Telegraph reports today, the new Spanish prime minister has signaled his desire to move away from the U.S.; withdrawing troops from the Coalition in Iraq was one of the Socialists' main campaign promises, and indeed, it was one of the first acts announced by the new government. By the time you have lunch today, reports the BBC with some satisfaction, Spanish troops will be packing their bags to go home.
But the reaction in the left-wing European press is predictable. The Guardian had already sounded the note the night before the elections in an editorial that reflected the Spanish mood accurately: "We need to take the fight against terror out of America's hands. We need to get beyond the them and us, the good guys and the bad guys, and seek a genuinely collective response. Europe should seize the moment that America failed to grasp." As Spain's left-wing El Pais celebrated the Socialists' "unprecedented" victory, in Libération, the defeat was seen as the price of Aznar's "lies" about al Qaeda culpability. Suddeutsche Zeitung told readers that Aznar was being punished for supporting America's antiterrorism policies in Iraq and elsewhere. In the Independent, Robert Fisk reminded his readers that "The West was warned." He's not referring to September 11, of course.
The ultimate wisdom of allowing al Qaeda terrorism to determine national elections is still to be seen. But as the Socialists in Spain get "beyond the them and us, the good guys and the bad guys," and attempt to find the common ground they have with whomever killed 200 innocent citizens and wounded 1,400 others, that country's apology for supporting the war on terrorism will be heard with appreciation by al Qaeda — and ETA, the IRA, Hamas, and every other terrorist organization in the world.
David Frum:
MAR. 15, 2004: A WIN FOR TERROR
Terrorism has won a mighty victory in Spain. The culprits who detonated those bombs of murder on 3/11 intended to use murder to alter the course of Spanish democracy – and they have succeeded.
In the months since the attacks on the World Trade Center, we have all heard – and ourselves often repeated – much brave talk about how terror cannot prevail, how justice must inevitably win through, etc. etc. etc.
The news from Spain suggests how very wrong those hopes were.
People are not always strong. Sometimes they indulge false hopes that by lying low, truckling, appeasing, they can avoid danger and strife. Sometimes they convince themselves that if only they give the Cyclops what he wants, they will be eaten last. And this is what seems to have happened in Spain.
Unlike the 9/11 attacks in the United States – which were intended as acts of propaganda to influence the Arab and Muslim world – the 3/11 attacks against Spain were acts of propaganda aimed at the local market. And again unlike 9/11, this time the terrorists succeeded brilliantly. They helped to defeat a government committed to joining the war against them – and helped elect a government whose leading members not so quietly dream of a separate accommodation.
From a human point of view, the carnage of 3/11 is a tragedy without purpose or meaning. But from a political point of view, 3/11 was aimed at a result – and it achieved it. The new socialist government of Spain will be a far less willing ally of the United States. Indeed, this attack against Spain may well succeed in pre-emptively knocking Spain out of the war in the way that Pearl Harbor was intended – but failed – to knock out the United States in 1941.
Lesson: terrorism can work. Prediction: therefore expect more of it. Expect more terrorism aimed at the United Kingdom, against Australia, against Poland, and – ultimately – against the United States. For the terrorists must now wonder: If murder can influence elections in Spain – why not in the United States?
In the United States, the terrorists have to make a very fine calculation: Which would hurt President Bush, their supereme enemy, more – to attack or not to attack?
Those who know American politics well would probably answer: choice number two. The more time goes by without a terrorist attack, the less President Bush benefits from his prestige as a war leader – and the more the national conversation turns to new subjects on which President Bush holds less of an advantage. On the other hand, the terrorists may be less sophisticated. They may hope to defeat their enemy George W. Bush in the same way that they defeated their enemy Jose Aznar. In which case – brace yourselves.
MAR. 15, 2004: A WIN FOR TERROR
Terrorism has won a mighty victory in Spain. The culprits who detonated those bombs of murder on 3/11 intended to use murder to alter the course of Spanish democracy – and they have succeeded.
In the months since the attacks on the World Trade Center, we have all heard – and ourselves often repeated – much brave talk about how terror cannot prevail, how justice must inevitably win through, etc. etc. etc.
The news from Spain suggests how very wrong those hopes were.
People are not always strong. Sometimes they indulge false hopes that by lying low, truckling, appeasing, they can avoid danger and strife. Sometimes they convince themselves that if only they give the Cyclops what he wants, they will be eaten last. And this is what seems to have happened in Spain.
Unlike the 9/11 attacks in the United States – which were intended as acts of propaganda to influence the Arab and Muslim world – the 3/11 attacks against Spain were acts of propaganda aimed at the local market. And again unlike 9/11, this time the terrorists succeeded brilliantly. They helped to defeat a government committed to joining the war against them – and helped elect a government whose leading members not so quietly dream of a separate accommodation.
From a human point of view, the carnage of 3/11 is a tragedy without purpose or meaning. But from a political point of view, 3/11 was aimed at a result – and it achieved it. The new socialist government of Spain will be a far less willing ally of the United States. Indeed, this attack against Spain may well succeed in pre-emptively knocking Spain out of the war in the way that Pearl Harbor was intended – but failed – to knock out the United States in 1941.
Lesson: terrorism can work. Prediction: therefore expect more of it. Expect more terrorism aimed at the United Kingdom, against Australia, against Poland, and – ultimately – against the United States. For the terrorists must now wonder: If murder can influence elections in Spain – why not in the United States?
In the United States, the terrorists have to make a very fine calculation: Which would hurt President Bush, their supereme enemy, more – to attack or not to attack?
Those who know American politics well would probably answer: choice number two. The more time goes by without a terrorist attack, the less President Bush benefits from his prestige as a war leader – and the more the national conversation turns to new subjects on which President Bush holds less of an advantage. On the other hand, the terrorists may be less sophisticated. They may hope to defeat their enemy George W. Bush in the same way that they defeated their enemy Jose Aznar. In which case – brace yourselves.
A horrible day for the world.
On march 11th, 200 people were blown to pieces on 4 different commuter trains in Madrid, Spain. A bad day for the world and for humanity.
On the morning of March 15th, the newly elected socialist leader of Spain vowed to bring home the few troops the country has sent to Iraq. A ghastly day for democracies, and a horrible day for the world.
As we smell the rotten smell of decay in Iran, they are smelling it in Europe. It is now a race for who will fall first.
On march 11th, 200 people were blown to pieces on 4 different commuter trains in Madrid, Spain. A bad day for the world and for humanity.
On the morning of March 15th, the newly elected socialist leader of Spain vowed to bring home the few troops the country has sent to Iraq. A ghastly day for democracies, and a horrible day for the world.
As we smell the rotten smell of decay in Iran, they are smelling it in Europe. It is now a race for who will fall first.
This article is from today's arabnews.com. I was hoping this was a joke, but it turns out it is apallingly real. So here is a bit of what is going on in Saudi directly from our Saudi friends:
No Letup in Raids Against Travel Agents in Riyadh
M. Ghazanfar Ali Khan, Arab News Staff
RIYADH, 15 March 2004 — Raids and sweeping arrests of expatriate travel agents continued until last night, defying hopes of a grace period for Saudization of the travel industry.
No more heads have been forcibly shaved, according to recently released travel agents.
But all detained workers complained barbers in the detention center used pressure tactics to persuade workers to allow their heads to be shaved — possibly to maximize their income. Some said that while head-shaving was not mandatory, many inmates were tense and anxious during detention and did not dare refuse or simply asked no questions of the barbers.
One detained worker also alleged that a few policemen behaved in an indecent manner when some inmates of the deportation center refused a shave.
Immediately after his release, V. Ramachandran Suresh, who spent the weekend in deportation cell No. 2, said two of his colleagues — a Sri Lankan and another Indian — succumbed to the pressure from the barber alone and got their heads shaved.
Detainees also complained of poor hygienic conditions and overcrowding in the holding cell.
Muhammad Banaras Khan of TransContinent Travel, who was released last week, said Saudi officials are still holding his Iqama (residence permit).
Subodh Shetty, who works as a sales executive for STATCO, said he and his colleagues got their Iqamas back after their sponsors paid the fine.
Sunday night’s raids took place in several agencies in Olaya and Shumaisy districts, according to a travel agent. It was not known how many workers were detained last night.
Some foreign workers escaped. “All of us fled by the back door of the agency’s office while the front door was closed.”
Many travel agents had hoped a grace period would be announced at the beginning of the week, and some are still hopeful.
Abdul Ghaffar, an industry expert, said that the authorities should map out a practical plan. “Because of the Sept. 11 attack, the Iraq war and SARS, the industry has been in turmoil,” he said adding it was “high time for government to lend support to the sector.”
No Letup in Raids Against Travel Agents in Riyadh
M. Ghazanfar Ali Khan, Arab News Staff
RIYADH, 15 March 2004 — Raids and sweeping arrests of expatriate travel agents continued until last night, defying hopes of a grace period for Saudization of the travel industry.
No more heads have been forcibly shaved, according to recently released travel agents.
But all detained workers complained barbers in the detention center used pressure tactics to persuade workers to allow their heads to be shaved — possibly to maximize their income. Some said that while head-shaving was not mandatory, many inmates were tense and anxious during detention and did not dare refuse or simply asked no questions of the barbers.
One detained worker also alleged that a few policemen behaved in an indecent manner when some inmates of the deportation center refused a shave.
Immediately after his release, V. Ramachandran Suresh, who spent the weekend in deportation cell No. 2, said two of his colleagues — a Sri Lankan and another Indian — succumbed to the pressure from the barber alone and got their heads shaved.
Detainees also complained of poor hygienic conditions and overcrowding in the holding cell.
Muhammad Banaras Khan of TransContinent Travel, who was released last week, said Saudi officials are still holding his Iqama (residence permit).
Subodh Shetty, who works as a sales executive for STATCO, said he and his colleagues got their Iqamas back after their sponsors paid the fine.
Sunday night’s raids took place in several agencies in Olaya and Shumaisy districts, according to a travel agent. It was not known how many workers were detained last night.
Some foreign workers escaped. “All of us fled by the back door of the agency’s office while the front door was closed.”
Many travel agents had hoped a grace period would be announced at the beginning of the week, and some are still hopeful.
Abdul Ghaffar, an industry expert, said that the authorities should map out a practical plan. “Because of the Sept. 11 attack, the Iraq war and SARS, the industry has been in turmoil,” he said adding it was “high time for government to lend support to the sector.”
From the Italian Corriera della Sera, a Milan Daily:
Al Qaeda: ?Colpiamo la Spagna e si ritirer? da Bagdad? di M. Allam
Un documento strategico del gruppo saudita Voce della Jihad legato a Al Qaeda completa la quadratura del cerchio nella strage di Madrid. La Spagna viene indicata come ?la prima pedina da abbattere per provocare un effetto domino che costringa le altre forze occupanti ad abbandonare l'Iraq?. A quattro giorni dalla strage emerge la presenza di un network del terrore che ha nei terroristi islamici il braccio armato e un braccio politico-propagandistico di cui fanno parte una fazione della sedicente ?resistenza irachena?, gruppi terroristici europei tra cui l'Eta e i circuiti antimperialisti. E che ha suggellato un patto di sangue in Iraq individuato come il fronte di prima linea della guerra totale all'America e all'Occidente. Ecco perch? la strage di Madrid, che forse non a caso cade 911 giorni dopo la tragedia americana dell'11-9 del 2001, rappresenta un salto di qualit? che ha globalizzato l'offensiva del terrore tramite la saldatura tra tutte le forze che a vario titolo condividono l'antiamericanismo. Il documento di Al Qaeda di 42 pagine ? stato redatto e diffuso alla fine del 2003. Ma soltanto ora viene riscoperto per la sua impressionante previsione della strage di Madrid e del risultato delle elezioni. ?Per costringere il governo spagnolo a ritirarsi dall'Iraq, la resistenza deve infliggere dei pesanti colpi alle sue forze. Seguiti da una campagna propagandistica per illustrare la realt? della situazione in Iraq. Dobbiamo sfruttare al massimo la scadenza elettorale. Noi riteniamo che il governo spagnolo non sopporter? che due o tre attacchi al massimo prima di essere costretto a ritirarsi sotto la pressione popolare. Se non lo dovesse fare, la vittoria del partito socialista sar? pressoch? certa e il ritiro dall?Iraq sar? una delle sue priorit?.
Il matrimonio d'interesse tra l?alleanza del terrore ? stato reso possibile dall'attivismo dei dirigenti della Alleanza nazionale patriottica irachena, Jabbar Al-Kubaysi e Awni Al-Kalemji, che risiedevano in Europa. Qui, tramite il circuito dei circuiti antimperialisti, hanno stretto legami con l'Eta e altre sigle del terrorismo internazionale. Al-Kubaysi, rientrato in Iraq alla vigilia della guerra, dirige la ?resistenza? armata a Falluja contro le forze americane e i ?collaborazionisti?. Ed ? sul terreno che si realizza l'intesa operativa con i terroristi islamici autoctoni e stranieri provenienti da ogni parte del mondo. L'obiettivo di Al-Kubaysi ? dar vita, entro la fine di marzo, a un Fronte di liberazione nazionale che dovrebbe associare laici e religiosi, sunniti e sciiti, arabi e curdi contrari alla ?pax americana?.
Al-Kalemji proprio ieri si trovava a Barcellona per propagandare l'idea del Fln iracheno. Il tour italiano ? invece affidato a Shawkat Khazindar che, dopo essere stato a Roma, Napoli, Sassari, Perugia, Milano, Firenze, ieri ha tenuto una conferenza a Porto S. Giorgio (Fermo). Queste le parole d'ordine inalberate: ?No all'occupazione dell'Iraq! Ritirare i soldati italiani! Nessun sacrificio per la guerra di Berlusconi! Nessun inciucio con i guerrafondai! Fuori le basi Usa dall'Italia! Fuori l'Italia dalla Nato! Solidariet? con l'Intifada palestinese e la Resistenza irachena!?. Una strategia condivisa dal Campo Antimperialista che ospita gli esponenti della ?resistenza irachena?, ha gi? promosso la raccolta di 12 mila euro per finanziarne l'attivit? propagandistica, condivide e sottoscrive gli attentati compiuti contro gli americani e i loro alleati. Compreso il massacro dei carabinieri a Nassiriya: ?Gli attacchi ai militari sono legittimi anche in base alle leggi internazionali - sostiene Moreno Pasquinelli portavoce internazionale del Campo Antimperialista -. Se partiamo dal presupposto che anche gli italiani sono occupanti, gli iracheni li considerano nemici. Io considero l'attacco alla caserma dei carabinieri italiani a Nassiriya come attacchi di guerriglia e di resistenza legittimi. Noi non li chiamiamo terrorismo?.
Ed ? lo stesso Pasquinelli che chiarisce: ?Tra i resistenti baschi, iracheni e afghani c'? un grande obiettivo comune: no all'impero americano, cacciare gli americani e rimandarli a casa?. Sulla strage di Madrid precisa: ?Sul livello etico noi condanniamo ogni forma di stragismo. Ma sul livello politico gli integralisti islamici si considerano una potenza statale in fieri, la Umma musulmana. Sono in guerra con gli Stati Uniti e i loro alleati. Dal loro punto di vista queste azioni sono azioni di guerra contro l'aggressione e il militarismo americano. Questo stragismo non ? di pazzi criminali. Ha delle cause che risiedono nell'unilateralismo imperialistico americano, sono atti a sfondo politico, vanno compresi politicamente. Sono atti di guerra di gruppi che chiedono il ritiro dell'America dall'Iraq e di Israele dai territori occupati. Noi condividiamo questi obiettivi. La logica politica di chi ha fatto la strage di Madrid ? ottenere il ritiro degli spagnoli dall'Iraq?. Pasquinelli illustra cos? il legame operativo con la ?resistenza? irachena: ?Ogni serio movimento antimperialista deve essere pronto a combattere. Noi quello che diciamo facciamo. Devono esistere naturalmente le condizioni politiche. Oggi non esistono. Mi pare chiaro che gli antimperialisti che dicono che bisogna fermare i guerrafondai americani, sono anche disposti a aiutare con gesti concreti le resistenze che noi riteniamo legittime e giuste. Anche combattendo?. E' in questo magma accomunato dall'antiamericanismo che si ? consumata la strage di Madrid. Una torbida realt? che ha il suo epicentro in Iraq ma che coinvolge pi? che mai l'Italia e l'Europa.
Magdi Allam
Al Qaeda: ?Colpiamo la Spagna e si ritirer? da Bagdad? di M. Allam
Un documento strategico del gruppo saudita Voce della Jihad legato a Al Qaeda completa la quadratura del cerchio nella strage di Madrid. La Spagna viene indicata come ?la prima pedina da abbattere per provocare un effetto domino che costringa le altre forze occupanti ad abbandonare l'Iraq?. A quattro giorni dalla strage emerge la presenza di un network del terrore che ha nei terroristi islamici il braccio armato e un braccio politico-propagandistico di cui fanno parte una fazione della sedicente ?resistenza irachena?, gruppi terroristici europei tra cui l'Eta e i circuiti antimperialisti. E che ha suggellato un patto di sangue in Iraq individuato come il fronte di prima linea della guerra totale all'America e all'Occidente. Ecco perch? la strage di Madrid, che forse non a caso cade 911 giorni dopo la tragedia americana dell'11-9 del 2001, rappresenta un salto di qualit? che ha globalizzato l'offensiva del terrore tramite la saldatura tra tutte le forze che a vario titolo condividono l'antiamericanismo. Il documento di Al Qaeda di 42 pagine ? stato redatto e diffuso alla fine del 2003. Ma soltanto ora viene riscoperto per la sua impressionante previsione della strage di Madrid e del risultato delle elezioni. ?Per costringere il governo spagnolo a ritirarsi dall'Iraq, la resistenza deve infliggere dei pesanti colpi alle sue forze. Seguiti da una campagna propagandistica per illustrare la realt? della situazione in Iraq. Dobbiamo sfruttare al massimo la scadenza elettorale. Noi riteniamo che il governo spagnolo non sopporter? che due o tre attacchi al massimo prima di essere costretto a ritirarsi sotto la pressione popolare. Se non lo dovesse fare, la vittoria del partito socialista sar? pressoch? certa e il ritiro dall?Iraq sar? una delle sue priorit?.
Il matrimonio d'interesse tra l?alleanza del terrore ? stato reso possibile dall'attivismo dei dirigenti della Alleanza nazionale patriottica irachena, Jabbar Al-Kubaysi e Awni Al-Kalemji, che risiedevano in Europa. Qui, tramite il circuito dei circuiti antimperialisti, hanno stretto legami con l'Eta e altre sigle del terrorismo internazionale. Al-Kubaysi, rientrato in Iraq alla vigilia della guerra, dirige la ?resistenza? armata a Falluja contro le forze americane e i ?collaborazionisti?. Ed ? sul terreno che si realizza l'intesa operativa con i terroristi islamici autoctoni e stranieri provenienti da ogni parte del mondo. L'obiettivo di Al-Kubaysi ? dar vita, entro la fine di marzo, a un Fronte di liberazione nazionale che dovrebbe associare laici e religiosi, sunniti e sciiti, arabi e curdi contrari alla ?pax americana?.
Al-Kalemji proprio ieri si trovava a Barcellona per propagandare l'idea del Fln iracheno. Il tour italiano ? invece affidato a Shawkat Khazindar che, dopo essere stato a Roma, Napoli, Sassari, Perugia, Milano, Firenze, ieri ha tenuto una conferenza a Porto S. Giorgio (Fermo). Queste le parole d'ordine inalberate: ?No all'occupazione dell'Iraq! Ritirare i soldati italiani! Nessun sacrificio per la guerra di Berlusconi! Nessun inciucio con i guerrafondai! Fuori le basi Usa dall'Italia! Fuori l'Italia dalla Nato! Solidariet? con l'Intifada palestinese e la Resistenza irachena!?. Una strategia condivisa dal Campo Antimperialista che ospita gli esponenti della ?resistenza irachena?, ha gi? promosso la raccolta di 12 mila euro per finanziarne l'attivit? propagandistica, condivide e sottoscrive gli attentati compiuti contro gli americani e i loro alleati. Compreso il massacro dei carabinieri a Nassiriya: ?Gli attacchi ai militari sono legittimi anche in base alle leggi internazionali - sostiene Moreno Pasquinelli portavoce internazionale del Campo Antimperialista -. Se partiamo dal presupposto che anche gli italiani sono occupanti, gli iracheni li considerano nemici. Io considero l'attacco alla caserma dei carabinieri italiani a Nassiriya come attacchi di guerriglia e di resistenza legittimi. Noi non li chiamiamo terrorismo?.
Ed ? lo stesso Pasquinelli che chiarisce: ?Tra i resistenti baschi, iracheni e afghani c'? un grande obiettivo comune: no all'impero americano, cacciare gli americani e rimandarli a casa?. Sulla strage di Madrid precisa: ?Sul livello etico noi condanniamo ogni forma di stragismo. Ma sul livello politico gli integralisti islamici si considerano una potenza statale in fieri, la Umma musulmana. Sono in guerra con gli Stati Uniti e i loro alleati. Dal loro punto di vista queste azioni sono azioni di guerra contro l'aggressione e il militarismo americano. Questo stragismo non ? di pazzi criminali. Ha delle cause che risiedono nell'unilateralismo imperialistico americano, sono atti a sfondo politico, vanno compresi politicamente. Sono atti di guerra di gruppi che chiedono il ritiro dell'America dall'Iraq e di Israele dai territori occupati. Noi condividiamo questi obiettivi. La logica politica di chi ha fatto la strage di Madrid ? ottenere il ritiro degli spagnoli dall'Iraq?. Pasquinelli illustra cos? il legame operativo con la ?resistenza? irachena: ?Ogni serio movimento antimperialista deve essere pronto a combattere. Noi quello che diciamo facciamo. Devono esistere naturalmente le condizioni politiche. Oggi non esistono. Mi pare chiaro che gli antimperialisti che dicono che bisogna fermare i guerrafondai americani, sono anche disposti a aiutare con gesti concreti le resistenze che noi riteniamo legittime e giuste. Anche combattendo?. E' in questo magma accomunato dall'antiamericanismo che si ? consumata la strage di Madrid. Una torbida realt? che ha il suo epicentro in Iraq ma che coinvolge pi? che mai l'Italia e l'Europa.
Magdi Allam
Origin of Species
March 14, 2004
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Nandan Nilekani, C.E.O. of the Indian software giant Infosys, gave me a tour the other day of his company's wood-paneled global conference room in Bangalore. It looks a lot like a beautiful tiered classroom, with a massive wall-size screen at one end and cameras in the ceiling so that Infosys can hold a simultaneous global teleconference with its U.S. innovators, its Indian software designers and its Asian manufacturers. "We can have our whole global supply chain on the screen at the same time," holding a virtual meeting, explained Mr. Nilekani. The room's eight clocks tell the story: U.S. West, U.S. East, G.M.T., India, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia.
As I looked at this, a thought popped into my head: Who else has such a global supply chain today? Of course: Al Qaeda. Indeed, these are the two basic responses to
globalization: Infosys and Al Qaeda.
Infosys said all the walls have been blown away in the world, so now we, an Indian software company, can use the Internet, fiber optic telecommunications and e-mail to get superempowered and compete anywhere that our smarts and energy can take us. And we can be part of a global supply chain that produces profit for Indians, Americans and Asians.
Al Qaeda said all the walls have been blown away in the world, thereby threatening our Islamic culture and religious norms and humiliating some of our people, who feel left behind. But we can use the Internet, fiber optic telecommunications and e-mail to develop a global supply chain of angry people that will superempower us and allow us to hit back at the Western civilization that's now right in our face.
"From the primordial swamps of globalization have emerged two genetic variants," said Mr. Nilekani. "Our focus therefore has to be how we can encourage more of the good mutations and keep out the bad."
Indeed, it is worth asking what are the spawning grounds for each. Infosys was spawned in India, a country with few natural resources and a terrible climate. But India has a free market, a flawed but functioning democracy and a culture that prizes education, science and rationality, where women are empowered. The Indian spawning ground rewards anyone with a good idea, which is why the richest man in India is a Muslim software innovator, Azim Premji, the thoughtful chairman of Wipro.
Al Qaeda was spawned in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, societies where there was no democracy and where fundamentalists have often suffocated women and intellectuals who crave science, free thinking and rationality. Indeed, all three countries produced strains of Al Qaeda, despite Pakistan's having received billions in U.S. aid and Saudi Arabia's having earned billions from oil. But without a context encouraging freedom of thought, women's empowerment and innovation, neither society can tap and nurture its people's creative potential - so their biggest emotional export today is anger.
India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan each spontaneously generated centers for their young people's energies. In India they're called "call centers," where young men and women get their first jobs and technical skills servicing the global economy and calling the world.
In Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia they're called "madrassas," where young men, and only young men, spend their days memorizing the Koran and calling only God.
Ironically, U.S. consumers help to finance both. We finance the madrassas by driving big cars and sending the money to Saudi Arabia, which uses it to build the madrassas that are central to Al Qaeda's global supply chain. And we finance the call centers by consuming modern technologies that need backup support, which is the role Infosys plays in the global supply chain.
Both Infosys and Al Qaeda challenge America: Infosys by competing for U.S. jobs through outsourcing, and Al Qaeda by threatening U.S. lives through terrorism. As Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign policy professor, put
it: "Our next election will be about these two challenges - with the Republicans focused on how we respond to Al Qaeda, and the losers from globalization, and the Democrats focused on how we respond to Infosys, and the winners from globalization."
Every once in a while the technology and terrorist supply chains intersect - like last week. Reuters quoted a Spanish official as saying after the Madrid train bombings: "The hardest thing [for the rescue workers] was hearing mobile phones ringing in the pockets of the bodies. They couldn't get that out of their heads."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/opinion/14FRIE.html?ex=1080290427&ei=1&en=
March 14, 2004
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Nandan Nilekani, C.E.O. of the Indian software giant Infosys, gave me a tour the other day of his company's wood-paneled global conference room in Bangalore. It looks a lot like a beautiful tiered classroom, with a massive wall-size screen at one end and cameras in the ceiling so that Infosys can hold a simultaneous global teleconference with its U.S. innovators, its Indian software designers and its Asian manufacturers. "We can have our whole global supply chain on the screen at the same time," holding a virtual meeting, explained Mr. Nilekani. The room's eight clocks tell the story: U.S. West, U.S. East, G.M.T., India, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Australia.
As I looked at this, a thought popped into my head: Who else has such a global supply chain today? Of course: Al Qaeda. Indeed, these are the two basic responses to
globalization: Infosys and Al Qaeda.
Infosys said all the walls have been blown away in the world, so now we, an Indian software company, can use the Internet, fiber optic telecommunications and e-mail to get superempowered and compete anywhere that our smarts and energy can take us. And we can be part of a global supply chain that produces profit for Indians, Americans and Asians.
Al Qaeda said all the walls have been blown away in the world, thereby threatening our Islamic culture and religious norms and humiliating some of our people, who feel left behind. But we can use the Internet, fiber optic telecommunications and e-mail to develop a global supply chain of angry people that will superempower us and allow us to hit back at the Western civilization that's now right in our face.
"From the primordial swamps of globalization have emerged two genetic variants," said Mr. Nilekani. "Our focus therefore has to be how we can encourage more of the good mutations and keep out the bad."
Indeed, it is worth asking what are the spawning grounds for each. Infosys was spawned in India, a country with few natural resources and a terrible climate. But India has a free market, a flawed but functioning democracy and a culture that prizes education, science and rationality, where women are empowered. The Indian spawning ground rewards anyone with a good idea, which is why the richest man in India is a Muslim software innovator, Azim Premji, the thoughtful chairman of Wipro.
Al Qaeda was spawned in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, societies where there was no democracy and where fundamentalists have often suffocated women and intellectuals who crave science, free thinking and rationality. Indeed, all three countries produced strains of Al Qaeda, despite Pakistan's having received billions in U.S. aid and Saudi Arabia's having earned billions from oil. But without a context encouraging freedom of thought, women's empowerment and innovation, neither society can tap and nurture its people's creative potential - so their biggest emotional export today is anger.
India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan each spontaneously generated centers for their young people's energies. In India they're called "call centers," where young men and women get their first jobs and technical skills servicing the global economy and calling the world.
In Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia they're called "madrassas," where young men, and only young men, spend their days memorizing the Koran and calling only God.
Ironically, U.S. consumers help to finance both. We finance the madrassas by driving big cars and sending the money to Saudi Arabia, which uses it to build the madrassas that are central to Al Qaeda's global supply chain. And we finance the call centers by consuming modern technologies that need backup support, which is the role Infosys plays in the global supply chain.
Both Infosys and Al Qaeda challenge America: Infosys by competing for U.S. jobs through outsourcing, and Al Qaeda by threatening U.S. lives through terrorism. As Michael Mandelbaum, the Johns Hopkins foreign policy professor, put
it: "Our next election will be about these two challenges - with the Republicans focused on how we respond to Al Qaeda, and the losers from globalization, and the Democrats focused on how we respond to Infosys, and the winners from globalization."
Every once in a while the technology and terrorist supply chains intersect - like last week. Reuters quoted a Spanish official as saying after the Madrid train bombings: "The hardest thing [for the rescue workers] was hearing mobile phones ringing in the pockets of the bodies. They couldn't get that out of their heads."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/opinion/14FRIE.html?ex=1080290427&ei=1&en=
