Friday, March 26, 2004
Rantisi’s Putsch
DEBKAfile Special Analysis
March 23, 2004, 11:29 PM (GMT+02:00)
Just 30 hours after the Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was killed by an Israeli missile in Gaza City, the radical Abdel Aziz Rantisi, 57-year old pediatrician, declared himself successor. Several members of the Hamas leadership were quick to put in that the appointment was provisional and necessary to close the gap left by the departed leader. Rantisi’s claim that he was the deputy head of the Shura Council and therefore automatically next in line for the leadership is deceptive, especially considering that Yassin never accepted his pretensions to the succession.
In any case, Yassin was never head of the Shura Council. Indeed his leadership of the Hamas movement was never formalized under any public title at all, contrary to the impression Rantisi is trying to convey. Finally, the Shura Council is not the movement’s supreme authority; nor does it select Hamas leaders. That is the prerogative of the Council of Guardians, an entity similar to the unelected body of the same name that rules the Islamic Republic of Iran which is so secretive that most Hamas rank and file members do not know its members’ identities.
Before choosing the next leader, this council would be bound to consult at length with Muslim Brotherhood branches in Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Any decision would require several months to reach.
Rantisi’s reference to the Hamas Damascus-based politburo head Khaled Mashaal as the future controller of the West Bank left a great deal unsaid. It sounded very much as though Mashaal, whose standing in the movement has taken a dive of late, struck a deal with Rantisi for mutual recognition and reciprocal support for their self-appointed roles.
The most likely conclusion from these maneuvers is that the pair staged an internal putsch to take over the movement’s leadership before Yassin was cold in his grave. It is doubtful whether the partnership between the fire-eating Rantisi and the more temperate Mashaal, who spends most of his time in Doha, Qatar and Egypt, will hold up for long. The politburo head has many enemies in the Damascus leadership and they will be keen to clip his wings.
Certainly the Cairo-based World Muslim Brotherhood leadership will hardly accept a fait accompli by any field functionary.
However shaky his claim to rule Hamas, two things are in no doubt about Rantisi: first, he will do his best to bring off revenge attacks against Israel by means of his own diminished resources or with outside help; second, he is already in the sights of Israeli forces, who made a failed attempt on his life last June. Monday, March 23, defense minister Shaul Mofaz and army chief Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, made it clear that terrorist leaders of any stripe will be targeted henceforth with no exceptions.
DEBKAfile’s Islamic sources reported the shock experienced by the main body of Hamas when they discovered overnight that their movement had always been a mere offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. This emerged from the Yassin obituary published in Cairo by the Brotherhood’s head, Muhammed Aqf, in which he honored the late leader as “Supreme Teacher of the Muslim Brotherhood-Palestine.” Hamas members had always believed they were fighting in the name of Palestinian nationhood - not Islamic fundamentalism. Because of its position in the world movement, Yassin was careful never to allow the Hamas to carry out overseas operations, which he accepted were the province of other parts of the Brotherhood, such as the Egyptian Jihad Islami which has amalgamated with al Qaeda.
One key decision facing the new Hamas leader is whether to start launching operations overseas or stick to Yasin’s restrictiveness. A pointer that the new men plan to spread their wings came from the stream of hate-filled invective against the United States issuing in the last 24 hours from the movement’s post-Yassin spokesmen.
DEBKAfile Special Analysis
March 23, 2004, 11:29 PM (GMT+02:00)
Just 30 hours after the Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was killed by an Israeli missile in Gaza City, the radical Abdel Aziz Rantisi, 57-year old pediatrician, declared himself successor. Several members of the Hamas leadership were quick to put in that the appointment was provisional and necessary to close the gap left by the departed leader. Rantisi’s claim that he was the deputy head of the Shura Council and therefore automatically next in line for the leadership is deceptive, especially considering that Yassin never accepted his pretensions to the succession.
In any case, Yassin was never head of the Shura Council. Indeed his leadership of the Hamas movement was never formalized under any public title at all, contrary to the impression Rantisi is trying to convey. Finally, the Shura Council is not the movement’s supreme authority; nor does it select Hamas leaders. That is the prerogative of the Council of Guardians, an entity similar to the unelected body of the same name that rules the Islamic Republic of Iran which is so secretive that most Hamas rank and file members do not know its members’ identities.
Before choosing the next leader, this council would be bound to consult at length with Muslim Brotherhood branches in Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Any decision would require several months to reach.
Rantisi’s reference to the Hamas Damascus-based politburo head Khaled Mashaal as the future controller of the West Bank left a great deal unsaid. It sounded very much as though Mashaal, whose standing in the movement has taken a dive of late, struck a deal with Rantisi for mutual recognition and reciprocal support for their self-appointed roles.
The most likely conclusion from these maneuvers is that the pair staged an internal putsch to take over the movement’s leadership before Yassin was cold in his grave. It is doubtful whether the partnership between the fire-eating Rantisi and the more temperate Mashaal, who spends most of his time in Doha, Qatar and Egypt, will hold up for long. The politburo head has many enemies in the Damascus leadership and they will be keen to clip his wings.
Certainly the Cairo-based World Muslim Brotherhood leadership will hardly accept a fait accompli by any field functionary.
However shaky his claim to rule Hamas, two things are in no doubt about Rantisi: first, he will do his best to bring off revenge attacks against Israel by means of his own diminished resources or with outside help; second, he is already in the sights of Israeli forces, who made a failed attempt on his life last June. Monday, March 23, defense minister Shaul Mofaz and army chief Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, made it clear that terrorist leaders of any stripe will be targeted henceforth with no exceptions.
DEBKAfile’s Islamic sources reported the shock experienced by the main body of Hamas when they discovered overnight that their movement had always been a mere offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. This emerged from the Yassin obituary published in Cairo by the Brotherhood’s head, Muhammed Aqf, in which he honored the late leader as “Supreme Teacher of the Muslim Brotherhood-Palestine.” Hamas members had always believed they were fighting in the name of Palestinian nationhood - not Islamic fundamentalism. Because of its position in the world movement, Yassin was careful never to allow the Hamas to carry out overseas operations, which he accepted were the province of other parts of the Brotherhood, such as the Egyptian Jihad Islami which has amalgamated with al Qaeda.
One key decision facing the new Hamas leader is whether to start launching operations overseas or stick to Yasin’s restrictiveness. A pointer that the new men plan to spread their wings came from the stream of hate-filled invective against the United States issuing in the last 24 hours from the movement’s post-Yassin spokesmen.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
No Vote for Al Qaeda
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
here is nothing more important for the future of Western democracies than the question of whether, in the wake of the Madrid bombings, the new Spanish government will go ahead with its plan to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq — unless the U.N. assumes control of the occupation forces there by June 30. If Spain goes ahead, every terrorist in the world will celebrate, and every democracy will be a little more endangered. I so hope Spain's incoming prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, reconsiders this decision.
Why? To answer that question I need to draw an analogy with a different era of Spanish history: the Spanish Civil War from 1936 to 1939, where all the big powers of that day tested out the weapons they would employ in World War II.
So here's my analogy: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to the war on terrorism what the Spanish Civil War was to World War II. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is where airline hijacking, suicide bombing and assassinations with helicopter-mounted guided missiles were all perfected and made ready for export.
But it's not only types of violence that were perfected there. It was also there where Palestinian terrorists regularly attempted to hijack democratic elections on the eve of the vote. Liberal Labor Party candidates in Israel, throughout the 1980's and 1990's, always had to hold their breath that there would not be a big terrorist attack on the eve of an election. Because if there was, swing voters would usually move to the right and the Likud candidate would benefit. The Palestinian terrorists always "voted" Likud, not Labor. They wanted hard-liners at the helm in Israel because they would build more settlements and further radicalize and destabilize the situation.
In 1996, shortly after the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres was leading Bibi Netanyahu by 20 points in opinion polls. Then Islamic terrorists unleashed bus bombings, killing 59 Israelis. Mr. Peres saw his lead wiped out, and then lost the election by a tiny margin. Suicide bombing totally undermined Labor's Ehud Barak and helped elect Ariel Sharon in 2001. So terrorists have been voting in Israel's elections for a long time.
What the Madrid bombings, just before the Spanish elections, represent is the Islamist terrorists' first attempt to hijack a democratic election in Western Europe.
Yes, yes, I know all the fine print. People say that the reason the ruling conservative party lost to the Socialists in Spain was because the conservatives tried to mislead the Spanish people by suggesting that the bombings were the work of Basque separatists, not Al Qaeda sympathizers unhappy with Spain's role in Iraq. And therefore, in voting for the Socialists, who were running on a pledge to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq, the Spanish people were voting for truth in government — not to appease the Islamists by voting in the party that would pull out of Iraq.
Maybe that's true. Personally, I believe it's naïve to think that truth-in-government was the only thing motivating anguished Spanish swing voters after the bombings, and that there was not a twitch of appeasement in the air. But here's what I know for sure: Al Qaeda doesn't do exit polling. Al Qaeda does big picture.
If Mr. Zapatero goes through with his troop withdrawal from Iraq, Islamist terrorists will attribute it to the Madrid bombing. This big picture will absolutely encourage them to try this tactic, perfected in Israel and now imported to Spain, in other European or U.S. elections — to tilt the vote one way or another.
"The Spanish Civil War tested only weapons," said the Israeli political theorist Yaron Ezrahi. "The terrorism we have seen in Israel, and may soon see more of in Europe, is testing the fabric of democratic societies. What is being tested in Spain is this question: Does it pay for terrorists to try to hijack democratic elections? We have a clear-cut challenge here, and it must be met with an equally clear-cut response. Are leaders of Western nations going to reward the terrorists in their attempt to hijack democratic elections in a major European state or make them fail?"
If the European Union was thinking long-term, it would hold an emergency meeting and announce that each E.U. country would be sending 100 men to stand alongside the 1,300 Spanish soldiers in Iraq to help protect the Iraqi people as they try to organize their first democratic election — free of intimidation by terrorists.
That is a big picture that would make Al Qaeda weep.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
here is nothing more important for the future of Western democracies than the question of whether, in the wake of the Madrid bombings, the new Spanish government will go ahead with its plan to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq — unless the U.N. assumes control of the occupation forces there by June 30. If Spain goes ahead, every terrorist in the world will celebrate, and every democracy will be a little more endangered. I so hope Spain's incoming prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, reconsiders this decision.
Why? To answer that question I need to draw an analogy with a different era of Spanish history: the Spanish Civil War from 1936 to 1939, where all the big powers of that day tested out the weapons they would employ in World War II.
So here's my analogy: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is to the war on terrorism what the Spanish Civil War was to World War II. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is where airline hijacking, suicide bombing and assassinations with helicopter-mounted guided missiles were all perfected and made ready for export.
But it's not only types of violence that were perfected there. It was also there where Palestinian terrorists regularly attempted to hijack democratic elections on the eve of the vote. Liberal Labor Party candidates in Israel, throughout the 1980's and 1990's, always had to hold their breath that there would not be a big terrorist attack on the eve of an election. Because if there was, swing voters would usually move to the right and the Likud candidate would benefit. The Palestinian terrorists always "voted" Likud, not Labor. They wanted hard-liners at the helm in Israel because they would build more settlements and further radicalize and destabilize the situation.
In 1996, shortly after the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres was leading Bibi Netanyahu by 20 points in opinion polls. Then Islamic terrorists unleashed bus bombings, killing 59 Israelis. Mr. Peres saw his lead wiped out, and then lost the election by a tiny margin. Suicide bombing totally undermined Labor's Ehud Barak and helped elect Ariel Sharon in 2001. So terrorists have been voting in Israel's elections for a long time.
What the Madrid bombings, just before the Spanish elections, represent is the Islamist terrorists' first attempt to hijack a democratic election in Western Europe.
Yes, yes, I know all the fine print. People say that the reason the ruling conservative party lost to the Socialists in Spain was because the conservatives tried to mislead the Spanish people by suggesting that the bombings were the work of Basque separatists, not Al Qaeda sympathizers unhappy with Spain's role in Iraq. And therefore, in voting for the Socialists, who were running on a pledge to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq, the Spanish people were voting for truth in government — not to appease the Islamists by voting in the party that would pull out of Iraq.
Maybe that's true. Personally, I believe it's naïve to think that truth-in-government was the only thing motivating anguished Spanish swing voters after the bombings, and that there was not a twitch of appeasement in the air. But here's what I know for sure: Al Qaeda doesn't do exit polling. Al Qaeda does big picture.
If Mr. Zapatero goes through with his troop withdrawal from Iraq, Islamist terrorists will attribute it to the Madrid bombing. This big picture will absolutely encourage them to try this tactic, perfected in Israel and now imported to Spain, in other European or U.S. elections — to tilt the vote one way or another.
"The Spanish Civil War tested only weapons," said the Israeli political theorist Yaron Ezrahi. "The terrorism we have seen in Israel, and may soon see more of in Europe, is testing the fabric of democratic societies. What is being tested in Spain is this question: Does it pay for terrorists to try to hijack democratic elections? We have a clear-cut challenge here, and it must be met with an equally clear-cut response. Are leaders of Western nations going to reward the terrorists in their attempt to hijack democratic elections in a major European state or make them fail?"
If the European Union was thinking long-term, it would hold an emergency meeting and announce that each E.U. country would be sending 100 men to stand alongside the 1,300 Spanish soldiers in Iraq to help protect the Iraqi people as they try to organize their first democratic election — free of intimidation by terrorists.
That is a big picture that would make Al Qaeda weep.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
The Truth About 3/11
This is no time to hand the terrorists a victory.
BY JOSE MARIA AZNAR
Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
On March 11, Spain suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history and one of the bloodiest the world has ever known. Terrorists planned their cowardly acts with the express purpose of killing as many people as possible, in order to sow terror and strike a mortal blow against our freedoms and rights. It was a day we felt an immense pain, pain we will never forget. But it was also a pain we must all learn from.
Its lessons are simple. If we want to stop terrorists from murdering us and from dictating how we lead our lives, we must confront them. Some think the solution is to sue for peace, to negotiate with terrorists so that they might go and kill elsewhere. But that way is unacceptable to me and to millions of Spaniards. Terrorism deserves only to be defeated. This is the debt we owe to the victims of the attacks, and to the society that mourns them.
On March 11, in a matter of minutes just after 7:30 a.m., several backpacks stuffed with explosives detonated on commuter trains on the Guadalajara-Madrid line. More than 200 people were murdered, more than 1,400 wounded, and hundreds of families destroyed forever. An entire nation was shaken to its core.
We also witnessed what's most noble in the human spirit: the selflessness of those who rushed to help the wounded, to give blood, to offer their help in hospitals, or simply to listen to those who needed relief. We shall never forget the professionalism of emergency service workers. We don't know exactly how many people died trying to come to the aid of other victims, but their courage demonstrates that you can find life in the midst of carnage, and that horror and fear can give way to a determination to safeguard liberty, our most precious asset.
As on any other day when we have been struck by a terrorist outrage, Spaniards had a right to the truth on March 11. Under the impact of that massacre, and in the consternation that comes from pain and fury, my compatriots deserved the honest evidence that emerged from the investigations. And that is what my government gave them.
In the hours that followed the attacks, our investigation focused on one obvious suspect, the Basque terrorist group ETA. It was a reasonable inference to make, and those who say otherwise are being either naive or dishonest. History has left us with clear evidence of ETA's sinister habit of killing during election campaigns. The terrorists always attempt to soak our democracy in blood on the days when we Spaniards go to the polls to reaffirm our liberties.
ETA has committed more than 800 murders, among other crimes, over three decades, and has sought always to weaken and divide our democracy, which has just celebrated its 25th anniversary. A few days earlier, the group had tried to carry out an attack with 500 kilograms of explosives, one that failed only due to the intervention of the Guardia Civil, the national police. Those detained in this failed attack had a map that highlighted the zone of the Henares Pathway, through which run the trains that were targeted on March 11. And it was ETA that, on Christmas Eve, attempted another slaughter at Madrid's Chamartin station, also thwarted by our National Police. And to continue the ghoulish catalog, the same terrorist group brought two vans loaded with more than 1µ tons of explosives to Madrid in December 1999. Once again, our security forces foiled what would have been mass murder.
My government was not alone in attributing the March 11 attacks to ETA. In the first few hours, the president of the Basque Autonomous Region, the secretary general of the Socialist Party, the general coordinator of the United Left and the secretary general of Catalonia's Esquerra Republicana, among others, did likewise.
The only person who, in fact, publicly denied ETA's responsibility on the morning of March 11 was the leader of Batasuna, an organization that our courts have declared illegal because of its ties to ETA. This organization is classified as a terrorist entity by both the United States and the European Union.
Nobody, then, should be surprised that during these first few hours, the Spanish government wanted to convey to its allies and friends the conviction that ETA was the group responsible for the Madrid massacre.
On the afternoon of March 11, however, the Ministry of the Interior, having been informed that an Arabic-language tape and several detonators had been found in a vehicle, ordered the opening of a new line of investigation. The ministry immediately informed the public of this.
Although ETA continued to be our prime suspect, we did not dismiss any evidence pointing elsewhere. This is what I explained in my public appearance on March 12, the day after. Apart from the tape, which was of a commercial nature and had no immediate terrorist connotation, there were only very dubious messages from groups taking responsibility. All these fragments of evidence needed to be examined with the utmost attention and precaution.
As soon as there were signs of other possibilities besides ETA, the government placed them before our citizens. On the very night of the attack, all of Spain knew what course the investigation was taking. On Saturday, Spaniards were informed of all arrests made by the police. The government revealed all that it reasonably could reveal without jeopardizing the investigations.
And yet all these efforts at transparency and disclosure were derided as manipulation by our opponents, who, furthermore, accused us of lying about what we knew. Ignoring the chronology of events, as well as the government's efforts, some of our opponents invented a parallel reality, accusing us of a "coverup" even though the government was keeping the public informed, practically in real time, of all the evidence available and of the course of the investigation. Those who twisted the facts in this way cannot feel very proud today. Instead of backing the government during the worst crisis in Spain's recent history, our opponents declared that truth and transparency were on their side.
Mere hours after the attacks, our investigators and security services, as well as the Ministry of the Interior, were producing results. Within only two days we had made the first arrests. Spain was in a state of shock, disoriented, in need of certitudes. It was a time to remain calm and to maintain national unity, to let the police do their work, and, most of all, to refrain from adding to the strain of a terrible situation.
But it was also the moment just before the elections, and the temptation to exploit the situation for political gain proved irresistible to some. At a time when we most needed a common front, some set out to stoke the fires of doubt. Barely had 24 hours gone by when those who were themselves lying began to accuse my government of mendacity, of a coverup, of things that would be repugnant to all good people in the context of an attack upon our country.
This wildfire of innuendo spread rapidly among many people who were justifiably indignant after the attacks. To the accusations against the government were added others by all those who had anything at all to gain from this strategy. The din was so loud, so clamorous, that nothing else could be heard above it.
Once deception had successfully supplanted truth, our opponents sought to redirect the public's anger against the terrorists, exhorting people to channel their ire toward a government that was hard at work, a government that is still working to clarify what happened and to bring the guilty to justice. Last weekend was a time for solemnity, and for reflection. Instead, people with partisan motives scarred the moment with their screeching accusations.
In my long political career, I have been the object of the sharpest criticism, both for decisions I have taken and for those I haven't. I've never been so arrogant as to fail to acknowledge those criticisms that were justified. By the same token, I'm not a coward, and I make it a point always to hit back at disparagement that has no basis.
In fact, honesty has been the essential principle of my entire political life. For this reason, but also for the respect and the loyalty I feel toward the office for which my countrymen chose me eight years ago, I want to be clear and robust: My government has told the truth. I can put up with political criticism, but I will never accept being accused of lying or manipulation. These are accusations that are intolerable, and which soil the memory of the victims. Some forget that it is this memory, and nothing else, that should be guiding our actions today.
This is what the government that I still lead has done. Others know in their hearts that they have ignored their responsibility in order to create an atmosphere favorable to their partisan interests.
Their accusations are intolerable not only because of the gravity of Spain's present situation, but also because they destroyed the political composure that our citizens required on the day before the elections. Three days after the terrorists struck, Spaniards voted. The results of these elections are fully legitimate. Our institutions are stronger than the terrorists.
Spain is a strong nation, able to surmount the considerable problems it has encountered over the years. This is a time to remain united so that we can defeat terrorism. Those guilty of the attacks should pay for what they have done. We should not allow even a hint of a doubt that we retain the will to pursue them, wherever they are.
Spain has been one of the most active nations in the battle that democracies are waging against terrorism. This should continue to be the case. The defense of the liberties we enjoy is not just a fight for the United States or the United Kingdom to wage against their enemies. Terrorism hits wherever it can. There have been victims of many nationalities in New York, in Bali, in Mombasa, in Casablanca, in Istanbul, in Karbala--and in Madrid. No one is safe from terrorism, and no one should pretend that he is safe. Very recently, German and Dutch engineers were murdered in Iraq, for the crime of trying to lay pipes for drinking water. Terrorists have already threatened France for trying to ban wearing religious symbols in schools.
Ours is a battle between freedom, democracy and civilization, on the one hand, and terror on the other. If on September 11 we were all American, on March 11 the whole world was Spanish. Let's maintain this spirit. We cannot just abandon this battle; it is everyone's fight.
In the entire course of my political life, and especially during the eight years in which I have been prime minister, I have said that terrorism is not a local phenomenon, confined to particular areas or countries, to be confronted with domestic means alone. On the contrary, terrorism is a global phenomenon, one that crosses borders. And it gains in strength when we think that it is the problem of "others" and should be taken care of by "others."
The debates that followed the Madrid attacks have been about whether they were carried out by ETA or al Qaeda. It is obviously essential to find out who was behind the attacks. But all terrorism carries the same threat; all terrorist attacks are infused with hatred for liberty, democracy and human dignity. They feed on each other.
Up until the attacks of September 11, Spain took great pains to demonstrate to the outside world that terrorism was not an isolated phenomenon, that it shouldn't be fought by its immediate victims alone. Following the collapse of the Twin Towers, a new consciousness about the world-wide reach of terrorism finally emerged.
ETA or al Qaeda--the difference is important, to be sure, but the response to what has happened should be the same: firmness, political unity and international cooperation. Each and every democrat in the world was on those trains in Madrid. It has been an attack against all of us, against everything we believe in, and against everything we have built.
It is precisely for this reason that we must not send out confusing messages, messages that induce people to believe that we have to make concessions to those demanding that we kneel before bombs. This is not the moment to think about withdrawals of troops. And much less when the terrorists, with their message of death and destruction, have demanded that we surrender. To yield now would set a dangerous precedent that would allow our attackers to believe that they have imposed their conditions on us. It would allow our attackers to believe that they have won.
Mr. Aznar is prime minister of Spain.
This is no time to hand the terrorists a victory.
BY JOSE MARIA AZNAR
Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
On March 11, Spain suffered the worst terrorist attack in its history and one of the bloodiest the world has ever known. Terrorists planned their cowardly acts with the express purpose of killing as many people as possible, in order to sow terror and strike a mortal blow against our freedoms and rights. It was a day we felt an immense pain, pain we will never forget. But it was also a pain we must all learn from.
Its lessons are simple. If we want to stop terrorists from murdering us and from dictating how we lead our lives, we must confront them. Some think the solution is to sue for peace, to negotiate with terrorists so that they might go and kill elsewhere. But that way is unacceptable to me and to millions of Spaniards. Terrorism deserves only to be defeated. This is the debt we owe to the victims of the attacks, and to the society that mourns them.
On March 11, in a matter of minutes just after 7:30 a.m., several backpacks stuffed with explosives detonated on commuter trains on the Guadalajara-Madrid line. More than 200 people were murdered, more than 1,400 wounded, and hundreds of families destroyed forever. An entire nation was shaken to its core.
We also witnessed what's most noble in the human spirit: the selflessness of those who rushed to help the wounded, to give blood, to offer their help in hospitals, or simply to listen to those who needed relief. We shall never forget the professionalism of emergency service workers. We don't know exactly how many people died trying to come to the aid of other victims, but their courage demonstrates that you can find life in the midst of carnage, and that horror and fear can give way to a determination to safeguard liberty, our most precious asset.
As on any other day when we have been struck by a terrorist outrage, Spaniards had a right to the truth on March 11. Under the impact of that massacre, and in the consternation that comes from pain and fury, my compatriots deserved the honest evidence that emerged from the investigations. And that is what my government gave them.
In the hours that followed the attacks, our investigation focused on one obvious suspect, the Basque terrorist group ETA. It was a reasonable inference to make, and those who say otherwise are being either naive or dishonest. History has left us with clear evidence of ETA's sinister habit of killing during election campaigns. The terrorists always attempt to soak our democracy in blood on the days when we Spaniards go to the polls to reaffirm our liberties.
ETA has committed more than 800 murders, among other crimes, over three decades, and has sought always to weaken and divide our democracy, which has just celebrated its 25th anniversary. A few days earlier, the group had tried to carry out an attack with 500 kilograms of explosives, one that failed only due to the intervention of the Guardia Civil, the national police. Those detained in this failed attack had a map that highlighted the zone of the Henares Pathway, through which run the trains that were targeted on March 11. And it was ETA that, on Christmas Eve, attempted another slaughter at Madrid's Chamartin station, also thwarted by our National Police. And to continue the ghoulish catalog, the same terrorist group brought two vans loaded with more than 1µ tons of explosives to Madrid in December 1999. Once again, our security forces foiled what would have been mass murder.
My government was not alone in attributing the March 11 attacks to ETA. In the first few hours, the president of the Basque Autonomous Region, the secretary general of the Socialist Party, the general coordinator of the United Left and the secretary general of Catalonia's Esquerra Republicana, among others, did likewise.
The only person who, in fact, publicly denied ETA's responsibility on the morning of March 11 was the leader of Batasuna, an organization that our courts have declared illegal because of its ties to ETA. This organization is classified as a terrorist entity by both the United States and the European Union.
Nobody, then, should be surprised that during these first few hours, the Spanish government wanted to convey to its allies and friends the conviction that ETA was the group responsible for the Madrid massacre.
On the afternoon of March 11, however, the Ministry of the Interior, having been informed that an Arabic-language tape and several detonators had been found in a vehicle, ordered the opening of a new line of investigation. The ministry immediately informed the public of this.
Although ETA continued to be our prime suspect, we did not dismiss any evidence pointing elsewhere. This is what I explained in my public appearance on March 12, the day after. Apart from the tape, which was of a commercial nature and had no immediate terrorist connotation, there were only very dubious messages from groups taking responsibility. All these fragments of evidence needed to be examined with the utmost attention and precaution.
As soon as there were signs of other possibilities besides ETA, the government placed them before our citizens. On the very night of the attack, all of Spain knew what course the investigation was taking. On Saturday, Spaniards were informed of all arrests made by the police. The government revealed all that it reasonably could reveal without jeopardizing the investigations.
And yet all these efforts at transparency and disclosure were derided as manipulation by our opponents, who, furthermore, accused us of lying about what we knew. Ignoring the chronology of events, as well as the government's efforts, some of our opponents invented a parallel reality, accusing us of a "coverup" even though the government was keeping the public informed, practically in real time, of all the evidence available and of the course of the investigation. Those who twisted the facts in this way cannot feel very proud today. Instead of backing the government during the worst crisis in Spain's recent history, our opponents declared that truth and transparency were on their side.
Mere hours after the attacks, our investigators and security services, as well as the Ministry of the Interior, were producing results. Within only two days we had made the first arrests. Spain was in a state of shock, disoriented, in need of certitudes. It was a time to remain calm and to maintain national unity, to let the police do their work, and, most of all, to refrain from adding to the strain of a terrible situation.
But it was also the moment just before the elections, and the temptation to exploit the situation for political gain proved irresistible to some. At a time when we most needed a common front, some set out to stoke the fires of doubt. Barely had 24 hours gone by when those who were themselves lying began to accuse my government of mendacity, of a coverup, of things that would be repugnant to all good people in the context of an attack upon our country.
This wildfire of innuendo spread rapidly among many people who were justifiably indignant after the attacks. To the accusations against the government were added others by all those who had anything at all to gain from this strategy. The din was so loud, so clamorous, that nothing else could be heard above it.
Once deception had successfully supplanted truth, our opponents sought to redirect the public's anger against the terrorists, exhorting people to channel their ire toward a government that was hard at work, a government that is still working to clarify what happened and to bring the guilty to justice. Last weekend was a time for solemnity, and for reflection. Instead, people with partisan motives scarred the moment with their screeching accusations.
In my long political career, I have been the object of the sharpest criticism, both for decisions I have taken and for those I haven't. I've never been so arrogant as to fail to acknowledge those criticisms that were justified. By the same token, I'm not a coward, and I make it a point always to hit back at disparagement that has no basis.
In fact, honesty has been the essential principle of my entire political life. For this reason, but also for the respect and the loyalty I feel toward the office for which my countrymen chose me eight years ago, I want to be clear and robust: My government has told the truth. I can put up with political criticism, but I will never accept being accused of lying or manipulation. These are accusations that are intolerable, and which soil the memory of the victims. Some forget that it is this memory, and nothing else, that should be guiding our actions today.
This is what the government that I still lead has done. Others know in their hearts that they have ignored their responsibility in order to create an atmosphere favorable to their partisan interests.
Their accusations are intolerable not only because of the gravity of Spain's present situation, but also because they destroyed the political composure that our citizens required on the day before the elections. Three days after the terrorists struck, Spaniards voted. The results of these elections are fully legitimate. Our institutions are stronger than the terrorists.
Spain is a strong nation, able to surmount the considerable problems it has encountered over the years. This is a time to remain united so that we can defeat terrorism. Those guilty of the attacks should pay for what they have done. We should not allow even a hint of a doubt that we retain the will to pursue them, wherever they are.
Spain has been one of the most active nations in the battle that democracies are waging against terrorism. This should continue to be the case. The defense of the liberties we enjoy is not just a fight for the United States or the United Kingdom to wage against their enemies. Terrorism hits wherever it can. There have been victims of many nationalities in New York, in Bali, in Mombasa, in Casablanca, in Istanbul, in Karbala--and in Madrid. No one is safe from terrorism, and no one should pretend that he is safe. Very recently, German and Dutch engineers were murdered in Iraq, for the crime of trying to lay pipes for drinking water. Terrorists have already threatened France for trying to ban wearing religious symbols in schools.
Ours is a battle between freedom, democracy and civilization, on the one hand, and terror on the other. If on September 11 we were all American, on March 11 the whole world was Spanish. Let's maintain this spirit. We cannot just abandon this battle; it is everyone's fight.
In the entire course of my political life, and especially during the eight years in which I have been prime minister, I have said that terrorism is not a local phenomenon, confined to particular areas or countries, to be confronted with domestic means alone. On the contrary, terrorism is a global phenomenon, one that crosses borders. And it gains in strength when we think that it is the problem of "others" and should be taken care of by "others."
The debates that followed the Madrid attacks have been about whether they were carried out by ETA or al Qaeda. It is obviously essential to find out who was behind the attacks. But all terrorism carries the same threat; all terrorist attacks are infused with hatred for liberty, democracy and human dignity. They feed on each other.
Up until the attacks of September 11, Spain took great pains to demonstrate to the outside world that terrorism was not an isolated phenomenon, that it shouldn't be fought by its immediate victims alone. Following the collapse of the Twin Towers, a new consciousness about the world-wide reach of terrorism finally emerged.
ETA or al Qaeda--the difference is important, to be sure, but the response to what has happened should be the same: firmness, political unity and international cooperation. Each and every democrat in the world was on those trains in Madrid. It has been an attack against all of us, against everything we believe in, and against everything we have built.
It is precisely for this reason that we must not send out confusing messages, messages that induce people to believe that we have to make concessions to those demanding that we kneel before bombs. This is not the moment to think about withdrawals of troops. And much less when the terrorists, with their message of death and destruction, have demanded that we surrender. To yield now would set a dangerous precedent that would allow our attackers to believe that they have imposed their conditions on us. It would allow our attackers to believe that they have won.
Mr. Aznar is prime minister of Spain.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
I believe that the link below to " Iraqthemodel" and its posting for the first anniversary of the "North American Imperialist's Invasion " of Iraq, is the best way to remember the event. A posting by an Iraqi, about Iraq.One year after.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
A stupid question.
When I saw the anti-war rallies that took place in many parts of the world in the annual anniversary of the war against Saddam, I couldn’t help thinking again, why are they doing this!? There were some but considerably smaller one or two demos. In Iraq (few hundreds led by some religious fanatics who no one could've known about them if it wasn't for the watchful eyes of the media) which was supposed to be the country those pacifist were defending.
I’ve had some difficulty in understanding the motives of the pacifists to stop this war and now to stop the coalition led by the USA from helping, rebuilding and promoting democracy in Iraq, and I’m sure there were many of those who were paid off or simply misled, but that doesn’t cover even the majority of the pacifist, as I’ve always thought that those were good people with a great sense of humanity and were noble enough to dismiss bribery and more intelligent than can be misled.
The answer to this question became less obscure as time and events revealed much of what was difficult for me to perceive from my place at the first look. The way the majority of the pacifists reacted to those events showed some of the missing part of the picture. I still think they are good people and not stupid at all but there’s one thing I can’t give them a credit for and that is honesty. I’m sorry, my friends but this may have been considered the strongest point in your position, or so you thought, but if you allow me to navigate through your conscience and care to have the patience and modesty to join me in this journey-which is what should be expected from honest people- then maybe we can reach an agreement on re-stating our points of disagreement and define more accurately were we disagree and this, as I believe, should be for the benefit of all. There’s no need to add that you have the right to do the same with me and I’m more than willing to go with you all the way.
Now why would I judge you so harshly and what facts and evidences do I have to support my belief?
To start with, I think I, as everyone else agree with you that war is a very unpleasant and most often a disastrous option to solve struggles, but I think we also agree that sometimes it’s the only available option. This allows us to minimize the field of our debate to this war on Saddam and to some others maybe to the way in dealing with terrorism that we support so strongly and you appose similarly. I think that once 2 nations went to war to settle their conflict instead of resorting to diplomacy, we would both stand against this war; unless you believe that the majority of us support this war to satisfy our lust for blood shed.
Since we are now talking about your stance, let’s take a look at why do you (the true pacifists) oppose this war.
I think that most agree that when we talk about the (true pacifists) then we are pointing to those living in the free world, as the 3rd world people are either disinterested and busy in trying to feed their children and find an appropriate shelter for their families, while they struggle to stay as far as possible away from the tyrannies that control their fate, which may force them to follow their governments attitude, or they are driven by religious fanaticism, and in the Arab world probably by Arab nationalism to stand against this war.
Peace is what those (true pacifists) are struggling for and there can be no nobler goal than this, but may I ask one questions here?
Where do you live!? A stupid and irrelevant question? I don’t think so.
Which peace are you seeking? Yours or that of the world, and which order you are trying to maintain? That of your countries or of the whole world? Do you really think that it’s such a wonderful and peaceful world that no one should be allowed to mess with? But what a stupid question is that on my part!! Of course it is! I mean some of you probably hadn’t heard a gun shot in months or years, and some of you live in countries that haven’t fought any war in more than a century.
Your lives certainly have not been that easy for sure, but did you ever fear that your children might starve to death? Or did you live your life with the horror of a kick that break your doors open, in the middle of the night, to take you or one of your family members to the unknown? And worse than that- which seems to you not a big deal- did you have to bend your heads and fix your eyes to the ground and never raise it fearing it may meet those of a security guard and get misinterpreted as a challenge!!? Oh my God! Here I go asking stupid questions again! As of course all of this is not a big deal, because if you felt it is such a huge injustice and a humiliation to the sacred soul inside each one of God’s creatures, not to mention human beings, you wouldn’t wait SO patiently for the sanctions to work and for the inspectors to finish their job. Of course it’s not a big deal, and you know why? Simply because it didn’t happen to YOU. It happened to the others who lived so far away that it made it less real for you and you simply could throw all these behind you when you come to discuss the war, and ONLY now, you are suddenly worried about how the Americans are treating us!!? I have one thing to answer that: the Americans don’t 'treat' us; they help, protect, teach, love and make friends with us. Hard to swallow for you, I know, because it makes you look so bad to yourselves, but that’s not as bad as it seems since we all make mistakes and HUGE ones and it’s never too late to admit that we were wrong.
Am I so stupid and naive to expect you to change your minds? No, because I still believe that you are good people and I’m relying on this when I say that I have hope in you and will never look to you as enemies.
Just think again about all the pain and sufferings in this world and this time imagine yourself picking the bones of your sons, daughters or brothers from a mass grave after loosing their track in a dark night 20 or 30 years ago and knowing that they didn’t even die peacefully, NO, they were tortured, raped and treated like animals and forced to beg for mercy to have it as a bullet in the head. This happened, and not only in Iraq and is still happening elsewhere in this ‘wonderful’ world. Think of that and try telling my neighbor- for instance, who is still looking for the mass grave that hold his 2 sons’ bones who were taken away from him 21 years ago when they were still in college without even knowing why-why you stood against this war. Try telling that to my other neighbor, who convinced his brother, who left the military during Iran war, to go back to his unite taking advantage of the presidential pardon that was announced on the TV and formal newspaper, and when he finally convinced him and took him by himself to the military police to take him to his unite, he woke up the next morning to find a car carrying the coffin that had his brother's body inside it, with the word TRAITOR written in large letters on its top, and with a strict order that no funeral should be held, otherwise they would join their brother. And yes, he received a note 2 weeks later telling him that there was a mistake that led to the execution of his brother along with other few hundreds and that they were sorry and that he can have his funeral!!
I could talk for years, and there are MUCH more painful stories but my heart cannot take it to remember all this pain. I hope you have a stronger heart as you explain to those people that you stood against their salvation and allowed their misery to continue because you think your politicians lied to you about the reasons for this war. Try to tell them that this was the doing of America not Saddam and that’s why you stood against her when she tried to remove him and give them freedom AND peace, the peace of mind and heart!!
Again my stupid question: where do you live? As we, who support this war against dictatorship and terrorism, live in this world, this ugly world we are trying to change as persistently as you try to keep it as it is with the same strength and persistence. So… where do you live?
-By Ali.
Sunday, March 21, 2004
A stupid question.
When I saw the anti-war rallies that took place in many parts of the world in the annual anniversary of the war against Saddam, I couldn’t help thinking again, why are they doing this!? There were some but considerably smaller one or two demos. In Iraq (few hundreds led by some religious fanatics who no one could've known about them if it wasn't for the watchful eyes of the media) which was supposed to be the country those pacifist were defending.
I’ve had some difficulty in understanding the motives of the pacifists to stop this war and now to stop the coalition led by the USA from helping, rebuilding and promoting democracy in Iraq, and I’m sure there were many of those who were paid off or simply misled, but that doesn’t cover even the majority of the pacifist, as I’ve always thought that those were good people with a great sense of humanity and were noble enough to dismiss bribery and more intelligent than can be misled.
The answer to this question became less obscure as time and events revealed much of what was difficult for me to perceive from my place at the first look. The way the majority of the pacifists reacted to those events showed some of the missing part of the picture. I still think they are good people and not stupid at all but there’s one thing I can’t give them a credit for and that is honesty. I’m sorry, my friends but this may have been considered the strongest point in your position, or so you thought, but if you allow me to navigate through your conscience and care to have the patience and modesty to join me in this journey-which is what should be expected from honest people- then maybe we can reach an agreement on re-stating our points of disagreement and define more accurately were we disagree and this, as I believe, should be for the benefit of all. There’s no need to add that you have the right to do the same with me and I’m more than willing to go with you all the way.
Now why would I judge you so harshly and what facts and evidences do I have to support my belief?
To start with, I think I, as everyone else agree with you that war is a very unpleasant and most often a disastrous option to solve struggles, but I think we also agree that sometimes it’s the only available option. This allows us to minimize the field of our debate to this war on Saddam and to some others maybe to the way in dealing with terrorism that we support so strongly and you appose similarly. I think that once 2 nations went to war to settle their conflict instead of resorting to diplomacy, we would both stand against this war; unless you believe that the majority of us support this war to satisfy our lust for blood shed.
Since we are now talking about your stance, let’s take a look at why do you (the true pacifists) oppose this war.
I think that most agree that when we talk about the (true pacifists) then we are pointing to those living in the free world, as the 3rd world people are either disinterested and busy in trying to feed their children and find an appropriate shelter for their families, while they struggle to stay as far as possible away from the tyrannies that control their fate, which may force them to follow their governments attitude, or they are driven by religious fanaticism, and in the Arab world probably by Arab nationalism to stand against this war.
Peace is what those (true pacifists) are struggling for and there can be no nobler goal than this, but may I ask one questions here?
Where do you live!? A stupid and irrelevant question? I don’t think so.
Which peace are you seeking? Yours or that of the world, and which order you are trying to maintain? That of your countries or of the whole world? Do you really think that it’s such a wonderful and peaceful world that no one should be allowed to mess with? But what a stupid question is that on my part!! Of course it is! I mean some of you probably hadn’t heard a gun shot in months or years, and some of you live in countries that haven’t fought any war in more than a century.
Your lives certainly have not been that easy for sure, but did you ever fear that your children might starve to death? Or did you live your life with the horror of a kick that break your doors open, in the middle of the night, to take you or one of your family members to the unknown? And worse than that- which seems to you not a big deal- did you have to bend your heads and fix your eyes to the ground and never raise it fearing it may meet those of a security guard and get misinterpreted as a challenge!!? Oh my God! Here I go asking stupid questions again! As of course all of this is not a big deal, because if you felt it is such a huge injustice and a humiliation to the sacred soul inside each one of God’s creatures, not to mention human beings, you wouldn’t wait SO patiently for the sanctions to work and for the inspectors to finish their job. Of course it’s not a big deal, and you know why? Simply because it didn’t happen to YOU. It happened to the others who lived so far away that it made it less real for you and you simply could throw all these behind you when you come to discuss the war, and ONLY now, you are suddenly worried about how the Americans are treating us!!? I have one thing to answer that: the Americans don’t 'treat' us; they help, protect, teach, love and make friends with us. Hard to swallow for you, I know, because it makes you look so bad to yourselves, but that’s not as bad as it seems since we all make mistakes and HUGE ones and it’s never too late to admit that we were wrong.
Am I so stupid and naive to expect you to change your minds? No, because I still believe that you are good people and I’m relying on this when I say that I have hope in you and will never look to you as enemies.
Just think again about all the pain and sufferings in this world and this time imagine yourself picking the bones of your sons, daughters or brothers from a mass grave after loosing their track in a dark night 20 or 30 years ago and knowing that they didn’t even die peacefully, NO, they were tortured, raped and treated like animals and forced to beg for mercy to have it as a bullet in the head. This happened, and not only in Iraq and is still happening elsewhere in this ‘wonderful’ world. Think of that and try telling my neighbor- for instance, who is still looking for the mass grave that hold his 2 sons’ bones who were taken away from him 21 years ago when they were still in college without even knowing why-why you stood against this war. Try telling that to my other neighbor, who convinced his brother, who left the military during Iran war, to go back to his unite taking advantage of the presidential pardon that was announced on the TV and formal newspaper, and when he finally convinced him and took him by himself to the military police to take him to his unite, he woke up the next morning to find a car carrying the coffin that had his brother's body inside it, with the word TRAITOR written in large letters on its top, and with a strict order that no funeral should be held, otherwise they would join their brother. And yes, he received a note 2 weeks later telling him that there was a mistake that led to the execution of his brother along with other few hundreds and that they were sorry and that he can have his funeral!!
I could talk for years, and there are MUCH more painful stories but my heart cannot take it to remember all this pain. I hope you have a stronger heart as you explain to those people that you stood against their salvation and allowed their misery to continue because you think your politicians lied to you about the reasons for this war. Try to tell them that this was the doing of America not Saddam and that’s why you stood against her when she tried to remove him and give them freedom AND peace, the peace of mind and heart!!
Again my stupid question: where do you live? As we, who support this war against dictatorship and terrorism, live in this world, this ugly world we are trying to change as persistently as you try to keep it as it is with the same strength and persistence. So… where do you live?
-By Ali.
Monday, March 22, 2004
Creeping DemocracyBy WILLIAM SAFIRE
Published: March 22, 2004
WASHINGTON — "Democratic creep" is not a derogation of a liberal candidate. On the contrary, it is the process — now well under way — by which free nations will win the world war on terror.
In Afghanistan, once a hotbed of Qaeda training and Taliban tyranny, nobody can deny we helped bring forth the beginnings of democratic government. Afghans, including newly liberated women, are helping track down fugitive killers.
In Iraq, we mourn our losses this past year, which now approach 2 percent of U.S. casualties in the Korean conflict. Many Iraqis died, too, but literally tens of thousands are alive today because Saddam did not have the power to torture and execute them — as mass graves tell us he did every year of his savage misrule.
Nobody can be certain that Iraq will remain whole and free after we turn over sovereignty on June 30. But prospects look far better than predicted by defeatists who claimed a year ago that political freedom had no chance of taking root in hostile Arab soil.
Free electricity keeps TV sets and air-conditioners humming, oil is flowing, schools and businesses have come to life. Unemployment, now over 30 percent, will surely drop as the $18 billion appropriated by the U.S. Congress — part of the $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan — begins to flow heavily next month into reconstruction by Iraqi workers. (The W.P.A. lives.)
We are training a civilian defense corps, twice the size of a joint Shiite-Sunni-Kurdish army, to take over free Iraq's battle against the Ansar-Qaeda terrorists and Baathist diehards. With the transfer of political power to a transitional Iraqi government, public fury at the mortar and rocket attacks on "soft target" civilians will be a nationalizing, not a destabilizing, force — directed not at occupiers but against the terrorist invaders.
Next year, a trio of local politicians will emerge to lead the country. "Three John Edwardses are out there awaiting their chance," says one observer.
Optimistic? In the grand design to uproot the causes of the rise of radical Islamic terrorism, defeat is no option. We have to believe in the popular success of a combination of democracy and prosperity. In this generation, the world has seen the power of the human desire for freedom.
From Kuwait to Qatar, the coalition's overthrow of Saddam has been a political tonic. Libya's dictator is making weaponry concessions lest his economy be wrecked and he be ousted. Repressive Iran is ripening for revolution. Egypt's boss and Saudi Arabia's princes are nervous because an arc of democracy bids fair to extend from Turkey through Iraq to Israel, with literate, enterprising populations blazing a path to liberating prosperity in the greater Middle East.
Syria's sullen Bashar al-Assad is feeling the heat. He benefited most from Saddam's corruption, probably provided a hiding place for Iraqi weapons and a route of entry into Iraq for Qaeda killers. His troops illegally occupy Lebanon; he supports Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists in rocket attacks and suicide bombings. His so-called intelligence sharing has been singularly unproductive.
A million and a half Kurds live in Syria, despised by the rulers in Damascus. After Syrian Kurds saw the blessings of freedom flow to their ethnic comrades in Iraq, some were emboldened to respond to Arab taunting at a soccer game. Bashar's goons, remembering his father's bloody "Hamas rules," shot a score of the unarmed protesters as a warning to the quarter-million Kurds the dictator keeps stateless.
Congress, more hawkish than President Bush on this state sponsor of terror, passed the Syria Accountability Act four months ago with large majorities; this week, he is expected to put some of its authorized economic squeeze on Bashar. He should consider that Step One.
This unified American message — substantial largess for free Iraq contrasted with the start of serious sanctions for despotic Syria — will not be lost on the Arab League meeting in Tunisia.
Success of democracy in Iraq is the key to democratic reform throughout the greater Middle East. When that reform dawns in Ramallah, there can be an independent, contiguous Palestine. When creeping democracy gradually brings a better life to people of the region, the basis for hatred and terror will erode and the suicide bomber will pass from the scene.
Published: March 22, 2004
WASHINGTON — "Democratic creep" is not a derogation of a liberal candidate. On the contrary, it is the process — now well under way — by which free nations will win the world war on terror.
In Afghanistan, once a hotbed of Qaeda training and Taliban tyranny, nobody can deny we helped bring forth the beginnings of democratic government. Afghans, including newly liberated women, are helping track down fugitive killers.
In Iraq, we mourn our losses this past year, which now approach 2 percent of U.S. casualties in the Korean conflict. Many Iraqis died, too, but literally tens of thousands are alive today because Saddam did not have the power to torture and execute them — as mass graves tell us he did every year of his savage misrule.
Nobody can be certain that Iraq will remain whole and free after we turn over sovereignty on June 30. But prospects look far better than predicted by defeatists who claimed a year ago that political freedom had no chance of taking root in hostile Arab soil.
Free electricity keeps TV sets and air-conditioners humming, oil is flowing, schools and businesses have come to life. Unemployment, now over 30 percent, will surely drop as the $18 billion appropriated by the U.S. Congress — part of the $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan — begins to flow heavily next month into reconstruction by Iraqi workers. (The W.P.A. lives.)
We are training a civilian defense corps, twice the size of a joint Shiite-Sunni-Kurdish army, to take over free Iraq's battle against the Ansar-Qaeda terrorists and Baathist diehards. With the transfer of political power to a transitional Iraqi government, public fury at the mortar and rocket attacks on "soft target" civilians will be a nationalizing, not a destabilizing, force — directed not at occupiers but against the terrorist invaders.
Next year, a trio of local politicians will emerge to lead the country. "Three John Edwardses are out there awaiting their chance," says one observer.
Optimistic? In the grand design to uproot the causes of the rise of radical Islamic terrorism, defeat is no option. We have to believe in the popular success of a combination of democracy and prosperity. In this generation, the world has seen the power of the human desire for freedom.
From Kuwait to Qatar, the coalition's overthrow of Saddam has been a political tonic. Libya's dictator is making weaponry concessions lest his economy be wrecked and he be ousted. Repressive Iran is ripening for revolution. Egypt's boss and Saudi Arabia's princes are nervous because an arc of democracy bids fair to extend from Turkey through Iraq to Israel, with literate, enterprising populations blazing a path to liberating prosperity in the greater Middle East.
Syria's sullen Bashar al-Assad is feeling the heat. He benefited most from Saddam's corruption, probably provided a hiding place for Iraqi weapons and a route of entry into Iraq for Qaeda killers. His troops illegally occupy Lebanon; he supports Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists in rocket attacks and suicide bombings. His so-called intelligence sharing has been singularly unproductive.
A million and a half Kurds live in Syria, despised by the rulers in Damascus. After Syrian Kurds saw the blessings of freedom flow to their ethnic comrades in Iraq, some were emboldened to respond to Arab taunting at a soccer game. Bashar's goons, remembering his father's bloody "Hamas rules," shot a score of the unarmed protesters as a warning to the quarter-million Kurds the dictator keeps stateless.
Congress, more hawkish than President Bush on this state sponsor of terror, passed the Syria Accountability Act four months ago with large majorities; this week, he is expected to put some of its authorized economic squeeze on Bashar. He should consider that Step One.
This unified American message — substantial largess for free Iraq contrasted with the start of serious sanctions for despotic Syria — will not be lost on the Arab League meeting in Tunisia.
Success of democracy in Iraq is the key to democratic reform throughout the greater Middle East. When that reform dawns in Ramallah, there can be an independent, contiguous Palestine. When creeping democracy gradually brings a better life to people of the region, the basis for hatred and terror will erode and the suicide bomber will pass from the scene.
