What are they drinking at the New York Times?

[libertango]

Mr. Brooks:

Saying that the result of the Spanish elections is a victory for al Qaeda only works if a) one hates democracy, and b) one thinks there is any linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Surely the fact that the Spanish attacks happened after one year of the US occupying Iraq shows there is no such linkage.

You ask where was the State Department. I ask, where was the Bush Administration at all, and our counter-terrorism forces specifically? At least the Spanish realize that it is terrorism that is the enemy, and not counting coup against family enemies of the Administration in Iraq.

Tell me how ceasing to be distracted by Iraq to focus on combating al Qaeda is a "victory" for al Qaeda.

Sincerely,

etc.

Comments

[jerrykaufman.livejournal.com]

I've got to say that the same thought ran through my mind: Al Qaeda got the election result they hoped for. Presuming that they (or their affiliates) had some purpose in mind, this result could well have been it.

Whether this result is the right result for Spain and the world is another question.

If Spain concentrates on Al Qaeda more, that's obviously not good for AQ. But since they're willing to sacrifice people in suicide bombings, they're probably also willing to sacrifice people to arrest by the Spanish.

The shallow reading I did after the election suggested that the Spanish people turned out the conservatives because the voters were unhappy with the way the government handled the aftermath of the bombings. Can you point me to something that gives more details of what the government did wrong?

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I diagree with the notion that al Qaeda got the result they wanted in Spain. In fact, I'm surprised that people are saying it. What al Qaeda wants is escalation. The U.S. gave them the result they wanted. Spain gave them precisely the opposite result.

B

[jerrykaufman.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I'm making a false assumption. I assumed that the general purpose of Al Qaeda attacks on Americans and Europeans was to convince them to leave Islamic countries in general and Afganistan and Iraq in particular.

Whan you say they want escalation, do you mean that Al Qaeda wants more American and European troops in Iraq and Afganistan? If this is what you mean, and if you are right, then I have much to learn about the situation.

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I think they want more troops in Iraq, because that is more likely to provoke moderate Muslems to support their "holy war." I think the U.S. played right into their hands in the aftermath of 9/11: restricting freedoms domestically, invading two countries, and generally behaving in the way they predicted all along.

B

[cityzephyr.livejournal.com]

so there's a part of me that just wants to railgun down people for being easily led automatons like most of the fucking population of the usa. "go team" is not something i'm likely to yell since i don't think the us of bloody a has a leg to stand on in all this "war on terrorism" bullshit. it escapes everyone's notice that we committed genocide (think native americans being herded into tiny plots of land and killed for being "uncivilized" which apparently means "different color skin/ideals that conflict with pioneer 'values'") right in this very country - but for some reason, we're above reproach and everyone else is fucked up and wrong? gimme a break.

pardon my frenglish.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

I'm with Bruce here (no big surprise). What Al Qaeda really want is sturm und drang. Spain opting out of that is a net loss for them.

To make an SF comparison, Al Qaeda are not unlike the Shadows in B5. They thrive on chaos. Spain taking their marbles and going home is not unlike Mike Resnick's story about the politician who withered away through lack of media coverage. It's very very difficult for Al Qaeda to convince other Arabs of the West's "Crusader ambitions" if people walk away.

Now, Jorge would tell you we're in Iraq to promote democracy. Which is a blatant untruth, because if Iraq was a democracy it would either a) turn into Iran II, the sequel because of the Shi'ite majority, or b) split into at least three countries (Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd), or both.

That Shi'ite angle is something else to keep in mind. Like Islam as a whole, the majority of Al Qaeda are Sunni. There may well be an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" angle to all this, but odds are Al Qaeda do not normally wish Iraqi Shi'ites well.

[fritz-freiheit.livejournal.com]

If you haven't seen the Economist cover related to the Spanish elections, check this out.