That was great, informative stuff. Very high-quality. I posted it on my site, so my friends could see it. However, I clicked the "Honduras" but the SFGate site said it didn't work. I'm curious about the Honduras development because I have friends and family there.

This was excellent work on an excellent site, thank you.

Link should work now.

Very insightful and balanced analysis.

I would have to think that the Dutch and the Danes would stick with us even if, maybe especially if, they were intimidated. My experience of the Dutch is that they are a great and loyal people with a strong sense of honor. I hope I never have to eat those words.

Zapatero was elected on an anti-war platform, so I wouldn't have expected him to reverse course after his winning. That being said and regardless one's feelings about his political views generally, there was something unsettlingly amateurish about his noisy public denunciation of his erstwhile NATO allies as warmongering imperialists and liars bent who have brought "disaster" upon the world. All of this with our French and German allies celebrating on the sidelines. I have trouble imagining a U.S. administration similarly denouncing its NATO allies with such utter diplomatic clumsiness, tastelessness and perhaps above all complete lack of instincts as far has finessing the terrorist intimidation issue. The guy sure looks like a hopeless idiot.

Which brings me to the question of longer-term effects on NATO. What is the continuing rationale for an alliance with allies who behave like this? (The same reasoning applies with somewhat less force to any thought of restoring any clout to the U.N.) I also have trouble justifying any U.S. foreign policy that does not involve quiet, gradual isolation of France.

Well, Gabriel, this is pretty much a slam dunk. The central strategic rationale for NATO vanished into History with the Soviet Empire. Now the alliance has degenerated into a game of "every man for himself". The bin Ladenists are counting on the Europeans following their short term self-interests, as is their wont.

Too many American foreign policy makers still value NATO. It is not without value to us strategically, as Europe is dotted with bases that assist us in the projection of power.

The day will come, however, when most of our forces will come home from NATO. The Europeans, sadly, have become too "post-Christian" for us to count on them to defend themselves, much less assist us in our defense.

According to Radek Sikorski

http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.64/scholar.asp

the Polish opposition is more pro-American than the already pro-American government. So they should be solid.

I agree that the incoming Spanish leader could at least have muted his denunciation of the United States in view of the circumstances of his victory.

Gabriel,

I had a long series of back and forth's with both Joe and A.L. about France and I see nothing that has changed my evaluation when I started it:

http://windsofchange.net/archives/002955.html

The Evil That Was France
Jan 23. 2003

Gabriel,

I also said this about France over a year ago and I am really beginning to wonder if it doesn't apply to all continental Eurosocialists:

http://windsofchange.net/archives/003017.html

February 06, 2003
The Thing That Was France Revisited
Trent Telenko

Gabriel:
Have you forgotten already about Rumsfield's cracks about old and new Europe? Also the fact that Americans (eith teh CPA or the Pentagon) awarded
I completely disagree with you about isolating France. That would be a strategic blunder of major proportions because it would only convince the political elite that American policy vindicates the soundness of their view. That France does represent a credible alternative to American hegemony
Worse, an isolated France would be less inhibited to be a nusiance. The best policy is to engage France and persuade its people and the more perceptive politicans to work in concert with the Americans.
I advocate the same policy of persuasive engagement. Zapatero isn't vain like Chirac and would be more open to persuasion.

xavier

GREAT analysis!!!!!! I'm going to link it on my blog either tonight or tomorrow. I think, though, that I easily and sadly see a major attack on U.S. soil aimed at influencing election results. The conventional wisdom has often wanted to be the unpredictable wisdom in recent years. Right now everyone assumes an election eve attack on the U.S. would elect GWB but maybe it'd also bring his foes or people on the fence out, figuring what the existing government has done simply did not work. I think in the 21st Century a lot of the factors and thinking that were used in the 20th century are not as solid indicators as they were. And I am not talking about the post here, but even my own posts and things I read in the press. I think in the U.S. sports stadiums would also be a highly inviting target since the games are televised live.

This is the kind of analysis you get when you've lost perspective on things and you can only view all events through the prism of politics.

All successful terrorist attacks are a "victory" for terrorists. So what's the point???

You are making the mistake of presuming that terrorists think like you, or we, do. At best this is simply naive, at worst (if you are a politician) it is dangerous.

All successful terrorist attacks are a "victory" for terrorists.

No, Vesicle, it is only a victory if the attacks accomplish the goals of the terrorists. They don't just blow up stuff for giggles--they do it because they think there's something in it for them in addition to killing people.

"it is only a victory if the attacks accomplish the goals of the terrorists. They don't just blow up stuff for giggles--they do it because they think there's something in it for them in addition to killing people."

Sorry JC. I don't buy it even with your qualification. What was their goal? And not just to influence the election. To what end did they wish to influence the election? To demoralize some in the west for a few days? Then what? Do we convert because they are so much meaner than the ladies giving us copies of the Watchtower?

They do do it essentially for giggles, because Allah or one of his messingers told them to destroy the infidel. What's in it for them is Allah's approval. Every religious war is the same and ultimately, that's what this is. These guys have no strategy and no goals other than kill all the kuffirs.

What these nut cases have done is to reveal how hollow Europe has become. And they didn't hollow it out, the Europeans did it themselves. It's like blaming the inspector for the termite infestation. And they've revealed how much I miss reading things by Trent Telenko.

Sometimes you lose some. But somtimes you might win some.

Gabriel writes:

"Which brings me to the question of longer-term effects on NATO. What is the continuing rationale for an alliance with allies who behave like this?"

NATO is effectively dead, and you are the first person I recall bringing the question up. Notice no rush of Article 5 support for Spain? Not even discussion? But the continuing rationale for the facacde of an alliance was best enunciated by Lyndon Johnson; better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in.

On the other hand having the French navy join the Chicom PLAN in intimidating the Taiwan election starts to smack of a French withdrawal from NATO and entry inot a new alliance. Perhaps with Pakistan? The mullahs in Tehran might be interested also.

Germany and France supported us in our efforts to root out Al Qaeda in Afghanistan -- where there was a clear and present threat (Remember Osama? Just where is Osama, now, BTW?). Bush could have been a successful war president if he had patiently engaged these governments (and the United Nations) and built a persuasive case for the eventual removal of Sadam from Iraq. But he's bitten off more than he can chew in Iraq by ignoring the political realities of his (former?) allies -- he's gambled on Iraq and lost in the court of world opinion. The governments of France and Germany were in tune with the mood of the electorate and chose not to participate in what their electorate saw as a bogus attempt to mask a brazenly aggressive military move as a "war on terror". Anzar consistently ignored the mood of his electorate, and, worse yet, his government continued to insist it was ETA attack even when the evidence indicated otherwise. The Spanish electorate has spoken and removed someone who lied to them.

Hopefully, we will do the same to the liar who occupies the White House in November. Please note: I will vote against Bush not because he's waging a war on terror, but because: (A) he's waging a war on terror ineptly (i.e. tying down American troops in Iraq when they could be chasing Public Enemy #1: Osama bin Laden); (B) he's waged a war on Iraq wasting US military resources on a paper tiger, when there are some very real nuclear tigers out there (North Korea and Iran); © he, and his minion, Mullah Ashcroft, are using the war on terror to erode our civil liberties; and (D) he's obviously lied to the American people, and by doing so, he’s embroiled us in a no-win situation.

Have the terrorists won a victory by influencing the mood of the Spanish electorate? Yes. Have the terrorists won a victory by tying down our troops in Iraq and mobilizing the popular opinion of the Arab world against us? Yes.

Time to get out of Iraq. Hand the country over to the Shiite majority (because it will happen anyway if there are fair elections). Hand it over to the Shiites with the proviso: no nukes or biological weapons, and leave the Kurds alone. Also give lots of economic support to the Shiite leaders who don't kowtow to Teheran. That would be the Iranian mullahs' worst nightmare: having a legitimate Shiite government that has a different agenda from Iran.

Once we're out of Iraq, redeploy more troops in Afghanistan, because it sounds like the Taliban is trying to make a comeback in the provinces. And find Osama NOW! Although Al Qaeda will probably continue to function without Osama -- bringing in Osama, dead or alive, will be show the Arab world that Allah fights on the side with the heavy artillery.

Vesicle Trafficker:

I simply view events through the same prism as the enemy and their own document clearly states who they wanted to win this particular election in Spain. While all successful attacks are victories from a terrorist perspective, the goal of these attacks is to coerce societies into adopting certain policies - that is the textbook definition of terrorism and, for better or worse, al-Qaeda appears to have succeeded this time around.

Wulf:

I would be extremely hesitant as far as drawing a direct parallel between what happened in Spain and what may happen in the US this November - there is more to the world or foreign policy than US domestic politics or the actions of President Bush.

As far as Aznar's decision to initially blame the ETA for the attacks, up until the point where Jamal Zougam was arrested and identified as one of the men who planted the train bombs, there was no firm proof that this was an al-Qaeda attack given the apparent lack of suicide bombers and the chemical composition of the bombs. The Socialists were accusing Aznar of lying about the investigation and for bringing bin Laden's wrath down on Madrid long before there was any actual evidence to support their conclusions.

With regard to Iraq, in the event the US pulled out the nation would collapse as a viable state (a la Yugoslavia in the early 1990s or even worse - the Congo). Sadr and his Mahdi Army jackboots would rule the southern region for Tehran, in actuality if not in name, and Iran would basically have been handed the planet's second largest oil reserves. Sistani would be placed under house arrest or assassinated outright in the manner of Ayatollah al-Khoei, thereby ending a major voice of moderation within Shi'ism that is urgently needed. Regardless of your policy disagreements with President Bush, I think you'll agree that such a scenario would hardly be in America's best interests.

In terms of Afghanistan, the Taliban "comeback" is a direct response to the fact that they have safe haven on the Pakistani side of the border. Whenever they mass in large numbers, they are promptly destroyed as an organized force, which is in all honesty the best that we can do at this point unless you favor an invasion of northern Pakistan.

"Time to get out of Iraq"
Thereby proving Osama is correct, the US has no balls and will run at the first hint of trouble. This would boost Al Qaeda more than any other action the US has taken.

"redeploy more troops in Afghanistan"
Our strategy in Afganistan is very good, use local troops to do the fighting. They are good and very proud. Afganistan can not support large amounts of troops and a large contingent would look like an invasion. That place eats armies, ask the Soviets or the British.

President Bush is doing a good job in fighting the WOT. The Iraqi Campaign has changed the dynamic in the region for the better.

Dan, this is refreshingly non-polemical, solid and sober analysis.

I think it's inarguable that Al Qaeda got what it wanted.

But I'm still wondering about some other things.

This morning I wondered aloud about the applicability of the "Al Qaeda wants X, Al Qaeda launches an attack to achieve X, X happens, therefore Al Qaeda won" rubric. Can we assume that Al Qaeda knows what is in its best interest? Is it possible for Al Qaeda to achieve its objectives only to be ultimately destroyed by its own hubris? We know al Qaeda's ultimate objective--the restoration of the Caliphate--is insane. How can we reconcile our knowledge of this fact with our perception of al Qaeda's tactical and strategic brilliance? Is Al Qaeda like a collective version of a serial killer--crazy yet cooly rational all at once?

And what to make of Iraq? Do they want us there, so as to inspire the new call to jihad? Does al Qaeda want the UN involved? Or has Spain's retreat made increased UN involvement, Zapataro's statements to the contrary, much less likely? What do we make of the recent focus on civilian murders in Iraq? What do Iraqis think of the bombings in Spain?

I have more questions than answers at this point.

While I agree with Edward Luttack that invading Iraq in the manner that we did was a strategic error, I still retain a tiny sliver of hope that Zapataro will be the avatar of Al Qaeda's demise. His actions in the next few weeks and months will give us all of the information we need in order to judge him; right now I believe it's premature. But I will be deeply disturbed and disappointed if he retreats not only from Iraq but from the broader war on Al Qaeda itself.

As for Z's diplomatic savvy ... not confidence-inspiring.

praktike,

The side that will win this war is not the side that makes no strategical or tactical error. It will be the side that is besst equipped to turn lemons into lemonade.

In that respect Iraq may be a diversion of resources but so far not a fatal error and if we can induce a revolution in Iran from Afghanistan and Iraq then the advantages may out weigh the disadvantages.

This is chess. A bad middle position may make for a strong end position if played right. So far I like what I see re: Arab responses to Iraq. The Iraqi response to Iraq is pretty good too.

American presence in Iraq gives hope to Iranian revolutionaries. If Saddam was stil in power they would have to worry about a predatory Saddam attacking Iran after it's revolution or at least trying hard to control it. America is a much more pleasant presence because it is common knowledge that Americans have no territorial ambitions.

The dominoes may be trembling. A little more shaking of the table and they may fall.

Richard, I don't see this:

They do do it essentially for giggles, because Allah or one of his messingers told them to destroy the infidel. What's in it for them is Allah's approval.

as a contradiction of what I said: the terrorists expect some reward beyond just killing people. I don't believe that they don't mind killing, or aren't interested in killing, or see the killings as incidental happy coincidences. They want everyone to die, but they do have a larger goal and they like those means to it.

These guys have no strategy and no goals other than kill all the kuffirs.

I think they are going about that goal too inefficiently for it to be the only thing they're after. Why spend all that time and money training pilots if you only want to kill people? Why should they care about Spain's elections, even?

I've just started reading Bob Baer's Sleeping with the Devil. He says that in return for their money, King Hassan (father of the current king) gave the Saudi royals a free hand in Morocco, after they were run out of one of their other playgrounds. I gather that they invested heavily in the country. Most likely this has something to do with the 45% approval for OBL in Morocco (see recent Pew poll), and therefore with the Casablanca and Madrid attacks.

JC,

I had thought you meant there was something rational in it for them other than giggles. It sounds as if we're in violent agreement.

In a discussion on a private newsgroup (bar.baen.com)over a year and a half ago, it was noted that AlQueda was more like a franchise than a chain. Connection to funds, safe training havens, and operational co-operation are provided to all groups actively opposing any facet of Western civilization. And acknowledgement of just who is top dog in the terrorist regimes is required.

A multi-national corporation is probably the best analogy. Most of the time when the media says "al-Qaeda" they're really referring to the core network of 3,000 or so operatives - the upper management as it were. But there are lots of regional franchises, of which Salafi Jihad is one of.

Joe once drew an analogy similar to it being the equivalent of an evil government granting agency.

The Bottom line of all of this is the following:

If the new Spanish government was lead by a Tony Blair, then the Spanish bombing and following election results wouldn’t matter. Instead we have the Spanish Socialist “not ready for prime time players” lead by that loud mouth, stupid and energetic yo-yo “Prime Minister-elect” José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

The Spanish people might want to believe that their decision to install the Socialist party was not appeasement.

They might want to believe that the terrorists won't get that message.

They might want to believe in the tooth fairy.

Have a nice day.

We know al Qaeda's ultimate objective--the restoration of the Caliphate--is insane.
****************************************
Speak for yourself. I do NOT know that.
It was, what about 250 yrs from the fall
of Constantinople to the defeat of Islam
at the Gates of Vienna?

Some plan conquests that take generations
and centuries, others think campaigns which
are not over in a matter of weeks are insane.

Of the two which group is it, that has lost
touch with reality?

Dan, Trent;

I am still not convinced that terrorists have such clear political motives in mind when they undertake their acts. The only thing they can be certain of is that they will create chaos, for some time depending on the situation, in the country they attack. To think they can predict how that might play out politically is like saying their crystal ball is better than yours, when in fact they're all cloudy.

The beauty of terrorism is that they can claim success post-facto no matter what the outcome is. I'm sure documents can be dredged up (like the Norwegian one you link to, Dan) that predict all manner of things. That kind of retrospective evidence is nearly worthless.

The only true test of whether you're hypothesis about terrorist motives is valid is if you can predict future attacks with some degree of accuracy. If not, then you'd be wise to conclude that your model for their behavior needs revising.

This is not to say that terrorist motivations are unknowable. It's just that I think it's a mistake to presume their motives are interpretable on a purely political level...it gives them too much credit for being rational and civilized and diverts attention away from considering the root causes, whatever they may be.

Vesicle Trafficker,

It may be good to be cautious about trying to read too much rationality into terrorists' aims (such as "they want such and such an electoral result"). But, if one of the main purposes of random mass killing is to satisfy a need to demonstrate the pyschological power to terrorize the audience (as Lee Harris might say, we're "props in the drama"), then if the terrorists themselves see that audience bending to their will by acknowledging the existence, maybe just the possibility, of that power, then the purpose is certainly fulfilled to that extent. I would say that even if Al Qaida had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Madrid bombings, it has still demonstrated its power if the audience's has confirmed through fear (or perceived fear) the existence of that power. Indeed, if Al Qaida did not carry out these attacks, they should certainly feel encouraged to carry out the next ones. No?

Despite the document with the political analysis, I don't think the bombers had changing the government in mind as a goal. However, that is what they got.

Since nothing succeeds like success, they are saying now that it was their goal. Look what we did!

And it sent a signal to the other jihadists - you can win, too. That's what is going on in Iraq right now. I think they are rushing to blow stuff up in hopes of changing things.

The Spanish people asked themselves: "Are we safer after the capture of Saddam Hussein?" The rubble showed "Obviously not", and they punished the government responsible for the misjudgment about how to pursue national security (as opposed to flight suit costume photo opportunities).

The USA isn't any safer either.

Botched intelligence, botched beginning of the iraq occupation, botched estimate of occupation expense (off by factor of 100), botched estimate of duration of occupation (prewar claim: 30K troops by 12/03), botched pursuit of OBL—even leaving aside the flawed strategy, the execution is nothing to write home about.

It's best to view the bombing in Spain as an adjustment of AQ strategy. The 9/11 attack was a strategic disaster which led directly to the continuing loss of the financial and logistical structure AQ had spent a decade building up.

By comparison, attacking Europe can help protect what's left of the structure - if, or course, the Europeans let themselves be used as AQ tools. The Europeans long ago made it clear this could and would happen. When AQ struck in Madrid it wasn't discovering this European weakness, it was exploiting it. The only people who find the European reaction a revelation are those who misjudged the extent of European decay.

What can bring Europe to its senses?

(1) The collapse of their economic system, followed by a turn of the political and social wheel. But this is too far off in the future to help much.

(2) Not a sustained AQ bombing campaign. The Europeans will only conclude they need to surrender faster, appease more, engage in more dialogue.

(3) Civil war inside Europe. A french general said, "In ten years we will be fighting in the streets of France." Coming? Maybe. It gets more likely with every terrorist the German "justice system" sets free.

(4) The fall of the regimes in Syria and Iran, coupled with the political and economic isolation of the Saudi's. More hope here, but it better happen before the mullah's get the bomb. Europe's fear of being irrelevant would push them back toward the U.S.. That's not a change of heart or an intellectual conversion. It's fear of humiliation and a desire to back the right horse, coupled with wanting to advance Europe's commercial interests in a region where Europe and the U.N. are increasingly recognized by ordinary people as being not only corrupt but on the side of oppressive regimes.

Vesicle Trafficker:

I would hold that the document in question outlines al-Qaeda's strategy as much as anything else. As far as predicting future attacks, the same document, which I have now had the opportunity to read, calls for further attacks against other Western democracies that are part of either the multi-national stabilization force in Afghanistan or the coalition in Iraq. I would say that the document is also being taken very seriously by many of the governments in question, given that many European nations are now calling for an EU meeting on the subject of terrorism.

I don't regard al-Qaeda as rational in terms of its motivations, but there is a method to their madness.

Andrew Lazarus:

The question of whether or not the capture of Saddam Hussein making Spain safer was not a relevant factor in the Spanish elections. As I noted on my own blog, the Spanish electorate simply voted in a quite logical manner given the two genuine options that were available to them at the time. Had it turned out to be the ETA, they would have almost certainly re-elected the Popular Party, but as it turned out to be al-Qaeda the only genuine option for them was to turn to the Socialists, who said that Aznar's involvement in Iraq had brought bin Laden's wrath down on Madrid. And if you believe that al-Qaeda only attacked Madrid because of Spanish involvement in the war in Iraq, with all due respect, you are a fool. Abu Dujan al-Afghani explained as much himself.

More to the point, I would question what botched estimates of occupation expense or occupation duration have to do with making the US safer one way or another.

It's an error to think AQ behaves irrationally. Their global strategy for conquest of unstable muslim nations was carefully planned and well under way before it was derailed by the U.S. response to 9/11. Saying that AQ commits to ill-conceived local freelancing and other tactical blunders - the Bali bombing, for one - is not to agree that the enemy is directionless or foolish. Islamist fanaticism is a tool they use, not the core goal.

Fortunately, AQ can grossly miscalculate. We normally think of the 40's German state as being effective in military matters, but German blunders during WWII were frequent and of major benefit to the allies. Also, as axis fortunes waned, the Germans were forced to take bigger and bigger risks which hastened the end of the war.

Dan;

One of the assumptions your analysis is based on is that the election outcome in Spain was altered by the bombing.

I don't think you have given this enough consideration, because it isn't clear at all that the election wouldn't have gone exactly the same way had it not happened...in which case Zapatera's vow to remove Spanish troops from Iraq couldn't reasonably be called a "victory" for terrorists.

Instead of trying to repeat a good analysis of this point, I'll just refer you to Bob Somerby's comments today at Daily Howler:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh031804.shtml

They're interesting and quite relevant to this issue.

Great analysis!

And I think Carnival time is pretty much right.

In warfare, underestimating or failing to understand your enemy can be fatal.

Al Qaeda is not the Taliban. The Taliban were genuinely at the cargo cult level of sophistication. Al Qaeda's leadership was, and may still be composed of people with hard technical educations and personal experience of living in the west. They have been trained in logical thinking by their education, and they can't be too stupid and have still gotten their degrees.

In other words, they may miscalculate, but they are not idiots - far from it. They will be reading the internet just like we are, gathering information about the state of the world. The document that the Norwegians found contained a detailed political analysis of Spain and predicted the outcome of the attack and subsequent election accurately.

To understand Al Qaeda, it is important to avoid stereotypes or pejoratives like "bloodthirsty." These people kill for an objective, and they are quite rational (if evil) about the whole thing. They do not kill just to kill. They husband their resources. They practice fairly good tradecraft.

They are clever at finding and exploiting small weaknesses in the system - the 9-11 attacks were based on two principles: box cutters could be used as weapons of terror (although not particularly useful for controlling a crowd); and, passengers on an airliner that is hijacked are conditioned to do nothing about it, and in fact to try to avoid calling attention to themselves. That was enough for them to kill 3,000 people and they cam close to killing 10 times that many.

Our modern society, with its vast transportation systems and its loci of high population density is impossible to defend (although we could do better). The only possible solution is offense – political, covert and military. Ultimately if that means we have to mobilize millions of soldiers and conquer the Islamic world, then that's what we'll have to do. If we are struck too hard a blow with WMD's, we will have to use nuclear weapons (and believe me, a president who did not would be impeached and convicted in about 3 minutes).

If we had allies that were not behaving like the pre-9-11 airline passengers, this struggle would be easier. But we don't have many of those. Western Europe is in the final stages of decadence, and can do little other than annoy and obstruct.

One final comment... I have satisfying a way to deal with France.

Vesicle Trafficker,

Very nuanced. In the end it means nothing. What counts is what Al Q. thinks the bombing accomplished.

We will know what they think following the next major bombing of a Western Power.

I fear Spain will only have encouraged them.

Another problem fueling the fire is the immense cultural difference between the U.S. and Iraq. Now that they have freedom from the dictator, they don't want us telling them how to run their government. They do not want a separation of church and state as our democracy has. They want the Koran taught in their schools. We can't teach our religion in ours and they don't want that. That's why they see westerners as infidels. We can't even have our ten commandments displayed in a public place without a big hulabaloo from somebody. They want representation in their new government of their religious leaders. That's true freedom for them. Islam is their way of life and culture. We got rid of the dictator. Their are no weapons of mass distruction, so what's next? I say either we give them their freedom of religion or we're going to face countless battles ahead. We can't enforce a way of life on people who do not believe as we do. I've said all a long we need to set up three provinces with equal representation from all three. Czechoslavakia split their country down the middle because there were diverse cultural differences. I end with this question: What are our intentions over in Iraq? Let's listen to the people instead of setting our own agendas. Leila for United for Freedom (a nonviolent voice for freedom)

roulette is, indeed, the site I spoke on. Play more, gain more, roulette never no more. Visit the roulette site!!! i have seen the best site there is: http://play.mcr8.com. However I had enjoyful playing at roulette as well. Play more, gain more, roulette never no more. Hi, you - heard of roulette? http://play.mcr8.com is just the right thing for you. Great site! Visit roulette, it is probably the best on net!