Us 'appeasement' Warning To Spain

[leftism]

This confirms the suspicions I have raised in other threads concerning the Madrid train bombings.

Originally posted by BBC

US 'appeasement' warning to Spain

Two senior US officials have warned against "appeasement" in the wake of last week's train bombing in Spain, in which 201 commuters were killed.

The attacks contributed to the surprise election victory of the socialists, who have promised to withdraw Spanish troops serving in Iraq.

The most senior Republican in the US Congress, Dennis Hastert, accused the Spanish people of appeasing terrorists.

The top US military officer warned that weakness was likely to invite attacks.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says Mr Hastert has stepped into a diplomatic minefield not caring much where he treads.

Analysis: Election and terror
Our correspondent adds that the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives - who is third in line to the presidency - has expressed publicly the view that many Republicans have held privately.

"Here's a country who stood against terrorism and had a huge terrorist act within their country and they chose to change their government and to, in a sense, appease terrorists," Mr Hastert said on Wednesday.

His views will not be backed by the White House, which is hoping for some continuing alliance with Spain, but they capture the mood of America, our correspondent says.

Even Democratic Party presidential candidate John Kerry - a strong critic of administration's policies on Iraq - has called on the new Spanish government not to pull its troops out.

'Provocative weakness'

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen Richard Myers, also expressed concern on Wednesday.

He did not criticise the new Spanish government, saying every country had to make its own decision about how it supports the war on terror.

But he added that this was not a conflict where neutrality was an option.

"If you look back through history and you look at situations that require people... to stand up and lead and be counted against various threats, appeasement just hasn't worked," he said.

"Weakness is provocative," Gen Myers added.

Spanish police believe last Thursday's attacks on packed trains in Madrid were carried out by Moroccan militants linked to al-Qaeda.

Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has said his position on Iraq is unchanged despite an appeal from Mr Bush not to withdraw Spain's 1,300 troops there.

He insists he will do so unless the UN intervenes in Iraq.

source

The question I would like answered is this.

Are these accusations of appeasement a cynical political ploy to discredit the decision of the Spanish, because it damages the imagery of the "Coalition of the Willing" and casts doubt on the decision to go to war in the first place (i.e it makes the US look bad) ?

Or do the people who are making these accusations genuinely not understand that for most people in Europe the war on terror and the war in Iraq are not the same thing?

Whichever it is we can be sure of one thing. There is a huge gulf between the USA and Europe on this issue and considering the world we live in today I think this is an extremely dangerous state of affairs.

If Bin Laden aimed to "divide and conquer" he must be a happy man because phase 1 of that plan is going very well indeed.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by leftism@18 March 2004 - 20:12

If Bin Laden aimed to "divide and conquer" he must be a happy man because phase 1 of that plan is going very well indeed.

Bin Laden has to be ecstactic. First 9/11, then we topple his enemy Saddam, then his Al-queda boys move in to keep Iraq in chaos, then they bomb Spain and in an emotion driven election, an American ally is lost.

Certainly any break in solidaritary indicates that the killing of civilians is how they should execute their agenda. Certainly more will be planned to follow.

At this point Al-queda and Iraq are really one thing. So any loss in cooperation in Iraq will also be a loss in the war against terrorism, as you stated yourself:

The only positive aspect that Iraq brings to the war on terror is that Al-Queda is currently allocating much of it's resources to bombing the Iraqis and trying to start a civil war there.

Iraq no longer exists and we certainly cannot leave now as it will be just another Afghanistan. The strongest ethnic group will probably assume control and deal with the others much as Saddam did, mass graves. They, obviously, will be anti-American and will still be sitting on all that oil. Leaving Iraq now, is not an option and the removal of Spainish troops will only escalate matters as coalition resolve is becoming suspect.

Iraq needs to be stabilized and removing Al-Queda's influence is a good place to start.

As for the feelings of US citizens about Spain, we all feel that they have the right to chose their own government. We are disappointed that terrorists were able to manipulate them into chosing to remove an ally both in Iraq and for intelligence on the WOT.

Obviously the election should have been delayed a month or so to allow emotions to cool after such a shocking event. A similar situation occurred in the US in regard to the "Patriot Act" signed after 9/11. Many here have claimed it was emotionally driven and was inappropriately invasive and powerful. The situations are quite analogous.

I know you, Lefty, believe that it was the handling of the "bombing" and not the "bombing", itself, that caused the election result, but Al-Queda likely has found a rather effect tool to divide and conquer.

The comments from US aides reflects dissappointment on our part, a desire for continued cooperation, and an appreciation that the Muslim world will see this victory as a sign of weakness.

We do not think that the Spanish are cowards or that Spain has committed heresy. General Myers explained that pretty clearly.

He did not criticise the new Spanish government, saying every country had to make its own decision about how it supports the war on terror.

Authors note: Due to spam block I was unable to edit the thread and therefore I think this post is going to be full of mistakes. Down with spam guard!

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by leftism@18 March 2004 - 20:12
The attacks contributed to the surprise election victory of the socialists, who have promised to withdraw Spanish troops serving in Iraq.

Just one small point on this, I have never seen it said anywhere that Spain would pull it's troops out unconditionally. I believe that the newly elected President said he would withdraw the troops if Iraq wasn't returned to UN control by June or July.

I think this is totally acceptable.

Source

[leftism]

edit: @hobbes

I agree with much of what you say and I'm sure Al-Queda will incorrectly perceive the Spanish result as a success.

I have to differ on at least one point though.

You see I believe this break up of solidarity happened a long time before Al-Queda bombed Spain. Thus I do not believe that Al-Queda manipulated Spain into voting the way they did. I think the handling of the bombings was the final straw, but the foundations for this result were laid when Aznar ignored his electorate and joined the US in Iraq.

Aznars government was behind the US but 80-90% of the population weren't. The situation "on the ground" was similar to varying extents all round the world, regardless of whether the governments in power at the time agreed to join the US.

Now again "staying on the ground" if you compare this situation to the one just before we went into Afghanistan the differences are amazing.

During the military action in Afghanistan there was a solidarity between the US and Europe that we haven't seen for a long time. No protests, no acrimony. Even France was behind the US all the way

How on Earth did we end up in this situation with Europe and the US disagreeing on even the most fundamental strategy to counter terrorism, not to mention France and the US almost engaging in some kind of Cold War!?

I'm going to try and put this as delicately as possible because I'm sure it will anger some people.... but

I think a large proportion of the blame has to go to the US Gvts attitude in dealing with the rest of the world. I believe this recent warning about appeasement (General Meyers also said " appeasement just hasn't worked," and"Weakness is provocative,".) is another symptom of this attitude. I'm doing really badly trying to explain this without causing offence so if Biggles doesn't mind I'm going to plagiarise him because he put it far more elegantly than I ever could.

Originally posted by Biggles

The new Socialist Government anticipates having a central partnership with France and Germany and intends to co-ordinate with them on anti-terror tactics. There is more than one way to skin a cat. The result and the acceptance of the result by the PP shows why democracy works and why it is integral to our way of life. I despair of the "democracy is ok as long as you vote the way we want" argument. Indeed the very route AQ would take us if they were in power.

The US administration has adopted a particular approach to this struggle (I prefer the word struggle over war for some reason I think it is more indicitive of the long haul we face) and for whatever reason is clumsy and inarticulate in accommodating the opinions and approaches of others who are actually on their side in this matter.

I honestly think that if the US Gvt had toned down their approach and been a little more patient in gathering support from Europe, Spanish troops would not be on their way home soon, because they would not just have had support from the Spanish Gvt, but also from the Spanish people. I also think that with a little more time the UN would have been on board. As it turned out the need to attack Iraq wasn't particularly urgent or as some would argue, not necessary at all.

It's easy to say "what if" at this point in time and as you rightly pointed out we're in Iraq now and it has to be dealt with. What I'm trying to say is that unless there is a significant, groundbreaking change in the way the US deals with the rest of the world i.e "you do it our way or we do it alone", we're going to end up with a complete fracture between two sides who should, by rights, be joined at the hip.

There has been a lot of talk about winning hearts and minds in Iraq, but I think that the US now needs to focus on winning the hearts and minds of the Europeans.

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by leftism@19 March 2004 - 00:35
There has been a lot of talk about winning hearts and minds in Iraq, but I think that the US now needs to focus on winning the hearts and minds of the Europeans.

I agree with most of what you're saying Leftism, but what the US does is not my main concern. What the UK does is more important to me. I don't think there can ever be a proper justification, in this country, for the war in Iraq. There has been too much lies, deceit and spin to convince me.

[leftism]

Originally posted by mrcall1969
I agree with most of what you're saying Leftism, but what the US does is not my main concern. What the UK does is more important to me. I don't think there can ever be a proper justification, in this country for the war in Iraq. There has been too much lies, deceit and spin to convince me.

I agree with you about the spin in relation to Iraq, but when it comes to terrorism on a global scale, Europe and the US need to be side by side.

If we aren't... it's going to cost more innocent lives.

[mrcall1969]

Originally posted by leftism+19 March 2004 - 00:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 19 March 2004 - 00:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-mrcall1969
I agree with most of what you&#39;re saying Leftism, but what the US does is not my main concern. What the UK does is more important to me. I don&#39;t think there can ever be a proper justification, in this country for the war in Iraq. There has been too much lies, deceit and spin to convince me.

I agree with you about the spin in relation to Iraq, but when it comes to terrorism on a global scale, Europe and the US need to be side by side.

If we aren&#39;t... it&#39;s going to cost more innocent lives. [/b][/quote]
I don&#39;t think we can be side by side when most of Europe has a different plan on how to deal with terrorists. As much as we don&#39;t like it, the war in Iraq has now been taken up by terrorists as a "cause", why is that? is it because we maybe got involved in something too soon, or too late?

Terrorism is disgusting and a threat to every decent persons way of life, but I really think we reap what we sow.

[hobbes]

As far as "terrorism", I think the game of "reap what you sow" is thrown a wildcard when you concider those people who are motivated by irrational thoughts.

How different the Middle East and the world would be if we were all unified under one religion or philosophy. Then the playfield would be more level, and more true to your prediction.

[Alex H]

No offence to Spain, but with the amount of troops they have in Iraq, their actual contiribution is f***-all. Their only "weakness" is going against what the US government wants them to do.

The Australian contingent in Iraq is the same. There are only a handful of Australian troops over there and we keep being told how wonderful they are, getting the Yanks out of scrapes and such, but for full-scale occupation and peace-keeping you need large numbers of of very visible troops on the ground, like the US has.

When the US went into Iraq and made a big deal about the UN being "weak" for not acting quickly, they ran around and rallied support to get the Coalition of the Willing. Well, now that we all know that Iraq wasn&#39;t the huge threat that Bush et al said it was, who can blame the Spanish government if they are not as "willing" as they were?

The US and UK governments lied to the rest of the world about Iraq. If you don&#39;t accept that I&#39;m sure you will agree that they could have done a bit more research about the WMD they said were there. (Government press statements are not like news articles. If a newspaper makes a report, they have to be able to prove it&#39;s true&#33

So now that Australia has been targeted by the Bali bombings and Spain has had the Madrid bombings, perhaps the rest of the world is starting to think that the US is not necissarily a good friend to have. Sure they are good to trade with, but let&#39;s face it: half the world hates them. And maybe telling the world that your country is best mates with America because you gave them a few thousand soldiers to go invade some place is going to do more harm than good.

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by hobbes@18 March 2004 - 13:31
We do not think that the Spanish are cowards or that Spain has committed heresy. General Myers explained that pretty clearly.

He did not criticise the new Spanish government, saying every country had to make its own decision about how it supports the war on terror.

i don&#39;t think there is a "we" as far as opinions on the matter go. myers said he respects the rights of the spanish to vote as they please, but dennis hastert&#39;s comments absolutely are a criticism against spain and against democracy. hastert&#39;s comment reflects the politically shrewd notion that democracy is acceptable only to the extent that the people vote how they&#39;re "supposed" to. it&#39;s pretty idealistic to suppose that all people and representatives of the u.s. are sympathetic to democracy just for democracy&#39;s sake.

also, i kinda think the appeasement accusation is a low blow. a bait & switch argument. an either/or guilt trip, if you will. because in order to buy the accusation&#39;s logic, you have to accept the premise that the invasion of iraq and the war on terror are one & the same. maybe the spanish people just don&#39;t wanna be involved in the occupation of iraq. could it be that simple? no, it can&#39;t be that simple, according to the bureaucratic voice. the bush administration and much of congress just won&#39;t stop pushing this manipulative premise: to be against the iraq invasion/occupation is to be in favor of international terrorists.