Are the election results in Spain a victory for terrorists?

[Castlerock]

Are the election results in Spain a victory for terrorists?
Days before the election the ruling party is expected to win. Terrorists slaughter hundreds and the populace, angry at being made a target, vote the ruling party out. Where is the outrage at the murderers? Seems like a big win for the terrorists. Am I wrong?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Castlerock

Am I wrong?

Nope.

[Maple Leafs]

I know nothing about Spanish politics. But I have to admit, that was my first thought when I read the results.

I'm sure someone with more knowledge can explain the results, but it's certainly confusing from the outside.

[Ben E Lou]

Maple--

Same here.

[Solecismic]

The terrorists are celebrating today. A huge victory. The exit polls in Spain indicate that people blame the bombing on government support of the war against terrorism rather than on the terrorists themselves. Couldn't be scripted any better for Al Qaeda - they're a player again.

I would have expected the Spanish to be angrier at the bombers, having suffered from ETA attacks for so long. But perhaps wimpiness is human nature these days, and another attack on America would have people here blaming the administration for going after bin Laden and friends after the 9/11 attack.

[clintl]

Did you watch news coverage of millions of Spaniards demonstrating and denouncing the terrorists? How can you possibly question whether the Spanish people are outraged at the terrorists? They may have retaliated against the ruling party at the ballot box for putting Spain, against popular will, in harm's way, but there is no doubt that they are just as angry at the terrorists as Americans were after 9/11.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

But perhaps wimpiness is human nature these days, and another attack on America would have people here blaming the administration for going after bin Laden and friends after the 9/11 attack.

And if our take on this is correct, the logical line of thinking (if these people ever use logic) would be that they'd go all-out to try something near our election.

FWIW, I'm very surprised that no one has strapped a bomb to themselves and gone into an American movie theater on a Friday night. I can't imagine that our intelligence is that good.

[sachmo71]

The new leader said that they would continue to fight terrorism, but that they would use different tactics than the former government did. Bringing their troops home from Iraq is a different matter in their minds. I don't think it can be said that they are throwing in the towel as of yet.

[cuervo72]

Seems to me that this is a major victory for the terrorists too, and would only encourage more of the same. They have to think that their tactics in bullying countries aligned with the US can work.

[Maple Leafs]

I can certainly see the viewpoint that Iraq and terrorism are different issues. I guess my problem with this is that the terrorists' goals seem very transparent. By targetting Spain three days before an election, they were clearly aiming to topple a government whose policies they disagreed with. And then the people went right along with it.

[AgPete]

Did Spain just enlarge the bullseye over Europe? What are you going to do if you're al Qaeda? Option 1: Attack the U.S. only to find more troops occupying Muslim countries or Option 2: Attack Europe and troops withdraw from Muslim countries.

[clintl]

So if your country is attacked by terrorists just before an election, you should always re-elect the ruling party? Is that what you all are saying?

[cthomer5000]

Originally Posted by clintl

So if your country is attacked by terrorists just before an election, you should always re-elect the ruling party? Is that what you all are saying?

I don't think anyway is necessarily saying that. It just appears that the voters played right into the terrorists hands here.

[clintl]

I think some people are forgetting that the ruling party was perceived to be a little too eager to blame ETA and discount Al Qaeda at first, and the Spanish people, with some justification, were a little pissed off about the possibility that there was maybe a little CYA going on there on the ruling party's part because the elections were so close.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by clintl

So if your country is attacked by terrorists just before an election, you should always re-elect the ruling party? Is that what you all are saying?

I don't think that is what people are saying at all.

From what I have heard, a few days ago it seemed certain that the ruling party would win. After the bombing they lost.

Regardless of whether it would have happened or not without the bombing, it does set a worrying precedent. After this result, I expect to see this kind of thing happen again.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by clintl

I think some people are forgetting that the ruling party was perceived to be a little too eager to blame ETA and discount Al Qaeda at first, and the Spanish people, with some justification, were a little pissed off about the possibility that there was maybe a little CYA going on there on the ruling party's part because the elections were so close.

As I read more about this, I'm seeing that theory quite a bit. If that's the case -- that the Spanish people feel that the government tried to score political points by blaming the ETA instead of really trying to get to the bottom of things -- then I think the results are a little more justified.

Still, I can't shake the idea that the terrorists are just thrilled by this news. The new PM says he'll fight terrorism. But what happens if the people responsible for the train bombings are caught and sentenced to life in prison, and the terrorists respond with another bomb? Will the people demand that the sentences be reduced? How far do you go towards placating terrorists in the name of peace?

[CamEdwards]

I think this was definitely a win for the terrorists, like it or not. I think, however, that this won't affect our elections.

The people in Spain feel (rightly or wrongly) that the terrorist acts were the result of Spain taking part in the war with Iraq. Americans don't have the luxury of that line of thinking. War was declared on us on 9-11-01. Therefore, any terrorist act against this country in the days or weeks before the war will only show Americans that the war is not over, and give President Bush a huge advantage (as voters by a 2-1 margin think Bush is tougher on terror than Kerry).

In other words, and I hate to put this in an inflammatory fashion, but the terrorists want John Kerry to win.* Deserved or not (and I think it is deserved), he has the reputation of not taking the war on terror all that seriously.

*Please believe me when I say that I'm not implying a vote for John Kerry equals a vote for terrorism or anything along those lines. You may believe John Kerry will fight the war on terror in a strong and decisive faction, but virtually every public opinion poll says the majority of the people feel otherwise.

[Solecismic]

I'm not Spanish, but I assumed ETA at first, too. Just as I'd assume Muslim extremists at first if there were another attack here.

I don't think the Populists meant to do anything other than promise a strong response. They certainly didn't try to cover up evidence that the ETA wasn't involved.

As we now see the extent of the attacks, we realize that ETA is simply too small and inexperienced to have pulled off that coordinated and deadly an attack.

[KevinNU7]

What were the polling results exactly?

[John Galt]

My problem with this analysis is that it dictates the answer by defining the question in a binary war metaphor. When the only alternatives are victory and defeat and there is a presumption that you can't win and lose, we have already created a zero-sum world where the terrorists must be vanquished. I think that perspective is near-sighted and precludes viable alternative perspectives.

Did the terrorists "win" by the Spanish attack? (Presuming they were attacking to get Spain out of Iraq) Probably.

Did the Spanish "lose" by the election results? That remains to be seen. It is quite possible that they "win" in the long run by ending their part in the war on terror.

I don't know what will happen in this particular case, but the win/lose, victory/defeat paradigms for viewing international relations are outdated and only serve to create "easy" solutions to "hard" problems.

[JAG]

"Asked if last week's attacks that killed 200 affected the election outcome, [Spanish PM-elect] Zapatero said if the actions of terrorists can affect elections, that is not a victory for them."

Huh?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by John Galt

My problem with this analysis is that it dictates the answer by defining the question in a binary war metaphor. When the only alternatives are victory and defeat and there is a presumption that you can't win and lose, we have already created a zero-sum world where the terrorists must be vanquished. I think that perspective is near-sighted and precludes viable alternative perspectives.

Did the terrorists "win" by the Spanish attack? (Presuming they were attacking to get Spain out of Iraq) Probably.

Did the Spanish "lose" by the election results? That remains to be seen. It is quite possible that they "win" in the long run by ending their part in the war on terror.

I don't know what will happen in this particular case, but the win/lose, victory/defeat paradigms for viewing international relations are outdated and only serve to create "easy" solutions to "hard" problems.

May I counter your lawyerly post with a down to earth response of "horseshit"?

Perhaps all is not a varying shade of grey. Perhaps there really are people in this world that want to kill you simply because they see you as "the enemy". And perhaps these people will use whatever excuse necessary to try and justify blowing you to pieces.

Now, you can try and understand these people, and empathize with their plight, and strive towards a greater commonality between two disparate groups of people. In the end, however, you'll still be dead. To have a dialogue, both sides must be willing to come to the table. I've yet to see any indication that we're dealing with reasonable individuals who just happen to disagree with our philosophies and methods when it comes to foreign policy.

[Franklinnoble]

And I thought the French were gutless.

[NoMyths]

It's amazing how you can be so self-righteous, Cam, in just over two paragraphs, and yet completely miss the point of John's post.

He's not talking about how evil the terrorists are, nor whether they "want to kill you simply because they see you as 'the enemy'". He's talking about whether the election could benefit Spain in the long run by reducing/removing their role in a questionable war. Whether it will or not remains to be seen (as it must). But please don't fall back on jingoistic "they're evil, and so not fighting with everything we've got against them will hurt us" when it comes to the Iraq situation.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Castlerock

Are the election results in Spain a victory for terrorists?

Yes.

[Fritz]

I think it is a broadbrush mistake to confuse war with international relations.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

May I counter your lawyerly post with a down to earth response of "horseshit"?

Perhaps all is not a varying shade of grey. Perhaps there really are people in this world that want to kill you simply because they see you as "the enemy". And perhaps these people will use whatever excuse necessary to try and justify blowing you to pieces.

Now, you can try and understand these people, and empathize with their plight, and strive towards a greater commonality between two disparate groups of people. In the end, however, you'll still be dead. To have a dialogue, both sides must be willing to come to the table. I've yet to see any indication that we're dealing with reasonable individuals who just happen to disagree with our philosophies and methods when it comes to foreign policy.

This is where I think realist international politics goes awry. I'm not arguing that people who want to kill others exist. Nor am I arguing that everything is a shade of grey. What I'm arguing is that achieving victory doesn't always improve the situation and being defeated is sometimes better in the long run. And sometimes you can win and lose. We don't know if this is a win or a loss yet and won't very a great many years (and I'm not talking about the attack itself which is clearly a "loss"). I think the important thing here is to understand how we reached this ugly place in order to understand how we can get out of it. Simple winner-take-all analysis misses too many nuances and prevents us from ever understanding alternate perspectives.

And finally, the presumption of pure "evil" is just as deadly as the presumption of pure "good."

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

It's amazing how you can be so self-righteous, Cam, in just over two paragraphs, and yet completely miss the point of John's post.

did you even wave at Cam's reaction as you shot by it?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

It's amazing how you can be so self-righteous, Cam, in just over two paragraphs, and yet completely miss the point of John's post.

He's not talking about how evil the terrorists are, nor whether they "want to kill you simply because they see you as 'the enemy'". He's talking about whether the election could benefit Spain in the long run by reducing/removing their role in a questionable war. Whether it will or not remains to be seen (as it must). But please don't fall back on jingoistic "they're evil, and so not fighting with everything we've got against them will hurt us" when it comes to the Iraq situation.

Well, since you said "please"...

No, seriously, will this stop terrorist attacks against Spain? Doubt it. As has been noted, what happens when it's time to sentence the five people already arrested? What happens when ETA sees that the populace can be ground down as long as the violence is spectacular enough?

I understand the vote. We are conditioned to want to survive. It's human nature to do what we can to avoid conflict. In this case, however, I think it's giving in to the terrorists.

BTW, my response was to JG's use of words like "binary war metaphor", "viable alternative perspectives", and "victory/defeat paradigms". He wasn't speaking of the war in Iraq, and neither was I. 'Kay?

[MIJB#19]

Give it a thought: maybe the Spanish want to get back to their own battle against ETA and have the USA fight their battle with Al-Qaeda?

It was my first thought too that this makes it 1-0 for the terrorists, but it is even worse knowing there is nothing clear about who did this terrorist attack (or did I miss the popping up of more video tapes?)
The politician that claimed the pulling of troops from Iraq makes it look like a victory for Al Qaeda, but we (as outsiders) know nothing about Spain.

Maybe "we" should wait discussing these things without asking our correspondents in Spain first, since we have at least three of those.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Well, since you said "please"...

No, seriously, will this stop terrorist attacks against Spain? Doubt it. As has been noted, what happens when it's time to sentence the five people already arrested? What happens when ETA sees that the populace can be ground down as long as the violence is spectacular enough?

I understand the vote. We are conditioned to want to survive. It's human nature to do what we can to avoid conflict. In this case, however, I think it's giving in to the terrorists.

BTW, my response was to JG's use of words like "binary war metaphor", "viable alternative perspectives", and "victory/defeat paradigms". He wasn't speaking of the war in Iraq, and neither was I. 'Kay?

And I'll couch this in stating up front that I don't know what the effect of this election will have in terms of the larger 'war against terrorism'--I don't have the background on Spanish culture or politics that would enable me to come to any kind of reasonable conclusions about whether or not booting the former ruling party is a result of (or will help) terrorists.

That said, your gut feeling that you "doubt" it will help Spain is just a gut feeling. The outcome of the issue remains to be seen. What if the new party decides to be even more severe on treating terrorism/terrorists because of the bombing?

The reason I posted was to clarify the point John was trying to make, and not necessarily agree or disagree with it as it applies to this situation. Your post was trying to reframe what John was saying, and that sort of thing gets me feisty.

[Maple Leafs]

An interesting thought from Charles Kupchan, formerly President Clinton's director for European affairs on the National Security Council:

"One could hypothesize that it would be in the interest of a group like al-Qaida to carry out pre-election attacks to strengthen the political right, in order to escalate the conflict. Just as prior to an election in Israel, Hamas and other groups tend to blow up buses. They don't want the Labor party in Israel to win, because Labor would move forward with the peace track. They want to strengthen Likud, so that there's a stalemate -- and the war continues. "
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ing/print.html

Obviously the article was written before the election results, but it's an interesting theory: that Al Qaida was trying to ensure the government's re-election, and the move backfired.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

The terrorists are celebrating today. A huge victory. The exit polls in Spain indicate that people blame the bombing on government support of the war against terrorism rather than on the terrorists themselves. Couldn't be scripted any better for Al Qaeda - they're a player again.

I would have expected the Spanish to be angrier at the bombers, having suffered from ETA attacks for so long. But perhaps wimpiness is human nature these days, and another attack on America would have people here blaming the administration for going after bin Laden and friends after the 9/11 attack.

Actually thats wrong. Spainards didn't blame the bombing on the support of the war on terrorism. They blamed it on the war against Iraq. Many Americans are misimformed about this particular aspect of the situation. The new Spainish Prime Minister isn't going to stop the war on terrorism. President Bush actually called up the new Spainish Prime Minister to congragulate him on his win and they talked about the need to continue the war on terrorism. However, the New Prime Minister is vowing to get the Spainish troops out of Iraq in July. With all this said, I agree that it may be a win for terrorists. Its also a loss for the Bush administration, they have one less ally in the war in Iraq.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

From what I have heard, a few days ago it seemed certain that the ruling party would win.

Are you sure about that. From what I understand, the Spanish govt. support of the war in Iraq was only favored by about 20% of the population, and the opposition parties were making it a huge issue in the election.

[Wolfpack]

I guess that would be the fundamental difference between American and European perspectives on the war. Many Americans view this as a war to be conducted wherever a terrorist threat does (Afghanistan) or may (Iraq) emerge. Since America suffered 3,000 lost on 9/11, the idea is to prosecute as vigorously as possible to stop a 9/11 from happening again, or at least reduce it to a (such as can be said) smaller event by stopping the enemy before they strike or even consider it a possibility. Europeans on the other hand don't view Iraq as part-and-parcel of the war, but (particularly in the vitrolic circles) rather the son settling scores for the father (or a variation thereof) and thus independent of a fight with Al-Qaeda.

Now, if it is proven that Al-Qaeda or an Al-Qaeda-supported group did the attack and did so because they know it would split Spain from the US efforts in Iraq, then how is what goes on in Iraq as such independent of the War on Terror? The argument could be made that no invasion of Iraq would have led to no bombings in Spain, since Iraq was, in the opinion of many, not aligned with Al-Qaeda. However, that is not the chain of events. If events in Iraq were not tied to the war before, then if this scenario is true, those events certainly are part of it now (saying that implies that Americans through a causality chain are at fault for the bombings...which to many, sounds just about right anyway).

(Hit the send button by accident....)

[CamEdwards]

I think the terrorists just got Wolfpack.

[Jets80]

Spain and France should become one country.

[BreizhManu]

Originally Posted by Jets80

Spain and France should become one country.

Many Spanish hate France for historical reasons (heard of Napoleon ?).

Anyway about being a win for the terrorists, maybe, about being a loss for the Aznar Government, that's for sure.

The votes against them were mainly because they lied about who made the bombings, it appears that they knew a few hours after the bombings that it hadn't been done by ETA and they hide that fact for political reasons only.

Had they say it was Al-Qaeda, they would probably have won the election (but not with the huge majority predicted).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Jets80

Spain and France should become one country.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only person who had this thought cross their minds. Honestly, I've been fighting the temptation to draw the same parallel since I first saw this thread.

[Peregrine]

The terrorists are celebrating today. A huge victory. The exit polls in Spain indicate that people blame the bombing on government support of the war against terrorism rather than on the terrorists themselves. Couldn't be scripted any better for Al Qaeda - they're a player again.

Don't think I can agree with part of this. From everything I have read, people are blaming the bombing on the war on Iraq, which has little or nothing to do with the war on terror. The war in Iraq is what is unpopular in Spain (at times up to 90 percent of the population opposed it) and while the new PM there has promised to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq, he has also committed to continuing the war on terror.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

Don't think I can agree with part of this. From everything I have read, people are blaming the bombing on the war on Iraq, which has little or nothing to do with the war on terror.

True enough, except... well, how does a terrorist bombing end up having nothing to do with the war on terror? How can they possibly be unrelated?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

True enough, except... well, how does a terrorist bombing end up having nothing to do with the war on terror? How can they possibly be unrelated?

Just as the OK City bombing had nothing to do with this "war on terror." While Bush and Americans believe that the war on Iraq is part of the war on terror, Spain, at least sees a difference. That the end result of that war may have been a terrorist attack, doesn't mean that this has anything to do with the "war on terror." Wouldn't all other wars just end up being the "war on war?"

[Wolfpack]

I have a hard time believing they "hid" Al-Qaeda's responsibility for political reasons, though it had been noted that the government would have benefitted more from ETA bearing responsibility. I'm guessing that it was everyone's first instinct that ETA was responsible because they had members busted with explosives recently. Granted my first instinct was that it wasn't ETA but Al-Qaeda or a linked group or a splinter of ETA since ETA doesn't do this sort of mass-casualty attack. But, that's me being an American and our experience with terrorism focuses on Al-Qaeda or a domestic nutjob (McVeigh) as culprits. Spaniards really have only known attacks by ETA. Did the government "want" it to be ETA? Perhaps, but I don't think they "hid" Al-Qaeda since it's been speculated and there was evidence of it being possible almost from the start of the affair that Al-Qaeda was perhaps involved. They never said it wasn't possible that Al-Qaeda or a similar terrorist group could be involved, they just believed ETA was probably the culprits. To say that Al-Qaeda really wasn't involved when it turned out that they were, that to my mind would have been "hiding" them and lying about it.

[ISiddiqui]

being a loss for the Aznar Government, that's for sure.

Well, for the government perhaps, but not for Aznar, he wasn't going for PM again .

--

As to the attack itself. From all I've read it seems many Spaniards were pissed that the government blamed the attacks on the Basques without any proof. It seemed like the government was trying to hush up the fact that it may have been Al Queda before the election. Many Spaniards felt the government was manipulating facts about the bombing for political gain. I'm sure that would make many Americans angry as well (think if Bush blamed militia members for a terrorist attack without any evidence, only to be revealed later it was AQ).

[Peregrine]

I have a hard time believing they "hid" Al-Qaeda's responsibility for political reasons, though it had been noted that the government would have benefitted more from ETA bearing responsibility. I'm guessing that it was everyone's first instinct that ETA was responsible because they had members busted with explosives recently

Good point Wolfpack. I think that it would have been a much safer line for the government to take to not blame anyone until more evidence was in, though. These investigations take time and moving to blame ETA immediately, even if made with good intentions, backfired and made it seem like there was some kind of cover-up going on. I don't make any judgements on whether there was one or not, this seems to me more of a decision made under pressure to blame someone, and it turning out to be wrong, than some intentional misleading of the public.

[sachmo71]

Originally Posted by John Galt

What I'm arguing is that achieving victory doesn't always improve the situation and being defeated is sometimes better in the long run. And sometimes you can win and lose. We don't know if this is a win or a loss yet and won't very a great many years..Simple winner-take-all analysis misses too many nuances and prevents us from ever understanding alternate perspectives.

Are you a Saints fan?

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Are you sure about that. From what I understand, the Spanish govt. support of the war in Iraq was only favored by about 20% of the population, and the opposition parties were making it a huge issue in the election.

Looking back at older news stories, the government had a 3-5% lead.

[vtbub]

I think it sends the wrong message.

It's pretty clear, from what I read, that the Popular Party, was not "Popular". My understanding was that turnout was going to be relatively low anyway and the bombing sent a huge wave of Socialist voters to the polls that would have stayed home had this not occured. With a 90% opposition rate to the war, it's amazing the Popular Party survived.

Al-Qaeda has to be besides themselves in glee over this. They think they can now influence elections across the globe. It probably was not what Spanish voters intended, but Aznar and his government did some foolish things after the bombings in blaiming ETA after they steadfastly said they didn't do it, along with not being candid with the people on the state of the investigation. Hindsight being20/20, a twoo week delay in the election would have benefitted all sides as the investigation could have proceeded and if the Socialists won then so be it. If I'm Al-Qaeda, I'm looking at disrupting elections all over and scaring people into extreme left isolationist governments.

Don't think that because France, Germany, and Russia are immune because they were against the war in Iraq. All those countries had significant financial obligations with the old regime, and in due time will have them again with whatever the new Iraq regime looks like. We all need to focus on the grander scale of the War on Terror and away from the War on Iraq and finish the job, because we aren't any safer now then Thursday.

[clintl]

I think there are two messages here, one unintentional and very unfortunate message to the terrorists, which has been well articulated already, and one very intentional and very worthwhile message to world leaders:

If you are pursuing a policy that 90% of your people oppose, and something bad happens because of it, you are going to pay a big price.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by clintl

I think there are two messages here, one unintentional and very unfortunate message to the terrorists, which has been well articulated already, and one very intentional and very worthwhile message to world leaders:

If you are pursuing a policy that 90% of your people oppose, and something bad happens because of it, you are going to pay a big price.

Exactly. I supported the war when I thought their were WMD's, but when an entire populace opposes it and you press ahead nonetheless, and something happens that you have tried to correlate to it- expect to feel the backlash. I think its fairly ridiculous that people are viewing a pragmatic decision on a shaky war - the terrorists have not won- democracy is not a one way street. Spain undertook an action her people clearly opposed, and the government is being punished for what seems like the unintended consequences of it.