James N. Markels — March 15, 2004 at 9:58 am

This sends a message to terrorists: Terrorism Works. There is absolutely nothing good about that, for anyone. Spain thinks it is making itself safer, when in fact it has basically shown the ETA how to do business from now on, practically encouraging more and larger attacks.

On the good side (if one could call it “good”), terrorists will now be much more likely to target Europeans. They know that no matter how many times they target Americans, we’re not budging. So they might as well go after the weaker-willed.

Eric Wearne — March 15, 2004 at 10:57 am

Sure the Spanish government should have paid more attention to the 90% of its citizens who were against the war, but James is basically right;the voters changing their minds like that clearly on the basis of the bombings sends a pretty clear message to terrorists about what works.

But do they really think Americans won’t budge if we’re attacked again? I’m pretty sure Kerry would budge, and a whole lot of people are going to vote for him. Europeans are definitely weaker willed overall as to how to deal with terrorist murderers, and I think Americans might react differently than the Spaniards have to a similar attack at the end of October. But this has to encourage terrorists towards another US attack at least a bit. Get it together, Euros! They’re coming after all of us.

Jens F. Laurson — March 15, 2004 at 10:57 am

Re: Comment by J.N. Markels:

Uncarefully chosen words? One could think that wish Europeans to become the victims of (more) terrorism. If that were true, it would be one of the most despicable and vile things I have read in a long time. For good meassure, add “ignorant” and “stupid” - because Europe has expereinced countless more acts of terrorism than the United States on its homeland ever will.

I for one hope that that’s not exactly what you meant, anyway - because it’s ‘just not nice’ to wish upon anyone that they be torn into bits and pieces of flesh…

James N. Markels — March 15, 2004 at 11:37 am

No, Jens, I did not “wish” for Europeans to be the victims of more terrorism, which was why I included the parenthetical “(if one could call it “good”).” Terrorists will target those they think will knuckle under in response to an attack, and it is unfortunate that Spain’s reaction will encourage terrorists to seek similar results against other European nations. Britain is most likely to be next. However, this may also mean that Americans will not be targeted as frequently, which is “good” for us, at least — again, if one could call it “good.”

Though I do think Eric is right that under Kerry the terrorists might decide to spend more time targeting Americans, thinking that he’d budge much sooner than Bush would.

Xiomara Zelaya — March 16, 2004 at 12:03 am

It seems to me that the war in Iraq and dealing with international terrorism are not the same thing, though people continue to make that connection. The Spanish people simply used their vote to get out of Iraq in recognition that the war fanned terrorism instead of fighting it. As many have pointed out, Europeans are familiar with terrorism, much more so than Americans. Each country must deal with its own situation, and in my opinion, the U.S. should demand support, but not tell other countries how to do it. Most countries experience terrorism due to their own policies. France for example had terrorism because of its policies with Algeria. Israel because of its policies with the Palestinians. But for the most part, terrorist activities are the result of discontent at home and stays within the boundaries of the country, e.g., ETA, the IRA and left and right wing elements in the U.S. By making a blanket catch all “war on terrorism”, the U.S. has not helped. More than anything the U.S. needs the cooperation of citizens from other nations if it is to deal with Bin Laden. Throwing a net on all the groups in the world that operate only against their government or by invading illegally Iraq with flimsy support only confused the problem. Governments will not stop terrorism without the help of citizens who see terrorism as a scourge. But if those citizens are angry instead of supportive, no government will be effective. Who fingered the Uno Bomber? His brother who recognized his handrwriting. Lets not lose sight of that.

Luis Fontes — March 16, 2004 at 11:07 am

“no matter how many times they target Americans, we’re not budging. So they might as well go after the weaker-willed.”

—
I’m Portuguese, a neighbor to Spain, and I very much resent you calling Spaniards “weak-willed”. Besides it being ridiculously untrue â?? for if the Spanish can be accused of anything is of beeing excessively strong-willed â?? it smacks of racism, in my mind.
As for all the blah blah blah about not budging, perhaps then America should have kept its military bases in Saudi Arabia instead of being in the process of relocating them to Iraq. As well informed Europeans have known for years, the main grievance of 911’s mastermind Osama bin Laden against America was the presence of infidel American troops in the sacred Islamic soil of Saudi Arabia.

Luis Fontes — March 16, 2004 at 11:13 am

they might as well go after the weaker-willed.
–
unless, of course, if your definition of “strong-willed” is: “Someone who stands by George ‘Is our Children Learning?’ Bush’s policies no matter how demented they may be”. Let me know, if you care.

James N. Markels — March 16, 2004 at 12:30 pm

There is absolutely nothing racist about pointing out that some governments are quicker to reverse policy course than others when confronted with terrorism, and characterizing this as a lack of will. This observation had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the populace, and it is insulting that you would insinuate that it did.

It is clear to me that al Qaeda decided that it would benefit if the Socialist Party took over in Spain. The strike in Madrid was specifically planned to spark just such a change. Even if you were against the war in Iraq, the success of this strategy should be setting off alarm bells in your mind. You should also be wonder why, if Iraq is supposedly not a part of the “war on terror,” al Qaeda should be interested in targeting a country for its involvement in Iraq. But hey, maybe throwing around the unfounded racism card is easier.

Eric Wearne — March 16, 2004 at 12:41 pm

Come on, Luis, let’s not resort to sloppy insults (“…it smacks of racism…”). The (mostly) white French and Germans and Belgians would likely be just as eager to back down and appease their attackers as the Spaniards appear to be. Spain is just the example in use here.

I think part of the frustration here comes from the fact that despite all the sniping between the U.S. and Spain, France, Germany, etc., we still know that we’re supposed to be on the same side. Don’t you think that if America and Europe together would collectively put their foot down and say “ENOUGH,” that terrorism would be pretty badly damaged? Of course it’s better if we work together than if we bicker, but the goal should be shutting the terrorists down, not treating them as good faith business partners.

But the question is not just who’s to blame. George Bush probably gets more credit and scorn than he ultimately deserves, but he didn’t invent American foreign policy. Yes, America has been too interventionist and too willing to strike deals with dictatorial governments, and that should stop. Part of our overall response to terrorism should be to back off from policies that aren’t really in our interest; that should be a part of our foreign policy anyway. But our response (and Spain’s) to being attacked should not be to apologize to our attackers. What other message can they take from that than encouragement to conduct more attacks when they’re unhappy with something we do?

Michael J. Jose — March 16, 2004 at 1:25 pm

I think it is incorrect to accuse the Spanish of being weak-willed here.
It’s not like the Spanish were hugely in support of the invasion of Iraq before the bombing, and then suddenly turned against it. In fact, I think it is very likely that these bombings could have increased Spanish popular support for the invasion of Iraq, at least in terms of the number of people who support it. At the very least, I doubt it increased the number of people against the war.
What the bombings did do, however, was to make those who already opposed the war suddenly view it as the single most important issue. The only reason that Aznar was able to send troops in the first place was because most of the 90% of Spaniards who opposed the war didn’t care enough to vote primarily on that issue.
In other words, the bombing didn’t cost Aznar the election because the pro-war Spanish were weak-willed. Rather, it cost Aznar the election because it made the anti-war Spanish stronger-willed.

Michael J. Jose — March 16, 2004 at 1:42 pm

“You should also be wonder why, if Iraq is supposedly not a part of the “war on terror,” al Qaeda should be interested in targeting a country for its involvement in Iraq.”

Al Qaeda doesn’t like having the US occupying Arab countries. That is why it targets countries that have helped the invasion of Iraq. This hardly indicates that it ever saw Iraq as an actual ally.
Now is Iraq part of the war on terror? I suppose it is in the sense that our presence in Iraq upsets the terrorists and provides them a new cause to rally around. However, it does not indicate (a) a previous relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, (b) that attacking Iraq damaged the terrorists, or (c) that our being in Iraq is weakening the terrorists.
Granted, the fact that bin Laden obviously wants us out of Iraq can make it gratifying to stay there, just to flip him the bird (nya, nya, we’re staying, you can’t force us out). But it does not mean that staying in Iraq actually accomplishes anything against Al Qaeda, or that bin Laden has any strategic interests in Iraq that we are preventing him from realizing (he is quite likely opposed to the US presence in Iraq solely on principle).

Luis Fontes — March 16, 2004 at 2:43 pm

to Eric:

you ask “t you think that if America and Europe together would collectively put their foot down and say â??ENOUGH,â? that terrorism would be pretty badly damaged? ”

—
I’d like to answer your question with another question, if I may â?? but first I have to fill you in on some details.

First of all, Portugal, my country, pop. 10 million, a founding member of NATO, sided with America on the Invasion of Iraq. We went as far as hosting in the Azores the infamous Bush-Blair-Aznar summit, and even have a small police force in Iraq. (Or perhaps I should say it was our government that sided with America, since opposition to the war here was around 75%.)

All this means, of course, after the Madrid bombings, we find ourselves facing the very real possibility of an al-Qaeda attack. Also bear in mind that next June Portugal will be hosting the Euro 2004 Soccer Championship, the largest sports event in Europe, held every 4 years like the Olympics, but far outstripping them in public interest. This means many hundreds of thousands of foreigners entering and leaving Portugal for a period of three weeks. On this matter, you’ll believe me if I tell you all conceivable security precautions are being taken, police-wise, intelligence-wise â?? even F16’s are scheduled to patrol our sunny skies during Euro 2004.

So my question at last is: what EXACTLY do you think we should do under these circunstances to say “ENOUGH” to terrorism??

The problem, we tend to feel in the non-USA world, is that the typical American answer to that question is that to say “ENOUGH” to terrorism you somehow have to support America’s foreign policy, which unilaterally declared, contrary to all available evidence, that to fight terrorism it was imperative do invade a 3rd world country already semi-destroyed by a previous war with Mighty America plus 12 years of strict sanctions, all the while asking us to believe the extraordinary coincidence that the Root of Evil should lay just above the most coveted oil reserves on earthâ?¦ Mmmm, say we cynical Europeans.

So what not only Europe but basically the world is saying is we want to fight terrorism as much as anyone else, only it just happens that we tend to think that it’s sooooo clear that America, having started a fire, is trying to put it out a la Three Stooges, with gasoline, and it is not reasonable, to say the least, to try to force you to pour still more gasoline into the fire, which is spreading to gigantic proportions.

But, to be more specific: what could we Portuguese do to “help” in the “frontline of the War on Terror”, Iraq? As long as the present Portuguese government is in power, you’ll get all the rethoric help you need â?? blah, blah, blah, we stand firm, . but besides that, what can we do? Send troops to Iraq, instead of police? But, for that to have any meaningful effect, we would have to reinstitute the draftâ?¦ Should Portugal do that, to show how committed it is to fight terrorism? And how about creating a local concentration camp like Guantanamo, where terrorist suspects could be held? (there’d be no shortage of illegal islamic immigrants from Morocco to fill it)

And there’s at least one more thing â?? we Europeans tend not to be convinced AT ALL about the much-hyped American resolve to fight terrorism the crazy way. How can you be, when you read the main titles of this week’s Time magazine special, “Iraq One Year Later”, that read: “Looking for a Way Out”, “Which Way Is the Exit?”, and, my favorite, “Will We Ever Get Out of Here?”

Xiomara Zelaya — March 16, 2004 at 2:46 pm

I read many comments accusing the Spanish of being weak-willed and that the vote is somehow a retreat on the fight against terrorism. When something does not work, you must change course. Did anyone accuse Ronald Reagan of being weak-willed when he took out the troops out of Lebanon after a terror attack, or Israel when it withdrew from Lebanon? Being stubborn in the face of realities is stupidity. The Spanish know about terrorism and do not need an American to tell them how to deal with it in their country. Do they need to cooperate? Yes, and they have.

Eric Wearne — March 16, 2004 at 5:51 pm

Well, for starters, Luis, you all could be a little bit bothered that another socialist government with appeasement on its mind has just been installed next door to you.

Look, I definitely didnâ??t state, and didnâ??t mean to imply that every European country should be sending as many troops as we are. A lot of European governments are going after terrorists at home and abroad. And â??rhetorical supportâ? isnâ??t without value. I was talking about voters and their leaders pretending they can take the moral high ground by not hitting back, and by being annoyed when America does. That might work against bullies in school, where adults can protect you, but Iâ??m not convinced that thatâ??s the best strategy when people are trying to blow up buildings and trains in your country, and have the explicit goal of killing as many of you as possible.

Of course Europeans have the right to ignore whatever Americans say about how they deal with terrorism. I just donâ??t think itâ??s in their best interest to let bombers sway elections. And how then would you have conducted affairs after 9/11 differently? I agree that the U.S. didnâ??t have much proper business having a military base in Saudi Arabia; so do we apologize for â??makingâ? them attack us? Or treat it like any other criminal activity? Terror attacks are fundamentally different from other crimes, and deserve a different response.

I hate the fact that Iâ??ve had friends stomping around Afghanistan and Iraq, but I (and they) would more hate to let terrorists think they can attack citizens in New York or DC or Madrid or Lisbon or Paris and not get a merciless response in return.

(By the way, it sounds like you think I have something against Portugal, but I donâ??t. I have a Portuguese uncle, and heâ??s a good guy).

Jens F. Laurson — March 16, 2004 at 7:11 pm

I’d like to chide in with something that seems to be getting lost here: Spain in particular, but really most of Europe, has far, far more experience with terrorism on their soil than the United States.

It wasn’t weakness of will that had them either combat it for decades on end or try to seek an understanding with their enemies - it was a painful, laborious process.

ETA, IRA, RAF are just the prime examples. While we had not had a single attack on the size of 9-11, the tenacity, the number of lifes lost etc. goes beyond 9-11, Oklahoma etc.

But of course this isn’t a bragging contest in who experienced more terrorism… this is a matter of trying to figure out if Europe’s answer is one of whimpy pacifism, pussy-footing around hard questions and downward spiraling decadence… OR ELSE:….

There is at least an alternative point of view. the fight on terrorism is carried out in Europe and by Europeans in Afghanistan and elswhere with a good deal of will and determination. It was a very European country that first (and to this point singularly) prosecuted a 9-11 involved terrorist. German and Dutch troops carry the brunt of the day-to-day operations in Afghanistan. Even counting special-Ops troops, Europeans have roughly three times the men in the field of Afghanistan than does the U.S..

Furthermore, the war in Iraq is simply not accepted to be part of this fight against terrorism by many Europeans. And not entirely implausibly so, if I may add. Europeans may even like to think that the war in Iraq fosters, rather than fights terrorism.

Still: The _SYMBOL_ remains: If you join the U.S. in their effort to stand up to the defense of values we hold dear (remember the Madrid tape: “The West loves life, we love death”) you will not hold onto political power. Clearly not the statement of choice in this day and age… but not exactly tantamount to: “Terrorism works”, either.

I would not be surprised if pulling out the troops by the Spanish will be accompanied by a high-profile act of counter-terrorist activity on their part… perhaps increasing their contigent in Afghanistan or something of that sort. We ought not believe that the Spanish or Germans or Brits etc. will simply sit on their behinds while their loved ones are torn to bits and pieces and say: “We should appease these bin-Laden types”.

Europeans, having a much larger population from the countries in the Middle East and surrounding know the isses surprisingly well. They also happen to live ‘around the corner’. Nuance is not necessarily the same as cowardice. Aznar not necessarily Churchill and the victory of the Spanish opposition not necessarily a N.Chamberlain-like “Umbrella Victory”.

The definition of what it means to show courage, steadfastnes and “will” needs to have a better definiton than the direct correlation of it with the number of troops participating in the “Coalition of the Willing”.

If a “merciless response in return” is the only way is surely possible - but not certain. As we, more or less together, enter and experience times that will prove troublesome in many ways, we shall find out, see, learn and preservere. If the above back-and-forth helps to that extend, I do not know. Lets hope.

Xiomara Zelaya — March 17, 2004 at 12:56 am

Jens, you have written eloquently about the position of Europeans, their experience and I believe their stand on terror. The Iraq war was never about fighting terrorism. Clearly except for a few, the nations in the Security Council of the UN were not convinced that Iraq posed a threat. Poll after poll in Europe and nations around the world show that people did not believe Iraq was a threat. The war was a political war (regime change). To try to tie the war to fighting international terrorism is another manipulation, just as Aznar tried to push the blame of the Madrid attack on ETA for political reasons.

James N. Markels — March 17, 2004 at 9:54 pm

If the war in Iraq truly had nothing to do with the war on terrorism, then al Qaeda had no reason to strike at Spain. Even better, since Spain is still claiming that it wants to fight terrorism, it should realize that pulling its troops out of Iraq should have no effect on whether al Qaeda will target them again because obviously al Qaeda would logically attack those who would attack it. But the fact is that everyone thinks that al Qaeda’s interest is in Iraq, which is why the Spanish voters decided to back a party that wanted the troops out of Iraq, thinking that this would protect them from any future attacks. So the motivation disproves the assertion that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. People think it does because al Qaeda thinks it does.

It is the nature of terrorism to respond with violence when it has been attacked. That a terrorist group would act in this manner is not “throwing gasoline on the fire,” because a terrorist group met with concilliation is only encouraged to escalate its violence and take advantage of the perceived weakness. Frankly, while Europe may have experienced more terrorism in its past, it has generally held an idealized vision of what these Islamic terrorists are really about. They don’t realize that bin Laden hates them as cultural heretics only slightly less so he hates the U.S. They think this is only about some territory disputes in the Middle East. It’s much more than that.

Sean — March 17, 2004 at 11:45 pm

The liberation of Iraq was not a distraction from the war on terror. Decades from now, it will be seen in hindsight as the very cornerstone of the policy that ended Wahabi terrorism. The radical Islamists are feeding on an animus born of failure and disgrace. Arabs see their own civilization everywhere mired in poverty, corruption, and weakness (compared to the West, and especially the USA), a situation which makes them symapthetic to conspiracy theories and hate speech. A thriving Muslim democracy in the heart of Arabia will do more to steal Al Qaida’s thunder than ten thousand arrests, trials, and executions of terrorists. Iraq may well start a chain reaction among its neighbors, inspiring the subjects of Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran to demand the liberties enjoyed by Iraqi citizens.

Guillem Massis — March 18, 2004 at 3:25 am

Well well well, it seems the our gringo friends are upset at our decision. Couple of things; the PP’s faith was sealed by the bombings, but it demisse certainly was caused by 8 years of crisis mismanagement (Prestige oil spill, TGV rails collapsing, assorted typical right wing corruption in the financial markets, utter arrogance towards the electorate by forgeting they are elected to SERVE instead of beig served, skyrocketing housing prices, and a large etc.) I certainly do not blame you for your ignorance, it is so typical of unitedstatians, never seeing beyond their interests, providing for the most enterteining lines of foreign policy myopic analysis. It’s ok folks, don’t get mad,get even. Two choices: bomb us, or do as we do: stop committing forced intercourse with other countries, find an alternative to oil, stop threatening the world with ever more powerful bombies, and for once try to have friends intead of having interests. We do not like your governments’ policies. We like the unitedstatetians, but boy ,your gov sucks!
Guillem, Barcelona (and yes, we are quite left leaning, specially in Catalunya, sorry!)

James N. Markels — March 18, 2004 at 9:48 am

Nobody is saying that nothing else the Popular Party did had anything to do with the election results. The basic fact, however, is that before the bombing the Popular Party had the edge and was widely expected to maintain power. Then came the bombing, and the Socialist Party swept to victory instead on a wave of hysteria.

Criticize our government all you want, but it’s damning enough that you have a government that, when told by a terrorist group to “jump,” asks, “How high?”

Luis Fontes — March 18, 2004 at 1:10 pm

a government that, when told by a terrorist group to “jump,” asks, “How high?”
—

you got it all wrong â?? you got a government that when Prez. George ‘Is Our Children Learning?’ Bush tells him, “Jump!”, says, “No. I won’t jump! You jump, if you want to, you crazy man!” - by the way, have you checked the frontline news from Iraq today: 3 GIs dead and 17 wounded? I imagine in your mind the Spanish soldiers should be begging to replace the American troops in the frontlines to prove their loyalty, right?

also in the news is the President of Poland saying his country was “taken for a ride” by the US as regards WMDs in Iraq? I suppose now we’re going start to hear about the weak will of the Poles! Get your poles jokes ready, unitedstatians!

Sean Gleeson — March 18, 2004 at 1:36 pm

You’re getting it a bit wrong yourself. President Kwasniewski didn’t say his nation was “taken for a ride by the US.” He said he was disappointed that they were “misled” about the WMDs. Note the passive voice. He didn’t say that the US had misled anybody, only that Poland was misled to believe that WMDs were prevalent. He was telling the truth. George Bush and Tony Blair and every government on earth was misled to believe the same thing… by Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, Kwasniewski went on to allow that even without WMDs, the liberation was justified, and he has no intention of withdrawing Polish troops until a stable Iraqi government is in place. Sounds like he’s a neocon to me.

James N. Markels — March 18, 2004 at 1:44 pm

Sorry, Luis, but Spain did not do what you say. Spain supported the United States by putting a small number of troops in Iraq. Then, on the eve of an election, a terrorist attack that al Qaeda claimed responsibility for created a hysteria that it was because of this support that Spain was attacked, and therefore taking troops out of Iraq would prevent future attacks. This was not a careful consideration of policy alternatives, this was appeasement of terrorists, plain and simple. In the long run, it will only encourage terrorists to attempt to manipulate elections through more terrorist attacks, and to use public threats of violence to get what they want (as the recent ultimatum to the French has revealed). Spain’s reaction has essentially legitimized terrorism. Yeah, as if THAT’S not crazy.

Even the Polish President recognized that “passiveness will lead us nowhere,” in response to Spain’s regrettable change of course. That’s no joke.

Sean Gleeson — March 18, 2004 at 2:05 pm

Oh yeah, it’s a bit off topic, but Luis keeps referring to the president as George “Is Our Children Learning?” Bush. This is a widely quoted Bush-ism that he never even said. Andrew Sullivan (by no means a Bush partisan) gallantly came to Bush’s defense regarding this alleged gaffe. Bush never said it. (See http://www.andrewsullivan.com/politics.php?artnum=20020317 fifth paragraph.)

Luis Fontes — March 18, 2004 at 3:25 pm

“George Bush and Tony Blair and every government on earth was misled to believe the same thing… by Saddam Hussein”.
—

Saddam Hussein misled Bush & Blair into believing he had WMDs? Surely we must be living in paralel universes. In the universe where I live, Saddam Hussein vehemently denied to the end he had WMDs, and even allowed swarms of inspectors to look for them everywhere they wished in Iraq.
If there is one thing certain in the universe I live, it is that in this sorry WMD mess for America to have an excuse to get to those juicy oil fields in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was the only one who wasn’t lying.

Sean — March 18, 2004 at 4:03 pm

First: No, the whole point was the inspectors couldn’t look “everywhere they wished in Iraq.” Hussein declared many large sites off-limits. Bush’s ultimatum, before the invasion, was that Hussein must allow inspectors into these forbidden sites to prevent war. Hussein refused. This was all reported in the press at the time; perhaps you’ve forgotten.

Second: if the USA invaded Iraq to take ownership of those juicy oil fields, then why hasn’t it done so? Thanks to the United States, Iraqi oil will for the first time in history be treated as the property of the Iraqi people.

Third: Hussein did deny having WMDs, and maybe he was telling the truth. But we don’t know yet. It may well be that the WMDs existed right up until the liberation, and they have since been hidden, destroyed, or moved out. The fact is, Hussein’s own actions led the entire world into believing he had chemical weapons, and was trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Even liberals against the war believed it, warning he would use nerve gas against American troops.

Fourth: in our universe, the one that really exists, there is room for debate about whether Bush’s policy has been adequately pursued or correctly implemented. Perhaps you’d like to pick a side and argue from facts instead of the falsehoods which pass for certainties in your universe.

Francisco Munoz — March 18, 2004 at 7:01 pm

I’m a Spaniard who has been living in Washington DC for the past 4 years. I was here when the terrible events occurred on September 11th, 2001. And, now, during the recent attack in Madrid. I know very well what it’s like to live under the terrorist threat. For more than 30 years the Basque separatist group ETA has terrorized my country.

Obviously, we must seek solution to this situation and that solution is in hands of our leaders. For the longest time, I was waiting for a definite and strong attitude coming from my government to fight terrorism. I was pleased to find it in Jose Maria Aznar’s leadership. He was determined to fight terrorists without negotiating with them. I believe that this is the only way to defeat terrorism in our land.

I’m not going to get into if the war in Iraq is justified or not. In the lead up to the war, we did not know what we know today. We could not know for certain whether or not the suspicions about Saddam being linked to Islamic terrorist groups or the possibility of having weapons of mass destructions were likely to be true.

When the Spanish government was given the chance to raise its voice against international terrorism, they did it in the only way possible that matched perfectly the PP’s antiterrorism policy: they fought it. They joined the US and a group of other countries against Iraq because they honestly believed this would be the best way to fight terrorists. However, it was a decision made without the support of the people of Spain. They gathered in protest against it — 90% of Spaniards. (I have to wonder, where has that 90% been in the last 30 years against ETA?)

Aznar made it clear he would not negotiate with terrorists whether they came from inside or outside our borders. And, I supported him.

It’s too bad that “we” Spaniards didn’t think the same in this past election and as a result we are going back to a Socialist government. Perhaps Spain is not ready for the world-stage. Maybe it’s better if we just go back to the “old days” and try to handle our own old problems instead of working with the world and sticking to our guns.

I do not think the decision made by our people is cowardly nor is it weak-willed. It is just an easy way out of something that we do not want to deal with.

The people of Spain have spoken. But I wonder if this is the beginning of a new era in Spain, or are we just going back to an old, well-known one.

Jens F. Laurson — March 19, 2004 at 12:06 am

To James A. Markels: To argue that NOW, that Al Quaeda strikes out at those who participated in the War in Iraq somehow proves that the invasion of Iraq was primarily about fighting terrorism/Al Quaeda in the first place isn’t logically sound.

To Sean: To attack Wahabi terrorism, I suggest invading Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, the direct link between the Socialist’s win in the election and their removing forces from Iraq is spurrious. The Socialists may just have won anyway… and they would have pulled the troops out for certain. We may feel like pulling out the troops is a dreadful mistake - but it is a decision that is almost a year old… a campaign promise upon which the Socialists ran throught the entire campaign.

The election was also a reaction to the Aznar Government trying to lie their way out of ‘responsibility’ regarding the bomb attacks. While they are of course NOT responsible, their immediate pouncing on ETA was disingenuous to the n-th degree - fully knowing that it was likely not ETA and fully aware that this might hurt their chances in the election. Misleading the people as a means to stay in power is not to be tolerated in a Democracy EVEN when the goal is presumably a noble one… precisely because this undermines the very structure of trust necessary in a Democracy. It is not the least THAT that the Aznar government got slammed for.

Anyway; rather than focusing on weak-willed Spaniards and ‘cowardice in the voting booth’ we should look how to fight terrorism elsewhere (if Iraq is not palatable to some), how it threatens the entire western world - and the middle east for that matter. So far the back and forth above is not doing much. Insult Bush here, quibble about Spaniards there…

Sean — March 19, 2004 at 8:07 am

Jens wrote: “To attack Wahabi terrorism, I suggest invading Saudi Arabia.”

Yes, a new regime in Saudi Arabia, the wellspring of Wahabism, would obviously be a great victory in the war on terror. There are three ways to achieve this desired regime change:

1. an American invasion of the sort that liberated Iraq and Kuwait, or
2. military aid to indigenous rebels as in Afghanistan, or
3. using the threat of war to persuade the country’s rulers to make necessary reforms, as Bush tried to do in Iraq before the invasion.

For a host of reasons (which would take a whole new article to enumerate, but which I hope are plain enough to Jens), the victory in Iraq now makes all three of these options for liberating Saudi Arabia much more feasible. The same could be said for Iran and Syria, two other neighboring terror states.

In 1943, the U.S. and U.K. invaded Sicily to fight Nazism. In 2003, these same allies invaded Iraq to fight terrorism. Gotta start somewhere.

James N. Markels — March 19, 2004 at 8:55 am

If the war in Iraq really had nothing to do with al Qaeda, then al Qaeda would not be bothering to attack a minor player in the conflict and then be openly telling them after the bombing that there will be no more terrorist attacks against them if they get their troops out of Iraq. Right there that tells you that the intention of the terrorists was to swing the election toward the Socialists.

The polls before the election widely predicted a small but solid victory for the Popular Party. Then the Socialists sweep to a win in the furor after the bombings. Yes, the Popular Party wrongly pinned the blame on the ETA, but there is no question that voters in general thought that the reason for this attack was the Spanish presence in Iraq. That is why the new Socialist Spanish minister was so quick to announce that Spanish troops would be taken out of Iraq, and why the terrorists applauded this move and promised no more attacks if this were done. What’s spurrious is to pretend that these events are random with no connection between them, when everybody’s motives, beliefs, and actions are clear in the matter. There is the chance that the Socialists would have won anyway, but it’s absolutely clear that the bombings affected the election, and did so by convincing the Spanish public that such attacks were the direct result of their policy toward Iraq. Al Qaeda confirmed this as true. So why not take it at face value?

Charles — March 19, 2004 at 3:28 pm

It is an interesting criticism of democracy that when it is successful, its patrons become so cowardly. Europeans would rather offer sniveling criticisms of the U.S. than face down evil because it might draw evil’s attention. Bravo.

Xiomara Zelaya — March 22, 2004 at 8:23 pm

When reading polls always look at the MARGIN OF ERROR. The NY Times reported on March 13 2004 in the article “Grieving Millions in Spain Seethe at Bombings of Trains” that a poll by Sigma Dos and commissioned by El Mundo and published on Sunday put the PP ahead of the Socialists by 4.5 percent. The Opina poll on March 7, the last time a poll was conducted (NY Times March 17 2004 “Spain Grapples With Notion That Terrorism Trumped Democracy”) put the PP at 42 percent and the Socialists at 38 percent. Those who assume the PP would win the election do not know how to interpret the polls and should stop saying that the PP was ahead. Explaining the significance of margin of error, polls are normally conducted at a 3 percent margin of error because it’s expensive to narrow that margin and not worthile. That margin simply says that any of the percents might be off by as much as 3 percent (42-3=39, 38+3=41 or 39 PP 41 Socialists). Therefore there must be a difference of 6 percent to conclusively say that a party is leading. Stop assuming that the PP had won the election before the bombing. In the last polls the PP and the Socialists were too close to call. Aznar must have understood the polls and explains why he did everything in his power to blame his own people, ETA, instead of outsiders for the bombing.

Xiomara Zelaya — March 23, 2004 at 1:13 am

Another polling point: polls are best when used as trends. In the same NY Times article on the 13th of March (see my prior note), it pointed to a devastating trend for the PP. The PP went down from 8 to 4.5 points higher. Clearly the downward trend must have been alarming to the leadership of the PP.

Those who approved the war against Iraq and linking that war with terrorism have been misled and have swallowed the Bush propaganda line, hook and sinker. And it is no excuse to say that others were also misled. That is why a President must have the ability to analyze and discern. No other believer took this country to war but Bush. It was Bush who wanted to go into war from the moment he became President and the one that presented the misleading evidence. He must bear responsibility for misleading the people. I am happy that Kennedy was at the helm during the Cuban missile crisis. If it had been Bush we might not be here today. The generals at that time wanted to start a war, but cooler heads prevailed and 30 years later the Soviet Union disintegrated.

James N. Markels — March 23, 2004 at 9:42 am

The only thing that Bush has been wrong on so far are the WMDs, and that was something that everyone, including the UN and President Clinton long before Bush ever took office, agreed was true. On the other hand, let’s consider all the propaganda from the anti-war crowd that has been found to be false: The “Arab street” was supposed to rise up in anger, “millions” were supposed to die in the war, the Iraqis were supposed to be happier under Hussein, American troops were supposed to be hit by WMDs during the war, and on and on and on. It’s funny that the anti-war crowd would be seizing on WMDs when even they had conceded that issue long ago. Everyone was wrong on that. And yet somehow that’s only supposed to affect BUSH’s credibility!

Further, Xiomara, we are familiar with “margins of error” in polling. I’m assuming that your argument is that the bombing really didn’t change anything because it was possible that the Socialists were ahead at the time. However, EVERY poll conducted on the matter showed a 3-5 percent lead for the Popular Party — this wasn’t a matter of just a single poll having those results. Hence the margin of error overall was actually lower than that of any one of the polls, which explained why every news source before the election predicted a “comfortable” victory for the Popular Party, even though it appeared unlikely that they would retain a majority in the parliament. In the final tally, the Socialists won by 4 percent — beyond what was possible if the Socialists were given every benefit of the margins of error that Xiomara would like. In short, trying to minimize the effect of the bombings on Spain’s election is ridiculous.

Xiomara Zelaya — March 23, 2004 at 12:15 pm

JNM, it is interesting that you say “we are familiar with ‘margins of error’” and then go on to say that because many polls show the same results the PP was ahead. You must not have ever taken a class in statistics, or maybe forgot how it works. Here is how it works: the results of each poll is independent of another, like the throwing of dice. You can have 7 turn up ten times, but each time you throw the dice the odds are the same. Having 7 turn up 10 times does not mean that next time you will get 7. Get the drift?
As to the “propaganda” of anti-war people, it would have to be coordinated to label those assumptions propaganda. People are very angry in the Middle East and all over the world because of the war in Iraq and the U.S support of Israel. A recent poll just came out confirming it. It is the regular citizen who will make or break the fight against terrorism. But if someone in Pakistan is angry and knows about a terrorist, do you think they will go to the authorities? No government can do it all, not even the U.S. government. Here is an example: The major bombing that took place at a police station in Iraq was known to the shop owners near the station. On the day of the bombing the shopkeepers did not open but did not inform the authorities. In any case it is not material whether the anti-war people or anyone else were right or wrong. Was the administration right? That is the only answer that matters.

Sean Gleeson — March 23, 2004 at 12:40 pm

Zelaya wrote: “Was the administration right? That is the only answer that matters.”

If you mean, was the administration right to liberate Iraq, I agree it is the only question that matters. And yes, the administration was right.

And Markels was right about the margin-of-error being reduced when numerous surveys agree. (I mean, I don’t know about particular surveys in Spain, but he’s right about the theory.) The margin of error is a function of the size of the sample and the size of the population. The size of the population being constant, one can reduce the margin of error by taking a larger sample. If two (or more) random samples are independent of each other, one can indeed combine them to get one large sample, with a margin of error lower than any of the samples individually would yield.

James N. Markels — March 23, 2004 at 1:52 pm

I probably didn’t make my point about the polls as clearly as I should have, and I thank Sean for clarifying. As an example, if three polls each interview 1,000 separate people, while independently each would have a given margin of error, the three polls could be lumped together as one 3,000-person poll and would thereby have a correspondingly lower margin of error, as “the margin of error is a function of the size of the sample and the size of the population,” as Sean pointed out. This isn’t dice-rolling, this is all about proportional sampling of the populace.

Propaganda does not need to be “coordinated” in order for it to be propaganda, although groups like ANSWER certainly functioned as rallying organizations for the propagation of anti-war sentiment. Further, of COURSE “it is not material whether the anti-war people or anyone else were right or wrong” as far as you are concerned, because they WERE wrong! They were even wrong on the WMDs just like Bush was, so far. But you’re correct in couching the most important inquiry as “was the administration right?”, and I don’t hestiate to agree with Sean’s response on that one.

Xiomara Zelaya — March 24, 2004 at 12:47 am

Okay James, back to the margin of error question. Two polls of about 1200 done concurrently do not make one poll of 2200. Here is why: Poll 1 selects at random 1200. Poll 2 also selects 1200 but the pool has the 1200 of the first poll. Poll 1 gives a 42:45 reading and poll 2 gives a 43-45 reading. Each reading is independent and are saying the same thing, like a picture taken from two exact cameras from the same location at the same time. Because of the independence of the two polls, it is possible though not likely that one person is selected for both polls. If the sample is expanded for a narower margin, that would not happen. Also the factors used in each poll are for a 3 percent margin. The factors used for a larger poll would be different. Poll 1 and poll 2 are saying the same thing, one can see trends if the time is not exact, like a moving picture. In fact I just read another article citing another poll on March 7 that had only 2 points between the PP and the Socialists. That means that there was lots of movement going against the PP. Get it now? It seems to me you have not taken an statistic class or have forgotten what you learned because statement of combining two independent polls into one is just plain silly.

On the Administration being right about the Iraq war. The Administration presented its case to Americans and the world for going to war, and those reasons were found to be false. The Administration was not right. You may agree with the new line from the Administration that Saddam was horrible, etc. Someting is wrong if you agree that American soldiers need to lose their legs, sight, arms, mental well being or being killed so that the Iraqi people are free. If enough people are against a government, it falls. Even the Soviet Union fell when its citizen said enough!

Sean Gleeson — March 24, 2004 at 9:37 am

Zelaya, you have a valid point about the trends of opinion over time being important. Too bad it’s your only valid point. No matter how pedantically you restate your argument, you cannot change the fact that multiple samples have a lower margin of error than one sample. You should concede that, and move on.

Your odious argument that Iraqi lives are not worth American lives might at least be debatable, if we were only fighting for their freedom alone. But the additional consideration that we are fighting terrorists who have already started a war against us makes such musings entirely meaningless. We’re at war, and the terrorists will kill Americans whether we fight back or not. We didn’t start this war, and the only way to end it is to win it.

James N. Markels — March 24, 2004 at 10:24 am

The only potential issue about combining poll results is if the same person was canvassed for both polls, which is a highly unlikely event as you acknowledge. Otherwise, two polls that ask basically the same question (as support polls do) can have their results combined, since there is NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE between there being multiple such polls with smaller samples and one poll that combines those samples. This isn’t statistics, this is common sense. As for “trends,” here’s a trend for you: Before the bombing, EVERY poll had the Popular Party ahead of the Socialists. After the bombing, where news of the bombing dominated ALL other news in the country, the Socialists win by a larger amount than any margin of error by any of the polls would allow. Hmmm…what do you think caused that to happen? You are being incredibly obstinate by refusing to acknowledge the effect of the bombing on the election results.

The anti-war crowd presented their reasons for not waging war against Iraq, and they were wrong across the board. In fact, Bush was right about the reaction in the Middle East, the cost of the war, the casualties, that Iraqis would prefer to be liberated, etc. On the one issue that the Bush administration was wrong on, the anti-war crowd actually agreed with Bush — they just thought that inspections and sanctions could contain the danger.

The reason why we have soldiers is that they are the buffer that protects the civilians. They willingly go into battle to protect us. Hence, it is far better that soldiers absorb casualties than for civilians to be the ones targeted. Not only is our military protecting our civilians at home by taking the fight to the terrorists and their supporters, but it’s protecting the civilians of Iraq by removing a tyrant, enabling the removal of a sanctions regime that killed thousands of civilians every month. Yes, it would be best if all of this could be achieved without any loss of life or limb, but this notion of yours that ANY sacrifice isn’t worth it is terribly short-sighted, at best.

Xiomara Zelaya — March 24, 2004 at 1:52 pm

Sean I may be pedantic, and James you may be right about the U.S. responsibility to free those under dictatorship for their lives are as valuable as any American. I will not dispute either of these arguments for they are your opinions. But my understanding of statistics stands. An independent poll with a given margin of error cannot be combined with another independent poll to create a larger sample poll. You cannot change mathematics just because you want to. It does not work that way. If you can please give me a title of a book on statistics that applies that method, I will gladly retract my statements and give you all the credit for teaching me something.

Jens F. Laurson — March 24, 2004 at 3:12 pm

Xiomara is of course right. Adding poll unto poll does not increas the sampling size if it isn’t the same poll. It could, just theoretically, be the same sampling of people. While conducting 3 polls with sample size X that end up having the same result makes common sense accept them as likely more accurate than the individual margin of error might indicate, this is not the case in the world of cold, hard mathematical facts.

j.

Sean Gleeson — March 24, 2004 at 3:39 pm

You are both of course wrong. You need a book to tell you what you could figure out with a pencil? I’d explain it, even though it’s far and away the least important thing being argued about here, but the limitations of typing entirely in text with no mathematical symbols would force me to write stuff like ‘1.96 times the square root of ((P times (1-P)) / n ),’ which I don’t feel like doing, and which I doubt you would understand. So I’m retiring from the margin of error debate.

Xiomara Zelaya — March 24, 2004 at 6:12 pm

Thank you Jens for confirming my understanding of statistical sampling. And Sean it does not matter if you use a pencil or a pen, the laws of mathematics apply just the same.

James N. Markels — March 24, 2004 at 6:45 pm

Jens, the odds that two independent polls sample the same people is quite remote. Polls that tally general support for political parties also ask the exact same time-tested questions. Hence, these factors are not an issue.

So, tell me then, if we have a population (P) and we conduct two separate polls with their own samples (S1 and S2) that ask the same question, and the samples do not intersect (S1 comes from P - S2, and S2 comes from P - S1), how is that IN ANY WAY functionally different from there being one poll on that one question of sample size S3, where S3 is the sum of S1 and S2?

There is no difference, mathematically or otherwise, for the same reason that it would be wrong to insist that individuals sampled within any one given poll should not be lumped in with other individuals within the same poll. The ONLY difference is the group asking the question, and that is not of a functional concern.

Xiomara Zelaya — March 25, 2004 at 4:21 am

James, your question on random sampling was not directed to me, you can ignore this, but here are my two cents worth. Imagine a huge container with millions (you don’t even know how many) of red balls and black squares all mixed up. You want to know the percentage of each in the container. You pull 1,200 of these balls and squares and find that there are 720 red balls and 480 black squares. You look into a table and get a factor for a 3 percent margin of error and calculate the percent of balls and squares in that container. You put those samples back and mix them in the container and now another investigator checks your results and draws 725 red balls and 475 squares. Uses the table and comes up with his answer which will be just a little different but statistically the same. You cannot add the 720 and the 725 and the 480 and 475 to create a larger sample investigation and narrow your margin of error. The limitation in inherent in the original sampling, and both investigations are looking at the same picture. In reality in a huge universe, (the pool you are sampling), even if you did not return the original samples, the change would be very minor that the next person investigating would come up with the same results as the first. Only large movements can be detected.

James N. Markels — March 25, 2004 at 12:32 pm

Um, actually, if you did not return the balls and squares to the container for when the investigator decided to test your results, his test would be absolutely indistinguishable from you deciding to merely pick out 2,400 individual objects instead of just 1,200. Hence, the ONLY problem with grouping the results is if the samples overlap, which, as we’ve already discussed, is too unlikely to bother with. Again, taking your argument to its logical extension, my own poll of 1,200 objects is invalid because each individual object I drew should not (according to your own reasoning) be grouped with any other I’ve drawn. This, of course, is ridiculous.

Xiomara Zelaya — March 25, 2004 at 7:35 pm

James, the problem is not just the specific person overlap but almost total overlap. I made my explanation as simple as I could because random sampling is more complicated than sampling from my imaginary container. Poll universes are not perfectly mixed like water from a small pool, therefore their sampling must take into account their non-uniformity, e.g. a NY City sample (highly Democrat and dense population) and a North Dakota sample (Indpendent but scarce population). The only way to expand a poll is to use the original random sampling to the desired population for the desired margin of error. When certainty is desired, there is a method to start with a small sample and expand until certainty is achieved. But always using the original sample that is large enough to accommodate expansion. If my memory serves me, the sample increase between a 3 and a 2 percent margin of error is huge, not triple.

James N. Markels — March 25, 2004 at 10:31 pm

Dude, we’re talking about NATIONAL polls asking the rote question of party support. The population to be sampled from was always the same (the whole nation), the question was always the same, and the odds of two polls sampling the same people was negligible.

James N. Markels — April 4, 2004 at 11:22 am

So much for the idea that caving in to terrorists would stop the bombings in Spain. It is folly to appease these groups, ever.

T. Stuart — April 15, 2005 at 12:28 pm

I realise this posting is over a year late, but I have just been doing research on weakness of Spain’s government towards terorism for university, and I cannot believe what i read, posted by J. Markels! I wont go on about the ‘good’ luck that you Americans would have if they attack Europe and you avoid any more strife. But you clealy think that its only America who really battles terrorism. Its obvious that Bush and Blair have an “ill scratch your back if you scratch mine” relationship,so whoever gets attacked next (and it is inevitable in the near future) we will all be involved. Your attitude reeks of arrogance and selfishness,’im alright Jack’, as long as its happening thousands of miles away. Put your feet up, relax, but let us know when it happens in the US again we’ll come running.

James N. Markels — October 12, 2005 at 2:10 pm

No, I don’t think that only America battles terrorism. My comments were confined to the Spanish election and the impression that election would promote among terrorists. I don’t think it is good that terrorists attack anyone (which is why I carefully put the word in quotes), either.