perfidy

Ralph Peters has an interesting piece up at the New York Post. Here's a sample:

In a routine presidential contest, the thundering emptiness of the rhetoric from both sides does little lasting harm. Our system is robust. Collectively, the American people are remarkably sensible.

But this isn't a normal election year. We are at war. While many domestic issues deserve debate, the War on Terror demands unity of purpose from both parties. It is essential that our enemies understand that we're united in fighting terrorism.

That's not the message we're sending...

Unfortunately, serious thinking about the threat is on hold until November. We need the best that both parties have to offer. Instead, we get the worst. Winning elections trumps defending our citizens.

We shall hear no end of claims from both sides that the other party is leading - or would lead - America to disaster. But the terrorist threat will force similar responses from whichever party occupies the White House. Any administration would rapidly (if perhaps painfully) learn the need to fight relentlessly, remorselessly and globally against our terrorist enemies. The War on Terror is not a matter of choice.

Danger will dictate our actions. The future won't conform to the wishful thinking of either the Left or Right. Our tragedy is that, until November, our energies will be devoted to exhuming political corpses, rather than protecting American lives. Both sides will lie. America will suffer.

Consider a few implacable - if unpalatable - truths:

• There is nothing we can do to satisfy religion-inspired terrorists. If we do not kill them, they will kill us.
• This is a war, not law enforcement. The struggle requires every tool in our national arsenal, from commandos to cops, from diplomacy to technology, from economic sanctions to preemptive war. At different times, in different locations, the instruments of choice will vary. There is no magic solution - or even a set of rules.
• The best defense is a strong offense. We cannot wait at home for terrorists to strike. We must not waver from the current policy of taking the war to our enemies. The moment we falter, our enemies will bring the war back to us.
• A terrorist attack on the United States is not a victory for either of our political parties or for any school of thought. It's a defeat for all of us. When the next attack occurs - as one eventually will - we must blame our enemies, not each other.
• Allies are valuable, but they are not indispensable. In the end, we must always do what is necessary, whether or not it is popular abroad.

Election-year recriminations over the tragic events of our time serve no one but political hacks and the terrorists themselves. The message our bickering sends to al Qaeda and its sympathizers is that Americans are divided and can be defeated.

The terrorists are drawing the - incorrect - lesson that a Democratic victory this November would allow them to regain the global initiative. Although every new administration inevitably makes some mistakes, a Kerry presidency would have to face up to the need to combat terrorism as vigorously as the Bush administration has done. The man in the Oval Office doesn't get a choice on this one.

But the terrorists read things otherwise, thanks to our public venom. They'll attempt to strike here, as they did in Spain, to influence our elections. If they succeed, both of our political parties, with their craven bickering, will be guilty of inciting our enemies.

We Americans may disagree about many issues, but we cannot afford disunity in the face of fanatical killers. Nor are we remotely as divided as our enemies are led to believe. The problem is the politicians, not the people.

Ok, so that's most of the article. But those are some powerful things to consider as we debate the issue of the war on terror. (And I might add that the learning curve for a new president unready to face those unpalatable truths might be painful, and deadly, for us.)

I agree with this assessment. In the wake of the assassination of their Dr. Evil/Saruman leader dude, Hamas vowed to wreak vengeance on all enemies of their bizarro-world philostophy, including of course the US. Right after this news broke, some Hamas leaders realized what they'd said and hastened to reassure the US that "no, uh... heh... it's cool, it's cool. We never meant it, baby. It's cool."

I really can't imagine Palestinian terrorists, with their long history of burning American flags and shouting anti-US slogans, would have moved so fast to reassure the US government a few years back. Obviously, there was real fear in this reaction, fear that some of Hamas' cells or allies would attack US interests and invite the mother of all retaliations, or that the US would accept even more brutal Israeli reactions if the country felt directly threatened. The war on terror, including the effective war in Iraq, has restored fear of America in the hearts of even the most brutal and vicious Middle East terrorists.

Good point. As you know, I don't really agree with many of the moves the President has made over the last couple years, but to disagree over strategy and desired outcomes is not to deny that some great things have happened: to wit, Libya turning stoolie on the international nuclear program they were in, Iraq's rape rooms closing for good, and a few shameful scandals dragged blinking into the light (Oil Food abuse, Russian-Iraqi cronyism, French double-dealing).

If terrorists fear the US... really fear us, in a change-of-britches kind of way, that's good. That's progress. If somehow the children of Israel and the children of Palestine could somehow start linking arms, singing Carpenters songs and sharing candy, that'd be much, much better, but I've wished in one hand so far and it's not filled up yet.

The inestimable Lileks whittles the issue down to a nub:

Imagine if you woke from an operation and discovered that your tumor was gone. You'd think: I suppose that's a good thing. But. You learned that the hospital might profit from the operation. You learned that the doctor who made the diagnosis had decided to ignore all the other doctors who believed the tumor could be discouraged if everyone protested the tumor in the strongest possible terms, and urged the tumor to relent. How would you feel? You'd be mad. You'd look up at the ceiling of your room and nurse your fury until you came to truly hate that butcher. And when he came by to see how you were doing, you'd have only one logical, sensible thing to say: YOU TOOK IT OUT FOR THE WRONG REASONS. PUT IT BACK!

Read the whole thing, it's very nearly a screed.

The death of Ahmed Yassin is being laid at the feet of the United States. An purported Al Qaida franchise has announced on the internet that it vows revenge on the United States for the death of the Hamas terrorist in chief. From the article:

"We tell Palestinians that Sheikh Yassin's blood was not spilled in vain and call on all legions of Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades to avenge him by attacking the tyrant of the age, America, and its allies," said the statement by Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigade carried by the al Ansar forum Web Site.
The group, which aligns itself to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, had claimed this month's train bombings in Spain. There was no means of verifying the statement.

Another article reports:

For the first time, Hamas also threatened the United States, saying America's backing of Israel made the assassination possible. "All the Muslims of the world will be honored to join in on the retaliation for this crime," Hamas said in a statement.

In the past, Hamas leaders have insisted their struggle is against Israel and that they would not get involved in causes by militant Muslims in other parts of the world. Monday's statement suggested that Hamas might seek outside help in carrying out revenge attacks, since its capabilities have been limited by Israeli military strikes.

It is past time that we realize that there is one war on terror. These Islamic terror groups all view us as the enemy. It is time that we stop condescending to them, and realize that they are serious. And then kill them. It doesn't matter if they are Palestinian religious terrorists, or Palestinian marxist terrorists, or Al Qaida terrorists, or if they get their support from Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia. They should all be on our list of targets.

When I heard that the Israelis had killed Hamas founder and "Spiritual Leader" Ahmed Yassin, several thoughts immediately ran through my head.

The very first thought was, "Good!"

Second, it occurred to me that the Israelis just applied the Bush doctrine. This is no different from our earnest desire to capture; or preferably convert Usama bin Laden into strawberry jam on a Afghani hillside.

As I listened to the Palestinian reactions, I was bemused.

"Words cannot describe the emotion of anger and hate inside our hearts," said Hamas official Ismail Haniyeh, a close associate of Yassin.

How is this different from the anger and hate you have expressed for the last several decades, in the form of suicide bombs in buses, restaurants and hotels? And planned by Yassin?

Hamas said Israel had "opened the gates of hell"

Really?

The Palestinian Authority said in a statement that "Israel has exceeded all red lines with this cheap and dirty crime,"

How is this cheaper or dirtier than say, using young women with explosive belts to sneak into Israeli towns to kill the innocent? Or putting bombs in ambulances? At least the Israelis target people who are actually responsible for murder.

[Palestinian] Cabinet ministers stood as Arafat recited a Muslim prayer for the dead. The Palestinian leader, referring to Yassin, then added: "May you join the martyrs and the prophets. To heaven, you martyr."

Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia said the Palestinians have lost "a great leader," and called the attack on Sheikh Yassin a "dangerous, cowardly act".

If the Palestinians believe that this person was a great leader, a martyr, and destined for heaven, as they evidently do:

...then they are completely outside the pale of civilization.

It also occurred to me that the Palestinians have a peculiar understanding of the nature of war. They have, through their actions and words, declared war on the state of Israel. They bomb Israel's citizens, they call for the destruction of the Jews who inhabit it. Yet when their enemies fight back, they whine in surprise at the perfidy of the Jew. How dare those evil Jews kill a man, an elderly man in a wheelchair! Nevermind that he is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israelis. Are they really that naive? Of course not, but they do know that that sort of whining will find a sympathetic ear amongst certain sorts of people in the west.

One snippet from the BBC had a no doubt unintentional grain of truth. PA mouthpiece Saeb Erekat said the only way to stop violence was to "end the occupation of Palestinian territories." When you remember that the Palestinians also claim the land that Israel currently sits on, this reveals what they are all about.

[wik] This NRO article by Joel Rosenberg offers some useful thoughts.

Steve Waite over at Commonsense and Wonder links to a Weekly Standard article by Stephen Hayes that lays out some evidence for a significant connection between Saddam's regime and bin Laden going back to the nineties.

OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

Not that I needed additional justification, but this would be one more reason to feel good about what we've done. I think that over the next several months, we might begin to see increasingly rapid progress in the war on terror.

In the Belmont Club post I linked a while back, Viva Los Pepes, Wretchard talks about "tearing down the mountain" - a deliberate process of slowly destroying a network from the bottom up to get at the (presently) invulnerable bad guy at the top. We used this technique against the drug cartels in Columbia to get Pablo Escobar, and it looks as if it worked with Saddam, may pay off any moment with Zawahiri, and perhaps soon with bin Laden himself.

And one reason that we are able to do this is the intelligence information we are gaining from captured Iraqis.

[wik] From Kathy Kinsley at On the Third Hand (I got the blog name right this time! I'm not such a complete idiot as to get my blog hostess' blog wrong twice in one day.) we get a link to another story about Iraq-Al Qaida links, this one from the Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times.

We have obtained a document discovered in Iraq from the files of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS). The report provides new evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

The 1993 document, in Arabic, bears the logo of the Iraqi intelligence agency and is labeled "top secret" on each of its 20 pages. The report is a list of IIS agents who are described as "collaborators."

On page 14, the report states that among the collaborators is "the Saudi Osama bin Laden." The document states that bin Laden is a "Saudi businessman and is in charge of the Saudi opposition in Afghanistan. And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria," the document states, under the signature "Jabar."

The document was obtained by the Iraqi National Congress and first disclosed on the CBS program "60 Minutes" by INC leader Ahmed Chalabi.

A U.S. official said the document appears authentic.

Ace of Spades provides this link to a news page covering the Iranian protests. Instapundit of course has a post with more links.

Check this out. A very good read.

You can argue all you like about the lack of WMD, and all the attendant bullshit surrounding them - but the United States has clearly performed a good and noble act in liberating Iraq. We have eliminated a tyranny, we have freed a people.

The antiwar position can dance all it likes, but when it comes down to it, if you didn’t want the war you wanted Saddam to remain in power. The left used to criticize the right (correctly, in some cases) for support of dictators. Now, the left's kneejerk opposition to anything that the US does is support for islamofascism, and for police states that oppress their own people.

When the US does something stupid or cruel, all thinking people should oppose it. But when the United States moves to eliminate tyranny, to liberate millions, we should be applauding, not waving forty year old signs and wearing giant puppet heads.

Further, the perfect is the enemy of the good. No human endeavor is perfect. To scream that the sky is falling (quagmire!) everytime something goes wrong is frankly retarded. Criticism is good, when it is intended to correct. We have made mistakes in Iraq, but we have also corrected them. We improve. But much of the criticism aimed at US actions in Iraq seems to have the goal of ending, not improving. At convincing the American public that Iraq is a disaster zone (quagmire!) where American soldiers are being killed to no good purpose.

It pisses me off.

Johno's last post, Is Tehran Burning? raises some important questions. And not just regarding the remarkable silence of the major media outlets on events in Iran, Syria, and public opinion in Iraq. But first, the media issue:

Consider that our political leadership has committed the United States to a wide-ranging war on terror - not just those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but terrorists in general and the nations that support them. Is the media so blinkered that they cannot perceive that this means that several other countries are crucial to the success of this endeavor? We know that America has adopted a policy of change in the Middle East (and elsewhere) and we named the initial targets - Iraq, Iran and North Korea. To be sure, there is extensive and largely negative coverage of the war in Iraq, but that story is so obvious that even the media knows to cover it.

Why nothing on Iran except for occasional stories about Iran's nuclear program? It is well known in the blogosphere that the Iranian people are deeply unhappy with their government, and that there have been huge protests, and now violent unrest. You'd think that someone at CNN would make the connection between the libervasion of Iraq and the hopes and actions of the Democracy Movement in Iran, or at the very least scratch their heads and ask questions.

Nothing on Syria. Little on the violence in Saudi Arabia. The rationale behind Qaddafi's flip obscured. Nothing on death camps and misery in North Korea. Little of substance on the nature of the new Iraqi constitution. (Clueless had a great piece on that recently. These are important stories in their own right, but they are double plus important in relation to the big story, America's (and 33 other nations) war on terror. This failure in reporting is stupendous, monumental and nearly incomprehensible. It is also a big reason why some people don't get what's going on. The war on terror is a big thing, with big goals. If people don't realize, because they are never told, that the invasion in Iraq has resulted in the dismantling of Libya's WMD programs, and is a large factor in the push for democracy in Iran, why would they support it, when all they see is dead American soldiers in Iraq?

We have had many successes in the war so far. The recent bombings in Madrid were a dire setback. But the media refuses to cover the war as it actually exists.

Another issue is raised in a comment on the Michael Totten post that Johno linked:

How screwed up is it, by the way, that the most irrationally exuberant folks for Iranian liberty are at The National Review?!!!

What a weird and twisted thing the political spectrum has become these days. The Party of Kissinger and Buckley under the Bush Administration is, in the recent words of George Will, serving out Woodrow Wilson's third term.

In terms of party politics and history, something pretty monumental may be going on here. The Democratic Party from the days of Wilson up through the days of LBJ was clearly the Party of anti-isolationism. Vietnam shook this interventionist streak to the core but I always conceived of it as being a temporary thing. But I'm really not so certain, anymore. Maybe it's just the poor luck of not having a Democrat in the White House when 9/11 happened but you gotta admit, the Democrats are closer today to being an anti-war party than they've ever been.

Granted, they're not running George McGovern but even in 1972 there was a large contingent of "Cold War" hawkish Democrats in Congress. I can't think of a single Democrat in Congress today that is both a bona-fide liberal and a bona-fide hawk. The Scoop Jackson wing of the Party is officially dead and The New Republic increasingly reads like a journal out of time.

As you look back through history you have to recognize that the Democratic Party of 1934 had more in common with the Republican Party of 1864 than the Democratic Party during that same time. The parties had profoundly flip-flopped in 70 years. Another 70 years later I'm wondering if the same thing isn't happening, again.

Obviously, I don't think its so strange that movement conservatives are gung ho for liberty. That is one of the greatest contributions of the neocons to conservatism - the move beyond mere anticommunism to a policy of active support of liberty. The pursuit of realpolitik is not well suited for a republic. But idealism can have pragmatic benefits. The spread of liberty - political and economic - has clear benefits for the security and prosperity of the United States. Further, it's the right and moral position to take.

From the perspective of that commenter, we have the odd situation of conservatives pushing for liberation, and liberals coddling dictators. We no longer have any need for coddling dictators. During the cold war, resisting the spread of communism was arguably more important than fostering democracy right then. And I think it was. And in many cases, those nations that did not go commie eventually became democracies anyway. South Korea, Taiwan and Chile are examples of this. But now, without the threat of communism, we need to work to support democracy movements, especially in the Middle East.

And Iran should be our first target. At the very least, we should be giving cell phones, computers, printers, advice and public support to the Iranians who are opposed to the theocratic government. If need be, we should think about arms and military support. Iraq is one model for spreading democracy, and seems to be working relatively well. Iran gives us an opportunity to use another model, and one that might have more applicability around the world.

[wik] Thanks to Loyal Reader Mapgirl for pointing out that I mistook an entire nation for one of my favorite foods. Now corrected. However, Mapgirl should be aware that spell check only chimes in when you misspell a word, not when you use an inappropriate, but correctly spelled word. Like she did: “you should turn of any spellchecking feature.” Bricks/glass houses yadayadayada.

According to this CNN article, Poland's NATO Ambassador Jerzy M. Nowak said, "If it is necessary, we will continue leading the multinational division. We are prepared for that even if Spain is not able to fulfil its promise." Poland has led the multinational division of over 9000 troops from 24 nations since last September. Spain was scheduled to take over in July of this year.

My respect for the Poles has grown immensely over the last year or two. They get it, they realize what oppression and terror are, and the need to fight it. Polish PM Leszek Miller told a news conference:

"Revising our positions on Iraq after terrorists attacks would be to admit that terrorists are stronger and that they are right (to pursue attacks)."

Damn straight.

Link fromThe Smallest Minority via a post on Hell in a Handbasket, which I went to because he left a comment on Murdoc's Blog, which I just blogrolled. Ain't technology grand?

Reading around the wondrous interweb, I have found a few interesting bits on the Madrid Bombings and the subsequent victory of the socialists.

Mark Steyn offers this:

For the non-complacent, the question is fast becoming whether "civilised society" in much of Europe is already too "undermined". Last Friday, for a brief moment, it looked as if a few brave editorialists on the Continent finally grasped that global terrorism is a real threat to Europe, and not just a Bush racket. But even then they weren't proposing that the Continent should rise up and prosecute the war, only that they be less snippy in their carping from the sidelines as America gets on with it. Spain was Washington's principal Continental ally, and what does that boil down to in practice? 1,300 troops. That's fewer than what the New Hampshire National Guard is contributing.

Its disturbing to that even our allies are not exactly chipping in for the big win. Remind me, why do we bother trying to get the support and help of the "world community" when it's still us holding the bag and paying the tab?

Distinguished Miltary Theorist Edward Luttwak has a fascinating article over at the Globe and Mail:

It is a matter of record that Osama bin Laden and other Islamists identified Spain as a priority target years before the Iraq war. Under Muslim law, no land conquered by Islam may legitimately come under non-Muslim rule. For the fanatics, Spain is still El Andalus, which must be reconquered for Islam by immigration and intimidation. So even if the bombs were placed by Islamists, the claim that Spain was only attacked because of Mr. Aznar's support for the Iraq war is utterly false.

Even if hard evidence were to be found that ETA was responsible after all, it would be too late: The Spanish political community has failed the test of terrorism — it has bowed down to the violence of the few, allowing them to dictate their will to the millions. There are bound to be serious consequences, because openly demonstrated weakness always invites further attack.

For one thing, Spain still rules the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the North African coast, which Islamists view as Christian colonies on Muslim soil. Having seen what bombs can do, they might well be tempted to see if a few more bombs can induce the Spanish to surrender the two enclaves. No democracy ever found safety in surrendering to aggressions, large or small.

Wretchard from the Belmont Club chimes in with Dark Night of Spirit. He offers some troublesome thoughts on the strategic implications of the realignment in Spain.

The appeasement which so amuses the French may not be so funny when played by the Spaniards. For Spain, in concert with America and France, shared the watch of North Africa. And since that is where many Al Qaeda have moved, as the Madrid train bombing carried out by North Africans proves, Europe will find their relative danger increased far more greatly than the Americans, who can comfortably lose the Spanish contingent in Iraq. The loss of a solid Spain, while an annoyance to America is a catastrophe for Europe. Iraq is far from America but Spain is close to France.

In the end, the very nature of the War on Terror ultimately means that Europe needs America more than America needs Europe. The global jihad means that attacks on Europe can be planned and launched from geographical locations far beyond the reach of their defense forces. That could be ignored while Europe remained convinced that it would not be targeted. But now the doubt grows. And if the contingency eventuates, neither France nor Spain have the mobility or the means to pursue their foes into the uttermost reaches of Central Asia, the deserts of Africa or the teeming stews of the Southwest Asia. That deficiency can only be addressed by a sustained program of European defense spending --- and it will not. Zapatero has cast away the very thing that he may need and which he can neither afford nor beg.

Eurosocialism, by hitching its wagon to the fortunes of militant Islam has put itself at it's mercy. That is the definition of surrender, whose fine print the Continent will soon be familiar with. A disarmed, politically correct and supine Eurosocialist society can only exist where other free men guard their borders. By dismissing the guardians and capitulating to the jihadis the Eurosocialists have struck at the very root of their own existence. Lenin once remarked that capitalists would sell him the noose he would use to hang them. But that was before Stalin poisoned him.

And this piece from Blogcritics

And regarding the Iraq accusations, does anyone notice the screaming, grand irony of al Qaeda claiming that their justification for mass murder in Spain is the Spanish government's support for the war in Iraq? I thought al Qaeda and Iraq had nothing to do with each other. I thought Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror.

I thought al Qaeda's excuse for blowing the shit out of thousands of innocent people around the world was to further the cause of extreme Islamic fundamentalism: the war in Iraq, from their perspective, only aided the cause of Islamic fundamentalism since Islamic fundmentalism, and any other kind of religious political expression, was ruthlessly supressed by Saddam. Al Qaeda should be damned cheerful about the removal of Saddam and should be thanking any country that helped make it so, not blowing up its trains.

Terrorists cannot be appeased, negotiated with, reasoned with, or have their attention deflected elsewhere as a matter of any governmental policy: the only appropriate governmental policy is direct confrontation, unambiguous condemnation and aggressive pursuit and elimination of terrorists and their accomplices and enablers. Anything else is giving in to fear and wishful thinking.

It is being reported on command post and elsewhere that there ahve been recent uprisings in both Syria and Iran, apparently inspired by the American libervasion of Iraq.

This Command Post, er, post talks about the 14 Syrian Kurds who were killed in rioting and clashes with Baathist security forces. The Free Arab Forum is reporting that there is a small but violent uprising in northern Iran, where demonstrators apparently took over the local security force headquarters.

These events are not being reported in any of the mainstream media. Over the last couple years, I can count on one hand the number of stories I've seen on the Democracy movement in Iran. This is important news, and we should be hearing more of it.

Last Wednesday, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar was coasting to another victory in the polls. Thursday saw the worst terrorist attack in Spanish history. The Spanish government immediately seized on the idea that the ETA must have perpetrated the attack, the Basque separatist terrorists who have plagued the Spanish for decades. However, several early indicators led many, myself included, to lean toward the proposition that it was the work of Al Qaida or one of its franchises. First, the scale of the attack – far beyond any previous ETA efforts. Second, the ETA almost always gives notice of an attack, usually shortly before – and there was no notification. Third, the MO was quite in line with previous Al Qaida efforts - elaborate planning that was obviously involved, ten bombs timed to go off nearly simultaneously, and using mass transit as the vehicle and target for the attack. The timing was also peculiar – exactly two and a half years after 9/11, and I heard that that is exactly nine hundred eleven days after the attack on the Pentagon and the WTC. (The math adds up. Maybe that’s being excessively numerological, but they go in for that kind of thing.

Of course, now we know about the five men arrested, and the van and the tape and the Koran. The letter that was delivered to the Arabic paper in London. It seems clear that Islamic fundamentalists are indeed responsible. Which posed an important question for Spanish voters. And one that I think that they have answered wrong.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Socialist who will become the new Spanish PM, has already declared that he will withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. Withdraw support from the war on terror. In short, join the axis of weasels. But what message does this send to the Terrorists? That the Spanish can be intimidated. Once you give in, once you flinch, the terrorists own you. You’re their bitch. Anytime that the Spanish do something that the terrorists don’t like, you can expect more bombs, not less. Spanish foreign policy will now center on the avoidance of terrorist attacks, which will mean placation, appeasement and kowtowing.

This is a huge defeat for civilization. While we can argue over what is the proper course and what exact methods and goals are appropriate, there is no question that we are fighting enemies of civilization. And those enemies just took out one of our allies as surely as if they had beaten them in a stand up battle.

When I first heard of the Madrid bombings, I said to Mrs. Buckethead that I hoped that some good might come of this evil, that Europe would realize that it is not just the United States that is fighting this war, but that it is a war that all the civilized nations must fight. I thought that perhaps it would be like Pearl Harbor was for Churchill – the moment he realized that the United States would enter the fight. I was wrong to hope that, it seems. The reaction has instead been a perception that had the Spanish not supported the US, they would not have been attacked. While I can see the logic of that view, it completely misses the larger picture.

To the Islamic terrorist, we are not the only Satan. Just the biggest one. Their fight is against the west, civilization, in general. Their fantasy ideology paints the Spanish and even the United States as crusaders, rehashing battles half a millennium in the past. (Battles that they mostly won, for chrissakes.) But Spain collectively decided that short-term safety is more important than fighting against terrorism and the delusional ideology behind it. They’re going to sit this one out.

I fear that should we have another large-scale attack here in the United States, there might be a similar reaction. But I don’t believe that another attack would convince the electorate to give up on the fight. I think if anything, another 9/11 would only strengthen our resolve. I pray that we don’t find out.

[wik] My coworker points out that even if the ETA was not involved in the bombing, we will likely see more bombs from them, not that they see that the electorate can be cowed by successful, horrific terrorist attacks.

[alsø wik] Mark Steyn makes many of the same points. But more clever like, damn him.

"THE bombs dropped on Baghdad exploded in Madrid!" declared one "peace" protester in Spain. Or as Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty put it, somewhat less vividly: "If this turns out to be Islamic extremists . . . it is more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq."

By "other allies", he means you – yes, you, reading this on the bus to work in Australia. You may not have supported the war, or ever voted for John Howard, but you're now a target. In other words, this is "blowback". This is what you get when you side with the swaggering Texas gunslinger and his neocon Zionist sidekicks.

Good stuff, read the whole thing.

One of my bosses is a native of Spain, and his sister, a nurse, spent yesterday treating victims of the Madrid terrorist attack. Everyone he knows is okay, thank God, but for thousands more that is not true. Spain has now faced its turning point, its "M-11" as they're calling it. If the perpetrators are possibly Basque seperatists, the tactics reek of Islamofascist groups, and it wouldn't surprise me if they had worked together. After all, if the strongly Catholic IRA could train with al Qaeda, why not the Basques, who, Christians though they may be, are also an irritant to the perfidious Spanish "occupiers" of the ostensibly Muslim Iberian Peninsula?

After 2001, I accepted the fact that life was never going to be as easy as it had been before. The confident assumption of insularity-- even of invulnerability on our own soil-- that Americans had taken almost for granted, was shattered. Another random attack of similar kind has since then been a constant possibility. Now, after Madrid, I'm starting to deal with the fact that another attack is a constant probability.

Sometimes it amazes me that humanity has survived this long with such obvious flaws as rampant stupidity and gullibility. What amazes me more is that the stupid and gullible-- such as terrorist fanatics-- are also the most dangerous ones among us.

[wik] Glenn Reynolds suggests sending flowers to the nearest Spanish Consulate General. A fine idea.

[alsø wik] There's some very good analysis of the Madrid bombings from people who actually live in Spain over at Iberian Notes, starting with this post.

My thoughts are with the citizens of Madrid today. Whether it was the homegrown nutjobs of the Basque separatist movement, or the usual Islamofascist nutjobs, a terrible atrocity has been carried out at the expense of hardworking regular Spanish citizens. Like the Onion said two years ago, "we must respond with measured, focused rage."

Yesterday, while home sick nursing a case of what, if it wasn't actually the SARS or at least the Avian Flu, certainly felt like it-- shapes in the wallpaper, struggling to breathe, disturbingly high tolerance for daytime television-- I had occasion to watch Fox News.

Now, I kind of enjoy Fox News' teletabloid style, reminiscent of the New York Post (another News Corp. holding) or the nad-hammering attack-doggery of the Boston Herald. But sometimes-- often, for my moderate blood-- they just go too goddamn far.

I was watching coverage of this story, about the two unfortunate civilians working for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, who were shot at a fake roadblock checkpoint yesterday. The TV version of the story referred to this as a "terrorist" incident.

No, No, NO!

I remember what a terrorist attack looks like. This was an act of war. It makes me crazy that acts of terrorism and acts of war are so often conflated by the press and politicians. To be sure, the two are often hard to pick apart these days. We are at war with terrorists and thugs. But if Fox News wants to be horribly irresponsible in the name of ratings and call two victims of a checkpoint shooting "terrorism" than the word becomes weaker, less able to describe the mayhem and horror of a true terrorist attack, especially in the same news cycle that sees nearly 200 die in Madrid at the hands of extremists.

This MSNBC report describes a rather jarring situation. Apparently US intelligence had Zarqawi placed in northern Iraq (in the no-fly zone) prior to the war. On two separate occasions plans were formed to kill the bastard off...the first time it died in the National Security Council (good show, there).

The second time it was killed off by the White House directly.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

Two thoughts come to mind. First -- if the Zarqawi was present in Iraq, Bush's position that terrorists is bolstered. But (you knew that was coming, didn't you?)...the guy was in the no-fly zone. There wasn't much that could happen there without US say-so. The US probably had the ability to take him out at will.

So we are left with the question -- did Bush decide not to take out Zarqawi's camp, when presented with that information? If he decided against it, why?

Note that the quote comes from a former National Security Council member.

Murdoc has posed an interesting question:

There's been a lot of talk about how we might know where Osama is and how there might be a big operation along the Pakistan border soon. There's also been a lot of talk about how the capture of OBL might be "managed" by the Bush administration for maximum political effect. I get the feeling that whenever he's caught, there's going to be a general outcry of "politicization."

So I'm taking a poll to attempt to determine what window is available to
capture OBL without appearing to have staged it.

Whether the capture will have appeared to be politicized will depend on two things. One, the party affilation of the beholder, and the backstory behind the capture. For some, no matter when bin Laden is captured, it will be a nefarious Rove-orchestrated plot designed to seduce the befuddled masses away from the clearly superior Democratic candidate.
Others might think so if there is any indication that the intelligence services and armed forces had knowledge of his whereabouts for a significant length of time befoe the apprehension. How long "significant" is will again likely depend on party affiliation.

Absent that kind of information, I think most people will assume that we just caught him. The only capture date after which a majority of the public would wonder if it had been stage managed would be in the month before the election. Indeed, it might almost be better to intentionally capture him after the election.

So I voted for Oct 1; but for many on the left, it will be anytime after right now.

In any event, go over there and cast your vote.

Could someone please tell me why the crying fuck this wasn't tried before?

U.S. forces searching for al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden along the mountainous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan will soon implement high-tech surveillance tactics in the region, enabling them to monitor the area 24 hours a day, seven days a week, CNN has learned.

It's believed that the constant surveillance of the border region and the "squeeze play" by U.S. and Pakistani forces surrounding the mountainous frontier will present the best chance ever to net the world's most-wanted terrorist.

We've suspected for TWO YEARS that's where the shitrat has been hiding... why only NOW with the spyplanes and the satellites and the squeezing and the m'd'hoy glavinating?

Could the war in Iraq have been a... distraction?

[wik] Asked and answered. Though I'm not completely talked out of my tree yet, Buckethead and GeekLethal have provided plausible explanations for the news story. Thanks, gents!