Recently, I have been hearing three stories explaining why the
bombings in Madrid changed the anticipated outcome of the Spanish
elections.
Obviously the outcome is some combination of motives. My goal is to
gain some sense of which is more predominant.
The three explanations that I have heard are:
1. That many Spaniards felt that appeasement and surrender is their
safest response to terrorism. This is the goal of terrorism: to
persuade a population that its government cannot protect it, and
that a change is needed.
This claim tells us that US diplomatic strategy failed, that the
US had not convinced enough foreigners that surrender does not
help.
2. That many Spaniards felt that the US made a military blunder in
invading Iraq.
(I doubt that many voters made their decision on this basis.
Perhaps the strongest voice I have heard claiming this is from
James Webb, who was US President Reagan's secretary of the Navy,
in an essay in the newspaper USA Today,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-02-18-veterans-edit_x.htm
Webb called US actions in Iraq "the greatest strategic blunder in
modern memory".)
This claim tells us that US military strategy failed.
3. That many Spaniards felt that their government tried to deceive
the country after the attacks themselves occurred, and continued
this attempt even when contrary evidence mounted.
(It may be that some Basque separatists cooperated with Islamic
terrorists in providing explosives. But the size of the blasts,
the location in a suburb that is more in favor of the Basques than
elsewhere, and Osama bin Laden's stated goal of reversing the
`Reconquista' pointed many away from the Basque separatists early
on.)
This claim tells us that the then Spanish government's political
strategy failed.
My impression is that the predominant motive is 3, Spanish voters'
anger at excessive and evident lying. However, many are saying that 1
is the main motive, that US diplomatic strategy failed, and as a
consequence, Spaniards voted for appeasement.
If 1 is the case, this is very bad news for the United States.
Clearly, many people have favored `accomodation' to fighting. Over
the last few years, the US government has argued the opposite. Its
goal has been to persuade those who have been against fighting to
change their minds. If this claim is true, it tells us that the US
government has failed, rather dramatically, in a war that is important
to it.
If 3 is the case, this is bad news for any politician who is caught
lying, or appearing to lie, shortly before an election, but not so bad
for democracy.
What is the weight of each motive?
--
Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
