I’m frightened by the events in Spain.
My fear is on several different levels, on several different issues. Each of them is worthy of a much longer essay by someone much smarter than I am, but since I’m what I’ve got and the time I have is what it is, here you go.First, because we’ve shown how easily such little effort can move to such massive tragedy. I’ve believed for a while that we have both an emerging conflict with Islamism and an internal conflict coming from those whose relations to Western culture – hell, to any culture – are fractured by weak philosophical underpinnings. Whether it’s a mad Muslim-American veteran and a teenage boy in search of identity with a rifle, or an angry white Christian veteran and a truckload of fertilizer-based explosives, or a gang of – whoever – with backpacks and construction explosives – the ability and need of the few and weak to kill and terrorize the many and strong seems to be getting stronger.
Second, because we’ve now shown that terrorism works. I don’t know nearly enough about Spanish politics (and, in reality, neither do most of the commentators left and right, weighing in on this) to dissect the cause of the shift – whether it was disgust at the government’s manipulation, craven appeasement, or some complex human combination of these and other reactions – it sure appears clear that the terrorist act toppled a government. That’s a far greater effect than 9/11 – they only toppled two buildings. People are smart creatures because we learn what works and we go back do it more often. People who want to change regimes have been shown they can do it with eleven backpacks and 165kg of explosives.
That means they will do it again.
And finally, and most frighteningly, because reading the news, the columns, and the blogs, I see one thing very clearly. Everyone is looking at the events of 3/11 through the prism of their positions on 3/10. The hawks see what supports their positions, the doves what supports theirs.
I am seeing more simple-minded rationalization around this issue than I think I’ve seen in quite some time, and that frightens me and ought to frighten you all. Because the path through this will come from our ability to reason and plan together – to show solidarity in word and deed, and thereby resolve to pursue whatever path is ultimately chosen. I see very little solidarity, and a deepening fracture.
I think my task in writing for the next little while will be to delineate that fracture and try and suggest some paths back toward the bridges that may span it.
I have tried to avoid too much assumption here, it is a different culture and all. The issue I have focused on is the liklihood for further attacks. That chance is far greater now than before. Especially against countries that supported the US, and that have upcoming elections. Not being in Spain, its hard to measure why the Socialists won. But its not hard to guess.
Oh yeah, and congratulations!
“Everyone is looking at the events of 3/11 through the prism of their positions on 3/10. The hawks see what supports their positions, the doves what supports theirs.”
Everyone is looking at everythign thier the lens of thier a priori held positions. Rush Limbaugh talks about the fact that his success was due to the fact that he gave people validation of thier beliefs. Maybe that was needed at one point but today, everyone and everything only exists now to validate peoples already held beliefs. The bloggers are two isolated communities validating thier own beliefs. The journalists are thier own little incestous community dedicated to validating thier own beliefs. The Republicans and Democrats see everything through thier own lens. Liberal and Conservative now mean either good and evil respectively, or evil and good respectively, depending on what side of the fence you stand on. This is most clearly seen in the two popular oxymorons today – ‘neo-conservative’ and ‘classical liberalism’.
On both sides, debate and discourse no longer exists. Neither side is willing to concede anything to the other. The lies and distortions of both sides have become accepted fact, and no one feels the need to read or study or learn – unless it is populist entertainment that validates thier own opinions masquerading as history. Both sides are absorbed in increasingly ridiculous apocalyptic fantasies about the other’s conspiracy, and so both sides are – feeling they have been or are about to be wronged – preparing to hit the one side before the other can hit it. Maturity, dignity, and integrity can be safely thrown out the window because all either constituancy cares about is expediency and a clean victory, and neither side dare blink for fear of showing the other side weakness. Are politicians have become publicly like rabid political attack dogs, and claw tooth and nail for the least advantage with no one daring to suggest that such behavior should in itself disqualify them because we have become filled with anger and impotent rage.
The US is heading pell mel towards civil war and everyone’s eyes are closed and in denial, and will be until the shots are fired at Fort Sumter.
Mark my words, if enough people of either side shout ‘they have stolen the election’, sooner or later it will be believed and one side or the other will take up arms.
A.L.:
The primary flaw in economic policy is that capital outproduces labor by a couple of orders of magnitude, so if you don’t own capital you aren’t really a player in the economy. Almost no one, and certainly no one in the mainstream, talks about this.
The primary philosophical flaw in western culture is that we’ve replaced an appreciation for and understanding of beauty (as well as ugliness) with “aesthetics,” in an effort to avoid shame at all costs. We are therefore “adrift,” because beauty is really the only clue we have to a proper philosophical grounding. Almost no one, and certainly no one in the mainstream, talks about this.
And what we don’t talk about becomes a void that defines those cracks in our culture, that really aren’t that hard to see from the outside.
We have a couple of taboo subjects here. There may be others.
A.L.:
* Re the weekend program: I wish you joy.
* One strong point in the post: separating “was it appeasement?” from “does terrorism work”. No, it wasn’t appeasement, but yes, it was (at least in prestige terms) an al Qaeda win.
* If it’s an al Qaeda win, Aznar is partly to blame, not just for twisting the 11-3 story, but for joining the Iraq war against the wishes of 92 per cent of his population. The present outcome might not have been predictable, but it was always likely to end badly. A responsible leader doesn’t take his country to war because he thinks personally it’s a good idea, but on the basis of a solid national commitment (cf. Jim Henley).
I don’t think the fracture is ‘bridgeable’. The problem isn’t really a debate over means, it’s not even a debate over ends. It’s a debate over reality. What we have is a reality discontinuity. One side sees an Wahabist monster trying to take control of the Islamic world and destroy Western Civilization and everything it stands for. The other side doesn’t.
Exactly how do you compromise there? Agree to only see half a monster?
You can compromise over means, you can compromise over ends, but in the end there really is only one reality and you cannot compromise it and expect to survive in the long run. In the end reality will make itself felt, and one side or the other will be proven correct.
Abu F.- Apply your logic on Daladlier’s and Chamberlain’s positions circa 1936-8. You’d end with signing away at least the Studetenland and recognizing Japanese gains in China and the German Anschluss. These historical parallels are not exact, but the logical process is indicative enough to give pause to condemning Anzar for being politically irresponsible, as I infer your comment sought to do.
TreeFrog, you make a very good point by stating this is a debate over reality. However, I think it’s oversimplifying to say that one side sees a monster and the other side doesn’t. Based on my own experience, some people are merely arguing over the size and ferocity of the monster. (“Is the animal that’s been killing our chickens a marauding fox, or a marauding leopard?”)
Also, I have to take issue with your closing sentence:
Reality will make itself felt, yes, but chances are that neither side will be proven wholly correct. Each side is only composed of humans, and humans aren’t smart enough or knowledgeable enough to fully understand or predict reality. Given that fact, the likelihood that reality will fully reflect one side’s predictions is miniscule.
One of the problems with political debate is that both sides often only have a partial understanding of what is taking place, with the two sides understanding different parts, like the proverbial blind men and the elephant.
AL, You’re right. Not many of us know much about Spanish politics. Still, given what we do know, it’s hard not to conclude that the national color of Spain is yellow. Besides, what matters is not what we think or even what the Spanish think but what Al Quaeda thinks. If they think their attack worked, we can expect a lot more and a lot worse. That’s why there really is no room for compromise on this issue. The left wants to pursue a course that resulted in our problem in the first place. It’s a matter of life and death. How can you compromise?
Remember you only see the loud people. I’m generally a hawk, but I’m not leaping to conclusions about what this means; I think it’s more important to let this play out a bit and see what happens. I haven’t said anything about this (though I don’t politic much on my ‘blog), so you don’t hear my “moderating voice”, mostly because I don’t feel I have anything to say.
It always looks like there are two unreconcilable sides and you can either lose hope, or remember that those two unreconcilable sides are only a vanishing fraction of the number of people out there. The fact that the two extremes can’t meet in the middle doesn’t mean that a moderate position won’t eventually be adopted by the whole.
I disagree the Spanish are “yellow” for their vote. I don’t agree with it, I think it undermines the war on terror and bolsters the resolve of organizations like Al Queda to take up arms to affect political outcomes. I believe that something like this, which can be spun by terrorist recruiters, into a stunning victory in a state formerly controlled by Muslims, which will cause more to join the cause then the Iraq war ever did. However, its hard to fault either the Spanish people or Aznar- the people suffered a great tragedy and were angry and hurt and confused (I remember 9-11- I had to try a case that day and my jury was a portrait of different emotions and reactions) and no matter what Aznar said or did (ETA or Al Queda), he was going to take a big political hit- when visted by terror, its the easiest thing in the world to blame somebody who you can’t really hold accountable (Aznar being on the way out). He was in an untenable position and while his reaction may not have particularly well thought out, its hard to blame him.
The persons really at fault are the incoming socialist party government. Already, the newly elected president is taking shots at Bush and Blair, calling Iraq a disaster and alleging the war was based on lies. Whether he is saying these things because he believes it or because he takes his election as a mandate to go anti-american (as is becoming so fashionable in Europe), I don’t know. What I do know is that if his positions on terror are “form committees” to “identify terrorists and freedom fighters and distinguish between the two”, the US will have lost another ally in the war against terror, through no substantive fault of our own.
One of the things that disturbs me most is the possibility that AQ has any preference at all among western politicians. Really, shouldn’t we hope that all political parties will be equally bad for these murderers?
On another topic, you should be on your honeymoon, paying attention to your new wife. Back slowly away from the computer with your hands up!
Many in Spain saw the vote as a stand AGAINST terrorism: There was a huge get out the vote movement, and 3M more voters showed up than last election. Given the small statistical shift from pre-election predictions to the final result, it may be that the election was changed because people who did not feel strongly enough to vote before did in a show of pro-democracy ferver. Given the sleazy way Aznar tried to spin the bombs, we have a new party in power (but they still need a coalition partner IIRC).
Tom Roberts: If we’re going to play the lame WWII analogies game: what’s the scenario where Chamberlain and Daladier take their countries to war against massive popular opposition and get a good outcome? As Churchill and Roosevelt understood, their task was first to get their countries behind them, then to fight the war.
Fred: It’s quite true that the Spanish don’t have the courage of your convictions. What they sought, and got, was a prime minister who’d have the courage of theirs.
A.L.,
The Spanish election results don’t mean nothing as far as America’s ultimate victory in this war. As I said in the 3/11 topic, it simply means the non-american body count on the way to American victory will be much higher than it otherwise should have been.
What this means for the short term is that Bush policies have been vindicated.
1) Al Qaeda is a real, on-going, threat.
2) Terrorism anywhere is a threat to everyone, everywhere.
3) Unilateral exercise of American “Hard” AKA Military power is the only option. America is, in the end, alone.
One more thing, the incoming Socialist Prime Minister of Spain — by pulling out of Iraq — is making certain the next battle ground in the War on Terrorism are the Streets of Europe.
Trent, that was almost certainly going to be the case beforehand. The big difference is that AQ now knows the best time to strike. The fear alone from having to beef up security before elections is a win for them.
Bush policies have been vindicated? I don’t get it.
1) Al Qaeda is a real, on-going, threat.
Yes. Not a policy, but a statement of fact that only a few screwballs dispute. Too bad Bush pulled us back from destroying Al Qaeda in order to invade and occupy Iraq.
2) Terrorism anywhere is a threat to everyone, everywhere.
Great sound-bite. See number 1.
3) Unilateral exercise of American “Hard” AKA Military power is the only option. America is, in the end, alone.
What the heck does this mean? Are you saying we should invade Spain? The vast majority of countries support the eradication of terrorism. We are not alone, nor can we expect to stop terrorism with the military alone (like, the military ain’t real good at seizing bank accounts).
One more thing, the incoming Socialist Prime Minister of Spain — by pulling out of Iraq — is making certain the next battle ground in the War on Terrorism are the Streets of Europe.
It’s already there.
Oberon, interesting theory: ‘Bush pulled us back from destroying Al Qaeda in order to invade and occupy Iraq.’
You really think that? Sure, we have limited resources, but we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Where have we cut back re al Qaeda? It’s largely an intelligence matter. (I know, bad word.)
Oberon,
So according to you, Al-Qaida exits in Afghanistan only? And invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with containing Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lybia, and others, I assume. It’s all about the oil. Never mind the fact that the USA had already been at war with Saddam who had outlasted Bush I and was hoping to outlast Bush II.
Not finishing your enemy in a war is considered a really stupid strategy by everyone – unless it is an enemy of America, because American imperialism is so evil, that all her enemies are actually good.
Ivan,
Do not feed the energy creature.
I just wanted to say I agree with Jeremy Powers. The most obnoxious positions grab the attention.
I can’t be the only person who A) *generally* agrees with left domestic politics, but is distressed by the increasingly rabid anti-bush/anti-iraqi rhetoric coming from that direction, and B) doesn’t dislike Bush, but really needs to see that the extermination of al-Qaida is more important to him than, say, gay marriage*.
We’re not on the verge of a civil war, but it does sometime seem like the vituperative rhetoric is way, way out of proportion to what is actually under debate: most people in the US, after all, are in favor of successfully prosecuting the destruction of al-Qaida. Aren’t we really just arguing over methods?
Good Post, AL. Looking forward to future development of this theme.
*Partly exaggerated for effect.
I just wanted to say I agree with Jeremy Powers. The most obnoxious positions grab the attention.
I can’t be the only person who A) *generally* agrees with left domestic politics, but is distressed by the increasingly rabid anti-bush/anti-iraqi rhetoric coming from that direction, and B) doesn’t dislike Bush, but really needs to see that the extermination of al-Qaida is more important to him than, say, gay marriage*.
We’re not on the verge of a civil war, but it does sometimes seem like the vituperative rhetoric is way, way out of proportion to what is actually under debate: most people in the US, after all, are in favor of successfully prosecuting the destruction of al-Qaida. Aren’t we really just arguing over methods?
Good Post, AL. Looking forward to future development of this theme.
*Partly exaggerated for effect.
Sorry for the double (now triple) post.
Without necessarily passing judgement on the thinking of those swing voters who determined the Spanish election, this was unfortunately a very specific, measurable step towards apocalypse.
Now turn off the freakin’ computer, A.L. I assure you there will be plenty of bad news for comment when you resurface.
I disagree with Sebastian that “we are just arguing over methods”. There are very few left-wingers who offer alternative methods of dealing with Islamic terrorists, because, according to the High Priest Chomsky, it is all America’s fault. It is not just Bush that the Left hate: it is what Religion of Peacenecks calls “the Devil”, i.e. corporate America. I’ve heard many a Leftist say that Iraq was the wrong country to attack, but none of them said: We should have attacked Pakistan, or Saudis, or Iran. That’s because war is BAD, just like capitalism.
There is a bunch of lunatics led by the likes of Chomsky, who are so priviledged, and so out of touch with reality, that they declare the very system that supports them to be the greatest evil on Earth. A lot of people in America who hate their job and don’t see a way to pursue happiness listen to that nonsense, and become adepts of that quasi-religion.
What I think will happen is that the leaders of the whining herd will become more and more marginalized. Leftism will be considered a kind of personality disorder characterized by excessive bitching and unwarranted arrogance, or perhaps a wierd secular cult for the self-obsessed(look at Hollywood celebs: it’s either Leftism or Scientology), as opposed to a political platform, and the reason for that is simple: the Left loves to offer critisism, sometimes absurd, sometimes valid, BUT it never offers solutions.
Abu Frank,
When the Spanish’s conviction is to appease terrorists in the forlorn hope that they’ll go away if we just do what they want, I don’t think _courage_ of their convictions is an appropriate expression.
celebrim:
I fervently hope this does not come to pass. I do understand the factors you describe, though I think you exaggerate no small amount. However, if it were to come to pass, the outcome would be no contest. On the civilian side–well, our host’s pseudonym is a constant reminder of how the left (and beyond) thinks of arms in the hands of peons. On the military side: regardless of what a few generals might do, it’s inconcievable that more than a tiny fraction of the military would side with the appeaseniks.
Sebastian:
But not to good effect, alas. You appear unaware that Bush was loudly ignoring the whole gay marriage question until events in MA and CA forced him to stop being noncommittal? It wasn’t a priority of his (and still isn’t, for that matter.)
Abu F. – Your comment about Churchill is historical rubbish. Churchill became PM after Chamberlain precisely because he had consistently espoused armed intervention against the nascent Axis powers, specifically in Ethopia and the Rhineland even before the Anschluss and Studetenland crises. Roosevelt sub rosa began a naval campaign in support of the British North Atlantic convoys well before Pearl Harbor. Neither man had the support of either their parties or electorates in these positions. The only “lameness” in this analogy is your understanding of the applicable facts.
Finally, neither man got their electorates behind them when they did go to war. Churchill was made PM in June 1940, well after Warsaw had fallen and just before Paris did. Roosevelt had the Japanese to thank for making his Declaration of War an afterthought.
Finally, and most ironically Abu, the only wartime election Churchill ran in (in 1945), he lost to the Atlee Laborites. So much for garnering the support of the British electorate. During the war the Cabinet was organized as a coalition of all parties precisely to avoid political turmoil. But it certainly didn’t preclude dissension about how WWII was being run by the Churchill, who was both PM and Minister of Defense. One common thread among the serving military in 1945 was “I didn’t fight in this war just to put rich Tories in power afterwards.”
Roosevelt was a better politician, but by 1943 even Democrats were sniping at Roosevelt’s Anglophilic orientation and holding together the old New Deal coalition was becoming difficult.
‘neo-conservative’ and ‘classical liberalism’ are synonymous.