Are comments broken? This seemed like a red meat post, but I don't see any comments yet...
I am going to admit to being in flux, opinion-wise. I've been a pretty strong supporter of the war and its aftermath - I definitely believe we did the right thing going in and taking that bastard out - and I've been very supportive of the War on Terror. But this post made me think about something that seems inconsistent. At first, I whole heartedly agreed with the idea that the terrorists won by influencing Spain's election. The conservatives were leading the polls, the bombs struck, and the socialists won a few days later. How can you not think the terrorists won? They influenced the election, and (so I thought), they won by definition.
However, what if things had broken differently? What if the conservatives had been lagging in the polls, then terrorists struck, and the Spanish people returned the conservatives in a landslide? Would you characterize that as a victory for the terrorists? I don't think that would be the conclusion. Why don't I think that? Perhaps because I was a conservative partisan to begin with, thinking my way of fighting terror was the best way, and if the terrorists influenced the election against that strategy, then they must have wanted the socialists in power. Had it broken the other way, would I be open to the possibility that they wanted the conservatives in power? I don't think so. And so it seems to me that the "The Terrorists Won" argument is not based in fact, but in partisan rhetoric.
I still don't think one can take the bombings as an indictment of the conservative line - I just think the policy of how best to fight terror should be debated independent of any one particular incident. I still think Afghanistan and Iraq were good decisions, and that electing socialists who will pull Spanish troops out of Iraq is a bad decision - but I don't think the terrorists' decision to strike Madrid argues for either the War policy or the Police Action policy. It's helpful rhetorically to argue it, but I'm not comfortable with basing policy arguments on it.
I am surprised too that this did not get anyone's dander up.
Let me add this to Ethan's fine, introspective comments:
It strikes me that there's a central idea that's being put forward that if we either a) are influenced by bombing or b) let terrorists think that we are influenced by bombings, then we have let the terrorists wone.
What would it say about the Socialists if they reversed course on the Spanish forces in Iraq? That they were influenced by terrorists--or rather the perception of not giving in to the terrorists. And if they go ahead with their plan? That they were influenced by terrorists into cutting and running. So, either way, they can't avoid the perception of influence.
The question is not whether terrorism "works"--it always works or rather *does work*. That is to say, it's doing something, regardless as to the original intent of the terror succeeds or not. The question is how leaders can intelligently react to this and lead their countries without being unduly by fascist terrorist bastards who don't speak any language but violence.
Commenting by HaloScan
