We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
When the going gets tough… Everyone is aware by this time that al Qaeda’s attack on Madrid led to the election of the candidate who promised immediate withdrawal of Spanish forces from the coalition in Iraq. The Spanish electorate are acting like the child who, after getting knocked down by a schoolyard bully, cowers in the hope said bully will stop hitting them and just go away.
Based on this thought, I was going to do a cute ‘appropriate’ modification of the Spanish flag.
To my chagrin, I have discovered the Spanish flag already has a yellow stripe down the middle.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
My understanding of the result was not that the Spanish electorate had voted for the socialists out of fear of Al Qaeda but had voted against the Popular Party out of anger at the perception that they were trying to make political capital out of the attack.
From EUobserver
Quite right, Paul. A lot of people here seem to think anyone holding an opinion other than theirs is a coward, a fool, or a terrorist.
For such highly-educated people, the level of comprehension here seems terrifyingly unsophisticated. Maybe they should get out of their mutual admiration society a bit more…..
Talking about a whole nation as “yellow” and making jokes about their flag seems a bit….childish?
Newsflash: There is no evidence of ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq. U.S. President Bush already made a mockery of himself in an attempt to do so.
Is there a possibility that Spain pulled its troops out of Iraq so it could focus on stopping al-Qaeda?
Why? Because it was there. If you don’t like me sticking the knife in, you don’t have to read here. If you want to just argue about what is quite obviously a bit of political humour with a sharp edge to it, then feel free.
Actually Bush made jokes about not finding WMD. The current presence of al Qaeda in Iraq is rather irrefutable at this point in time, and there is a fairly strong case for it before the war. Hell, Saddam even had a government liaison assigned to coordinate with al Qaeda.
The al Qaeda hit, the al Qaeda threatened, and the Spanish ran for cover.
I give no respect where no respect is due.
Except, the Spanish didn’t run for cover. They rejected a government that they believed were lying to them.
If I understand your logic correctly, we can expect the current government to get kicked out at the next election if they can find one that is both truthful and has cojones.
It doesn’t make much difference which of us is right though. I think that I am but accept that I might not be. But perception is important. The proximity of a major al Qaeda attack to an election victory by a faction that withdrew troops makes the al Qaeda consider it a victory. Since it worked once… it puts every election in a Western democracy at risk. We can only hope that security in the US in November gets it right 100.00000% of the time. Even more at risk are countries in mainland europe.
The change in Spain could be the cause of many deaths elsewhere. You do not meet terrorism with accommodation. You meet it by killing them on their own turf.
Whether Spaniards have lost their cojones or not, the effect is the same as if they did.
BTW, opponents of the war in Iraq assert time and again that there was no connection whatsoever between islamic terror groups and SD’s regime. But surely, it made sense for western intelligence services to make a working assumption that Saddam, who was thirsting for revenge and who had a seriously weakened military, might try to use terror groups as some sort of proxy. He certainly supported terror groups against Israel, for instance.
Much is made of how Saddam was a “secular” leader and had no reason to get into bed with religious fanatics. Well, people with different motitvations have formed tactical alliances before, and Saddam was probably no exception.
Changing the subject, I’ll be going back to Spain for holidays rather than boycott it as some have done against the French. I love the place. I hope the new govt does not screw the economy up, which has been one of the best performers in the EU of late.
The reason why the Spanish electorate voted the PP out was that most of them were against the Iraq War that the PP supported. The 3/11 attacks made undecisive voters move for the socialists.
Despite being an educated electorate, the political viewpoint of 90% of the media is communist-socialist and they can very esily brainwash people (this is due to the disastrous management of it by the prior goverment).
Because of this media cockup, most of the people have strong prejudices against the US and specially Mr.Bush, and nobody believes that behind the war there could be any strategy at all. After browsing the Spanish newspapers I only found one article where the strategy is, more or less, explained, but it’s not enough to convince the Spaniards.
So my conclusion after having wathched and read the media, and talked to people (I am Spanish) is that they are for the most part, antiBush and antiAmerican because the media have told them so, and most of them don’t have access to other means of information and this has had a strong influence in the elections.
NEWS FLASH FROM DALE!
There is little doubt there has been a perceptual disconnect between the reports from the hotel bar in Baghdad and those of virtually everyone else on the scene. The difficulty for someone sitting a long distance away is to judge who really is the more accurate.
Lazarus Long, or more accurately his creator Robert Heinlein, said “If it can’t be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.”
Some months ago I decided to take a closer look at the relevant figures. I’ve been tracking the results on a day by day basis ever since. As it is now late April, I will shortly be publishing my results.
The graph is rather striking in its clarity. There are four phases visible. March and April are quite obviously the period of major combat. The second is May; combat deaths plummet to almost nothing while the accident rates skyrocket. The third period is one of minor combat. Accident rates fall drastically but combat deaths climb to a minor peak before tailing off slowly. At present the combat death rate is running an almost insignificant amount over the accident rate. Then we have the fourth rate, running from November 2003 through mid-April 2004. From a superficial viewpoint, this is somewhat different – but it is clear that, since the number of casualties has skyrocketed in recent weeks, the terrorists – who hate freedom and democracy – are in their death throes.
My interpretation of the graph is:
1. March and April are clearly the period of major combat.
2. May is a postcombat month. Remnants of the regime are dispersed and disorganized. There are a lot of dangerous ordinance laying about. Soldiers are tired, ease up slightly and have more accidents because of it.
3. June through October is a period of low intensity conflict. One can read the state of the opposing forces in the short-lived secondary peak followed by a long tail off. That tail-off is their journey into oblivion.
4. Since March this year, there has been an increase in the number of military casualties – a clear sign that the enemies of freedom in Iraq are singing their swan song and lashing out in a final desperate attempt to bring back the middle ages. The rattlesnakes, so to speak, are now rattling their final death rattle..
It will be interesting to see if the end comes with a bang or a whimper. One could imagine a last desperate and suicidal offensive by the remaining Saddamites. Alternatively, the remnants might just quit and go elsewhere. The most likely scenario – in my opinion – is an exponential tail-off in as the remnant forces are killed or captured, although a number may survive to continue in their swan songs and death-rattling for, say, the next 25 years or thereabouts.
Dale
I feel obliged to respectfully point out that you predicted a permanent decline in hostilities in June when the figures began to tail off and you also predicted that the spike in hostilities in November of last year would be the last significant action by anto-coalition forces.
I think I will just wait and see myself.
Eamon,
The ‘News Flash from Dale Amon’ (comment 10) is most likely a spoof — it seems that the text of a contribution Dale made in October last year has been reproduced with the ‘new bits’ in italics.
Fun to read, however. Dale had better delete it real fast.
alex says “Newsflash: There is no evidence of ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq. U.S. President Bush already made a mockery of himself in an attempt to do so” and I must disagree. The UN is being rocked with the investigation into the “oil for guns” result of the ‘oil for food’ program. There is substaiantial evidence that much of the ‘skimmed’ money was funneled through, if not directly TO al-Qaeda accounts.
Googling “oil for terror” brings up 2100 hits – not ALL linked to Claudia Rosett’s excellent National Review article (here)
it puts every election in a Western democracy at risk. We can only hope that security in the US in November gets it right 100.00000% of the time
If terrorists hit the US in the weeks or days leading up to the election, Bush would likely win in a landslide. There are so many people here in the US who, once punched, will want to fight back, at least in the short term. Eventually the good times roll and people forget what they were worked up about, are sick of presidential news conferences that interrupt American Idol or Friends, and just want it all to go away. But if the terrorists hit again hoping to stimulate a reaction like Spain, they will get the opposite. I can’t speak for other European countries though.
I seem to remember that, about a year ago, Dale Amon said that Iraq would be a “nice place to visit” in a year.
I advised Dale not to visit Iraq, but I do not know whether he has or not.
I agree that the Spanish socialists are evil scum, but sometimes being “Yellow” is sensible – I suspect that Dale has been “Yellow” about his trip to Iraq.
I do not support the various trash fighting the United States armed forces (and allied forces) in Iraq. As far as I can tell the various tribes (sorry “kin groups” to be P.C.) in Iraq have long been very nasty (the treatment of General Townsend’s troops in World War One is a case in point – clearly showing the cruelty and perverted practives of the locals) and, after all, not just the Royal family of Iraq, but the Prime Minister and others were murdered back in 1958.
The Prime Minister (who had been an Arab Nationalist all his life) has his penis cut off and was dragged naked behind his car through the streets – there were large crowds of people laughing and dancing with joy (more because they loved cruelity, rather than because they disliked the Prime Minister).
The Baathists (an Arab socialist movement originally founded in Syria) were very nasty – but their Communist opponents were just as nasty (they were also “in to” rape, mutilation and murder – and the Communists were more economically collectivist than the Baathists) and many of the various Islamic groups were (and are) very nasty also (as a study of the Shia revolt of the 1920’s shows).
The above being said, I am sure it is possible to find very nice people in Iraq – although whether these nice people are the majority is a difficult question (I do not trust opinion polls) – and besides, in Iraq (like many places) nice apolitical people get pushed about by various political types.
Still we are at war now, so saying the whole thing was a bad idea will do no good.
It would being in the middle of a Crusade, comming under attacked by hoards of Muslims, and saying “why are we here”. It is too late for that sort of question, (to run away now would mean total humilation) now is the time to cut down as many of the enemy as possible and hope for the best.
Newsflash: There is no evidence of ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq. U.S. President Bush already made a mockery of himself in an attempt to do so.
Is there a possibility that Spain pulled its troops out of Iraq so it could focus on stopping al-Qaeda?
Mmm-kay.
Suuuurrrrrrre….
Sigh
Is there a possibility that Spain pulled its troops out of Iraq so it could focus on stopping al-Qaeda?
A few questions:
Why can’t the Spanish government and security services, composed of tens of thousands of people, do more than one thing at a time? The comment implies that Spain can send a few hundred troops to Iraq, or “focus” (whatever that means) on AQ, but not both. I don’t get it.
Is there any evidence that Spain has changed its policies or activities against AQ since the Socialists took power? Has it gotten more aggressive? Less?
Is there any factual basis for believing that the withdrawal from Iraq coincides in any way with more pressure on AQ?
My comment should have read “like being in the middle of a Crusade” – I was not saying the war is a crusade (or anything like that), just that when you are in the middle of a war (indeed a battle) it is too late to say “why are we here”.
I am not surewhat the war is about – the last time I asked that question people started talking about September 11th although I do not think that it has been proved that the regime in Iraq was involved in that (certainly the British government holds that the regime was NOT involved).
I do not think it is a “war for oil” – as the regime in Iraq was quite happy to sell oil and there is no evidence that the war will make oil cheaper.
Still this is beside the point. The point is simple – the troops (American and other) must defend themselves by killing as many of the enemy as they can.
I have no intention of going to fight in Iraq (and I doubt Dale has any such intention), but for the armed forces of the United States to run away would be a national humilation – which would encourage the enemies of the United States everywhere.
It is like Suez in 1956 – to go in may well have been a mistake, but to pull out was also a mistake. The retreat led to a massive boost for all the enemies of Britain (indeed it could be argued that the humilation in Suez led directly to the revolution in Iraq in 1958).
Of course the United States and Britain should try and avoid “wars to spread democracy” in future – but that does not mean that our armed forces can run away from Iraq now.
A lot of men have died and (most likely) a lot of men are going to die – it is kill or be killed (as wars mostly are). Nonsense about how how the local population love troops from overseas and how there will be flowers and kisses are soon forgotten in the heat of battle in distant lands, but a soldier is soldier it is his business to kill the enemy (or be killed by them).
Although I hope another war like this (say against Syria or some other land) is never embarked upon again, the present war is upon us (one can not say “I would not start from here”).
Victory is not impossible.
A couple items before I go off to supper. Firstly, if someone wishes to quote a previous article of mine, they should not commit forgery. I have left the item intact but corrected the from to reflect that fact.
Note also that the last real line of the article, while it was not my favorite scenario a some 9 months ago, it is a pretty good match to what we are getting now. The enemy forces are going all out on a last chance effort to make things blow up.
And third of all, I really did explore going to Iraq as a consultant but none of the people I spoke to ever got back to me with anything substantive. One of those was, in fact, via one of our readers. Another was an unreturned call to a message I left at a DOD office. So no, I’m not afraid of the place, but I’d damn well want to be *well* armed and my trouble antennas would be out on full extension all the time. It’s rather unlikely at this point as my job calendar is looking fairly full through the fall.
You may have noticed I have not been posting much lately. The NSS conference is approaching and I am the overseer of the local conference committee; I’ve had a number of jobs running and in the last 4 months have been in London twice, did a NY-SF-NY trip; and next week I’m off on the road for over a month. NY-SF-NY-OKC-NY, and possibly DC and other places. (You’d think I’d be actually making a decent living from all that travel… sadly it works out as bare survival after expenses. But at least it is fun.)
Okay, so have at it. Nothing like a good fight. Just keep it clean, no hitting below the belt… and no forgeries please.
alex,
“Is there a possibility that Spain pulled its troops out of Iraq so it could focus on stopping al-Qaeda?”
Did the Spaniards say that this is what they are going to do ? That this is the purpose of their pullout? Or is that your guess ?
The yellow comment is a little bit unfair.
Jacob,
It was just a thought. It could be entirely false.
Wow. I didn’t mean to spark a huge debate. I thought the “yellow” joke was funny. 🙂
Everybody has an opinion as to why the Spanish electorate voted for this one instead of that one. And nobody can prove it. There is just little or no evidence to prove any of the assumptions and assertions above.
The PP was ahead before the blast. Then it lost. As if terrorism got the swing vote. And unfortunately, “as if” is what matters here. It does not matter what we think. It is what the terrorists think. Given miscellaneous reactions from al-Qaeda and others, they believe they scored a victory.
We can argue until the cows come home that Spain’s voters did not mean that. That is entirely irrelevant. As if you could pay off a kidnapper and expect to be left alone, as long as your stated motive for the payment was unrelated to the ransom. The outcome of the election, and Zapatero’s own appeasing, populist declarations – never mind the deal between his allies in Catalonia and ETA – cannot be interpreted by them as anything but a victory.
Does it matter that a majority of Spaniards did not mean to reward terrorism ? Not one bit. What matters is that this is exactly what it looks like to those who aimed to bring about such an outcome through violence and intimidation.
Does anyone believe it to be a pure coincidence that the sudden surge of terrorism and kidnappings in Iraq followed March 11 and the Spanish election ? I’m not so sure. Like it or not, Spain has set a precedent. One that extremists of all stripes are now keen to reproduce.
I cannot now find the link but a Spanish blogger claimed some very serious dirty work was perpetrated by Zapatero’s party.I do remember even the BBC reporter being shocked by the tactics,they were very quick off the mark.
I shall ferret about
It matters little what we think caused the Spanish to vote as they did (for the restoration of Al Andalus). What matters is what the barbarians think (sic) – and I’m pretty sure this one goes in the plus column from their point of view.
Anyone want to guess what the American electorate would do in a similar situation? I suspect they’d understand the message they’d be sending and vote against hanging civilisation out to dry…
I’m not judging by moral correctness, just stating the facts:
America was faced with an even worse situation — 9/11 was much worse than a train explosion — and reacted by sending the military out to hunt down and kill the culprit. Spain had an opposite reaction to terrorism, hence the reference to being “yellow.”
Alex, I am sure Spain is making every effort to “hunt down and kill the culprit”, too.
They just don’t believe the culprit lives in Iraq, and their evidence to date supports that belief.
Incidentally, the US reaction to 9/11 was fairly well targetted, I think. The Taliban were identified – partly out of their own mouths – as a major supporter (perhaps the principal one) of Al Quaeda and the US and allied action against that regime was measured, appropriate, successful – and still looks like a worthwhile thing with some measure of hindsight.
Iraq is so different to all of that, I just don’t know where to start….
So I won’t.
How is it “forgery” to mention what I remember you to have said?
Or are you saying that you did not claim that Iraq would be a nice place to visit about now? I do not remember exactly when you said what you said – so perhaps the year has a some time to run, but that is unlikely to make much difference.
Perhaps if you get some time off from accusing people of crimes (what the hell am I supposed to have “forged”?) you will check back in your memory for the sort of things you having been saying.
That being said, I must admit that I am uncomfortable with writing about warfare as I have no combat record (a shit like me really has no business in telling other men how they should fight).