Spanish Troops Exit Iraq? - Analysis of Zapatero's Proposal

[FZ+]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-1038946,00.html

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero told Cadena Ser radio that the 1,300 troops sent to Iraq would "evidently" be withdrawn if there had been no developments by June 30, the date that theAmerican authorities want to begin handing power over to a provisional Iraqi government.

Here's the thing - what Senor Zapatero proposes is to withdraw Spanish troops in the case where they would in fact be most needed, if the US plan to hand over power falls through. IMHO, this is a case of very blinkered policy making...

Any thoughts?

 

[member 5645]

My thoughts are that these election results are a score for terrorist. They accompolished exactly what they wanted.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by phatmonky
My thoughts are that these election results are a score for terrorist. They accompolished exactly what they wanted.

Like the erosion of civil liberties in the US, post 9/11?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Nereid
Like the erosion of civil liberties in the US, post 9/11?

To a point, yes. No country should bend to terrorism. After 9/11 I found most heartening to hear people say "I'm going to keep living my life just as I would". In spain, this should have been the mantra. If the existing government were going to get voted out anyways, that would be one thing, but the spanish people made a knee-jerk reaction in response to terrorism. The terrorist won in this case.

 

[kat]

I think it's a very short sighted policy. Many countries have learned decades ago that appeasement doesn't work when your dealing with fanatics. It would seem that this particular political party has forgotten those lessons OR don't feel that they apply to them. The email, if it's been found to be legit did not just refer to Iraq, it also referred to Spains past history which would seem a reference to destruction of muslim rule there.
Of course, I also think that rulers have an obligation to carry through on their countries obligations. This is something, whether you agree or disagree with the origional order, Spain obligated itself to see through. Good governance demands completing something you've begun and although I believe it's somewhat of a token force, it does allow Spain input into how Iraq is developing. I would think that in the end that would be a positive thing for their country.

 

[Zero]

It makes perfect sense...are those 1300 troops anything besides political?

 

[Nereid]

Here's how I heard it:
- Spanish troops will be withdrawn from Iraq at the end of June, at the end of their committed period
- the Spanish voters punished Aznar for a) his unpopular decision to send troops to Iraq in the first place, and b) blaming ETA for the train attack when his security people either had doubts or already knew it wasn't
- Saddam did NOT support UBL! I thought this lie had been put to bed long ago; quite a few countries have supported the efforts to hunt UBL in Afghanistan (for example) without supporting the US invasion of Iraq
- it would only be 'giving into the terrorists' if the terrorists' aims were well known; IIRC, UBL's aims are vastly broader than just 'Spanish troops out of Iraq'

 

[Kalimaa23]

The main issue with the Spanish troops is that 90% of the Spanish people opposed sending them to Iraq in the first place. With those kind of numbers, what self-respecting democratic governement would keep them there?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Dimitri Terryn
The main issue with the Spanish troops is that 90% of the Spanish people opposed sending them to Iraq in the first place. With those kind of numbers, what self-respecting democratic governement would keep them there?

It wasn't enough of an issue to oust the current party before the bombings. This was all a knee jerk reaction. :(

 

[Njorl]

Everything I heard about those elections indicated Aznar was doomed even before the bombings.

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Njorl
Everything I heard about those elections indicated Aznar was doomed even before the bombings.

Njorl

I don't know where you get your news...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3512248.stm

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by phatmonky
I don't know where you get your news...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3512248.stm

I hadn't paid much attention to it. Evidently, while his Iraq policy was unpopular, his economic success had more than made up for it.

I think I heard it from some yelling pundit. I feel so... so... betrayed! How could a pundit have been wrong??

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Njorl
I hadn't paid much attention to it. Evidently, while his Iraq policy was unpopular, his economic success had more than made up for it.

I think I heard it from some yelling pundit. I feel so... so... betrayed! How could a pundit have been wrong??

Njorl

hehehe.
See, that's my point. Iraq was a big mistake, but up until the bombing, the center-right party was favored in all polls by an easy 10%. Then the bombings happen and people jump 20% in the opposite direction. I just really think this sets a horrible precident.

 

[Monique]

Actually, in the regions hit hardest by the bombings, 10% more voters showed up at the booth, most of them voting for the socialist party. So yes, it definitely had an impact, but is it really all that bad?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Monique
Actually, in the regions hit hardest by the bombings, 10% more voters showed up at the booth, most of them voting for the socialist party. So yes, it definitely had an impact, but is it really all that bad?

It is most certainly that bad. It is a clear indication that terrorist attacks will work, atleast in Spain. The people can't say that this is over Iraq, or they would have been looking to vote out the center-right party in the first place. This bombing was timed to intrude on spain's democratic process, and it gained the desired result. I just hope this doesn't show ETA that the new government will bend to their bombings as well.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by phatmonky
It is most certainly that bad. It is a clear indication that terrorist attacks will work, atleast in Spain. The people can't say that this is over Iraq, or they would have been looking to vote out the center-right party in the first place. This bombing was timed to intrude on spain's democratic process, and it gained the desired result. I just hope this doesn't show ETA that the new government will bend to their bombings as well.

With respect, it's too soon to say how much of a 'victory' this is for UBL et al, even assuming we could divine their specific aims.

For example, if, partly as a result of this atrocity, Spain works with the rest of the EU to develop a plan whose implementation results in the comprehensive defeat of UBL, the complete isolation of this brand of ideology within the Muslim world, etc, then the fact that Spain has left the US-lead 'coalition' will be seen as a very positive thing.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Obviously the Spanish public doesn't believe the Popular Party is adequately protecting them from terrorism, and they have a good reason. Plus 90% don't want to be in Iraq. Plus unemployment is quite high.

Looks like good reasons for a new government to me.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Obviously the Spanish public doesn't believe the Popular Party is adequately protecting them from terrorism, and they have a good reason. Plus 90% don't want to be in Iraq. Plus unemployment is quite high.

Looks like good reasons for a new government to me.

none of that was enough to convince the public until the bombings. Then knee jerk away!

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by phatmonky
none of that was enough to convince the public until the bombings. Then knee jerk away!

Or, before the train bombing, the people believed the Aznar team when they said they were winning the war on terrorism, were delivering public safety, (and whatever else the PP were saying ... maybe a PF member can fill us in?), and then came an event which showed, unambiguously, that they were NOT delivering on their rhetoric.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Plus the PP tried to spin the atrocity on the eve of the election. And as usual with parties in power that try to spin things important to the people, it backfired. The people are not mocked.

There's another dimension to the vote. There was a big turnout. Something way over 70% of those eligible voted. And the socialists had a majority among "all voters", they just hadn't been able to turn it into votes. The atrocity did that for them.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by phatmonky
none of that was enough to convince the public until the bombings. Then knee jerk away!

Well, if you believe election polls are always accurate, then sure. But the Spaniards disagree with you. All this talk about how the Spanish let the terrorists win seems an awful lot of sour grapes.

 

[Nereid]

phatmonky,

How do you imagine things look, from the point of view of Jesus and Maria ('normal' Spanish citizens)?

Describe, as best you can, why voting against the Aznar successor team would seem irrational/caving into UBL terrorists (or even ETA ones)/weak/etc to them. Please DON'T project your own perspectives onto them (as far as you can).

Nereid

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Well, if you believe election polls are always accurate, then sure. But the Spaniards disagree with you. All this talk about how the Spanish let the terrorists win seems an awful lot of sour grapes.

be sure to catch the next BBC. Maybe they'll do all the interviews again showing the people who said they were going to vote for the PP beforehand. Go read the 'have your say' on their website. IT's full of them saying that they changed their mind because of the bombings.
You can interpret things however you like, but don't deny the facts. The facts are the people fully admit they changed their vote because of them.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Nereid
phatmonky,

How do you imagine things look, from the point of view of Jesus and Maria ('normal' Spanish citizens)?
Describe, as best you can, why voting against the Aznar successor team would seem irrational/caving into UBL terrorists (or even ETA ones)/weak/etc to them. Please DON'T project your own perspectives onto them (as far as you can).

Nereid

I'm fully aware what they were thinking(I have already talked to them all over online). In not so eliquent terms "****, we better vote for someone else or the terrorist might bomb us again".
I don't fault those who woudl have voted for the socialist anyways. I don't fault the socialist for following through on their on party's platform. I fault those that in the wake of a bombing (in which the bomber even references wanting back Spain under muslim control) think that appeasement will work, that this will be an end to the bombings. Spain will be attacked again, and in the meantime al queda will be gloating and enjoying watching as spain drops a hardline approach against those that have admitted to wanting their destruction (or atleast their conquering)

 

[Zero]

90% of the Spanish population was already against the war, and the politicians who supported it. The vote would have likely had the same outcome either way.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
90% of the Spanish population was already against the war, and the politicians who supported it. The vote would have likely had the same outcome either way.

It seems to me there was an earlier election in Spain after we attacked...and during that election they overwhelmingly voted for the PP. I vaguely remember discussing this with maria and a few friends from Madrid. It was interesting at the time that such a large percentage of the populace was against the war and yet it did not seem to effect there vote...anyone else remember this?