| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Washington Post: "the next U.S. administration . . . may have no alternative to unilateralism" |
| 2004-03-16 |
| Today’s lead editorial. EFL SPANISH VOTERS no doubt wished to rebuke the ruling Popular Party for its wrong-footed reaction to last week’s terrorist bombing in Madrid, and its support for the United States in Iraq. Fair enough -- but it’s hard not to be concerned about how the message was likely received outside the country, by the leaders of al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organizations. Before the bombing, the Popular Party was favored to win comfortably; after the devastating attack, and an al Qaeda statement saying its intent was to punish Spain for its role in Iraq, the election was swept by the opposition -- and its leader immediately pledged to withdraw Spanish troops and cool relations with Washington. The rash response by Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain’s prime minister-elect, will probably convince the extremists that their attempt to sway Spanish policy with mass murder succeeded brilliantly. . . . Mr. Zapatero could not be expected to alter his view that the original decision to invade Iraq was wrong. But the reaction of Spain, and Europe, to this massive and shocking attack on its soil is crucial -- as is its response to the continuing challenge in Iraq. The two are inextricably linked: Whatever the prewar situation, al Qaeda’s tactics now have made explicit the connection between the continuing fight in Iraq and the overall war on terrorism. Mr. Zapatero said his first priority would be to fight terrorism. Yet rather than declare that the terrorists would not achieve their stated aim in slaughtering 200 Spanish civilians, he reiterated his intention to pull out from Iraq in less equivocal terms than before the election. The incoming prime minister declared the Iraq occupation "a disaster" -- yet he didn’t explain how withdrawing troops would improve the situation. Spain’s participation on the ground in Iraq is small, but a Spanish withdrawal will make it harder for other nations, such as Poland and Italy, to stay the course. The danger is that Europe’s reaction to a war that has now reached its soil will be retreat and appeasement rather than strengthened resolve. "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," European Commission President Romano Prodi said yesterday. Should such sentiments prevail, the next U.S. administration -- whether led by President Bush or Sen. John F. Kerry -- may have no alternative to unilateralism. This analysis is spot-on. The Post is a liberal establishment newspaper, but unlike the New York Times, is no so wholeheartedly committed to the partisan liberal agenda that it ignores reality. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #15 Well, that's 1300 less we have to send to the Olympics You must be a troll. It is a relgionus duty for wars to stop during the Olympic Games. I mean of course Imperial Wars... it's still Okay to kill Yids. Aris yawl upped your creamtory capacity yet? (I like to b early on my critics.) |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-3-16 6:09:39 PM |
| #14 Well, that's 1300 less we have to send to the Olympics. Maybe all those who pull out should be sent to the Olympics. Maybe Europe should handle that as a test case? |
| Posted by: Anonymous2U 2004-3-16 5:57:04 PM |
| #13 Tibor, no. Zapatero has announced he will withdraw Spanish support in Afghanistan as well as Iraq - NATO nothwithstanding. Zapatero will also join Chirac and Schroeder in pushing the EU consitution and probably defense force as well. |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-3-16 5:47:54 PM |
| #12 Tibor, no. Zapatero has announced he will withdraw Spanish support in Afghanistan as well as Iraq - NATO nothwithstanding. Zapatero will also join Chirac and Schroeder in pushing the EU consitution and probably defense force as well. |
| Posted by: rkb 2004-3-16 5:46:46 PM |
| #11 "Hmmm...I can only guess that this reporter will soon be fired" except its an editorial. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-3-16 2:56:44 PM |
| #10 Nope, .com, I'm with LH on this one: I read WaPo online regularly and it has gotten the message from about 9/12 on. They're still committed to our Zeropean allies, but they do seem to understand that we're in a war and not in a police investigation. It'll be interesting to see who they endorse in the fall. I wouldn't rule out GWB. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2004-3-16 2:56:38 PM |
| #9 I just posted this in "The Beat Goes On" thread. Any takers on the chances of Spain doing this?: I had a thought for Zapatero (wasn't he the youngest Marx Brother?) -- since you are so convinced that fighting in Iraq is not part of the WoT and want to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, and since you have promised to fight the WoT strenuously (especially against al Qaeda), why don't the 1300 troops you are withdrawing from Iraq get sent immediately to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border to help the US and Pakistan nail bin Laden, Zawahiri and Mullah Omar? That would reassure a lot of Americans and Brits and Poles and Aussies (who are doing the heavy lifting in the WoT) that you Spaniards aren't pussies after all, you just wanted to refocus your efforts.* * It should go without saying that I believe those in the Spanish military to be anything but pussies. It's just the incoming Socialist government and the 43+% of the population that just bent over for al Qaeda and didn't even ask to be taken to dinner first. |
| Posted by: Tibor 2004-3-16 2:35:08 PM |
| #8 I actually registered at the Wapo to read the article. Hmmm...I can only guess that this reporter will soon be fired. |
| Posted by: B 2004-3-16 2:26:05 PM |
| #7 Wow. Adults at WaPo -- whoda thunk? |
| Posted by: someone 2004-3-16 1:52:46 PM |
| #6 I have noticed the Post's increasingly intelligent slant for some time. They represent the AMERICAN liberal position whereas the NY Times, in spite of being at ground zero, has become the voice of the Transnational Progressives. I'll still keep my subscription to the WSJ but it is good to see the WaPo get out of lockstep with the NYT |
| Posted by: Mr. Davis 2004-3-16 1:05:55 PM |
| #5 Prolly true that it's a matter of how it's described: half full / half empty. I keep seeing enough of the sneering stuff that I can't help but wonder if they're worried they'll lose their Press Credentials... The Jason (Jayson?) Blair interviews I'm seeing paint one hell of an interesting picture of the Salzburger / Raines / Boyd cabal at the NYT. I realize he's a serial liar and promoting a book, but there are alternative sources saying much the same... I've just reached the end of my rope, I guess, regards the overt bias, enmity with the current admin, and the incredible disdain, condescension, and disrespect for the public shown by establishment press. Sigh. Sorry - no offense intended. :-) |
| Posted by: .com 2004-3-16 12:59:05 PM |
| #4 i guess our perspectives are different .com. A Wapo Editiorial that says we are right to be in Iraq, but snips at Bush for something or other, is still "with the program in my book" half the time the snips are right. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-3-16 12:41:44 PM |
| #3 LH - you are just too kind. This is the first WaPo article I've read in months that gets it - without a shitload of waffling and/or backhanded bullshit. It has gotten so bad that I had quit looking at WaPo as a posting source. 8-[ |
| Posted by: .com 2004-3-16 12:32:45 PM |
| #2 actually the WaPo has been with the program since 9/11. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-3-16 12:25:48 PM |
| #1 This Post is getting with the program. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2004-3-16 12:21:06 PM |