Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

firstthought

A treat to see you!

Are you sure? What outcome was expected? The last time I called my aunt in Barcelona, which was before the attack, she said the outgoing administration was pretty unpopular , and that their stand on Iraq played a big role in it. So a defeat for the conservatives wouldn't have come as a big surprise to my aunt at this point. But I admit I haven't read any Spanish polls on this, and it appears that you have. If so, would you mind quoting the predictions for me?

Between 80 and 90% of the Spanish electorate was opposed to the Iraq War, and this level of opposition held going all the way back to before the war began.

Aznar and the conservatives were bound to lose.

"Tha terrists" can lay claim to a successful strike on a symbolic date -- 3/11, 911 days since 9/11/01 -- but giving them credit for influencing the Spanish election? Please.

By this rather warped thinking, a strike in the US would influence the electorate to vote for Kerry (which of course goes against the grain of conventional wisdom).

I don't think Bush wants that to happen...

While we're at it, let me ask you a hypothetical question, Scrat --

Please assume, just for the sake of the argument, that Bush's, Blair's and Aznar's way to fight the war on terrorism is mistaken and that a different approach is needed. What evidence, if any, would it take to convince you of it? If I interpret your posts correctly, you think the trio is vindicated if the terrorists stop bombing. In this case, their approach has succeded, so you need to keep pursuing it. But if the terrorists resume bombing, you think that means "the coalition of the willing" mustn't change its course because that would reaffirm the terrorists. It looks as if you think that whatever the terrorists do, we need to stay the course that was set by Bush, Blair, and Aznar.

So what terrorist behavior would convince you that the course is wrong and needs to be changed? I don't see any left, so I'm confused here.

Thomas - You are a smart man. I think you understand my arguments about raising the perceived opportunity cost of terrorism, and lowering the perceived opportunity cost of legitimate methods of redress. I think you understand that people who are trying to further their goals will abandon methods that prove to work against their desired ends and choose other methods.

If terrorists think they have any chance of achieving their goals through terror, they will continue to see it as a valuable tool and will continue to use it. If they learn that it will NEVER work for them, they will abandon it, unless they simply enjoy blowing people up. In either case, we must avoid even the appearance of catering to their desires or demands, or we give them reason to continue to use terror as a tool.

Do I interpret your response correctly?

a) You don't actually know what outcome of the Spanish election was expected before the bombing, so had no basis for saying that "the election went decidedly different than expected".

b) You can't name any evidence whatsoever, at least no evidence from observed terrorist behavior, which could possibly change your mind about America's way of fighting the war on terrorism. Evidence which would convince you that America's current strategy against terrorism is mistaken and needs to be changed.

Sorry for being a pain in the arm, but I do notice you haven't answered any of my questions.

Thomas - I wasn't under the impression that I had an obligation to answer any of your questions. Frankly, I thought my response was far more useful in clarifying my point, and I responded as I felt moved to do. (Of course, since you likewise choose not to address my comments directly, it's a bit disingenuous of you to complain that I do it.) :wink:

Um, no, you don't interpret me correctly, and seem to be trying to make it appear that I've written things I didn't. (Shame on you!) :wink:

There are reams of news reports stating that polling suggested the incumbent had a strong lead before the Madrid bombing. If you insist, I can take time to find a specific news report, but must I? You're well enough informed to know this too.

Can I name evidence that our strategy against terror is flawed? Hmmm... I see the rabbit hole I've dug myself on that one, and admit it is deep and poorly lit. The best answer I can give you is that I believe the strategy I support--simultaneously make it very expensive to engage in terror whilst finding ways to lower the perceived cost or raise the perceived value of other, legitimate avenues of political redress--is based on an awareness of the history of humankind and a reasonable understanding of human behavior and cause and effect. (You might as well ask me whether I can think of any evidence that we should eschew the punishment of criminal behavior in general. I can't. I think we must punish crime in order to make it less appealing as an economic choice, and I think we must punish terrorism to make it less appealing as a political tool.)

Of course, another way I could come at your question would be to answer that if terrorism rises anywhere, it means our implementation needs to be modified. In other words, the strategy of punishing terror isn't revisited, but we need to look at whether we are doing that well.

Of course, I fully expect terrorists to attempt to exploit the opening offered by the "the war on terror is causing more terror" crowd. Were I a terrorist, I would put everything I had into more bombings right now, while working the media to build on the notion that the war on terror is responsible for terrorism, rather than terrorists themselves.

When Kissinger was asked to come up with a solution to the problem of hostage taking, he offered as a solution a policy whereby the US would have completely devalued the taking of hostages by doing nothing to win their freedom. Under Kissinger's draconian plan, we would not bargain for hostages or even attempt their rescue. Clearly this wasn't a plan the US could implement (we lack the will for such things), but it was a logical, rational plan. If taking hostages garnered you NOTHING, who would take hostages?

Of course, terrorism hits too many people and causes too much harm to just ignore it until it goes away, but that's the goal of the war on terror, as I see it. When terrorists believe that terror will gain them nothing, they will choose other tools to speak politically. The more people clamor about the "root causes" of terror, the more terrorists hear that their methods still work.

Lastly, I don't know that the new Spanish PM did anything differently because of the Madrid bombing. I don't know that Spanish voters acted differently because of it either. What I do believe, however, is that enough people around the globe are making the connection in their minds, that terrorists will seize it as an opportunity and capitalize on it.

Expect another bombing in Europe, likely within weeks and probably in France. (I will be very happy to be wrong about this last bit!)

Actually Scrat, this is a misunderstanding about human motivation. It's long been known, and has been supported by psychological research since the early 60s, that intermittent reinforcement will serve to increase motivation. Only if reinforcement is NEVER perceived to be forthcoming will it result in a cessation of an activity. The terrorists are like all human beings in this respect. They can find reinforcement for their behaviors regardless of the facts or what appear to be the facts to others.

If everyone ignored the terrorists, that would be a lack of reinforcement, or would seem to be.....however this is impossible since their behavior requires some notice. So that a lack of attention could also be interpreted to those who wish to do so as a reinforcement.

It's the same argument for punishment. It's fallacious. Take the idea that capital punishment will stop murders. If this were so, it seems it would have done so by now. But people still murder others. The results do not support the theory. But many people persist in believing it.

We can't be ruled by what we want the terrorists to think. We have to try to respond in a responsible and effective way. Working together with others is something we can do to combat terrorism of all kinds. But it seems it's hard to do.

By the way, something pretty major just got blown up in Baghdad. It's on the news right now.

You hadn't, but I appreciate your trying in this post anyway. Thanks!


As my favorite radio station, Deutschlandfunk, reported during the campaign but before the bombing, the race was open. As my aunt told me, Aznar was unpopular. I have as little motivation to wade through Spanish websites to dig out evidence as you do; let's just say it's an open question whether the election really turned out dramatically different than expected.


That was not my question -- not sure if you misunderstood it, or if I misunderstood your answer. What I was trying to find out is whether your opinion on that topic can be influenced by evidence in any way, or whether you are as evidence-resistent on the WOT as our fellow member Wolf was on global warming. (Okay, now I'm insulting you. sorry. ) That's why I'm asking what evidence it would take to change your mind.

Finally, I did understand your point about increasing the opportunity costs of terrorism, and I agree with it. I just don't see how the war on Iraq increased the opportunity costs of terrorism.

Well, they will either learn or they will die. Either way we will be safer as a result. If you can't see that Clinton's failure to respond led to more and more heinous attacks on US targets, then I can understand your disagreement with bringing the fight back to the terrorists.

It seems to me that the "why do they hate us" crowd hasn't thought their position through. Here's why I think theirs is a flawed position that leads us nowhere (at least nowhere we want to go).

Suggest ANY foreign policy that the US could espouse and I can find you someone, somewhere who will be unhappy about it. If tomorrow the US announced that it was going to sit down with terrorists around the world and find out what they want us to change and would change every single thing they don't like, how long would it be before someone else would be unhappy with the changes and decide to use terrorism to get their way with us too?

Can you see my point? Trying to quell terrorism by appeasement is a non-starter. It can't be done. The best you might achieve is to create a bit more turnover in the ranks of terrorists. Oh, and of course you'd create an incentive for more people to turn to terror since you'd have officially acknowledged that one way to get you to change your policies is through terror.

I say we do everything we can to make turning to terror unattractive, and at the same time find ways to make legitimate tools more attractive. (The current war on terror seems to be focused on the first half of my plan. I'd like to see them make some visible moves on the second half as well.)

What I find particularly exasperating is the attitude of those who have so deeply accepted the "my country/president wrong or right" attitude. For these people, everything seems to be an example of US "victory." If an attack occurs, its because we are "winning." If there are no attacks, its because we are "winning." One wonders if this is gullibility in the face of popular press, or simply stupidity?

My point exactly -- thanks for saying it much better than I did, hobitbob!

hobitbob = Thomas' (and Walter's :wink: ) Scott McClellan

The false sense of security that comes with a belief in the power of punishment or non-reinforcement is very seductive indeed, Scrat. I can understand why so many want to hold on to it. However, it seems clear to me that it is, in fact, a false security/hope. Absolute control is a neurotic idea. The best we can hope for is influence. The question comes down to what is the most effective way to influence.

I don't know of anyone who wants to appease the terrorists or to give them everything they want. Only an idiot or a very young and inexperienced person would think that would be possible, much less productive. So I don't know why you believe that is what anyone, including Clinton, wants to do. The question, it seems to me, is how best to garner support for our cause. Pissing off our potential allies and ignoring their opinions seems to be a bad way to go. Besides, when there's this much resistance from otherwise reasonable people/nations, it is a good idea to try to understand their point of view. We need a real coalition, not a PR one.

Yesterday you said the following:


But last night Wolfowitz (don't know how to spell his name, sorry) said it was 35 plus the US and Iraq, which adds up to 37. Rove with his PR stuff is big on numbers. Like 37 or 45 would mean anything without knowing which nations those are and how much influence/independence they have. We need to work with our allies, those who can help us make a difference and stop depending on beliefs in the value of punishment to control crime. We need, in other words to be smart and stop spinning our wheels which is the only thing the Bush administration seems to be able to do.

Lola - I got my number for the strength of the coalition from the Wikipedia. They note that the number varies when you make delineations as to "how involved" a member is, but they placed the range between 45 and 49 nations. I chose the lower number of their range.

If their number is wrong, it doesn't change the fact that any number greater than 1 does not equal 1. :wink:

Here's a list provided by the White House one year ago on the "coalition of the willing."
Forty-six countries are publicly committed to the Coalition, including:

Afghanistan
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Turkey
Uganda
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

I think most on the list are in name only. They don't have "anything" to contribute in the way of military or money.

Here is the list, as presented by the White House. It has 48 items on it. How influential these countries are, and whether they are more credible stewards of democracy than the UN, are questions everyone is welcome to decide for themselves.

Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech public, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan

Congratulations, CI, you beat me!

But, they were willing to take payments to be part of the "coalition." This says a lot about the actual validity of the "but there is an international coalition with us" argument.