So I had to run a couple of errands (some beans from Peets and some more effective cough suppressant) which mean listening to some news on the radio. I caught some of “To the point” and was able to hear some commentary on the recent Spanish election. The central argument seems to be that by voting out the Aznar regime, with it’s sympathies to the Bush Doctrine and commitment to troops in Iraq, the people of Spain have essentially voted for terrorists and any regime that is less than firm with them.
As I see it, the Spanish electorate were 90% opposed to committing troops to the Iraq misadventure, even before the bombings in Madrid. If anything, the horrific attacks just hardened their resolve to throw out the Aznar regime.
What another commentator pointed out was the Madrid bombing must not be seen in isolation, but as part of a pattern or attacks against the coalition. There were attacks on synagogues and a British embssy in Istanbul, there have been prior attacks and one assassination against Spanish personnel: this was not a one-off.
The idea that this is appeasement is nonsense: I’m reminded that Spanish authorities have a good deal more experience dealing with terrorism than the armchair generals do. If by throwing their lot in with a misguided crusade (Bush’s word, not mine) has made them targets of another terror campaign (they already have ETA to deal with), can anyone blame them for wanting to get out of that? These self-styled experts could do with a little familiarity with the geography had history of the region before deciding how much of someone else’s blood they want to spill.
And as noted, the Bush administration’s handling of foreign policy is affecting national elections around the world:
TAP: Web Feature: Allies Axed. by Tara McKelvey. March 17, 2004.:
Does being closely associated with the Bush administration mean you can lose an election?
This is the third election of a major ally in which the party running against George Bush won. Look at Germany in ’02, South Korea in ’03, and now Spain. The message is: If you want to get re-elected, don’t go to Crawford. Bush is a political liability — in Europe, in particular. His foreign policy has trampled on the European views and it’s now resulting in the election of governments that do not support his approach.
Note the phrase “running against George Bush.” Assuming he isn’t returned to office in 2004 (and I cherish the thought of two one-term Bush presidents at their family Thanksgiving dinner), what kind of mess does he leave for the next president? How long will it take to mend those fences and convince people around the world that the United States is a citizen of the world, not the ruler of it?