EU and US perceptions differ
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 03-18-2004 - 10:54am |
<
In the hawks' view, opting out of one war means opting out of both - a notion that accords very well with their "you're either with us or you're against us" political philosophy.
But the Spanish electorate, like much of the rest of the world, clearly did not see it that way. "In this country , Iraq and terrorism are indelibly linked in the public mind," said Charles Kupchan, a foreign-policy specialist at the Council on Foreign Relations. "In Europe, they are almost indelibly separated.
"Indeed, there's a general sense in Europe that the war in Iraq has certainly not advanced the struggle against terror and probably degraded it," he added, noting Tuesday's release by the Pew Global Attitudes Project of surveys in eight European and Arab countries that showed strong majorities who concur on that assessment (see US foreign policy is popular - in the US, March 18).
Juan Cole, a Middle East specialist at the University of Michigan, asserted that, by mixing Iraq with al-Qaeda, the neo-conservatives in particular had made a strategic error in the "war against terrorism" that is now coming home to roost.
"Aznar, in supporting Bush on the war against Iraq, was not standing up to al-Qaeda," Cole wrote, noting that the former prime minister's decision to deploy troops and spend financial and intelligence resources in Iraq meant those same assets could not be used against al-Qaeda, even when it was clear from last May's attack on a Spanish cultural center in Casablanca that Islamist terrorists had Spain in their sights.
"How much did Spain spend to go after the culprits in Casablanca?" asked Cole. "How much did Bush dedicate to that effort? How much did they instead invest in military efforts in Iraq?" In that respect, Zapatero's pledge to refocus the war against al-Qaeda can hardly be called a "victory for bin Laden", said Cole.
But aside from this rather fundamental disagreement over whether Iraq is or is not part of the "war against terrorism", the eagerness with which the hawks have taken to comparing the Spanish electorate's verdict to the 1938 Munich agreement also betrays a basic distrust of democracy, about which the neo-cons have long been ambivalent.
In their view, it was liberal democracies that appeased Hitler in the 1930s and so paved the way to World War II and the Nazi Holocaust. Indeed, the perception that "liberals" failed to fight for their principles in the 1960s is what first alienated neo-conservatives from the Democratic Party.
The neo-cons' perception that Spaniards voted for the Socialists out of fear of al-Qaeda's wrath confirms to them that democracy, particularly of the European variety, is weak.
"Now all European politicians will know that if they side with America on controversial security threats, and terrorists strike their nation, they might be blamed by their own voters," wrote Brooks, who argued that US voters would, in a comparable situation, rally around their president. "Does anyone doubt that Americans and Europeans have different moral and political cultures?" he added.
But this contention ignores the growing weight of political opinion that the main reason for the last-minute swing to the Socialists was public outrage with the Aznar government's attempts to withhold and manipulate what it knew about the perpetrators for its own political advantage, as well as citizens' opposition to the Iraq war. Such attitudes were reported by journalists after the election in Madrid.
"In interviews," the New York Times reported, "they said they not so much out of fear of terror as out of anger against a government they saw as increasingly authoritarian, arrogant and stubborn."
That lesson might cut a little too close to the bone for the hawks who led the drive to war in Iraq. "

You also have to know that Jim Lobe is about as Euroleft as they come and has made his living for the last 3 years providing fanciful reading material for the Bush haters to sink their fangs into.
Renee
It was obvious from his article that his position is very left of center, however, in this case his article was for the Asia Times, not the "American Bush-haters". Neither of these comments gets to the point I was making--which is that perhaps Europeans see the Iraqi war as separate from the war on terrorism.
>" "In this country , Iraq and terrorism are indelibly linked in the public mind," "<
I don't agree entirely with this statement. Bush & his cohorts have led the public to believe this is the case. Many don't buy
According to polls, eventhough most Spaniards disagreed with the Popular Party's support of Iraq, they were still up in the polls 5% until the bombing. It made terrorism & Iraq a voting issue.
Renee
>"still up in the polls 5% until the bombing"<
I haven't read this anywhere, not that I doubt your word.
Edited 3/18/2004 5:23 pm ET ET by cl-libraone
I wasn't referring to American Bush-haters specifically. Some of the most virulent ones can be found outside our boarders and even reading the Asian Times which has been know to publish things I don't even think the Village Voice would touch. Besides Jim Lobe, they have other far left socialist types writing for them. Pepe something-or-other is one who comes to mind. He is even wackier than Jim Lobe.
Some Europeans do see the WOT separate from Iraq. Also, at least prior to the Madrid bombing, a majority of Europeans also thought that the US was exagerating the risk of terrorism. Many also think that as long as Europe minds it's own business, it won't be targetted. I've been reading quite a bit of European commentary, so I guess I don't find this a big revelation.
Renee
I image that the Iraq war was pretty low on most people's lists at that time and the Popular Party had high marks for the economy & law & order type issues.
Renee
I am happy to hear that you recognize Bush's unpopularity outside US boarders. The point that needs to be made is that the WOT and the Iraqi war are linked only in the minds of Bush supporters. Doesn't this strike you as strange? I have always taken bias into consideration when reading something--I look for different perspectives. So pointing out how biased a source is really isn't necessary.