Elections in Spain

obtained by cnn? yah right, didnt they think it might have been a good idea to actually mention this sometime before an attack happened?

"It is not grave that a party loses some elections. What is serious is that a nation loses its dignity " - Iñaki Ezquerra


And the last article:

by George de Poor Handlery


There are three consequences of al Qaeda’s successful intervention in the Spanish political process.


Spain has voted. The country has removed its conservative governing party (the Popular Party) in favor of the Socialists. Some aspects of this decision would hardly warrant a commentary, as quite a bit about the result is “standard.”

When the Popular Party was elected four years ago the electorate did so because it experienced in practice that Socialism works better in the realm of promises than in real life. The global downturn, and the slow upturn -- neither of which was caused by the governments of the industrialized world -- had a lot to do with the weakening of the conservatives. In the face of trends governments can mitigate or worsen the effect of crisis: avoiding them is not an option. Premier Aznar’s government moderated the crisis, and by facilitating the adjustment to the new phase of the industrial revolution, the process had a chance of being shortened. Germany’s reigning Social Democrats worsened the adjustment process and are unlikely to survive the next election. For months, there has bee an upturn; however, the effects have yet to impact on the typically lagging consciousness of the man-in-the-street. This made the race between the PP and the SPOE in Spain into a toss up.

Then came 3-11, Madrid’s version of 9-11. As this is being written, the lion’s share of the evidence points to al Qaeda as the perpetrator of an attack that cost the lives of over two hundred commuters. This mass assassination has, as we can tell now, changed everything regarding the election. From the Jihadists’ point of view, not unexpectedly. According to their own statements they timed their attack on the “crusaders” with the election in mind. This reveals that the Islamist attack intended to influence the election results. Indeed, the victory of the Socialists demonstrates that the authoritarian terrorists had a good understanding how free societies function and made superb use of their insights.

Why did al Qaeda want the Socialists to win? The Conservatives had made Spain one of the few supporters of the United States’ intervention in Iraq. By this earlier decision, they were committed to the pursuit of a hard line against the Jihadists in the future. As for the Socialists, their past and greater ideological distance from America promised a soft, or at least a softer, line in the struggle, “The Modern World vs. The Seventh Century.”

Indeed, there are three consequences of al Qaeda’s successful intervention in the Spanish political process. The first two -- the most direct and obvious ones -- are less consequential than the third, indirect effect.

We can count on two actions of the new Spanish government. The first is the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. (As the first draft of the article was being written, this was a prediction. By the time of the second draft, what was forecast became news.) The second upshot of the change in Spain will be the withdrawal of the political support hitherto extended to the US and to the global struggle against terrorism. Washington will be lucky if the new Spanish government, following its convictions and in the hope of buying the good will of the Osamas, will not switch over to the “camp of peace” (correctly appeasement), and take on an active role there. Given their country’s previous position, this change of sides will be quite effective politically and serve as valuable PR for the international America-bashers. The US’ isolation will grow. Only the November elections will tell whether this “growth” will be accompanied by a corresponding shrinkage of America’s hither resolve.

There will also be consequences for the emerging united Europe. About this there is no reason to assume an interest on the part of al Qaeda. Nevertheless, the matter’s significance is not diminished by this forecasted fact. Until now it was Spain and Poland that led the struggle to prevent the EU from evolving into an organization dominated by the “Big” countries, primarily France and its wake, Germany. Let us remember that centralism happens to be, for ideological reasons, near to the Socialist.

Thirdly, as the last item mentioned here, but by its significance the most important matter, is the general impact of the terror followed by elections. The decisive element of the Spanish electorate has done more than put into power an opposition that is less committed than the old government. In doing so, Spain showed that terror pays. Short of reversing the driving out of the Moslems in the 15th century, al Qaeda got, through the generous application of TNT to a free society, the best government it could hope for.

What the average man in Spain who voted with 3-11 in mind hoped to achieve was to change the government so that the Moslem terrorists will not feel it necessary to hit the country again. In a way this calculation is likely to prove correct –for a time. Al Qaeda will undoubtedly repeat the pattern that worked in Spain. At first the other “front-line states” opposing them will be handled. Then it will be the turn of the hitherto wishy-washy ones. This process will be likely to give Spain immunity from the Jihadists –but also less peace from their own ETA. The rest of the countries opposing radical Islam will get more terror as a result of the lessons from Iberia. The intensification of global terrorism is practically a done deal.

Related to the above, but nevertheless a background factor of enhanced significance, is a demonstrated inclination of free societies to make certain mistakes. Free societies are such because they know how to compromise and master the art of reconciliation between positions in a manner that creates deals with which all parties can live. In this case, giving in a bit results in concessions by the other party that, in the end, generates benefits for both. What the politically uninterested, call them dormant, members of free societies have a hard time comprehending when something thunderous mobilizes them is that, not all systems function the way theirs does. The sequence, “concession -- acceptance -- peaceful coexistence,” is a possible progression but not a necessary one. Some movements that carry exclusive ideologies see another chain of events. It runs like this: “weakness” leads to “concession.” Concessions are made by “them,” who are weak and cowardly. The concession provides “us” with a new field to play the next round on: with one that inclines more than before to the disadvantage of “them.” Repeat this process a few times and “they” will barely be able to hang over the gulch at the end of the remnant that is left of their original half. That is the moment when they will be forced to end the game by becoming “us.”

Making concessions can buy you peace for a while. It will intensify the action on the other fronts. If and when “they” win, they will come back with new demands. Then, however, the old game will not be repeatable, for there will be nothing left to trade for benefit of being left alone a bit longer.

They do not think they will be safer now that Aznar is out. They voted him and his administration out because they've been hit (fact), not because they might not be hit again (speculation). They now want to try another strategy in the war against terrorists.
Aznar led his country into a war the people did not want. Spain was the country in Europe where the people were the most against the war in Iraq (even more than in France, according to polls). Ten minutes after the bombings and before any evidence had been studied, Aznar was already trying to manipulate his own people (again) on believing it was ETA, trying to save his successor's ass in the elections. He deserved to lose his seat.

That's a matter of opinion I'd say. IMO A united nation walking the streets and calling for peace after such events is a victory against terror compared to a nation that urges for revenge and war.
I didn't see the Spanish panic, they did not close train stations or airports, only few hours after the bombings they had already given enough blood for the victims, and a few days later they're not running to buy gas masks and/or guns. They've been pretty impressive as a nation IMO. How did you see them panic?

I don't think the strategy against terror really has anything to do with the political side leading a country. Don't forget that Blair is from the Labour Party and considered socialist in Europe. France participated in the first Gulf war under a socialist government, and refused to join in 2003 under a conservative government, but in both cases showed a united political front, so both main parties seem as competent as one another when it comes to national security and terrorism. I believe it's the same in Spain, Italy, the UK or the US (a Republican Administration instead of Clinton's would not have avoided 9/11).

I never said it could be won individually and I understand perfectly well that it is an international matter. That's why, as I once told you in a PM, I believe that all the powerful countries should get together, if possible under the UN banner, and create an internional organisation against terrorism. Sort of like Interpol but specialized on terrorism. It's the only way to stand against terrorism: united.

It's not Spain alone, it's the US coallition. And the terrorists scored that point the day that coallition put a foot in Iraq with lies as it's two main justifications.

Ponrauil

The people of Spain would have lost it's dignity if it had kept in power a man that betrayed Democracy when leading his country to war against it's own people's will.

Ponrauil

I think people have not voted Aznar and his government out because we've been hit. After all that was quite unpredictable and certainly very unexpected.

Aznar has been vouted out for two reasons

1) He got us in the Iraq war against the people's agreement. You may argue that sometimes a government has to take decisions people won't like, etc, but people don't care about that. This Iraq-war thing may have been overlooked if it had not been for the attacks and how people came to thaink maybe if we had not taken part on ten war, we wouldn't have been attacked.

2) Because apparently they manipulated some data regarding the attacks. The tried to get people to think it had been ETA so that they didn't blame the government, etc. If they had come clear and stated what they thought and what the truth was right from the beginning, maybe the results would have been different. You may argue that the government did say there were two lines of investigation right from the beginning. But some media thought it best to accuse the government of focusing on blaming ETA for their own interests. Even when most people thought it was ETA because of a matter or probabilities...

So this is why the Popular Party lost many votes. And yes people here do feel safer because Aznar is out. Zapatero's focus is to go back to talking terms with France and Germany, which didn't support the war. People think that's better.

I`ve been following your discussion about this subject, but I do think you forget some things.
If CNN knew already from the internet a plan about bombing was there, Spain would have been on the highest alert.
I read nothing special about that, nor was it almost impossible to get into the country.

If the reason to bomb Madrid was to get influence on elections, what about UK. Blair was one of the first to run after Bush, like a little dog after his master.
Why take Spain and not UK or the netherlands.

I think, and you can see that from history, after some time a right wing there is always the left period. Look at the USA after democrats we get a republican.
In Holland we had teh left side for many years, now we have to deal with a right period...just a few years and then it`s back to socialisme

I was saying that because it did bring back to mind the fact that he led Spain in a war the people did not want. So we agree on this. As well as on the manipulation around ETA.

I think it's better too, for many reasons, not only for the war against terrorism. But the people shouldn't feel safer just because Aznar is out.
The new government has to prove itself worthy on the terrorism matter first.

Ponrauil

That's true but in this case in Spain Aznar had a good economical record that, according to many, made the people more or less forget him leading Spain into the war in Iraq and assured him to win the elections and leave with honors.

Ponrauil

Things are not so easy. I´m convinced that the crisis with Morocco was the reason why Spain supported USA. (Ceuta & Melilla)

And Spain will have now the more complicated years for our country (nacionalism for example). And PSOE was in a big crisis. Zapatero didnt have the power in his party. And now, cause of 11M, he is the new president.

And you dont live in Spain, there are many reasons (not only the war) for support or dont support a party or a candidate.

Hard times are coming, and we´ll see it soon.