Posted on 03/12/2008 4:06:40 AM PDT by Kaslin
Al-Qaida's terror attacks on March 11, 2004 (just prior to Spain's national elections), sought to establish the "Madrid Precedent," a strategic extension of what al-Qaida's planners in their "Letters to the Africa Corps" had called the examples of Mogadishu, Somalia, and Beirut, Lebanon. Stated crudely, Beirut (U.S. Marine barracks, 1983) and Mogadishu ("Blackhawk Down," 1993) told al-Qaida that if "we kill enough, they will withdraw."
Islamists murdered 191 Spaniards and wounded 1,800 on 3-11. Unlike Beirut, the "Madrid Precedent" targeted civilians in Spanish territory -- but on al-Qaida's map of the global caliphate, Spain is "al Andalus," a Muslim domain stolen by the Reconquista.
In the post-attack wave of hysteria, "Socialist peace candidate" Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero was elected Spain's prime minister. He immediately withdrew Spanish troops serving in Iraq.
Hence the "Madrid Precedent" -- attack a democracy just before an election with the aim of electing a "peace candidate" who thinks al-Qaida's killers can be appeased.
Al-Qaida needed a Madrid Precedent. The "9-11 Precedent" hadn't worked as planned. Rather than perishing like a fire-struck Sodom or becoming "quagmired" in Afghanistan like the lurching Soviet military, the United States responded aggressively and creatively, and with an unexpected agility.
Moreover, America had chosen not merely to topple al-Qaida's Taliban allies, but had made the bold decision to go to "the heart of the matter" and wage a war for the terms of modernity in the center of the politically dysfunctional Arab Muslim Middle East.
Don't think that al-Qaida's leaders didn't know that stroke -- establishing a democracy in Iraq -- represented a fatal threat to the terrorist organization.
Al-Qaida's dark genius had been to connect the Muslim world's angry, humiliated and isolated young men with a utopian fantasy preaching the virtue of violence. That utopian fantasy sought to explain and then redress roughly 800 years of Muslim decline. The rage energizing al-Qaida's ideological cadres certainly predated the post-Desert Storm presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia.
In February 2004, al-Qaida's "emir in Iraq," Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, bluntly noted he faced defeat. Islamist radicals were "failing to enlist support" and had "been unable to scare the Americans into leaving." Once the Iraqis established their own democracy, Zarqawi opined, al-Qaida was lost. Moreover, a predominantly Arab Muslim democracy offered the Muslim world an alternative to al-Qaida's liturgy of embedded grievance. Zarqawi's solution to looming failure was to murder Iraqi Shias and ignite a "sectarian war."
Politically inducing the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq was another route to thwarting Iraqi democracy.
Zapatero, a man steeped in the European left's liturgical anti-Americanism, came through for the bin Ladenites.
But it didn't work. Oh, Spanish troops left. Ironically, I arrived in Iraq for military duty as the Spaniards were departing. An operations sergeants told me the Spanish soldiers were crack professionals who had a high opinion of themselves -- a cocky esprit. "What about their opinion of Zapatero?" I asked. The sergeant scowled. Well, I thought, what kind of soldier likes it when his own politicians deal him a defeat?
In spring 2008, the "Iraq Precedent" -- forged by the Iraqi people with American help -- looks increasingly persuasive. Will the Iraq Precedent sway the Muslim world's disenchanted? It has had some success, and al-Qaida knows this: An increasing number of Muslims consider al-Qaida to be a criminal gang. However, cultural and political change is slow. We will have a better idea in a couple of decades.
Meanwhile, back in the United States: Democratic candidate Barack Obama promises a rapid withdrawal of American forces from Iraq. I can't call his plan the Obama Precedent because Hillary Clinton has toyed with the idea -- of course, she toys with many ideas, depending on the crowd.
But, golly gee, Obama may be spinning us -- you know, old-time campaign talk from the man promising change? Yes, his key foreign policy adviser Samantha Power has resigned (she called Hillary "a monster"), but before Power quit she suggested to the BBC's Stephen Sackur on March 6 that Obama's retreat pledge was iffy. "You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009," Power said. "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. senator."
It appears Obama is pandering to left-wing voters steeped in defeatism, and if elected president, come January 2009, he may suddenly discover the Iraq Precedent is a damn sight better than any other option.
Exactamente !
It's really not relevant what he will discover. We are living in 1930s, but it is now this nation, not Germany, that wants socialism and votes for a demagogue.
Oh, we wanted socialism in the 30's too. FDR was one of the biggest socialists of the 20th century, in this nation anyway.
I rather think it would galvanize many undecided into voting for McCain. I don't think the Madrid precedent would work here.
Islam IS a utopian fantasy preaching the virtue of violence. Al-Qaida did nothing new.
Minister Obama is not about to change his lifelong commitment to Islam just because he happens to become President of the United States. The author is underestimating Obama’s commitment to destroying white America (as his “church” demands) and overestimates his ability to overcome his mother’s leading.
Hitler was never voted into office.
bump for AM read
I don't think the Madrid precedent would work here.
The biggest difficulty I have is the general one. I think the nation is divided between those that still remember, and even know, what it has been thus far (the culture, the Constitution, free markets, individual responsibility, morals according to Judeo-Christian tradition, etc.) and those that do not even know it but want something new (revolutionaries of all sorts --- feminists, socialists, etc.). We got here as a result of growth of the second part. To predict any outcome, therefore, one needs to know quite precisely by how much the second part exceeds the first.
You suggest, for instance, that Spanish-style attack would have an opposite effect here. Twenty years ago, I'd say that you are correct without any doubt. Today, I am not so sure. Just a few years ago, could you envision that, in the midst of war against militant Islam, the country would seriously entertain a presidential candidate named Hussein who studied in Muslim schools and spend his formative years in the world-largest Muslim country? People would think you insane if you suggested that as recently as late 1980s. It's happening today.
So, returning to the scenario you propose, I am not so sure. Sep 11 has failed to unite the country, and one half of it only increased its self-hatred. Our future First Lady only now feel some pride for her country. Why would another attack have a different effect?
Really? You mean, formally?
There are some things on which I can somewhat agree with the "second part" about change; I do think we should have open dialogue with all the tyrants, despots and would-be demagogues of the world. But it is not the humble dialogue that Obama would host. I would welcome them to talk at any time, and then I would assertively remind them that we are watching them closely, and that we would not blink an eye to put umpteen cruise missiles into every possible orifice if they should so much as reach for their war keys. Thanks for the pleasant tea, remember that you are dead men walking, please do come again.
I don't think that the "second part" can logically understand the patient and persistent enemies of America. Their idea of "change" is centered on more hedonistic and local agendas. Everyone gets a "living wage" and universal healthcare, no more morality over science and let's all go down to the pub for a pitcher and hot wings. Change, baby!
It just may be that the "second part" is now greater than the first. We live in interesting times. The Tree of Liberty is looking parched.
Hitler never got elected to dog catcher or Chancellor.
He was appointed to Chancellor by an aging Von Hindenberg under the advice of Minister Papen. The simple math was this. The Army was 100,000 men, 50% of which were Nazi’s. Hitler had 2 million armed goons in the street intimidating and killing to get his way. He had already attempted a coup once and to prevent bloodshed Hindenberg and Papen thought it wise to appease (doesn’t that always work?) the madman and give him a position of power. Then all he had to do was create a fictional terrorist attack (burned down the Reichstag) blame it on the communists, who were the secondlargest party in the Reichstag.
More recently, consider Lebanon and Gaza. In the past, both distant and recent, dictators have been elected into office. I am afraid, we are witnessing the same occurrence in our own land. The next decade may witness unprecedented limitations on our liberties, starting with the economic ones, and enormous, irreversible changes to our social institutions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.