|It's impossible to measure how little I care what the NYT has to say about anything. Commie pinko rag, is what that is. Bush is a religious/statist nitwit, yeah. What's that got to do with Spain? Fact is, the US shared its intelligence on Iraq with anyone in the UN who wanted a gander. I find it hard to believe that of all the intelligence agencies in the world, no one called "bullshit" when Colin Powell gave his little presentation at the UN. If all that "evidence" was good enough to put one over on those who decided to go into Iraq, it's hard to fault Bush alone for being gullible. |
Spain got roped in by whatever reasons they had for going to war, and now Spain must deal with it. To immediately after a terrorist attack grant one of the new big wishes of Islamists the world over (bugging out of Iraq) equals, in my book, appeasement. Spain is now debating the viscosity of spilled milk. Now that Iraq is part of their foreign policy, Spain has to suck it up. Accomplish whatever mission they've set out for themselves in Iraq, on their own terms, then pull out--like any other foreign, military excursion. Essentially recognizing a whole other electorate--terrorists--in your democratic process will not create positive solutions. They'll just continue "voting" in the best way they know how: killing people.
That said, I don't think invading Iraq was necessary. They have a next-door neighbor, goes by the name of Iran, who through its funding and support of murderers is and always has been simply asking to get a boot in the ass. Why invade the reportedly "most secular" of the Middle Eastern/Arab states? (Maybe so it wouldn't be seen as a "War On Islam", instead of a War On Terror?)
I despise the idea of tolerating evil, but the fact is America can't be everywhere (neither can policemen, or firefighters), and if we're to even attempt to INVADE and OCCUPY each and every Arab nation that might have WMD in it and might have had terrorists stop through a few times, it will be an even more brutal War On Terrorism. One which America will lose. You can however utilize rapid, intelligence-based actions of small scale and large effect, e.g. blowing the hell out of training camps, ramming cruise missiles down people's throats, seizing funds, paying informants, threatening other heads of state, etc. Basically, turn the CIA back into a real-world killing machine. Sounds scary, but that's what governments do: scare, or kick, the shit out of criminals. Deploy the unmanned drones, spooks, spies, spec ops, and laser-guided cruise missiles. Afghanistan--which bore very little of the full brunt of American military might--has been and is being sorted out nicely where terrorists are concerned. We aren't fighting Nazis or Soviet Russia here. Mission should dictate tactics
The invasion and conquering of Iraq, the liberation of it's people, and the overthrow of Hussein will have little effect on terrorist organizations, whether al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, or the People's Liberation Front of Judea. (hehe) All that effects terrorists is finding them and killing them. Unapologetically, without flourishes or dramatic, costly invasions and occupations, and certainly without mixing our "find-them-kill-them" agenda with a humanitarian one. Find people who have killed or are planning on killing Americans (or Kiwis, or Spaniards or Brits) and kill them dead. And I can think of a few places besides Iraq with more likely ties to al Qaeda, with just as repressive regimes--whom we still shouldn't invade and occupy(unless the nation 1)resists our attempts to get at the terrorists 2) directly or otherwise sponsored or plans on sponsoring attacks on America or her allies). .
Spain has every right to revoke its involvement with a full-blown occupation of Iraq, although it should be prepared to bear the eventual repercussions, e.g. insatiable terrorists demanding ever more concessions. But they should never have gone along with the invasion in the first place. Finding and killing terrorists discriminately who've killed or plan on killing your countrymen has nothing to do with conquering, occupying, and rebuilding an entire nation. WMDs or not, evil dictator or not. The evil dictator in question just happened to be in the correct general region of the world. I recognize that if the coalition hadn't invaded, Saddam would still be in power. That's a fact. But Saddam being in power was irrelevant to me before the Iraq-wardrums began beating, and even after Sept. 11th because: 1) he was no threat due to the excellent--yet far-too-lenient--first Gulf War, 2) al Qaeda wasn't hiding from the US in Iraq, and 3) there are far too many evil regimes in the world possessing nasty stuff that could just as easily been sold to terrorists.
So my answer to Spain is: deal with the mistake you've made, and try to correct it--without doing so in terms set by people who want you dead.
That goes for all countries involved.
Now, I'll just paste this to my Hotmail and press "Send". It should be read by every major Head of State within the hour. I'll update everyone with their responses and acquiescences. 8^P
(if there are typos and this is ranty, I plead lack of sleep)