Disagreeing with terrorism isn't the same as fighting it
Bush administration prefers opprobrium to efficiency.
A powerful blast has shattered a small hotel and houses in central Baghdad, killing 28, injuring 45 and leaving a gaping crater.
[…]
A White House spokesman said the new attack would not deter efforts towards “democracy, freedom and stability” in Iraq where the US-led coalition is on high alert in the run-up to the first anniversary of the start of the war on Saturday.
“The thugs and assassins in Iraq are desperately trying to shake our will. Just this morning, they conducted a murderous attack on a hotel in Iraq,” Cheney said. “Their goal is to prevent the rise of democracy. But they will fail.”
Herald Tribune, via Pandagon.
“Four years ago, George Bush said that our troops lacked the support they needed. Four years ago, he promised them: “Help is on the way.” He sent that message to the same military that had been built up in the 1990s and was soon to perform so brilliantly in Afghanistan and Iraq. Well, I say this today: George Bush can’t have it both ways. He can’t decry the military’s readiness in 2000 and then take credit for its success in 2001, before he even passed his first defense budget. Now, in 2004, our armed forces are more extended than at any time in a generation – and at this time, they are still waiting for help.
[…]
Last month a young newlywed in Virginia who, as her husband was about to ship out to Iraq, gave him a bullet proof vest for Valentine’s Day. I can tell you right now: in a Kerry Administration, no one will be getting body armor as a gift from a loved one; it will come from the Armed Forces of the United States of America. We will supply our troops with everything they need – and we will reimburse each and every family who has had to buy body armor because this Administration made Valentine’s Day part of the procurement process.
It’s no good saying “we are determined to succeed”; at some point, you have to actually go out and do it. There is no sign that Al Qaeda are less powerful than they were a year ago, that the resistance in Iraq is being overcome, that the Bush Administration’s policies are in any way succeeding.
The pro-Bush Spanish government has fallen, due to a great degree to the Spanish electorate’s dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, and the Aznar government’s attempts to hush up the Al-Qaeda connection and play up the ETA aspect. This is clearly a victory for Al Qaeda and a defeat for Bush. But it does not follow that the new Spanish government is in the business of appeasing terrorists, as many on the right are saying. On the contrary, the new administration is promising to increase the anti-terrorism budget.
The problem some people have with the new Spanish government is that it’s withdrawing from Iraq, leaving America more isolated and providing good recruiting propaganda for muslim terrorists all over the world. But that isn’t because the Spanish electorate have decided they don’t want to fight terrorism any more - the huge turnout on election day, preceded by 8 million people in the streets marching against terrorism the day before, is as clear a sign as you can get that the Spaniards were defiant and uncowed by the Madrid bombings. Rather, the Bush administration’s war in Iraq was not the right way to fight terrorism, it let Al Qaeda rebuild and restructure to the point where they can carry out major terrorist attacks in Western countries again, and after a while, when it becomes obvious that a policy isn’t working, you just have to drop it and try something else.
Spain has done that. It’s time that the US rethinks its attitude towards terrorism as well.