A "QUIETER" APPROACH

And now the latest twist on Europeans (read, especially, France and Germany, and now, Zapatero Spain) as "sophisticates" in the war on Islamist terror as opposed to Americans as "bulls in a china shop" -- from (where else?) the IHT (the original was in the Boston Globe):

A citybound train rumbled along with purpose on the same commuter line where bombs inflicted brutal carnage on March 11, killing 191 people and wounding hundreds more.

On a day this month, passengers read their newspapers, snoozed and chatted. The mood suggested that Spaniards, hardened by decades of struggle against terrorism, have moved on, and that Americans and Europeans have responded in vastly different ways to the threat of global terrorism.

Amazing. Apparently, reduced by Islamist terror to trembling, fearful globs of jelly, hundreds of thousands of people in lower and midtown Manhattan NO LONGER go to work every day in tall buildings? We had not the slightest idea.

For the United States, the response to Sept. 11 was to launch a "war on terror," one cast in terms of good and evil and marked with somber ceremonies, fought more with armies than with indictments. But for Spain, as well as for France, Germany and Britain, all countries that have suffered a history of terrorist violence, the focus is a "struggle" against a criminal element.

1) What we see here is a preview of "the Kerry doctrine": It might be termed the "You have the right to remain silent. . . " approach.

Funny, the U.S. tried just that for years, most notably after the WTC attack of 1993.

And we all know how well THAT approach worked.

2) Yeh, "good and evil". Outmoded concepts.

The attacks in Spain were directed, ultimately, not at Spain, but at the close cooperation between the U.S. and Spain over Iraq. And neither is France THE main target. Nor is Germany THE main target. That the U.S. is the prime source of "evil" in the eyes of the enemy, and that the U.S. is the main target, doesn't get a mention in the piece.

3) And notice how the writer tosses in Britain alongside the other "Europeans", and conveniently overlooks Britain's substantial and much needed military contributions.

These European countries have expressed a more quiet but collective resolve to work within an international consensus to fight terrorism. In the eyes of many European counterterrorism specialists and officials, the Bush administration's reliance on conventional military means can serve to provoke more terrorism. . .

A variation on an old saying comes to mind -- about if you are not "losing your head" and others around you are (in the current struggle, often literally) . . . you may not appreciate the full gravity of the situation.

. . . After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush and his administration responded with a swift invasion of Afghanistan to crush the Taliban government that provided logistical support for Al Qaeda. Then, Bush pushed toward the war in Iraq, ignoring widespread opposition among longtime U.S. allies. . .

Curiously, roll back the hands of time for a moment. Recall how the attempt to clean out al Qaeda in Afghanistan hardly had universal support in the autumn of 2001. We all remember those who formed groups with the aim to prevent even that campaign -- the battle that today is the one all the "terror fighters" suddenly extol, while simultaneously decrying the one being fought in Iraq.

As for the ending of Saddam's regime, that France and Germany chose not to participate and the reasons why (including commercial) as we all know go much deeper than just two "staunch" allies disagreeing with the U.S. on means, while agreeing with the overall end.

In "conclusion", on the "quieter approach", the article ends with this thud:

. . . However, these countries have also suffered setbacks in obtaining convictions. In some cases this is because the United States is reluctant to share intelligence on Al Qaeda; in others it is because the kind of information obtained by the United States others it is because the kind of information obtained by the United States is deemed inadmissible in European courts.

Aside from the fact that it is all the Americans' fault, notice too an admission on how the "quiet but collective resolve" often ultimately leads nowhere in a judicial sense. For from where did the U.S. often probably get that "inadmissible" in a European court evidence? Well, from its war on Islamist Terror -- the war fought, you know, not with warrants, but with a military.

No one would argue for an instant that there is no place for "quiet but collective resolve". But the notion that it is possible to deal with Islamist terror simply as routine criminality and independently of "military resolve" seems hard to jibe with the facts. For example, while Spain may have successfully busted up the train bombers' "cell", so too did the U.S. once upon a time break up the "cell" that had bombed the WTC garage in 1993.

Breaking up "cells" is fine, and necessary. But when doing so, it must never be forgotten that those are often minor, tactical victories only.

What is needed is a strategic outlook, which the U.S. has attempted to put forward. In contrast, the so-called "quiet but collective resolve" view of "Europe" doesn't address the strategic problem nearly satisfactorily enough.   ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, September 28, 2004