Government is for the people. The people of Spain never wanted to go into the war. The people have what they wanted now. The people won.

This is my response to the Washington Post editorial calling Spain's action "appeasement" and "retreat."

Dear Editor:

The Post labels as “appeasement” and “retreat” the new Spanish government’s decision to pull out of the “disaster” that the U.S. created in Iraq. When there was previously no connection between Saddam and Al Queda, the Post argued that a unilateral American invasion was a good thing. Having been complicit in the invasion that actually created an Iraq-Al-Queda connection that had not previously existed, the Post argues now that it is cowardly to withdraw, “whatever the prewar situation.”

It’s time for the Post and the U.S. government to admit their mistakes, cut their losses and work with cooperatively with the world community to try to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. Hopefully, Spain’s new leaders have sparked the beginning of that reassessment both here and abroad.

To me, knocking down Saddam meant bringing Arab countries one step closer to democratic normalcy -- an atmosphere historically less likely to breed crazy militants.

The one dimension that everybody -- left and right -- seem to prepetually leave out of the "war on terrorism" equation is our own evil doing: supporting Israel enslaving and/or ethnic cleansing the Palestinians. As long as we help make war on the Palestinians we are not in much of a position in the Arab world to take on the cloak of the "good guys".

If we had not been supporting Israel conquering an Arab people and had not killed a quarter of a million Iraqi kids with our sanctions the Empire State Building would not be the tallest buiding in Manhattan today. We got past the kid killing sanctions by blooding our own troops to finish our beef with Saddam. Time to force Israel out of the Palestinian homeland.

I'm not sure why you are slamming Kevin Drum for a comment he put up yesterday when he has ammended that with a new comment today. It has been up all day.

"Yesterday I wrote that I thought this explanation probably accounted for most of the change in sentiment among the Spanish electorate. Today I'm getting steadily more willing to discard the "probably" and the "most" from that sentence.

As Randy's correspondent puts it, "we will only put up with so much lying and manipulation." This is a salutary lesson for certain other world leaders, I think: if (if!)the Spanish vote really did represent any kind of victory for al-Qaeda, the fault lies with those leaders who lost the trust of their electorate through sustained and cynical deceit. It is a warning they should not ignore"

No, Sharon has won. The last thing he wants is to enter peace talks. That's why that sound you heard was a huge sigh escaping from that obese body. Hamas is Sharon's best friend. If they did not exist, he would have to invent them.

Mike-- Kevin amended his factual evaluation of the situation, not his belief that IF the Spanish people were voting to punish Anzar's government for the attack, that would be a win for Al Qaeda.

My point is that even if Anzar's government had been completely truthful about the source of the attack, the Spanish people would have been justified in voting him out of office-- and whether that was a "win" for Al Qaeda should be ignored. The only issue is whether Spain being in Iraq is good or bad for ending the threat of terrorism in the world. And the Spanish people rightly think it is bad-- and the terrorist attack is just proof that the Iraq war is a failure in combatting the threat of terrorism.

Attention Democrats... Please support...

*** MILES NELSON, M.D. for CONGRESS ***

http://www.nelson04.com/

Contribute today. Every dollar counts.

http://www.nelson04.com/

Nathan Newman remarks on "terrorism" reflex a general bias and in fact tacitly racist viewpoint not unlike much liberal prattle that is past off as analysis. As usual liberal analysis is generally in the right direction by stating general opposition to al-Qaeda but misses the underlying reason for such opposition. And Mr. Newman generally accepts the ruling class use of the label "terrorist".

[1] Mr. Newman states the following:

Must we oppose everything Al Qaeda supports, regardless of its merits? That's a recipe for a macho cycle of deliberately promoting global hatred against the West just to spite Al Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda represents the reactionary expression of the oppression that western nation has fostered on the people of the Middle East. Additionally they were heavily supported by the West – the Carter Administration – when it was opportunistically trying to subvert the leftist Afghanistan government and lure the Soviet Union into a conflict. Over the years, Washington sent money to the Taliban as late as May 2001 therefore "terrorism" must be viewed as now only meted out by some loose knit group but also state terrorism as practiced by the U.S. and her allies.

Mr. Newman follows with …

Let's face it-- terrorism is designed to put its targets in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If you ignore their demands, especially when those demands reflect broader global social grievances, you just help them recruit new supporters. If you give into the demands, you look weak and might encourage more attacks seeking similar concessions.

No. "Terrorism" does not follow that premise. This is how the U.S. media and the ruling class spin the story in order to maintain their power. Bush and the ruling class hopes to use the backlash of their oppression to convince the U.S. public to continue to give up their power. The people of Spain saw through Aznar's tomfoolery as well as the fact that he ignored the will of his people.

The most important thing is to reject the premise and Pavlovian response to capitalist media take on issues. Unfortunately, Mr. Newman hasn't rejected their language.

Another faulty take by Mr. Newman:

And while I'm not for the US abandoning Iraq without a decent attempt to prevent full-scale internal slaughter in our exit's wake, I think Spain and other countries removing cover for our unililateralism is the best way to pressure Bush to create a real international administration of the country.

Mr. Newman presumes too know the outcome of Iraq better than the Iraqi people. Mr. Newman unfortunately doesn't see his own bias (I'm being polite using the term 'bias').
The fate of Iraq should be decided by the Iraqi people not by the West that Mr. Newman refers to as "international". It was UN sanction that led to the death of 500,000 children that the "liberal" Clinton Administration Secretary of State said "was worth it". And why the Iraqi people retaliated against the UN when stationed in Iraq.

The "international community" did nothing while the U.S. and GB violated Iraqi airspace for 10 years. Yet Mr. Newman believes that some presumed "multilateral" occupation can somehow repair the damage brought to the Iraqi people.

Finally Mr. Newman states…

BTW Hamas has been trying to derail peace talks through terrorism in Israel. Sharon just cancelled peace talks in response to terrorist attacks. So does that mean the terrorists have won, since Sharon is doing what they wanted? Probably, but somehow I suspect that those condemning Spain now are applauding Sharon.

Once again Mr. Newman fails to supply context. Hamas like the Taliban is an example of "blowback". Hamas was a reactionary extremist group that the Israelis propped up to challenge the PLO – which prior to Oslo – was very progressive regarding Palestinian right of return and a one state solution. However due to Israel's atrocities and state terror upon the Palestinian people chose nationalism over being a client for Israel.

No Mr. Newman – it is Sharon who is a war criminal in his own right that needs violence to remain in power. Mr. Sharon and the Zionist have no interest in peace as it is not the basis of their power.

The ruling class label "peace process" is a joke as it will only serve to legitimize the ongoing injustices of the Palestinian people. This is why their struggle will continue and be manifested in both violence as well as non-violence because these are the tools of struggle.

It is too easy Mr. Newman to bandy about the label "terrorism" without proper context.

While Mr. Newman is right to challenge those who misinterpret the vote in Spain his own "analysis" doesn't do justice either. The Spanish people and their system of democracy deserve more credit than Mr. Newman faulty analysis does and on the surface seemly appears.

WB

I have never seen so much over-thinking as on this issue. Maybe the people of Spain want to go after al Qaeda instead of the boat load of crap we offer in Iraq.

This stuff about doing the opposite of what al Qaeda wants is folly, and assumes al Qaeda is never wrong, never self-defeating.

9/11 stoked blind conservative nationalism in the US. Al Qaeda might have assumed the Spanish were as stupid as we are, and if so, guessed wrong.

Denis Drew:

Time to force Israel out of the Palestinian homeland.

Just to be clear, does that "homeland" include Tel Aviv?

Wilson Barber hasn't been reading other posts I've written about terrorism more generally or about Palestinian rights, so I'll suggest he does a search on the word "Israel" on my blog for my rather sharp criticism of its actions.

As to whether "the Iraqi people" should decide their fate, of course they should. The question is who speaks for this mythical unified collective? The Iraqi people had no vote when Saddam Hussein's dictatorship existed and they have little voice now, with US puppeteer games going on, so the question is how to make sure real elections occur-- and it's my strategic view that an international administration of the country is more likely to lead to that than some faux US-backed Iraqi puppet transition regime.

But unless you explain how your approach-- say unilateral withdrawal tomorrow-- will lead to real elections, then you aren't really talking about the "Iraqi people" speaking or doing anything. You're talking about those with guns getting to impose their will on the rest of the population.

AQ wins only when these chumps of ours say they won. these people that say that should be hog tied and gaged i can,t beleive these talking heads would even think let alone say it shame shame

Mr Newman replies…

Wilson Barber hasn't been reading other posts I've written about terrorism more generally or about Palestinian rights, so I'll suggest he does a search on the word "Israel" on my blog for my rather sharp criticism of its actions.

My response was directed to your commentary in this article. As I am a casual viewer of your excellent blog – and don't misunderstand I do appreciate your commentaries -- your overall position then appears to be ill-expressed.

However you retort with …

The question is who speaks for this mythical unified collective? The Iraqi people had no vote when Saddam Hussein's dictatorship existed and they have little voice now, with US puppeteer games going on, so the question is how to make sure real elections occur-- and it's my strategic view that an international administration of the country is more likely to lead to that than some faux US-backed Iraqi puppet transition regime.
But unless you explain how your approach-- say unilateral withdrawal tomorrow-- will lead to real elections, then you aren't really talking about the "Iraqi people" speaking or doing anything. You're talking about those with guns getting to impose their will on the rest of the population.

Mr. Newman -- why don't you take a look a recent history -- like that of Haiti and Chile. How did they overthrow their dictatorial regimes to subsequentily hold free and fair elections? They certainly did it without a "multinational" presence and it took a "multinational" force to oust the democratically elected government of Haiti! It appears to me that you have little faith in the PEOPLE OF IRAQ to decide their own faith and derive their own solutions.

The Iraqi people already have representatives among their own population yet the UN chose to legitimize the US backed puppet counsel. Therefore Mr. Newman, I stand by my critique because you still PRESUME that the once the US and the willing-less coalition withdraw the Iraqi people will require some sort of "international guidance".

Iraq even under Hussein had been one of the most progressive Arab societies and have a highly educated population. I think that the people of Iraq will be able to figure it out for themselves. They have already called for direct one-person-one-vote elections. The only thing that the "international community" should do is humbly be prepared to supply any and all resources and reparations needed by the Iraqi people to rebuild their society.

WB.

Who are the "representatives among their own population" who can make decisions? How do we know who has real support-- other than the Kurds in the North who have had some rough elections-- to speak for other Iraqis?

The Iraqis don't need "international guidance"-- they need to have blue helmeted police to prevent Iraqis with guns from preventing other Iraqis from ever getting to vote. And those Iraqis with guns will be just as much reflecting outside forces as the present Occupation, except there will be no even attempt at fair elections.

You may disagree with that as a likely outcome, but that's the argument over what is to be done now that the US Occupation is in place.

Mr. Newman,

Clearly I disagree with your outlook but most importantly it is the Iraqi people that disagrees with you by their resistance. To quote you...

it's my strategic view that an international administration of the country is more likely to lead to [fair elections] than some faux US-backed Iraqi puppet transition regime.

My point Mr. Newman is that the Iraqi people will resist any kind of "international administration" and that it is arrogant of you to presume that such and "international administration" will bring "democracy" to them ala "the white man's burden". The Iraqi people will not tolerate and will resist "international administration" of their resources and political affairs.

Additionally it is not up to me to identify who will represent the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people will decide that. Ironically, Women in fact saw greater representation under Hussein then they do under the UN-accepted US-backed "governing" council that just drafted a "Constitution" with women woefully underrepresented.

Also Mr. Newman, after Hussein's overthrow left-wing organization and publications began to sprout with the Iraqi workers forming unions whose activities are being crushed by Bremmer and the UN-backed governing counsil -- so much for "international administration".

I'd say Mr. Newman that the Iraqi people have much less to fear from Iraqi gun owners many of whom were in possession of such weapons even when Hussein was in power than from a presumed to quote you again...

international administration of the country

WB