Michael Totten discusses the price of appeasement and points to Lee Harris' thought experiment at Tech Central Station.
I found the article interesting and thought provoking though, like Michael, I don't agree with all of Lee's conclusions. For instance, I think that the fact Spain continued with their elections was a victory for the democratic process. The fact that the people chose appeasement and a more socialist form of government is sad, but not the end of their parliamentary democracy - merely a bump in the road.
In the near future, however, we have to be aware that more attacks are on the horizon. Considering how ineffective terrorism had been in the past, and their willingness to continue with this tactic, this little taste of victory is bound to be an inspiration. The question is: do they think an attack in the US prior to the election will get the result they want, or do they think not attacking will be their best option?
Posted by Vox at March 17, 2004 04:14 PM | politicsI have to disagree on one thing...
The elections were not a proper democratic process, because they happened to close to an event clearly designed to coerce voters, and it worked.
When elections are judged by observers for fairness, voter intimidation by parties that have an interest in the outcome is not considered a good sign.
That is what happened here. Yes, a democratic vote was held. But it was held under bad circumstances, and the result was a great triumph for the forces of evil. Whether we look at it that way is immaterial, because terrorists, the people they need support from, the people they want to recruit, and other governments they have issues with will all see it as a regime change executed by a terrorist power.
Posted by: John Moore (Useful Fools) at March 17, 2004 10:02 PMI definitely agree that the circumstances were horrendous and it is hard not to agree on your point. I am pleased, however, that the Aznar government didn't postpone the elections. Even a delay of a few days would have been suspect to the world and (possibly) to the people of Spain.
Were Bush to declare a delay in our elections in a similar circumstance he would be instantly accused of grabbing power illegally - mostly by the looney left, sure, but they are a large, loud group.
Making the wrong choice in light of a well orchestrated campaign by an intereseted outside group is hardly something exclusive to Spain.
Anytime a regime change takes place by a vote it is a good thing. Yes, the voters were influenced by the recent violence (and the perceived threat of more). Those same issues will be at play in our elections.
So (I hope this isn't too Kerry-esque) I definitely see the arguement for a cooling off period allowing the Spaniards to come to grips with the situation. By a narrow margin, however, I have to stick with maintaining the original procedure.
Posted by: Vox at March 17, 2004 10:39 PMOh, and yes - I do believe "terrorists, the people they need support from, the people they want to recruit [snip] will all see it as a regime change executed by a terrorist power." I am hoping that "other governments they have issues with" will not.
Wishful thinking.
Posted by: Vox at March 17, 2004 10:50 PMit's all a conspiracy, man!
Posted by: broken at March 20, 2004 02:57 AM