Outcome of the Spanish elections-discussion.

[Axis Kast]

The real problem is that this is likely to work in the short term.

Unless al-Qaeda is cozy with the ETA, and the ETA throws caution to the wind, it's unlikely that, once Spain is out of Iraq, more bombs will be put in train stations or office buildings.

Of course, down the road, as the European Union begins to challenge the U.S. on the global stage, Europe may begin to feel sorry that it didn't tackle "rogue" states now, rather than put it off for later. Eventually, terrorism will "equalize," as ironic as that may sound.

[SirNitram]

I see Axis stills lives in the fantasy world that Iraq is where all the terrorists are.

[BoredShirtless]

Of course, down the road, as the European Union begins to challenge the U.S. on the global stage, Europe may begin to feel sorry that it didn't tackle "rogue" states now, rather than put it off for later.

What's a "rogue" state Axis?

Eventually, terrorism will "equalize," as ironic as that may sound.

What?

[RogueIce]

In my opinion, the timing of the announcement wasn't so hot. Like has been said, it gives the appearance of being a reaction to the attacks, and that's all the terrorists need. They will certainly claim it as a victory, regardless of what the Spanish people's true motivations were. Because, like it or not, the rest of the world does not live in the rational/logical world that has sprung up here. To them, it will look like Spain just backed out of Iraq because of the bombings, regardless.

I suppose a somewhat better solution would be to put off the announcement until later; if they're sticking around to 30 July anyway (IIRC), they could certainly have announced it later. Hopefully, the Spanish people would see the wisdom of putting it off for awhile, because that at least lets it look more like the will of the people, keeping campaign promises, etc. than appeasment/surrender to terror attacks.

[Axis Kast]

I see Axis stills lives in the fantasy world that Iraq is where all the terrorists are.

Al-Qaeda attacked Spanish targets to "punish" Spaniards for their intervention in the Middle East - which was linked to Iraq. Once the Spanish pull out of Iraq, al-Qaeda is less likely to make them a target directly. In the short term, it makes sense if you're trying to avoid harm - of course, it also validates the terrorists' theory that they can perform these kinds of attacks with similar results a second time, creating problems down the road.

What's a "rogue" state Axis?

Iran. Iraq. Syria. Sudan. North Korea. Pakistan. Sauid Arabia. In general, governments (often dictatorial) that pose a problem for American foreign policy-making and national security interests because of their connections to terrorism and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, and are generally held in low esteem by the rest of the international community.

It's a silly term (since it can be interpreted so broadly), but since there is also strong evidence that these nations are those most likely to breed terrorists and abet their actions, it also makes sense to target them. The catch-22 is that it's often seen by others as an exclusively American problem. This brings us to the second issue.

What?

"Rogue" states - or rather, their populations - hate America because it is the dominant power in the area. Its policies become the determinants of their policies - often with little or no intent on the part of the White House. That's galling. It also produces violent hatred and resentment. Once Europe begins to broaden the scope of its foreign policy, however, and once China begins to export its own development capital more freely and claim influence more aggressively over Southeast Asian markets (they're still competing with the United States, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea as the economic power there), terrorists will broaden the scope of their violence accordingly.