I think it crystal clear that he didn’t want to risk being held to his word that Spanish troops could remain under UN authority. The rush was due to the fact that there is some small chance that there might be a UN resolution which would implicate that promise.

And in my most cynical mood I would note that Osama Bin Laden has made an explicit offer with an explicit time window for acceptance.

To wit, “When the fighting is over in Fallujah, I will sell everything I have, even my home,” said a resistance fighter who gave his name as Abu Taif Mashhadani. He wept as he recalled his 8-year-old daughter, who he said was killed by a U.S. sniper in Fallujah a week ago. “I will send my brothers north to kill the Kurds, and I will go to America and target the civilians. Only the civilians. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. And the one who started it will be the one to be blamed.”

If you want to put 1300 spanish soldiers between this man and Americans such as myself, don’t let me stop you. But I think it would be a futile waste of spanish blood.

I noted on one blog a new name for the Palestinians: The People Who Never Miss an Opportunity to Miss an Opportunity. UN resolutions, Camp David peacetalks, ceasefires; all have resulted in – nothing. Every opportunity degenerates into a string of suicide bombings and subsequent reprisals. And then it’s back to the negotiating table.

European idealism of a fair and equitable solution for all has perpetuated the violence by maintaining the status quo. And now GWB has broken the stalemate by supporting one side. It’s not going to be fair for the Palestinians, but the alternative is continued false hope that the UN can force Israel to cave into all their demands. And while the toothless UN postures and condemns, the Israelis will continue to kill those that send other people’s children to be their poor man’s cruise missiles.

The Middle East crisis has come to a peak – not a blip or a spike. Europeans are running out of fences to ride and will eventually have to support terrorists or those that fight them. Apparently Spain didn’t catch the clue when they caught their 11-March bombers lighting the fuze for a post-election attack.

“I surely am no nationalist or supporter of the current administration in the Netherlands but the Dutch record in Iraq looks good.”

Yes, the British record looks increasingly positive to me too, having used diplomacy to keep things calm under the present circumstances rather than force. I had initially thought that the British simply had an easier region to manage (true to some extent), but given that the area is largely Shi-ite I’ve recently wondered if I hadn’t done them an injustice.

The change in US policy towards Israel shows that GWB completely ignores the European point of view. I am not glad with Z’s decision (and especially not of the way he presented it) but I am afraid this kind of steps are the only ones that could have some influence on the US-administration.”

Obviously I agree about GWB ignoring Europe, but I don’t think we should make our policy on the basis of whether or not he snubs us.

As I said, this decision by Bush (following many others of its kind) effectively disauthorises the US as an impartial intermediary in Iraq in the eyes of the vast majority of Iraqi citizens.

It is now Sistani and others drawing their own logical conclusion from this that are the main source of pressure on US policy. We here in Europe are totally ineffective (even Blair it seems). I don’t think Z’s action will influence Bush especially. But it might – if Al Qaeda knows how to apply the tourniquet – influence events in Italy, Bulgaria etc. This could lead to a collapse in the coalition, and yes, a change in Bush policy.

But if the changes come this way Frans, I fear there will be little to celebrate. It is not only the ends which are important, but also the means by which they are achieved.

“if your fury is about where/when the announcement was made”

No, the timing of the announcement is a secondary issue, it is simply I think Z just lost all right to crticise Aznar on this score (which he had repeatedly done during his term of opposition. He also made me personally feel someone had just sold me a ‘pup’, since I did take the trouble to watch a significant part of the parliamentary debate. It will be a long time before I accept anything he says at face value again). Incidentally he did change position between Friday and Sunday. I have now discovered that midnight Thursday (I was sleeping) he did state explicitly to the IU representative that the policy still was that, “if by 1st July bla bla bla…..”

Actually I feel there is a certain level of Spanish insularity and incompetence here. This piece is fairly accurate:

http://news.google.com/url?ntc=0M0A0&q=http://www.upi.com/view.cfm%3FStoryID%3D20040419-050857-3164r

and contains this little gem:

“According to the Madrid newspaper El Pais, Zapatero speeded up his decision after his new Defense Minister Jose Bono returned from an unpublicized day trip to Washington a fortnight ago with a gloomy report on the prospects of the United Nations stepping in by the summer.”

I personally think Bono has a lot of the responsibility for this decision, by giving a very misleading version of what the Washington dynamic actually is. This is not surprising, Bono is a mediocre, flag waving Spanish patriot of the PSOE ‘old guard’. He is a ‘machine man’ (and intensely disliked for eg here in Catalonia).

Now much was made at the time of the 11 March bombing about the fact that the Spanish were kept uninformed about what everyone else knew. I was furious on this occassion too due to the way this was cynically used, since the case is the SPANISH ARE NORMALLY KEPT SYSTEMATICALLY IGNORANT of what everyone else knows.

No-one in Spain seems to have been informed that Bono went to Washington, or concerning the nature of his visit. What was this? A piece of deep espionage. I new all about it since it was in the international press.

Then we are told that Bono comes back with a ‘gloomy report’: he was seeing what he wanted to see (I don’t imagine he speaks English) and was way out of his depth.

Sitting back here in Barcelona I am comfortably studying the Washington situation, and I don’t see what either Bono or you (I’m afraid) see.

I see that the US is in a dead end. For the reasons I stated this cannot continue like this. I think Fallujah marks a turning point. It is, to my way of thinking, pretty significant that the US have felt the need to negotiate a truce and then reached an apparent agreement.

All eyes must now be on the deteriorating situation in the south. The issue that seems to me important is not only the confrontation between Al Sadr and the US administration, but between Al Sadr and Sistani. The point is that even if Sistani wins this, if you read his declarations, he will want the US troops to leave as soon as there is a civil administration in place. I hope he won’t see his wish fulfilled.

But the only way it won’t be is by the US forces being incorporated in a larger force (maybe under Nato?) with a mandate from the UN, which will be asked for explicitly by the new Iraq administration. That is my reading of where things are now.

“They’re not going to return any time soon if -what seems to be the likely outcome- the country plunges into outright war.”

This Patrick is my fear. What we could see in the south is not ethnic genocide, but a cultural one, Iran style, with the liquidation of an entire intellectual class if Al Sadr comes out on top.

None of us would be free of the consequences of this, which is why I feel we should do our utmost to try to prevent the type of tragic civil war that you (appear to be?) are resigned to accept.

In this context I don’t think the rights and wrongs of last years war are now the issue. The issue is to try and avoid the abyss.

“to futilely try to keep the peace in Iraq is nothing but a waste of spanish counter-terrorism resources”

How can you say this Patrick. This is at best last year’s argument. It may well have been the case that Iraq wasn’t a major source of terrorist activity (although, please don’t let Sadam get off scott free on this one), but it certainly is now.

If the ‘wrong guys’ win out in Iraq now we’ll all be hearing about it. I don’t want to speculate now on the local geo-political implications of this but they would seem to me to be important.

In the end we in Europe may have more to lose here than the US itself, due to our geographic proximity. And Spain more than most, since in this context (and in the context of its history), it is the gateway to Europe. So I would say that Iraq ought to be Spain’s No1 security priority.

“means that there will be 1300 spanish soldiers available to return with the U.N. when it does return”

This strikes me as difficult Patrick. It is one thing uniting the Spanish population behind the rush to get out, it would be another matter altogether uniting them to go in again.

Interestingly, in the UP article I cite they state that 90% of the Spain’s citizens opposed the Iraq war, while only 70% favour the withdrawal of the troops. I don’t know if you should put any great confidence in such numbers, but if you could it would at least imply that 20% of the population at least (90 – 70) are able to reach to some extent their own conclusions.

This is the only vaguely optimistic point I can extract here.

I surely am no nationalist or supporter of the current administration in the Netherlands but the Dutch record in Iraq looks good. The Dutch (with almost the same number of troops as Spain) only met with two instances of violence worth mentioning.
One was the attack on a embassy-post – “we” received a warning before: so there were no casualties.
The second involved a looting groop. One Iraqi was killed. The soldier pulling the trigger (shooting from a long distance) was then taken to the Netherlands to be prosecuted. Dutch marines were not happy but I think this was very good PR towards the Iraqi people.
It was very odd to see our pm telling the Dutch troops that the decision to prosecute the man was not his, but that the Counsel for the Prosecution acted on its own. The minister of justice agreed with that point of view but other lawyers of fame did not agree on that: the counsel in the end falls under the minister.

No mistake: I know Kerry gave full support of GWB’s chance of the US policy towards Israel but if JFK is serious about his concern for regaining allies there must be subjects to disagree and debate on..

I think your priorities are misplaced if your fury is about where/when the announcement was made. There is a time and place for parliamentary procedures, and the eve of an ill-considered battle is not it.

As far as the U.N. ‘having’ to take over in Iraq; don’t count on it. They’re not going to return any time soon if -what seems to be the likely outcome- the country plunges into outright war.

Besides, Pulling out 1300 soldiers now means that there will be 1300 spanish soldiers available to return with the U.N. when it does return.

As far as fighting terrorism goes; paying for 1300 soldiers to futilely try to keep the peace in Iraq is nothing but a waste of spanish counter-terrorism resources.

Lastly, as to your hypothetical about a future external terrorist attach on spain…what perhaps expecting that spain would be able to lean on it’s ally the U.S.A for help ?

What sort of help exactly would you be counting on ? Consider that the U.S. wasn’t able to successfully conclude it’s campaign in Afghanistan because vital intelligence resources were pulled from that theatre to plan for its campaign in Iraq …and is now stretched to the breaking point with the latter ?