I am, of course, conscious of the attacks in Madrid. It's a nice-but-nasty city, one where your lungs will instantly know that you're not in America any more once you disembark from your plane.

As usual, I've got something to say about the whole deal:

I was listening to NPR this morning and some fellow---not your usual sandalista---suggested that the discovery of the van was possibly a ham-fisted attempt to shift blame. His primary reasons for saying this were twofold:
-The tapes found in the van were religious sermons that were readily available and were not 'propaganda'.
-The ETA may not be monolithic; see some marketplace car bombing in Northern Ireland by the 'Real' IRA back in the late 1990s.

I agree with this man's reservations. Before I go further, let me say that I know precious little about the Basque struggle for independence, and was surprised to know that the French were in the fight against the ETA et cetera. That is not a back-of-the-hand against Paris; I had thought that the Basque question was solely a domestic Spanish issue. Learn something every day, y'do.

The point about the tapes is interesting to me. I would expect religious material in the hands of men about to commit terrorist acts would be something on the order of "DEATH TO THE ZIONIST PIGS AND THEIR CRUSADER ALLIES, ALLAH COMMANDS IT AND YOU WILL GET 72 COPIES OF SALMA HAYEK IF YOU DO THIS!" Conversely, I would not expect them to have tapes of a run-of-the-mill imam reading the five pillars of Islam or talking about how going to Mecca isn't really required if you can't make it, that Allah in his munificence would understand.

Of course, if it were a sophisticated operation by al-Qaeda forces, there might be incentives to try and cover their trail. I can think of a few, but I'll leave it to them to figure it out. No freebies, you dirtbags.

Secondly, the point about ETA factionalism is almost always true when you're dealing with politico-terrorist organizations. Invariably, there's always someone in the ranks who isn't happy that you've stopped bombing and started balloting, regardless of whether the goals of the group are being advanced. Some organizations probably kill dissenters like that, but they can't catch every one.

This problem even extended to the German National Socialists. Ernst Rohm, the leader of the Sturmabteilung (AKA the 'SA'), become dissatisfied with the actions of Adolf Hitler because the little corporal wasn't doing enough to further the socialist goals Rohm had embraced. Rohm had thought that he and his organization were the vanguard of the national socialist revolution, and thus wanted to be a big dog in the NSDAP's arrangements if not the big dog.

Of course, Hitler didn't like competition. Rohm made some public remarks---something about either continuing the original Nazi revolution or having another one---that got ol' Adolf angry, and so Rohm & Co. were purged in "The Night of the Long Knives", 10 June 1934.

That example is listed to show that even some of the best run groups of thugs have their problems and their "mob" to satisfy, unless you kill them. Given the probable resemblance of the ETA to every other politico-terror group, the aforementioned splinter possibility is given credence by me.

But what of the ETA disavowals? The BBC & NPR reported that 'reliable ETA contacts' (not their phraseology) had disavowed the attacks. That in and of itself is not conclusory. I see two possibilities:

a) They didn't do it, and were wanting to their story out in front that while "Yes, we kill Spaniards in the name of Basque independence, we didn't do this because we're not stupid." This would be intelligent damage control, because the ETA's name came up first in public discussion, sort of the ready wrongdoer. If the public got it in their minds that the ETA was responsible, the bombing Basques might get a visit from the Spanish military that otherwise would not have been made.

b) They did do it, and wanted to cover that up for whatever reason, like too much success. "Oops, we've killed too many." At this point, the ETA leadership would want to distance itself because it would not serve their purposes. It would attract the sort of rage that 11 September got from us. The ETA would like fear and weakness; instead, they would get fear backed by rage, which tends to lead to slaughter of the bad guys. If I were an ETA commander and we'd ordered the strike, I'd do my darnedest to back away. I'd hate to have the Spanish army turned loose on me with any remaining gloves off. Similarly, it would require carefully orchestrated political footwork in order to manipulate the circumstances to ETA's advantage at this point.

At the same time, it would be an interesting way to get on top of the Spanish terror heap; perhaps the ETA saw a useful opportunity in the 'failed' op to stick al-Qaeda with the blame and get them annihilated, so that everyone remembers the ETA and doesn't get distracted with a bunch of Arabs. I suppose it would be something on the order of, "We'll keep the license on killing Spaniards, thank you."

Further ruminations may follow. My second point in this post is now going to be a separate post, due to its less analytical content. The people of Spain are in my prayers.

UPDATE: Matthew Stinson's remarks and round-the-web research are here; go read them.

The Swanky Conservative has found this site about the ETA.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 01:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 935 words, total size 6 kb.