The Madrid Bombing Anniversary

My thoughts from a year ago:

The recent Socialist victory in Spain has been called everything from appeasment of al-Qaeda, to "the liberation of the Spanish people." But what does it really mean? Why did the Spanish vote against the not-so popular Popular Party? What does this election mean to the war on Terror at large?

There are numerous reasons José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is now the Spanish Prime Minister, but the most important among them, are the attacks of 3/11. In the aftermath of "Europe's 9/11" the Spanish people took to the streets against terrorism, and then quickly voted in the manner and fashion that al-Qaeda forced them too. The Spanish people on the whole were very unsupportive of their government’s role in the War on Iraq, however, a booming economy boued what looked to be a significant Popular Party lead in polls leading up to the election. 3/11 changed all that. The quickness with which the Popular Party blamed ETA, even in the mounting evidence that Islamic extremists were to blame, angered the Spanish people. Their blame was not directed at those who had committed the acts of violence, but those who had fought them in an unpopular fashion. First let’s look at what a few Spanish voters had to say about their motivations.

CNN quoted a participant in a rally at the Atocha train station, where two of the four trains exploded, as saying: "The government put us into that war in Iraq, and this is what happens. [President] Aznar didn't plant the bombs, but he's guilty for what happened."

MSNBC quotes another voter with the same sentiment. "I wasn't planning to vote, but I am here today because the Popular Party is responsible for murders here and in Iraq," said Ernesto Sanchez-Gey, who voted in Barcelona.

The Washington Times describes how mourning mixed with political messages at a gathering at a Bilbao railway station. According to the paper, one sign read: "Action: Iraq, 4,000 civilians dead. Reaction: Madrid, 200 civilians dead. To Blame: Aznar."

The Spanish daily El Mundo reports that, "The growing likelihood of Al Qaeda involvement renewed the mistrust over Aznar's grave error in placing himself under the banner of Bush."
In a sense this would be akin to Americans blaming FDR for Pearl Harbor. He didn’t plant the bombs, but his policy asked for it. It’s like blaming a provocatively dressed woman for getting raped, “Well, she shouldn’t have dressed provocatively.” This type of irrational thought will not deter the violence of international terrorism.

The Spanish people may not have seen themselves as appeasing al-Qaeda, but it is exactly what they did. In electoral politics, it doesn’t matter so much why something happens, it only matters why people think it happens. In a sense, it doesn’t matter that the downfall of the Popular Party was a complicated event. It matters only that the rest of the world, and Islamic extremists in particular, view the change in Spanish mood, and their retreat from the Middle East.

What does this election mean to the War on Terror? Can appeasement work? A quick look at history should answer that question. But one might say that Al-Qaeda is not Nazi Germany, and that a look into their pathology is in order.

Well, the first thing that westerners should realize is that Osama Bin Laden and his compatriots did not grow up in a nice suburban neighborhood. They grew up in an entirely different society; an Arab society, where the rules of survival, and to be more specific, politics are extremely different. As Thomas Friedman, the New York Times columnist and expert on Middle Eastern affairs, has often pointed out; when you live in a desert, there is never enough food and water to sustain everyone. And in the desert there are no outside forces to arbitrate who gets what.

Therefore, if someone tries to feed his camels at your oasis, you have to be ready to defend it. If you are not, you will quickly see that your water will be gone. You have to show you are strong, even when you are not. This type of thought can be seen in the actions of the authoritative governments that currently rule the Middle East. In essence, when you are weak, you cannot afford to compromise; and when you are strong, there is no reason to compromise. Bin Laden looks at the Spanish response to 3/11 and he sees a country that is not willing to defend its “oasis.” Even more disconcerting, is that Bin Laden will look at Spanish weakness as European weakness. As European Commission President Romano Prodi said this week, "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," The more European authorities who take that view, the more likely it will be that bombs may soon follow in London, Italy, and in the mass of Eastern European countries that currently support the War on Terror. This election was simply a referendum on that war. It is a referendum that may soon be passed to other countries in the west. It is the same referendum that Americans will vote on next November.

How will we prosecute the War on Terror? As Friedman wrote this week: "The notion that Spain can separate itself from Al Qaeda's onslaught on Western civilization by pulling its troops from Iraq is a fantasy. Bin Laden has said that Spain was once Muslim and he wants it restored that way. As a friend in Cairo e-mailed me, a Spanish pullout from Iraq would only bring to mind Churchill's remark after Chamberlain returned from signing the Munich pact with Hitler: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."