By Justin H. Schair
You have to acknowledge the irony in Islamist militants capitalizing off of the very Western Democracy they so vehemently reject.
This is what it boils down to; Islamists were able to rule Spain’s polls in their national election two days after al Qaeda set off a bunch of bombs in Madrid. Al Qaeda murdered 200 people to achieve a political goal and they were promptly rewarded with the promise by the newly elected leadership to withdraw from the reconstruction effort in Iraq.
At no point in history has such appeasement proven a wise choice, which begs the perplexing question: Why would Spain’s new Prime Minister, José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero, do such a thing?
Answer: European mediocrity stuck on spin-cycle. It’s a combination of the consistent growth of European integration, their fresh memory of war and resentment of American unilateralism that has caused countries like Spain to make decisions that lack foresight and will unarguably bring pernicious consequences. European states are now finding it harder to diverge in politics because they are so interconnected. The France-Belgium philosophy of neutrality is taking over, which is why Europe felt so uncomfortable with the war in Iraq, even if it was approved by the United Nations. But even Germany, a staunch opponent of the war, acknowledged the grave mistake Prime Minister RodrÃguez Zapatero made when he appeased terrorists.
“If…you can plant a big bomb in Europe, cause a government to fall and force a withdrawal of troops, then this would send the wrong signals to terrorists,” a senior German official told The Wall Street Journal. “That’s not in Germany’s interests or in Europe’s or in Spain’s.”
Europe hates war, but one would expect they know appeasement is equally dangerous after dealing with Hitler.
There is no question that an overwhelming majority of Spain’s population opposed the U.S. unilateral invasion of Iraq. Days before the election polls showed a very close race with former Prime Minister José MarÃa Aznar leading slightly, so it is conceivable the results would have been the same, but the March 11 train bombings no doubt secured Zapatero’s victory. But herein lies the point that I want my European friends to understand: Even though the Socialist party opposed the war, might they have expressed their dissent in a way that would not appear to reward terrorism so directly?
Spain’s presence in Iraq was a symbolic one. And it’s really too bad they decided to leave the reconstruction effort. They have effectively told the world they cannot withstand terrorism and that they are also no longer interested in Arab democracy in Iraq.
After Sept. 11, Americans met their tragedy with anger for their enemy, resolve, unification and a renewed dedication to freedom and democracy. Spain on the other hand met their March 11 with division, anger at their own government for participating in the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime and no resolve at all.
In less than a month, the United States brought the war back to the terrorists with the dismantling of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Spain responded by leaving Iraq. The really sad part about this whole debacle is that Spain has the perfect opportunity to respond to their terror attack. War is the only language terrorists get, they don’t listen to diplomacy or compromise. If you want to send them a message, you do it with force. How about doubling the number of Spanish troops on the ground in Iraq? That will send a clear message: Mess with us and we’re only going to make it worse for you.
It’s often the policy of government’s to never negotiate with terrorists because they’ll just come back for more. Al Qaeda never even held them hostage, imagine what happens when they hijack a plane out of Spain, they’re going to think they can have the keys to Madrid.Spain’s move was both tactfully and politically detrimental for all of Europe. I’m not looking forward to the repercussions.
