MaroonBlog

The Spanish Response (washingtonpost.com):

"Mr. Zapatero could not be expected to alter his view that the original decision to invade Iraq was wrong. But the reaction of Spain, and Europe, to this massive and shocking attack on its soil is crucial -- as is its response to the continuing challenge in Iraq. The two are inextricably linked: Whatever the prewar situation, al Qaeda's tactics now have made explicit the connection between the continuing fight in Iraq and the overall war on terrorism. Mr. Zapatero said his first priority would be to fight terrorism. Yet rather than declare that the terrorists would not achieve their stated aim in slaughtering 200 Spanish civilians, he reiterated his intention to pull out from Iraq in less equivocal terms than before the election.

The incoming prime minister declared the Iraq occupation 'a disaster' -- yet he didn't explain how withdrawing troops would improve the situation. Spain's participation on the ground in Iraq is small, but a Spanish withdrawal will make it harder for other nations, such as Poland and Italy, to stay the course. The danger is that Europe's reaction to a war that has now reached its soil will be retreat and appeasement rather than strengthened resolve. 'It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists,' European Commission President Romano Prodi said yesterday. Should such sentiments prevail, the next U.S. administration -- whether led by President Bush or Sen. John F. Kerry -- may have no alternative to unilateralism."

Indeed, the Europeans are fools if they think that terrorism will just go away if they ignore it.

More on this subject from Mr. Kagan:

In the coming days and weeks, Europeans will close ranks with Spain and express common European solidarity against al Qaeda terrorism. But there is a real danger that many Europeans will not extend the solidarity across the Atlantic. Some may argue, at least implicitly, that separation from the United States is one effective, nonviolent defense against future terrorist attacks.

Needless to say, that would be a disaster for the United States. The Bush administration needs to recognize it has a crisis on its hands and start making up for lost time in mending transatlantic ties, and not just with chosen favorites. The comforting idea of a "New Europe" always rested on the shifting sands of a public opinion, in Spain and elsewhere, that was never as favorable to American policy as to the governments. The American task now is to address both governments and publics, in Old and New Europe, to move past disagreements over the Iraq war, and to seek transatlantic solidarity against al Qaeda.
...
But the problem is not all on the American side, and neither is the solution. Responsible heads in Europe must understand that anything that smacks of retreat in the aftermath of this latest attack could raise the likelihood of further attacks. Al Qaeda's list of demands doesn't end with Iraq. The attack in Madrid was not just punishment for Spain's involvement in Iraq but for involvement with the United States in the war on terrorism. Al Qaeda's statement taking credit for the bombings in Madrid condemned Spain's role in Afghanistan, too. Al Qaeda seeks to divide Europe and the United States not just in Iraq but in the overall struggle. It seeks to convince Europeans not only that the use of force in Iraq was mistaken but that the use of force against terrorism in general is mistaken and futile -- just as Prodi is arguing. Are Europeans prepared to grant all of al Qaeda's conditions in exchange for a promise of security? Thoughts of Munich and 1938 come to mind.

The incoming Spanish government has declared its intention to move away from the United States and back to the "core of Europe," meaning France and Germany. Presumably Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder will welcome their new ally in Old Europe. But presumably they also know that dissociation from the United States in the wake of the Madrid bombings will be a disaster for Europe. If the United States cannot fight al Qaeda without Europe's help, it is equally true that Europe can't fight al Qaeda without the United States. If Europe's leaders understand this, then they and Bush should recognize the urgency of making common cause now, before the already damaged edifice of the transatlantic community collapses.

Giving the terrorists any ground will just invite further bullying and bloodshed. World War II is still in living memory, but the lessons that were taught about appeasement seem to have been forgotten by a continent that suffered much more than America.

Thinking in more domestic political termsDavid Frum thinks that the Spanish election results will hurt Bush in the short term, but help him in the longer run as people like Kerry are associated with fear and weakness stemming from fear:

I do not think it is healthy for any political cause to come to be seen as a coward’s cause. The Spanish vote may cause Bush and Blair some trouble in the short run. Very soon though it will lead the list of events that cause John Kerry and other opponents of the war to look frightened and weak.

And if al Qaeda’s success in Spain induces terrorist groups to mount further attacks at election season in the United Kingdom or Italy or Poland, the message will be even sharper – the terrorists want the political parties of the pro-American right to lose, as they did in Spain. Logically, then, that implies that the terrorists want the parties of the anti-American left to win. That has to be a very unwelcome implication for those parties. And if the idea ever takes hold that al Qaeda is planting bombs with a view above all to defeating George W. Bush …. Well let’s just say that even Senator Kerry, much as he delights in collecting the endorsements of foreign leaders real and imaginary, would very much prefer to do without Osama bin Laden’s.

Let's hope that their aren't any more attacks (even though there probably will be). Let's also hope that the Left learns that their stance on terrorism and Iraq are hurting their countries and will kill their fellow civilian citizens in the future. At least Mr. Bush's strategy brings the fight to the terrorists instead of letting them bring the fight to us as we try to fight a hopeless battle against the terrorist using a law enforcement strategy, as Mr. Kerry proposes.

UPDATE: Mr. Tagorda posts a word of caution to Hawks, pointing out that when the US pulled out of Saudi Arabia, this wasn't appeasement, even though bin Laden had been calling for it for years. He says we don't have enough data to draw conclusions as to what the motivations of the Spanish electorate were to vote Socialist.

However, he concludes

To be sure, terrorists would have used this tragedy to encourage and recruit supporters even if the Popular Party won. But their campaign is more persuasive at the heels of Socialist victory. The new government could eventually implement tough anti-terror measures -- perhaps even tougher than those of Aznar's group -- but the enemy will be stronger.

Isn't this what matters, that the terrorists will be reinvigorated by this, even if tihe Spanish people weren't calculating that the a Socialist victory would cause the terrorists to look elsewhere for their next target?

I disagree with Mr. Tagorda, though, and I do believe that the Spanish people were voting out of a fearful, incorrect belief that pulling out of Iraq would make them safer. When people fear, the terrorists win (hence the name terrorism, of course); I think they've won a victory here.

Mr. Yousefzadeh also has a large running dialogue on many takes on the Spanish elections.

In the comments to his post a reader posts an illuminatint response to commentary by Jessica Harbour that says GWB should go overseas to make his case to the world. The commentor writes:

My gut feeling to Jessica's suggestion (that GW go overseas and explain the American stance) is that the response from these countries would still be "No". They don't even regard GW as a legitimate person (let alone as the leader of the United States of America) and predictably, his words will fall on deaf ears.

I think he's right, the Europeans have written President Bush off as stupid and a cowboy, and are unwilling to actually consider his arguments. Isn't that a foolish way to act, not listening to the arguments made by the leader of the most powerful nation in the world? I think such a stance taken by the Europeans is yet another reason that their continent is in such decline.