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.
I'm sorry, but wasn't it the Bush Administration that has tried (but failed) to make the connection explicit? The Washington Post must be confused. Assuming Madrid was attacked for the reasons stated on the tape, would the terrorists have attacked Spain if the US had not invaded Iraq with their Coalition of the Willing? I think this is what Spanish voters responded too, plus a sense that it was time for change, especially if that government ignored overwhelming public opinion and went to war.
Also, I notice that the Spanish troops are being called peacekeepers but they have not international mandate. The new Spanish administration is simply challenging this.
To me, it seems the Post is confirming the exact opposite of the Bush administration line, that the War on Terror is making the world safer.
The New York Times had a different take, surprisingly. They don't accuse Spain of appeasement, and conclude that Spain is still a member of the Coalition of the Willing against Terrorism. The editorial has its flaws, including the fact that they don't comment on any connections between the War on Terror and Iraq and the issue of an international plan to combat terrorism.
[b]Washington Post: The Spanish Response /b]
Tuesday, March 16, 2004; Page A20
SPANISH VOTERS no doubt wished to rebuke the ruling Popular Party for its wrong-footed reaction to last week's terrorist bombing in Madrid, and its support for the United States in Iraq. Fair enough -- but it's hard not to be concerned about how the message was likely received outside the country, by the leaders of al Qaeda and other Islamic terrorist organizations. Before the bombing, the Popular Party was favored to win comfortably; after the devastating attack, and an al Qaeda statement saying its intent was to punish Spain for its role in Iraq, the election was swept by the opposition -- and its leader immediately pledged to withdraw Spanish troops and cool relations with Washington. The rash response by Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain's prime minister-elect, will probably convince the extremists that their attempt to sway Spanish policy with mass murder succeeded brilliantly.
The outgoing prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar, lived by entirely different principles. An ardent opponent of terrorism, he became one of President Bush's most steadfast allies after Sept. 11, 2001, and courageously supported the Iraq war even when polls showed the Spanish public was overwhelmingly against it. Until last week, it appeared that Mr. Aznar's toughness would prevail; even though he had decided to leave office, his chosen successor appeared likely to win. His government's mistake may have been to blame the Basque terrorist organization ETA for last Thursday's train bombings until evidence of involvement by al Qaeda or other Arab extremists seemed overwhelming. The miscue apparently angered some voters while confirming others in their belief that Mr. Aznar was wrong to send 1,300 Spanish troops to Iraq. The beneficiary was Mr. Zapatero, who had promised even before the bombing to withdraw the troops on June 30 unless the force was sanctioned by the United Nations.
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.
[b]New York Times: Change in Spain[/b]
The terrorist bombings in Madrid last week were undoubtedly the main factor in Sunday's upset of the incumbent Popular Party, which supported the American invasion and occupation of Iraq. The victorious Socialists, like most Spaniards, did not. If Al Qaeda organized the bombings, as now seems to be the case, the outcome may be seen by some as a win for the terrorists. We disagree.
Certainly, the events in Madrid have been a major blow to the Bush administration's strategy of inducing democratic governments to endorse its military operations even in the teeth of overwhelming opposition from their own people. But the war on terror will go on, perhaps stronger than ever.
The Popular Party expected that its impressive economic achievements would cause the Spanish people to overlook Prime Minister José María Aznar's unpopular decision to support the invasion of Iraq and send a symbolic detachment of Spanish troops to aid in the effort. Thursday's terrorist strike — Western Europe's worst in more than half a century, with 200 dead and 1,500 wounded — scrambled the political calculus. Sunday's vote became an expression of national pride and mourning. Spaniards who might not otherwise have voted turned out in large numbers and voted against a government that they opposed before the bombs went off. Others may have turned against the government over its early emphatic insistence that the bombings had been the work of Basque, rather than Islamic, terrorists. Either way, it was an exercise in healthy democracy, in which a change of government is simply that, and not a change of national character.
It is possible to support the battle against terrorism wholeheartedly and still oppose a political party that embraces the same cause. The Spanish people, who have suffered under the violence of Basque terrorists for years, undoubtedly feel a redoubled commitment to fight on and avenge the innocents who died in Madrid. That did not make them obliged to keep Prime Minister Aznar's party in power. Here in the United States, as much as the White House would like the elections to be about fear and national insecurity, they are a choice between two men and two political philosophies — not a referendum on terrorism.
The Socialists, under José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, ran on a platform of withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq unless a United Nations-led force takes charge after June 30. Mr. Zapatero now has an opportunity to use his new mandate to pressure Washington to seek U.N. help. The Bush administration has already learned it needs the United Nations. That, like the defeat of Mr. Bush's allies in Spain, should help the president to realize what it really takes to win a permanent international war against violent outlaws like Al Qaeda. The peaceful nations of the world are all in this together, and they must work as partners.
Mr. Zapatero, for his part, cannot view his victory as a mandate for isolationism, an option that is simply not available to any member of the European Union. It is instead a summons to join Europe and the United States in the kind of intense and broadly based cooperation that can provide the most sustained and effective answer to the tragedy of Madrid.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
Posted by Roya Aziz at March 15, 2004 11:19 PM