The Spanish Disposition: Why the war on terror didn't matter to voters.

The Weekly Standard ^ | March 29, 2003 | Pablo Pardo

[quidnunc]

Are the Spanish cowards? Or do they simply not grasp the nature of the war on terror?

The answer to the first question is decidedly "No." Spain has endured 40 years of Basque terrorism, carried out by separatists who follow an ideology almost as weird as al Qaeda's — a mixture of radical leftism and nationalism — yet nobody has ever talked of capitulating to the terrorists and granting independence to that region. Meanwhile, the small and underfunded Spanish Army has been stretched to its limits by going to patrol Kabul. Last May, 62 soldiers were killed when the plane they were flying in from Afghanistan crashed in Turkey. If we compare the size of the Spanish armed forces with the U.S. Army, this one crash killed the equivalent of 1,300 G.I.s — more than twice the combat deaths America has suffered in Iraq. Not a single voice was raised against Spanish participation in the operation.

However, Spaniards do not understand the larger world. President Bush recently said on Spanish television that outgoing Spanish prime minister José María Aznar "is a man who understands the war on terror, clearly knows the stakes" in that war. True, but Aznar was never able to transmit his understanding to the Spanish public — and in this, he has company in other Western governments.

Aznar was incapable of conveying to his fellow Spaniards that the principles he was applying in Basque country were the same ones he was putting into practice in his approach to Iraq: a policy based on an active defense of national security when threatened by rogue individuals, organizations, or states.

But for Spaniards — as for much of the European public — Iraq was never seen as a problem, and even Islamic terrorism generally was seen as a minor issue. Of course, Mohammed Atta, the probable ringleader of 9/11, planned part of that attack from the Spanish coastal city of Tarragona. And Islamic fundamentalists have been arrested and sentenced in Spain since the mid-1990s, notably by Judge Baltasar Garzón (the same judge who tried to prosecute Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet).

But the Spanish public never thought it would be the target of a massive terrorist attack like 9/11. That was not "our war." Of course, everyone believed the police should act, and they certainly did. Spain also participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, but mainly as a way of showing solidarity with the Americans and to make known that Spain is a country ready to take on international responsibilities. It was not understood to be a matter of life or death. Why? Because everybody thought that Spain was too small and irrelevant to attract the terrorists' attention. No matter that it has a border with Morocco, a growing Muslim population, and that the name "Al Andalus" — Arabic for southern Spain — quickens the pulse of al Qaeda fundamentalists, with its evocation of a fallen (and future?) Islamic empire.

-snip-

[Lexington Green]

Them who's whipped easiest is whipped oftenest.

[BobS]

"Because everybody thought that Spain was too small and irrelevant to attract the terrorists' attention.

Stupidest assumption yet. I was almost killed by an ETA bomb in Alcala in the 80's that killed 11 and injured 25.

[EternalHope]

Very good article. Worth reading the whole thing.

Adds insight, essentially blaming ignorance and provincialism rather than cowardice as the underlying cause.

However, the fact remains: Spain surrendered after a single attack. The terrorists won a spectacular victory.

[Ranger]

The al-Qaeda action in Spain was brilliantly effective I'm sorry to say. I would expect Italy to be the next target.

[livius]

A very good article, and very true - the Spanish do believe they can sink back into obscurity and not be noticed by the Islamists. More fools they.

However, I feel compelled to point out that nearly 45% of Spanish voters did not feel that way (10 million voted for the PP), and without the commotion raised by the left after the bombings, I think Spaniards would probably have opted to fight back.

I attribute a lot of this "terrorist victory" to the fact that the terrorists got help at home immediately from the left, which was always opposed to the involvement in Iraq, embarrased by Spain's new high international (and very "capitalistic") profile, and bitterly anti-American but devoted to France.

The terrorists won, but with a big boost from the left. Or maybe the left won, with a big boost from the terrorists.

[DB]

"The terrorists won, but with a big boost from the left. Or maybe the left won, with a big boost from the terrorists."

What's the difference?

[Blue Scourge]

Why the war on Terror didn't matter to Spanish voters....

I can answer that right here....they figure as long as the terrorist quit killing us and go back to attacking America we'll be more than happy to appease them.

[Revolting cat!]

"When President Bush visited Spain in 2001, a few months before 9/11, he referred to Aznar as "Anzar," a word that in Spanish sounds exactly like the name of a goose species. Last week, White House spokesman Scott McClellan made the same mistake. In February 2003, Florida governor Jeb Bush was in Spain to meet with the king and publicly gave thanks to "the president of the Republic of Spain for his friendship with the United States." It is said that when King Juan Carlos I met Governor Bush later, he jokingly conveyed "regards for your brother, the King of the United States." However trivial, such anecdotes reinforced the already suspicious attitude of the Spanish public towards Washington, which was viewed as an imperial power using Spain as a client state--one whose political system and prime minister's name were irrelevant. It is easy to dismiss such episodes, but imagine the reaction of Americans if a foreign dignitary raised a toast to "President Shrub, King of America."

Payback is a bitch, ain't it?!

[ninenot]

Seems to me that both you and the Standard don't put a lot of stock into the intellectual capacity of Spanish voters--and that may be an error.

You DO recall, do you not, that immediately after a phenomenally successful foreign campaign, the US voters dumped a straight-laced Republican in favor of an individual who turned out to be (most likely) a traitor to the country? (Hint: Bill Clinton.)

Seems to me that identifying the terrorists' act as the SINGLE AND ONLY source of voter discontent is highly dangerous, although it certainly fits the "spin" of the neo-conservative globaloney types who infest the Weekly Standard and certain parts of the White House.

[BunnySlippers]

Thanks for posting. It's given me more perspective on why Spain has reacted the way it has.

[ninenot]

See my response to an earlier post immediately above.

It is very difficult to believe, unless one is a jingoist of the first order, that the Spanish are as stupid as some would like us to believe.

Should one dig around a bit in electoral politics in Spain and concentrate on the last few years' Spanish Gummint policies, one might find that the voters there were just fed up with Aznar. Maybe he lied and increased their taxes, for example?

[texasflower]

I was amused by that paragraph. It was very cleverly ended.