And you trust the word of the Socialist candidate on what he'll do in Iraq because....?

He'll go whichever way the wind blows on terrorism. If the Spanish cowards-at-large want to bend over and take it, then he'll be happy to oblige. He, unlike Aznar, needs the left wing, especially if he plans to forego a coalition of ruling parties as advertised.

And I can't see how "we'll stay so long as the U.N. is in charge" as anything but a slap at the U.S.

I trust him because I believe most politicians, left or right, do their best to keep their promises, and to do what they say they'll do.

I note for you that Tony Blair is a leftist, and has been nothing but a staunch, honest, honorable ally.

As for this being a slap at the U.S. -- okay, if you want to see it that way. Looks like a simple change of policy after a national referendum to me, but what do I know? :-)

This is a classic case of appeasing so that you hope the alligator eats you last. For some reason, these people beleive that IslamoFascism has a specific cause like "a Palestinian state" or "freeing X,Y, and Z from jail" and that if they only submit to terms, these jihadists will put down their tools of terror and go home and we will never see them again. Seing how groups like Al Qaeda have already stated that they are seeking to destroy the decadent West (with the US on the top of their hit list), I don't understand why the Socialists in Spain can rationalize laying down and hoping that Islamo-Fascism destroys America and will then leave them alone.

I guess they are hoping to treat this as an intelligence and law enforcement issue.

Do you really think that Spain deciding that Iraq should be a U.N. protectorate is really a case of "appeasing" Al Qaeda?

I'm not trying to be snotty. I'm serious. You actually think that's really what it amounts to?

I'd say we ought to at least wait and see how good to their word they are in their pledge to fight terrorism elsewhere.

I don't think Aznar wanted to help Iraq become a UN protectorate, I think Aznar wanted Iraq to be an Iraqi protectorate.

I think Aznar's party would be more willing to "stay the course" (I hate that phrase myself but I lack a better term) and help the Iraqis all the way to soveriegnty.

The Socialist's case is "if we weren't in Iraq this never would have happened". But I also don't think the group that I refer to as "IslamoFascists" would forever refrain from attacking Spain because they stayed out of Iraq.

The new government hopes that if they make a public announcement to get out of Iraq as soon as possible ("unless the UN becomes involved") that they hope they won't be attacked at home. It's a nice hope, but not one I would rest on.

So who is next then? Poland? Denmark?

Oh come on, Dean. The polls had Aznar's party ahead. Then come the attacks. Then his party loses. I'm sure the terrorists are very well aware of that series of facts.

Just as they are aware of what would happen in our polls if the US was attacked again under George Bush.

i think what dean is trying to say, and i have to say i think he's right, is that this isn't about appeasement. Anzar's party lost because the overwhelming majority of spaniards didn't equate the Iraq war with the War on Terrorism. Therefore, a candidate from spain can be soft on iraq and still tough on terror. and, while i'm glad we ousted saddam, i agree that the connection between iraq and terror organizations is tenuous at best, and that invading iraq has clearly done nothing to slow down the islamic terrorists. if anything, all 3/11 accomplished in terms of terrorist aims was a bitter reminder of that.

And just how is Zapatero proposing to fight terrorism "wherever and whenever it occurs"? Just as the French and the Germans have been fighting terrorism, by supporting every terrorist they have ever met?

Actions speak louder than words. Europeans and the UN will keep mouthing words to the effect that terrorism needs to be fought, but will not lift a finger to do anything about it. You can see the actions in their staunch support of Palestinian terrorists, and in their call for exploring the root causes ad infinitum.

This is another instance in the history of European appeasement of every fascist and totalitarian ideology they have ever faced, from Hitler to Milosevic. Personally, I'd prefer to leave the Europeans to their own devices, except history has shown that doesn't work for us. After extensive bloodshed and misery, we have to go clean up the mess every time. I would be perfectly happy to disengage from Europe if we did not have to clean up their mess again.

And why shouldn't Al-Qaeda gloat over its victory? They brought about regime change in a Western democracy by terror, and strengthened the hands of its UN enablers. We can be assured that they have learned a valuable lesson, that persistent terror will achieve its ends, in Europe and in the US. Just as they fine-tuned their tactics in the 1990's with WTC, Cole and the African attacks, they are fine-tuning their tactics now with Spanish elections. Wasn't there an observation a few moths ago that Spain was 2 or 3 attacks away from capitulation? Well, it seems that they overestimated the strength of the Spanish. If someone at Al-Qaeda is thinking strategically, their next operation for maximum effect should be a coordinated, simultaneous attack on 8-10 prime targets in Europe. (Say, London, Berlin, Rome Paris, Lisbon, and Amsterdam.) Can you imagine the reaction in Europe? It would be a race to institute Sharia law.

The Europeans fscination with the Islamofascists is easy to understand. I have family in Europe, and have had extensive conversations with them about the entire situation. It seems abundantly clear that Europe's main obsession is its envy of the US. They recognize US as the prime movers in the world, economically, militarily, and culturally. And like any other inferior creatures, they are mightily jealous. Knowing that they are powerless to stop the US in anything, they provide explicit and implicit support for anyone who stands up to the US (Cuba, anyone?). In most cases, they still have the decency not to support the Islamofascists directly, but it is only a matter of time. (And if you don't believe me, just consider their concern for the Gitmo prisoners.)

Zach,

Anzar's party was ahead in the polls before the bombings last week. This week they find themselves losing the majority in their legislature. What happened between the pre 3-11 polls and the 3-14 election?

The Iraq war took place almost a year ago and, despite going against 90% of the Spanish population, Anzar's party was still poised to retain power. The shift in Spanish votes to the Socialists did not take place because of the PM's decision to support the Iraq war.

We can speculate why people the Spanish electorate reacted to last week's terrorist attack this way but to say that the election outcome is anything other than a reflection of what looks like an al Queda terrorist attack is just plain wrong.

Well written, Dean. The distinction between the war on terror and the war in Iraq is not a limited one outside of the US. I see this as an opportunity for Spain to reather refocus its resources on the war on terror. Canada never joined Iraq but has been playing the role we are capable in the Gulf with our navy, Afganistan and elsewhere including now Haiti. Many in the US may not like that but polls show the vast majority of Canadians (I read 76% today) want the government to do that. Even if the war in Iraq moves - as it is apparently moving - to a successful conclusion that is where countries like Spain are going to refocus anyway, as they events of Madrid sadly prove we all must and perhaps should have all along.

Sure, the PM promised to "terrorism wherever and whenever it occurs".

And John Kerry also promised to "blow Osama's brains out".

We don't believe Kerry's sincerity for a second because of his prior record. Ditto the current Spanish PM.

"Anzar's party lost because the overwhelming majority of spaniards didn't equate the Iraq war with the War on Terrorism. "

If this were true the socialists would have been leading in the polls throughout. The attack is what changed the election.

Many of those defensive about the charge of appeasement are claiming the election result was due to the Aznar government pushing ETA as the likely responsible party. I find this difficult to believe as well. In two days, how much investigating can realistically be accomplished? This idea lacks the force to convince anyone not already a convert.

Having an election immediately after such an event can be very difficult, so I'm not surprised to see unusual results. It may well be that many people who leaned socialist were simply more inspired to vote given the events. It's also likely that people who were moderately against the war but generally supported the more conservative party for other reasons changed their minds when they perceived a higher cost of the war. But there is little doubt about the morale boost this attack and the election will have for the terrorists. Even though I wouldn't characterize Spaniards as cowards, their decision, made for whatever reason, has increased the terrorist danger to the rest of the world.

Any WOT participant with a vocal anti-war group, majority or influential minority, is going to become a target immediately before elections. Australia, UK, and the US are especially at risk.

The real problem with the majority of Spaniards, along with most Europeans and many Americans, is that they don't take the WOT seriously. We're constantly seeing articles by lefty advocates that terrorism is merely a phase to be endured, not defeated. They believe terrorists will eventually give it up of their own accord.

I want to make one other point. People are going to great lengths to say Spain and other countries support the WOT, just not the Iraqi War. At the same time they claim that support for Iraq draws AQ attacks, while support for attacking AQ doesn't. These two positions are fundamentally contradictory. If Spain really supports the WOT, withdrawing from Iraq will have no effect on their status on the target list.

Dean, i disagree.

There is a direct connection with the feeling that the attack was brought on by involvement in Iraq. If they don't think that Iraq is part of the war on terror, how can the two be connected now?

Also - this is not the largest coalition since WWII, that would be the first Gulf War, and also Korea.

Dean,

Even if Thursday's bombing had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Aznar's party's defeat at the polls yesterday, and even if the new Socialist government were to continue all of Aznar's policies against terrorism--or even, for that matter, if they were to go far beyond any action Aznar might have taken--this is STILL a very bad thing.

It's a bad thing BECAUSE IT ENCOURAGES THE ISLAMISTS TO USE VIOLENCE TO SWING ELECTIONS IN COALITION COUNTRIES.

Sorry for shouting... but the point is, it's not the policy changes the new Socialist government might make that are the problem, it's the message Al-Qaeda will take from this election: the Western democracies can be deterred.

And now, many, MANY more people will die in violence like last Thursday's before the Islamists are disabused of that notion.

The only thing I'm really saying is that Al Qaeda will probably see this as a victory now, but if the Spanish government turns out to be a constant thorn in their side and Iraq winds up continuing its progress toward independence, then their "victory" means very little.

We should wait to see what the actual fallout from this is before deciding that it's a disaster.

As for Iraq and terrorism: I think the connection is more than tenuous, in fact it's a proven connection. But whatever. You can think Iraq should be under the UN's wing and still want to persue terrorists.

Oh, and Dave: It's a good point. So the real question is, long term, whether they can be disabused of that notion.

I must say, we also should not be in the position of not voting our consciences as voters simply because we're afrraid of what Al Qaeda might do. If Al Qaeda grows stronger as a result of the Spanish elections, I have a feeling that the Spaniards will probably figure that out by the time the next elections roll around. Either that, or the new center-left government will go out of their way to disabuse Al Qaeda of the notion.

I guess what I'm saying is that I still have faith in liberal democracy. I'm rather annoyingly optimistic when it comes to these things, aren't I? :-)

"So the real question is, long term, whether they can be disabused of that notion."

More like, "How many more thousands will have to die now, before the Islamists' elation over their 'success' yesterday in Spain is dissipated?"

"I'm rather annoyingly optimistic when it comes to these things, aren't I? :-)"

Sometimes this blog is like a cross between Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood and Groundhog Day.

But I like it anyway...

I think all this will prove to the terrorists that they can single handedly rig any election they want. And they will attempt to rig many more before they're eraticated, I'll wager.

If they do a similar attack on America before the upcoming election, I have very high doubts that America will react any differently. Remember that the country is already split almost 50/50. The terrorists find themselves in a very good position and the humans find themselves in a very bad position.

The only solution? Swift and utter revenge on the terrorists. Their atoms should be scattered throughout the galaxy before the months is out.

This is truly sickening. I hate how there isn't a terrorist standing beside me right now that I could torture to death.

i don't think the argument about Aznar's party being ahead last week makes much hay with respect to some sort of capitulation on the part of spaniards. i'm absolutely not arguing that the attacks had no effect on the election, obviously they did. i'm just saying that i don't think the attacks had the effect of electing someone who was going to give into every terrorist's demands. there were huge protests in spain decrying the bombings, hardly a sign of a country cowering in fear. the effect i think the bombings *did* have on the elections was to bring iraq back to the forefront. many people have speculated that if al-qaeda is behind the bombings, then it is in retaliation for spain's involvement in iraq. thus, the bombings pushed iraq to the forefront of everyone's mind. concurrent with that reminder is the resurfacing of fierce sentiment in spain against the involvement in iraq, which had been dulled by time and, as i understand it, a pretty good economy.

dean is right, though. wait and see before you start spouting off about how this incident will spark the conversion of all of europe into a single islamo-fascist state. that's nothing but fearmongering and ignorance.

Agree 100%, Dean. For those who think this represents a “win” for Al Queda, consider that every one of these craven, murderous attacks on civilians in a new European city elicits stronger and more visceral fear and hatred of the Islamic fundamentalists. The Spanish may be pissed off enough at the Aznar government over its Iraq policy to throw it over the side but that’s a far cry from capitulating to Al Queda. Right or wrong, they don’t conflate Iraq or Palestine with the greater “war on terror” so they can easily reject US policy and Spanish supporters of same, and still hate and pursue their real enemies. What are the odds that any of us, after witnessing its sick acts of brutality over the last 10 years, could ever make peace with Al Queda.

Intelligence/Law enforcement vs. foreign war; feh! Hunt down the terrorists and kill them where they hide.

"wait and see before you start spouting off about how this incident will spark the conversion of all of europe into a single islamo-fascist state."

Who said that?

Democracy stumbles a lot, but that doesn't mean it is a failure. A few more large attacks and the learning curve steepens. As horrible as this sounds, it may take anotrher attack on Spanish soild to disabuse Spaniards of the notion that they are a target by virtue of association with America. Look at France - they weren't spared terrorism based on their aggressive position against the US.

If they do a similar attack on America before the upcoming election, I have very high doubts that America will react any differently. Remember that the country is already split almost 50/50.

You're forgetting that the Spanish electorate was much more unequivocal in it's non-support for the Iraq war -- more like 70% or more against.

Am I the only one who finds both of these perspectives overblown and hyperventilatting?

Yes.

Your spin on Spain's departure from Iraq is equally troubling. This isn't just "oh, we woke up this morning and decided, 'you know what, we're really tired of being in Iraq.'"

is it really necessary to draw a diagram to show the very clear fact that this bombing episode was directly connected to - and planned to influence - the Spanish elections?

Do you really think the new PM would have said anything *other than* "we will fight terrorism anywhere we find it" in light of the recent bombings? Even if he knew in his heart that he had no plans to lift a finger against terrorism? I'll give you two guesses, dean, and "yes, he would have said what he really meant" is wrong.

I have a faith that most politicians want to do the right thing. But I also know that politicians will say what people want to hear ESPECIALLY after a disaster.

In this instance, dean, you're not being optimistic. I think naive is a much better word.

dowingba:
What about the US 2002 elections? They were shortly after the 9/11 attack. What I DON"T remember is how much debate there was re: Homeland Security, although the President campaigned openly for several (or more?) races (successfully).

Dean,
I agree with you that this will not dramatically change Spanish/American relations over the long run.

However, whether or not the Spanish actually capitulated to the terrorists, the terrorists got their way. I provided the details at my site, but in December, terrorists publically discussed removing Spanish Prime Minister Aznar from office by engaging in terrorists attacks. They had a plan, they carried it out, and they achieved their desired result. Yes, that was success and I firmly expect it will breed more attacks than would have been the case if the Spanish people had not changed their government.

zach,

"Anzar's party lost because the overwhelming majority of spaniards didn't equate the Iraq war with the War on Terrorism."

"i'm absolutely not arguing that the attacks had no effect on the election, obviously they did. i'm just saying that i don't think the attacks had the effect of electing someone who was going to give into every terrorist's demands."

"the effect i think the bombings *did* have on the elections was to bring iraq back to the forefront. many people have speculated that if al-qaeda is behind the bombings, then it is in retaliation for spain's involvement in iraq."

So the Spanish don't think the war in Iraq has anything to do with the WOT but they believe if al-Qaeda attacked them it must be because they are in Iraq and so they elected the guys that opposed involvement there and promised to bring their troops home but they are not engaging in appeasement because they thought the terrorists were right?

Dean,
Your "so long and thanks for all the fish," message to Spain is certainly the official line we have to take, but believing your own spin is a no-no.

Dowingba,
If they do a similar attack on America before the upcoming election, I have very high doubts that America will react any differently.

No offense, but this comment was obviously written by a non-American. There are many differences between American culture and that of Europe (and Spain). While Europe has an unfortunate history of capitulating to terrorists, Americans chose to fight.

In addition, we already reacted differently in 2002. The party that favored a tough stance against terrorism (the Republicans) increased their lead in the House and regained control of the Senate. And this flew in the face of American political history, where the party that controls the White House normally loses seats in the next election. While terrorism can influence American elections, it does so in a manner that is not in the best interests of the terrorists.

Shep,

For those who think this represents a “win” for Al Queda, consider that every one of these craven, murderous attacks on civilians in a new European city elicits stronger and more visceral fear and hatred of the Islamic fundamentalists.

The terrorists' goal is to instill fear in Western civilization. And their intention, as they defined in Decemeber, was to remove Aznar from power. They have done so and achieved a victory. This does not mean they will win the war, but we should recognize their victory for what it was. They replaced a pro-USA, pro-Israel, pro-War-on-Terror power with a typical European power who will be happy to look the other way so long as no more attacks occur in Spain.

Bill,

As horrible as this sounds, it may take anotrher attack on Spanish soild to disabuse Spaniards of the notion that they are a target by virtue of association with America.
Well, those claiming credit for the attack stated it was because of their association with America. And assuming al Qaeda some rationality (admittedly, a risky proposition with terrorists), what if leave Spain alone now that they have achieved their objective?

While we're on the subject of Islam, terrorism, and such, go check out this cute little reminder of an upcoming talk about one of Islam's "greatest forgotten obligations" and see what appeasement will buy you.

They may leave Spain alone for the time being, but it is likely that eventually terrorism will revisit Spain due to historical precedent and geographical proximity, as Andrew Sullivan and Tim Blair point out today with extensive posts.

Quixote and Phil: The election you mention did not occur 3 days after 9/11, and it was before the Iraq conflict effectively split the country down the middle in terms of Liberal vs Conservative. Post 9/11 and pre Iraq conflict, Bush had quite a high approval rating. Now it's not so high. Any small offset in the vote could make a big difference in this upcoming election, and a large scale terrorist attack days before the election would surely bring such an offset. No?

Maybe it's just my unAmericanness talking here, but maybe it's just as much your Americanness forcing your perspective to be a little less than objective.

Don't think another terror attack on American soil wouldn't be seen by Leftists as a huge failure on Bush's part to protect the homeland, and don't think it won't inspire more Leftists to the polls. Perhaps it'd inspire more Rightists to the polls as well. I'm just saying, it'd effect the election if it happens (unless something happens in the meantime to tilt the scales more in favour of one of the parties).

carl,

you're mixing up your history here. saddam was /not/ an islamic fundamentalist. the only reason al-Qaeda is interested in Iraq is because the people there are muslim. In fact, they're probably happy we toppled Saddam, they're just pissed we hung around afterwards and didn't just leave it to them. So yes, I think that Spaniards can be against the war in Iraq, believe that al-Qaeda is targeting them for their involvement in Iraq, and also elect out of office a man who supported the war, all without supporting, agreeing with, or capitulating to the terrorists. Indeed, the most obvious example of how the terrorists failed in their aims is that even though a tragedy happened four days earlier, FAIR AND DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS WERE STILL HELD.

Dowingba,
I could certainly be biased (and probably am when it comes to making comparisons between the USA and other countries). However, even through my biased lens, I do think the USA has a strong track record of fighting terrorists, pirates, fascists, and others who would do harm to other countries (and not necessarily to the USA) while many other countries do nothing so long as they are not directly threatened (and even then many countries have paid tribute or ignored the problem). But that could indeed be bias on my part.

However, I am quite aware of US demographics. I have studied them for many years now. Your impressions about us strike me as very far from home. Probably like my impressions of cricket. Not having grown up in a cricket oriented culture, I don't understand the cricket mindset and what I do know is probably wrong. (This argument is a bit strong, growing up exposed to US TV and near the States, you probably have a better understanding of us than I do of cricket; although the TV exposure will certainly skew your thinking).

I am not picking on you, your perspective simply strikes me as, literally, foreign. For example, the split between conservatives and liberals is not a recent event and no American would have thought this. The war on terrorism certainly did not split the country down the middle. The closeness of the Bush/Gore race should certainly demonstrate that the split existed before 9/11. Those strongly opposed to President Bush's party naturally opposed his war on terror from a knee-jerk reaction.

Ever since the sixties, American culture has largely been a 40/40/20 split with large numbers of conservatives and liberals. Political races usually came down to whoever could swing the 20 percent who were neither conservative nor liberal.

Some astute politicians have said that in the 1990s American became a 48/48/4 nation with more people joining both the conservative and liberal groups. I'm not sure if I agree with that – I find it just as likely that Bush and Gore managed to split the traditional 20% vote. Our November 2004 election will probably answer that question. If Bush (or Kerry) wins with 55% or more of the vote, then things have not really changed. If the vote is very close again, then these politicians are probably correct.

To specifically answer your question, I don't think a major terrorist attack would change the minds on too many on the left nor right. It would probably shore up Bush's base (many conservatives are irritated at him for other issues and have threatened to sit out this election) and it would sway some on the Left (After 9/11, I was shocked at how many die-hard liberals were thankful Al Gore was not president – and these comments were from people who voted for Gore). But all in all, most of those on the Left would still vote for Kerry. However, I firmly believe that any hypothetical terrorist attack on the States would move most of our swing voters strongly behind Bush. And whether these voters are 4% or 20%, they are more than enough to ensure a Bush victory.

We do have a population of appeasers here, just like in Europe. However, the important difference is that our appeasers are a minority. Fortunately for Europe and the rest of the free world...

Admiral Quixote wrote:
“The terrorists' goal is to instill fear in Western civilization.”

Actually the terrorists’ goals are to both punish those they see as meddlers in Islam and Middle East affairs and to chase us away. Inasmuch as the Iraq war has diffused our attention and squandered US legitimacy in the short run with we may have given them some immediate advantage. Ironically, if the Islamic fanatics keep trying to frighten us away by committing such acts of brutality against our allies, they might actually succeed in reuniting the west in our efforts to destroy them. Even more ironically, current US Iraq policy becomes first a divider, then a “uniter” of “Western civilization.”

Llamas for Osama!

Dowingba
One more comment. I appreciate your perspective and I am glad you shared your opinion. I am glad non-Americans care about the issue too.

Shep,
We're not far apart, especially about the goals of terrorism. Yes, their long-term goal is to chase away all Westerners from the Middle East. Instilling fear in Westerners is a short-term goal that they believe supports their long-term goal. Thus the name terrorists.

I hope you are right about their long-term effects. Personally, I doubt the terrorists are uniting Europe toward US policy. Hopefully that will be the long-term impact, but I'm skeptical. In the short-term, terrorism has managed to replace a pro-USA Spanish government. Only time will show the rest.

zach,

"you're mixing up your history here"

I was quoting you.

"saddam was /not/ an islamic fundamentalist."

Nobody said he was. What is the relevance of this statement? Are you suggesting that because Saddam and his regime were not radical islamists they could not, would not, and did not support islamic terrorists? Or are you suggesting that such support is not sufficient reason for regime change?

"the only reason al-Qaeda is interested in Iraq is because the people there are muslim"

Oh yes, they care deeply about the moslem citizens of Iraq....that's why they have been killing so many of them lately.

"So yes, I think that Spaniards can be against the war in Iraq, believe that al-Qaeda is targeting them for their involvement in Iraq, and also elect out of office a man who supported the war, all without supporting, agreeing with, or capitulating to the terrorists."

Eh? They are doing what the terrorists want not because they agree with the terrorists or are trying to appease them but because they happen to think the terrorists are right?

You can spin it all you want but what we have here is a clear cut strategic victory for the terrorists.

"even though a tragedy happened four days earlier, FAIR AND DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS WERE STILL HELD"

Great, but the problem is the democracy looked terror in the face, panicked, tucked its tail between its legs and split for the hills.

Face it, Osama just won one.

Read this, straight from the mouth of the horse.

Note these parts especially:
"You can't bomb a people" over a perceived threat, Zapatero said in comments coming five days before the first anniversary of the March 20 start of the war.

"You can't organise a war on the basis of lies," he said, alluding to Bush's and Blair's insistence the war was justified by their belief -- so far unfounded -- that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat.

"Wars such as that which has occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate," he said.

It's a good thing the entirety of the Iraq war was founded on the one and only issue of the WMDs. It's especially important that the freedom of the Iraq people from oppression and tyranny, and the destruction of one of the most cruel, brutal, and agressive regimes in modern history are an unimportant side-issues to the great matters of our day. Otherwise, Zapatero would look like an ass.

Also note this:
The head of the EU executive arm, European Commission chief Romano Prodi, agreed, in an interview published by Italy's La Stampa newspaper Monday.

"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," Prodi said. "Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago," and all of Europe now feels threatened, he told the paper.

That, my friends, is a surrender if ever there was one. 'I think you're stronger than me so I will stop using violence against you.' Quite.

No, this is not nearly so bad as some would make out. We can get on without Spain. But this is very bad news for Spain and for much of Europe, and in so far as we care about those we should be saddened.

Admiral Quixote,
Plenty to be skeptical about but, yes, only time will tell.

I agree with Dean.
The Spanish decision looks silly to me (whether it was because of opposition to the war, cowardice or anger at the government for saying ETA was responsible), and I think it will look that way in future history books. But...

It's only Spain.

I don't want to insult the country, but American foreign policy has NEVER depended significantly on Spain, nor should it. There are quite a few other countries supporting the US, especially now that even the UN tolerates the American attempt to rebuild Iraq. The Spanish military contribution is very small. And Bush got support from the invasion from the then prime minister, instead of the future prime minister. Who's going to blame him for that? (OK, Kerry probably)

"I don't want to insult the country, but American foreign policy has NEVER depended significantly on Spain, nor should it."

It isn't about needing them. The issue is that too many people want to let us fight the battles while they hide in the bushes. Terrorism is a threat to everyone. Claiming that terrorism is in response to our imperialism is just an excuse to provide a thin veneer of respectability to people who would rather hide until the danger is over.

We take the lead because we've decided that someone must and we're the best suited (i.e, the only one willing) to do so. But when the people behind us run for cover don't expect us not to notice and call them on it.

In fifty years this is going to end up just like the cold war. We make the sacrifices and win the war. Later those hiding behind the bushes split into two groups. One pretends they were with us all along, the other pretends there was no war.

Another way to look at this from the viewpoint of the Islamic terrorists:
* Attack a European country and they cringe down and beg forgiveness and give you what you want.
* Attack the USA and they send unendnig streams of bombers and fighter jets and JDAMs halfway around the world to bring the mountains down around your ears.

So.....if you are a terrorist, who do you plan your next attack on?

fred,
It's important to remember that there are A LOT of European countries. This means that cringing causes the terrorists to attack someone else (maybe Britain in this case), who will also surrender eventually, but will receive quiet as a reward. Both sides will be satisfied for quite a while. Cringing works very well, but only in Europe. The US isn't going to get al-Qaeda to attack Mexico instead.
This policy worked extraordinarily well for the Palestinians in the 70's.
Granted, it's completely immoral, but that's foreign policy for you.

Thanks Spain for making the UK target No.1
Thanks Spain for deserting the Iraq prople
Thanks Spain for letting people die in vain
Thanks Spain for making al quaeda smile
Thanks Spain for Germany & France
Thanks Spain for making Terrorism Work
Thanks Spain