Valiant Neocons, Spanish Appeasers: Manipulating Madrid's Tragedy

Given that 90 percent of Spaniards had opposed their leaders' support for the Iraq War, it's not hard to understand that the government would be punished in elections held immediately after the worst terrorist attack in Spain's history.

Neocon mouthpieces maintain that, until the Madrid bombing, the Popular Party of incumbent Prime Minister José María Aznar had been expected to win. Therefore, they cry, this shows that terrorism gets results, and that the weak-kneed Spaniards are now guilty of "appeasing" terrorism. The neocons fear this scenario will be repeated in other countries, with future terrorist attacks forcing pro-American governments to be voted out of power. This, of course, is a temptation for stout-hearted voters to resist. In other words: "Buck up, Europe! The moment will come for you, too, to show more gumption!"

However, the real appeasing occurred one year ago, when the Aznar government slavishly signed up for George Bush's war on Iraq. That disastrous war has only radicalized the world more, creating terrorists where there had been none and turning much of Europe into a juicy symbolic target. These latest terrorist attacks come as no surprise – the only amazing thing is that it took so long for them to arrive. The grim, apocalyptic world of constant terror and carnage predicted by the neocons is here. Yet the warmongers commend themselves as geniuses when it's only their malevolent, self-fulfilling prophesies that are coming true.

The Zapatero Revolution

Now, new Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is very consciously trying to make his country an example for other European countries – and more power to him!

Among the many choice comments Zapatero has made recently we have:

"…What simply cannot be is that – after it became so clear how badly it (Iraq) was handled – there be no consequences. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair will have to reflect and engage in some self-criticism, so things like that don't happen again."

''…You can't organize a war on the basis of lies… you can't bomb a people just in case."

''…Spain is going to see eye to eye with Europe again….Spain is going to be more pro-Europe than ever. I am deeply convinced of that.''

America: Removed from the Christmas Card List?

Such strong statements aimed at the American global bully would be remarkable coming from any world leader. Yet coming from the untested prime minister of a relatively little country- and in his very first week on the job no less- they are almost unbelievable.

Yet Zapatero seems quite comfortable confronting Washington. He recently stated that his government will maintain "cordial relations" with all the governments of the world, and thus, "naturally, with the government of the United States." Nevertheless, Zapatero tellingly left the Americans off of his immediate foreign policy to-do list:

"…Zapatero said that improving relations with Spain's North African neighbors would be among the 'three pillars' of the incoming government's foreign policy. The others, he said, were improving on Spain's historic ties with Latin America and its relations with the rest of Europe. He pointedly did not mention the United States when discussing the outlines of his emerging policy."

A Domino Effect?

What the US can't comprehend is that, for the first time, a European "coalition" leader is actually standing up to it. If other nations also start to recognize the wisdom of following their citizens' wishes, the mighty "coalition of the willing" that the White House boasted of last year is going to start looking pretty thin.

The US administration is mostly concerned, however, lest the coalition start looking thin on the ground. If Spain withdraws its troops from Iraq, as Zapatero has threatened, there will be severe and wide-ranging consequences for Bush's war effort. Hard-pressed Poland, for example, was set to hand over command in central and southern Iraq on July 1, to the Spaniards. Now this is very much in doubt. At the same time, the Ukrainian government is said to be considering a proposal to bring home the country's 1,800 troops – a potentially crushing blow for George Bush and his increasingly unraveling coalition.

Neocons Cry, "Appeasers!"

The line that Spanish voters are a bunch of wussies was pushed in a San Francisco Chronicle piece that could not go two whole paragraphs without citing a member of a neocon-infested think-tank, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. The article charges that yellow-bellied Spanish voters changed their minds at the last second, in order to,

"…give the terrorists what they wanted. They were joined by citizens who weren't going to vote, but decided to go to the polls, oddly, to further the terrorists' goals."

Out of this fog of reasoning, the epic conclusion emerges:

"…Basque separatist leaders now must be looking at how al Qaeda achieved victory through violence and be wondering if they should be more ruthless, too."

This conclusion ignores the fact that after 9/11 the Basques, the IRA, the Albanians, etc., all kept a pretty low profile out of justified fears of being condemned by the growing anti-terrorism fervor. It's hardly likely that the ETA will see this, Spain's "3/11," as its golden moment to strike.

Simultaneously, the think-tank that Doug Feith credited with birthing the neocons weighed in with a similar argument. The Heritage Foundation's Nile Gardiner declared:

"…this is a huge blow to the Bush administration… Aznar was a hugely important symbol of European support for America. The Spanish statement has sent the wrong messages to the rest of Europe. It amounts to a policy of appeasement. And it will strengthen anti-Americanism in Europe."

This equally ludicrous argument reveals the self-absorbed narcissism of the War Party, forever convinced that It's All About Us. If the terrorists "succeeded," the argument goes, they did so solely in order to "undermine the coalition" led by the United States, and also Bush's re-election chances. And of course their other big victory was in breeding "anti-Americanism" in Europe, to further "drive a wedge" between the trans-Atlantic allies. Yet in my experience, at least, the orientation of Europeans is actually more akin to the sentiment voiced by Luis Gonzales, a 56 year-old high school teacher in Spain:

"…we love America – Faulkner, Hemingway, Coca-Cola and Marilyn Monroe – but we have something against your government…. Aznar took us into a war that wasn't our war, but only for the benefit of the extreme right and the American companies."

A Problem: Deceiving the Public

Since there are two very good reasons why the "appeaser" argument is a bogus one, it follows that the Bush administration would like to drown them out under its rhetoric of "stay the course, weak appeasers!"

The first reason, in fact, reminds us of the many investigations now underway in America, designed to gauge the level of lies spouted by the government to justify war. The Financial Times argues that it was the old Spanish government's deception of the public, and not the terrorist attack itself, that brought about its downfall:

"…the election result seems to have sprung from indignation at how the government of José María Aznar, the outgoing prime minister, handled the crisis. In particular Mr. Aznar was blamed for his ostensible certainty that the carnage was the work of Eta, a stance that appeared to validate his government's hard line on the Basque question. Madrid even managed to persuade the United Nations Security Council to state Eta's responsibility in its resolution of condemnation."

This argument is seconded by the New York Times, which cites EU and UN Security Council leaders who suspected the Aznar government of lying:

"'…we are very, very angry,' one Council ambassador said Monday, speaking on a condition that he not be identified. 'We were utilized for political maneuvering, and at best it was irresponsible to pressure us.'

"The spokesman for another ambassador said members had felt 'that the Council was in a way hijacked – I wouldn't say manipulated because we cannot prove that at the time Spain didn't trust its information.'"

For its part, the European Union was definitely hijacked by Javier Solana, current EU foreign policy chief and former NATO secretary-general during the "successful" Kosovo bombing. Soon after the Madrid attacks, Solana seemed to be acting on orders, but not those of his current employer:

"…[Solana] gave television interviews in three languages saying it seemed certain that militant Basque separatists were responsible because the type of explosives and the tactics used were those of ETA.

…His comments carried great weight not only because of his current position, his expertise on terrorism and the respect he enjoys, but also because he served as Spain's foreign minister under the last Socialist government."

Another Problem: The Terrorists' Goal

Further, those charging the Spaniards with "appeasement" run into contradictions. The usual line, as broadcast by Perle and Frum, is that the terrorists want to cause endless confrontations, retaliations, and war, all leading up to the apocalyptic "clash of civilizations" that the neocons are evidently rooting for. Yet at the same time, they fear the Madrid attacks will cause Spain, and, subsequently, other countries, to drop out of war in Iraq and elsewhere – thereby reducing their involvement in what was originally perceived as being Israel's and America's fight anyway.

This possibility is, in fact, exactly what the War Party International fears:

"'…no one should get the idea that somehow if you are a country that was opposed to the military action in Iraq, you are less of a target,' [UK] Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told British Broadcasting Corp. radio."

The beauty of Straw's argument lies in its negativity: since the War Party claims that terrorism can happen anywhere, the antiwar countries have escaped so far through sheer luck. Nothing can change the neocons' opinion that everyone everywhere is in mortal danger. We are merely naïve to think otherwise, according to such eloquent 'experts' as Mark Steyn. Yet this both underestimates the rationality of the terrorists and ignores the symbolism of their attacks – on British and Jewish interests in Istanbul, and on the urban heart of Aznar's Spain. Like any other group, the terrorists' power and capabilities have certain limits, and they, too, must make their priorities.

The neocon accusation of Spanish cowardice is especially galling when we consider that the perceived relation between war and retributive terrorism is not new – and hardly some knee-jerk reaction lacking any historical basis. Precisely this kind of retributive attack was feared by European coalition countries, from Spain to Hungary to Bulgaria, before the Iraq war even started. The Madrid tragedy was clearly avoidable, yet Spanish leaders did not have the guts to do what their people asked and stand up to the Americans over Iraq.

Bush's "Brave Face"

Media reports say that President Bush, his foreign policy in shambles, is now trying to put on "a brave face" following the Spanish defection. We should wish him luck. It must take a lot of courage to fight the war for freedom and democracy from the air-conditioned bunkers of Washington, with the biggest concern being to find damage control for embarrassments like the one unfolding now with Spain. The War Party's operating logic is to pick a policy in advance, steamroller it through over all opposition, and justify it later – if at all. Yet just as there is nothing brave about the imperial strategy of using proxy armies in one's wars, there is even less to be commended about using proxy continents, as Europe seems to have become.

Ignoring local realities of geography and demographics, the US has needlessly accelerated and radicalized terrorist activities worldwide with its invasion of Iraq. The Muslim immigrant population is much larger in Europe than in the US, and so Europe is bound to suffer the consequences of the latter's actions first. Spain and Turkey are the European countries that have felt this already, and more will probably follow. This can only lead to unnecessary death, destruction and fear – but hopefully, also to a radical reappraisal of the neocon approach to fighting terror.