If Spanish voters are right, the US is right to press the fight against terrorism in Iraq.
After a train bombing killed 200 people and injured 1,400 in Madrid on Mar. 11, Spaniards on Mar. 14 rejected the party of Prime Minister Jose Aznar, a strong US ally in Iraq.
Blame for the massacre at first focused on the Basque separatist group ETA (Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna). It soon shifted to Al-Qaeda, which claimed responsibility.
The Madrid attack looks like a murderous protest against Spanish involvement in the effort to rebuild Iraq. By electing a Socialist government led by Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spaniards yielded to the pressure.
Obviously, the voters attributed the bombing to Al-Qaeda and decided they wanted no more mistreatment.
They're of course wrong to think capitulation will do anything but encourage uninhibited evil. Under the circumstances, however, misjudgment is understandable.
After this tragedy, there can be no question that in ousting former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and restoring the country he ruined, the US and its allies are fighting terrorism.
Opponents of the invasion and occupation of Iraq complain that there's no clear evidence that Saddam's regime had direct ties to Al-Qaeda, as though links like those are ever clear or readily proven.
The carnage in Madrid should vanquish doubt.
Countries have two ways to respond to the international threat of mass murder.
They can appease and hope the threat strikes elsewhere. Or they can try to eradicate the threat with force.
Most countries are too weak, by themselves, to act forcefully. They tend to favor appeasement and justify themselves by questioning the moral standing of countries resorting to force.
The US, to pick the prime target of such condemnation, is strong enough to respond with force.
Diplomacy isn't an option. The terrorists represent no government and have no constructive position about anything.
They're just murderers. The more they're allowed to murder, the more they'll murder. To think otherwise is foolish and dangerous.
Moral questions about the use of force are always legitimate. But where's the morality in possessing the strength to resist indiscriminate murder and refusing to use it?
(Online Mar. 19, 2004; author's e-mail: [email protected])
