The March 11 Spanish train bombing marks the lowest point yet of the war on terrorism. Two-hundred and two innocent civilians were murdered in Europe's worst terrorist attack since the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 by Libyan agents in 1988. In the Spanish general elections four days after the attack, something even worse happened: A democratic nation surrendered to terrorists.
Spain had been a crucial U.S. ally in the war on terror, sending more than 1,000 troops to Iraq. By all accounts their mission of providing security and aid in reconstruction was going well.
Yet despite the commitment of Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's government to the fight against terrorism, the war was unpopular. This opposition — up to 90 percent — was part of a broader European pattern. The war on terrorism was America's war, and far away. It was not on the top of the electoral agenda. Despite criticism, Aznar's party was expected to win.
On March 13, Spanish police discovered a tape on which an Al-Qaida spokesman claimed responsibility for the attacks, and described them as punishment for Spain's presence in Iraq. At this point, one might have reasonably expected the Spanish people to understand that the war on terror was their war too.
Nothing of the sort happened.
Instead the Spanish public was to display a cravenness the likes of which Europe had not witnessed in sixty-six years.
The day after the attacks, millions of people poured into the streets across Spain to express their solidarity against terrorism and violence. These initial rallies soon gave way to angry protests against the war, against the government and against the United States. Demonstrators claimed that the Madrid victims' blood was on Aznar's hands for having provoked the terrorists.
Three days later, Spain elected a new prime minister, Socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whose campaign had ridden the terrorism issue as hard as it could. The Socialists had called the U.S.-led opposition "a fiasco," claimed the war was "based on lies" and promised to withdraw Spanish forces from Iraq if elected.
Clearly, terrorism works.
Having instilled sufficient fear in the Spanish electorate, terrorists were able to bring about political change. Zapatero's promises to fight terror through international institutions – like appointing a new European Union terror coordinator – poorly mask his country's strategic retreat.
There are many good reasons for Spain to have entered Iraq: to help drain a breeding ground for the terrorism which threatens Europe as well as America, to end a humanitarian nightmare, to find weapons of mass destruction or even simply to show itself a good ally. Despite all these, the Spanish people have chosen to blame their government for "provoking" terror. This is a position based on fear, one that abjectly acknowledges Al-Qaida's threatening power, but cringes from doing anything about it.
Al-Qaida's greatest victory teaches us some important lessons. It reminds us that our terrorist opponents are not just howling fanatics, but savvy political calculators, able to find the weak points in our alliances. Despite the need for allies in the war on terror, Europe may no longer be the best boutique to shop at. There may be opportunities for intelligence sharing and quiet cooperation, but on a larger scale it may be time for American foreign policy makers to look further afield.
Most importantly, the atrocities in Madrid should remind us that terrorists can win. Spain's cave-in shows that democracies can be knocked out of the war against terrorism. We must expect another blow to be struck, and soon, against America's remaining European allies. With the election approaching Al-Qaida may attempt a repeat in the United States as well. In a war with terrorists, there are no front lines. Civilians are as much targets as soldiers overseas, and the outcome depends on the courage of both. Perhaps we can learn from Spain's sad example and recommit ourselves to maintaining the levels of resolve that will see us through the challenges ahead.
Carlos Ramos-Mrosovsky is a Wilson School major from New York, N.Y. You can reach him at cr@princeton.edu
Read More
Seniors deserve better than Jay Shetty
Izabela Konopka and Joshua YangWe are writing to express our strong disapproval of the selection of Jay Shetty as the 2025 Class Day speaker. We deserve better than a self-help guru and repeated plagiarist who runs a “school” that an expert claims exhibits “similar patterns” to a multi-level marketing scheme.
We are writing to express our strong disapproval of the selection of Jay Shetty as the 2025 Class Day speaker. We deserve better than a self-help guru and repeated plagiarist who runs a “school” that an expert claims exhibits “similar patterns” to a multi-level marketing scheme.
The CPUC must not gut its Judicial Committee
Bill HewittEnding the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction over initial complaints would embolden abuses of power, allowing the administration to evade accountability for University rule violations without the pressure of student and faculty authority.
Ending the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction over initial complaints would embolden abuses of power, allowing the administration to evade accountability for University rule violations without the pressure of student and faculty authority.
Princeton, let’s adopt a digital prox
Jorge ReyesTo prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.
To prevent pointless replacement and lockout charges, maximize convenience, and create better access to meals and facilities, Princeton should follow the precedent set by some of its peers and adopt a digital prox system.