Some American journalists and foreign affairs analysts wrote that Spain might join a new "Axis of Appeasement" after terrorist bombs exploded at train stations in and around Madrid on March 11, killing nearly 200 Spaniards and wounding more than 1,000 innocent civilians.
In national elections three days later, Spanish voters replaced the ruling conservative Popular Party, a steadfast U.S. ally in the War Against Terrorism, with a Socialist government that threatens to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq.
Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said he would withdraw more than 1,000 Spanish troops from war-torn Iraq unless the U.S. turns peacekeeping duties over to the United Nations by June 30, which is unlikely. One of my favorite foreign affairs analysts, Tom Friedman of the New York Times, wrote that the Spanish decision illustrates "what happens when the Axis of Evil intersects with the Axis of Appeasement and the Axis of Incompetence." Friedman called the Spanish troop pullout "crazy" because it is an attempt "to try to appease radical evil," which will only encourage the terrorists to kill even more people in their violent campaign against freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
"I understand that many Spanish voters felt lied to by their rightist government over who was responsible for the Madrid bombings, and therefore voted it out of office," Friedman wrote, "but they should now follow up by vowing to keep their troops in Iraq." He called for the U.S., Britain, France, Germany and Spain to send a new joint force of 5,000 troops to Iraq "for the sole purpose of protecting the UN's return to Baghdad to oversee Iraq's first democratic election." While that probably won't happen, it's a reasonable suggestion, given the chaotic and dangerous situation in that newly liberated country.
Having served at the U.S. Embassy in Madrid 25 years ago, I wouldn't be as quick as Friedman to accuse the Spaniards of appeasing terrorists. After all, they've been dealing bravely and forcefully with radical Basque (ETA) terrorism for 40 years. But this isn't the moment for the Spanish government to go soft on terrorism. As Winston Churchill said to British Prime Minister Chamberlain after the latter signed a "non-aggression" pact with Hitler, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." And that's exactly what happened prior to WWII.
Another New York Times columnist, William Safire, stressed the importance of bringing democracy to Iraq. "Nobody can be certain that Iraq will remain whole and free after we turn over sovereignty on June 30," Safire wrote, "but prospects look far better than predicted by defeatists who claimed a year ago that political freedom had no chance of taking root in hostile Arab soil. From Kuwait to Qatar, the coalition's overthrow of Saddam has been a political tonic."
He cited Qaddafi's surrender on the nuclear weapons issue in Libya and an emerging "arc of democracy" from Iraq to Israel, "with literate, enterprising populations blazing a path to liberating prosperity in the Middle East."
On the other hand, Spanish Prime Minister-elect Rodriguez claims the U.S. "occupation" of Iraq is a "fiasco" and says he looks forward to a debate with the Bush administration on how best to fight international terrorism. And French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin contends that the world has become "more dangerous and unstable" because of our "foolish" war in Iraq.
Although presumptive Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry doesn't go quite that far, he is a harsh critic of President Bush's handling of the Iraq War. Kerry voted for the war but later voted against an $87 billion appropriation to finance the war while insisting that he supports American troops and Iraqi reconstruction. This is typical of his contradictory statements on the war and its aftermath.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld answered Kerry indirectly in the New York Times last week, writing that in a world facing the imminent threat of terrorism, "We must confront dangers before it is too late." He reminded Kerry and other critics of the Iraq War that Saddam Hussein repeatedly ignored and/or violated UN resolutions and "systematically deceived United Nations inspectors about his weapons and his intent."
And, he continued, an interim constitution approved earlier this month guarantees "freedom of religion and expression, the right to assemble and to organize political parties, the right to vote, and the right to fair, speedy and open trials" - none of which could have been imagined by the Iraqi people just one year ago. Good point!
"Success of democracy in Iraq is the key to democratic reform throughout the greater Middle East," Safire argues, adding that democracy will bring "a better life to people of the region, the basis for hatred and terror will erode and suicide bombers will vanish from the scene."
I hope he's right. The stakes are high and both President Bush and Sen. Kerry should soft-pedal partisan political attacks on foreign policy in this election year in order to send a clear message to potential terrorists and to defend the national security of the United States. Nothing is more important, not even a presidential election.
Guy W. Farmer, a semi-retired journalist and former U.S. diplomat, resides in Carson City.
