• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

The attack in Madrid last week seems to have been orchestrated by al-Qaeda, timed to change the outcome of Spain’s elections.

Apparently, terrorists got their wish.

Though the vast majority of Spain’s population did not support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, polls showed Spain’s pro-war president’s handpicked successor was heavily favored to win – until the bombs exploded. At the eleventh hour, voters changed course and elected a candidate opposed to the invasion.

No matter one’s views regarding the Iraq war or Spain’s support for it, that terrorism should achieve any of its goals is frightening. And millions of Americans now harbor ill will toward the grieving Spaniards, saying they reacted wrongly.

But people leveling this criticism must understand: If terrorists are happy to see an election shift in Spain, they are also happy to see the reduction of civil liberties and politics of fear in the United States.

Throughout history, perceived threats have often forced bad decision-making. Neville Chamberlain was wrong to appease Adolf Hitler – whose threat was real. Franklin Roosevelt was wrong to intern Japanese Americans – who posed no threat.

In each case, the response was based on fear and led to more harm than good.



Many feel angry about how the Spanish population reacted to the attacks. But those who say their voters acted out of fear should realize some U.S. policy is driven by the exact same thing.