I’ve see comments here to the effect that the Iraq war did not aid the War on Terror, hence for Spain to withdraw its support will not aid the War on Terror; in fact, it may actually help anti-terrorism efforts by focusing attention on more serious threats.
The problem, for those who think the results of the Spanish election do not aid Al Queda, is that you’re trying to analyze events from the perspective of a reasonable person, focusing on direct cause and effect relationships. Unfortunately, we’re not fighting people who think that way. All that matters, from the terrorist perspective, is that by attacking Spain they changed the results of an election. It makes little difference wether the new government will be better or worse for them than the old government, because at least they made a difference. It doesn’t even matter wether it’s true that Spanish voters kicked out their government out of fear or more attacks, or even wether the ruling party would have lost anyway had the attacks not occurred. All that matters is that it will be spun that way in the press. Arab news sources aren’t going to expand lots of effort analyzing the issues involved. They’ll write about a terrorist attack and an electoral defeat and stop there, and the “Arab street” will get the impression that Al Queda caused the fall of the Spanish government.
The only way we can win this war is by causing the Muslim world in general to lose respect for Al Queda and the tactics they employ. We’ve been making progress on this front by continuing to do whatever the hell we want, especially when it appears to go against the interests of the people and countries Al Queda claims to be fighting for. They’ve killed a lot of people, but until now they haven’t appeared to have caused any of the forces on our side to retreat. The Spanish election result is disastrous because it creates a situation where terrorist tactics appear to have been successful in making a European country change its government. This will encourage more respect for Al Queda in the Arab world and hence more people will be willing to actively or passively assist them. It will encourage them to try similar tactics in the future.
Here’s full disclosure: I think Bush is a terrible president. He’s deceitful and incompetent to a degree unprecedented in recent history. I believe the war in Iraq is justified despite his lies, but the fact that he lied to justify it is disgraceful. I can’t imagine any possible circumstances under which I would vote for any candidate but the one most likely to defeat him. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that any Kerry victory will appear to be at least a small win for Al Queda. It will be a great victory for our enemies indeed if he wins only because a major terrorist attack a few days before the election causes people who would have supported Bush to change their minds!
This is unlikely to happen—Americans are not Europeans, and I suspect the effect of any new terrorist outrage would be overwhelmingly to Bush’s benefit. Nonetheless, any Bush defeat following an attack would comfort our enemies. I think a second Bush presidency would be more harmful to our country and the world than a somewhat reinvigorated terrorist threat, so I fully intend to vote against him despite the cost, come what may, but I don’t try to pretend that that cost doesn’t exist. I hope the terrorists would be rudely disillusioned when President Kerry carries the fight to them and their supporters at least as vigorously as the current administration, but they would still have at least temporarily the appearance of a victory, and the harm caused by that appearance would linger.
In a struggle of this nature, where the battle for hearts and minds is a crucial factor, appearance is just as important as reality. We must remember that a propaganda victory can be more influential in the long run than a material one.
(Serious question)