I’m not all that knowledgable about the Spanish army, but since it’s a NATO country I"m pretty sure they’d be able to handle an invasion some guys equipped with Kalishnikovs and suicide vests.
Kalishnikovs don’t beat tanks.
That said, an invasion might help Spain by reducing the unemployment.
More than likely, yes. So yeah, again, bring 'em on.
Spain’s military has always been over-paranoid over an attack from Morocco – as little as they spend on defense it is always key to stay way in front of Morocco’s capabilities/improvements.
And they do that to this day.
Mind you, there’s a possibility that EU nor NATO agreements apply as Ceuta, Melilla & the Canary Islands aren’t covered under either – yet I don’t see that happening hard as it might be for France. But the paranoia is not totally unjustified.
It’s been nearly two decades since I read anything about the Spanish Civil War, but didn’t Franco invade at the head of a mostly Moroccan army?
I won’t say that there aren’t any radicals who are claiming Iberia, the Balkans, and India should be returned to the Islamic control they once were under. But I’m willing to bet there’s no widespread popular support for these claims.
It’s also worth pointing out that the whole concept of the House of Islam and the House of War are political not religious ideas. They are not in the Quran or Hadith.
That may be the Muslim view of what the Muslim world is. But the reality on the ground is that Spain and the Balkans USED to be controlled by Muslims but aren’t an longer. Of course, it’s the Muslim view that matters in this discussion.
Are you sure? Look at Afghanistan.
We’ve circled back to terrorism and asymmetrical war.
Yes, but in that case the Afghans were the defenders not the invaders.
I think most normal Muslims think that Spain is not part of the Islamic world. Besides, I’m not specifically talking about historical grievances, I’m talking about the current Western Military footprint in the Middle East, Central Asia and parts of Africa which happen to have majority Muslim populations and as to whether if we reduced it, we’d also in part reduce the raison de’tre of some (emphasis on some) potential Islamic militants or supporters.
AK84 hits the nail on the head with this comment,
Slightly more complicated answer, it will reduce dramatically mainly because while the extreme radicals always will remain, support and sympathy will erode.*
And this is what I’m getting at, I understand most Islamic terrorist organisations will probably stick around, just look at the KKK or Neo-Nazis but support for them is near zero, however, in the Muslim world, sympathy for the kind of extremism and religious conservatism we’re seeing is in part due to our actions, which is something we in the West have control over, so by reducing our military presence in the region, we make it harder for radicals to come up with plausible scapegoats.
For us as Westerners to deny that we do inflame some sentiment in that part of the world due to our actions is foolish.
Yes, that’s true. You weren’t supposed to notice that. Dammit.
Why not?
That NATO treaty was generally written to exclude “colonial” holdings. That’s why NATO didn’t get directly involved when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.