Prime ministers and presidents respond, in principle, to their electorate. As the Spanish saying goes, "son gajes del oficio" -- it comes with the job description. On April 27, 2004, the president of the government of Spain Jos Luis Rodrguez Zapatero responded to an electorate that had been ignored by the previous government by ordering the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq. It was the logical conclusion to months of voter rancor. Yet Peter Chen, in his op-ed on "Cowardly Spain" (The Dartmouth, May 17), wants the public to believe that Zapatero's actions represented a retreat in the face of terrorism. The elections post-March 11 were not a response wrought by cowardice: They represented the population's ire directed against a government that had ignored and misled it, regarding both Iraq and the terrorist attacks in Madrid. On the former point, polls had anywhere from 80 to 90 percent of the population against the war. On the latter, the government had blamed Basque separatists prematurely, hoping to capitalize from the outrage. The voters responded by booting the ruling party.
The March 11 terrorist attacks proved to Spain the folly of invading Iraq. The war, so it seemed, was grounded on questionable links between terrorists and Saddam Hussein's regime. Toppling Hussein's regime would therefore do nothing to eliminate actual terrorist threats. This view appears to have been proven correctly, if only to a degree. The invasion, if anything, has made Iraq a breeding ground for terrorist cells. The tragic assassination of the Iraqi governing council president May 17 embodies this new reality.
America's response to the Spanish action was expected: Regardless of the Spanish population's reservations, the unrest in Iraq demands a firm stance by the government. The assertion is true enough; however, the failure to "internationalize" the occupation only hurt America's ability to secure troop commitments from Spain and other nations. The United States has so far failed to call on the United Nations to create a stable gubernatorial infrastructure. Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff General Richard Myers (USAF) admitted recently that the United Nations was the crucial element necessary to secure institutional stability. Where then, pray tell, is the U.N.?
Zapatero had this very question in mind when he set his conditions for Spanish involvement in Iraq. His campaign pledge, first articulated in March 2003, stated that Spain would keep its troops on the ground if the United Nations were given the authority to steer the transition to sovereignty. Zapatero did not rescind this promise out of spite or cowardice. He realized that the conditions for having Spanish troops on the ground would not be met to his satisfaction. As such, he could only respond by withdrawing his troops. Perhaps the biggest bifurcation between opinions on the war was based on the tenuous correlation made between al Qaida and Iraq. Chen buys into this now-debunked myth by saying Spain would benefit from having al Qaida wiped out. He illogically labels Spain a "free-rider" state, though he never once reveals what tangible inroads the war in Iraq made against al Qaida's ability to operate worldwide. Additionally, I would like to point out to Chen that Iraq under Hussein did not have any proven ties to al Qaida. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has admitted as much.
It is true that Spain, and the world as a whole, benefits enormously by wiping out al Qaida. Nonetheless, Spain does not benefit much by waging war thousands of miles away against a nation of negligible threat, except perhaps to curry favor from the United States. The people of Spain have been fighting their own war against extremism for decades, primarily against Basque separatists. In this fight, Zapatero has rightly refused to negotiate against the murderers who have waged war against Spain's very unity. Moreover, he has stated that no terrorist will meet with concessions and negotiations from his government. Chen may label the Spanish government's decision a failure of appeasement all he likes. The fact is that Spain continues to be at the forefront of the war against terrorism by combating terrorists (Islamic extremists, Basque separatists and all others) where they are extant, not where it deludes itself into believing they exist.
Spain has therefore not failed in its responsibilities to the free world. How could Zapatero's actions fail a free world that was staunchly against the war, that has criticized the lack of post-war planning and that continues to demand legitimacy through the United Nations?
I invite the critics of Zapatero's brave policies to see the withdrawal for what it truly is: an exercise by the democratic voice of a people fed up with lies.
