It must be said: Spanish voters have allowed a small band of terrorists to dictate the outcome of their national elections. It is a shameful downfall, and very surprising: That is not how democracies react when they are attacked by fanatics. Americans were visibly united and hardened by Sept. 11; the Italians overcame deep political differences in their determination to crush the Red Brigades; Israeli cohesion has only been increased by decades of terrorism. That is the normal reaction of democratic political communities based on respect for the will of many when they are threatened by the violent few.
That is not what happened in Spain. Before the Madrid bombs, all the polls forecast a victory for Mariano Rajoy of the Popular Party, for the very good reason that he was the chosen successor of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, who has led Spain on the path of modernization and prosperity, with almost universally acknowledged success.
Three days before the elections, Mr. Rajoy seemed to be headed for victory over Socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whom not even his mother would describe as a charismatic leader, and who certainly lacks a plausible economic policy.
What he does have is a foreign policy: to withdraw the 1,300 Spanish troops from Iraq, not merely to avoid more casualties, but to affirm that the Iraq war was an act of imperialist aggression that Spain should never have supported.
Mr. Zapatero is hardly alone in thinking that. On March 20, anti-war rallies are scheduled all over Western Europe. As the marchers deplore the war, which the Pope also condemned, they have one consolation: Saddam Hussein is alive and in good health, so that no irreparable damage has been done. He could still be restored to power, to resume ruling Iraq just as he did before, with mass graves and torture chambers. Even those who view the Iraq war as a strategic error for the United States, as I do, cannot take seriously the Zapateros of Europe, who seem bent on validating the crudest caricatures of "old European" cowardly decadence.
Spanish voters decided otherwise, though not without being the victims of last-minute manipulations there was no time to overcome. It is still more likely that the Madrid bombs were placed by the Basque ETA than any Muslim group, let alone the lingering remnants of al-Qaeda in their remote Afghan caves. In any case, with no firm evidence at all, it was an act of colossal irresponsibility for the Socialists and outrageously biased mass media to proclaim that the Madrid bombs were placed by Muslims rather than Basque fanatics, and that the Popular Party should therefore be defeated because it had sided with the United States in the Iraq war, thereby provoking Muslim hostility.
It is a matter of record that Osama bin Laden and other Islamists identified Spain as a priority target years before the Iraq war. Under Muslim law, no land conquered by Islam may legitimately come under non-Muslim rule. For the fanatics, Spain is still El Andalus, which must be reconquered for Islam by immigration and intimidation. So even if the bombs were placed by Islamists, the claim that Spain was only attacked because of Mr. Aznar's support for the Iraq war is utterly false.
Even if hard evidence were to be found that ETA was responsible after all, it would be too late: The Spanish political community has failed the test of terrorism — it has bowed down to the violence of the few, allowing them to dictate their will to the millions. There are bound to be serious consequences, because openly demonstrated weakness always invites further attack.
For one thing, Spain still rules the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla on the North African coast, which Islamists view as Christian colonies on Muslim soil. Having seen what bombs can do, they might well be tempted to see if a few more bombs can induce the Spanish to surrender the two enclaves. No democracy ever found safety in surrendering to aggressions, large or small.
It is a paradox, but the incoming prime minister, Mr. Zapatero, can only redeem Spanish democracy if he repudiates the popular mandate he has received, by proclaiming that there will be no withdrawal from Iraq because of any act of terrorism, Muslim or Basque.
We shall now see the broader European reaction to the Spanish events. For politicians in countries with both strong anti-U.S. movements and troops in Iraq — Italy, most notably — the risks are obvious and extreme. Any who are tempted to point to the Madrid attacks as a warning of what might happen in their own countries unless they withdraw from the coalition will be inviting terrorist attacks against their fellow citizens to validate their assertions. Nor will that species of real treason help them win elections.
The Spanish literally had no time to reflect between the Madrid bombs and the election. Elsewhere, voters are unlikely to follow in their path — they are much more likely to react to terrorism as democracies always do, by closing ranks to reject terrorists and all who side with them by advocacy or by justification, howsoever disguised or qualified.
Edward Luttwak is a senior fellow at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
