Did Osama Cast The Deciding Vote In Spain?

I read a number of articles today that were discussing the impact of 3/11, the Spanish national election, and the possible involvement of al-Qaida. All the articles seemed to indicate that Sunday's election was a great victory for AQ and a harbinger of things to come for the rest of us.

I saw the election referred to as the "toppling" of a Western democracy. I saw it referred to as a vote for appeasement. (link will probably change tomorrow, just search his archive for today's edition) I saw it referred to as a vote "for al Qaeda." Various rantings and ravings I can't recall the source of also spoke of the election of the Socialist Party in terms ranging from dejected to dire.

What happened in Spain was a watershed event, no doubt. But what can we really take away from it already?

Not as much as we're trying to, I think.

Let's look at the opinion of Neal Boortz:

It has become even more clear that the Islamo-fascist movement has scored a tremendous strategic victory with its attacks last week in Spain. Dutch economist Bernard Walschots nails it: "Al Qaeda or its affiliates have toppled a democratic government for the first time. This may have dramatic implications for the Western democracies." Did you get that the first time around? The Islamic Jihadists have just toppled the government of a major Western nation. Socialists have taken over in Spain. Islamic terrorists like socialists ... they're brothers under the skin.

This morning we learn that CNN has discovered an Al Qaeda document which set forth a plan to get Spain to pull its troops out of Iraq. Apparently the document was posted on a computer bulletin board some months ago. This document talked about developing a strategy to force the conservative government of Spain out of office and elect socialists. And just how was that going to be done? Terrorist attacks, that's how. So, the plan was formulated, then implemented, and proof of success came quickly. The people of Spain fell into line immediately and voted out a government unfriendly to terrorism, and voted a more friendly one in.

Now Spain is loudly touting its plans to become one of the Axis of Weasels, joining Germany, France, Belgium and other Euroweenie countries in a program of appeasement toward Islamic Jihadists. How weak are the Europeans? Well, let's take this comment from Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission. Prodi says: "It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists ... terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago."

Force isn't the answer? If not force, what? Appeasement? Doesn't Prodi remind you of Chamberlain prior to World War II? Read your history. Terrorism always works against the appeasers.

What's next? How about England? Intelligence officials are already suggesting that Great Britain will be next in the Islamic campaign of terrorism. Then ... the United States. The Wall Street Journal editorial this morning says that the U.S. must brace itself for the next wave of attacks. They worked in Spain ... so Al Qaeda must be thinking that they can work as well in America.

This election year just got a whole lot more interesting ... and dangerous.

Spain is surrendering ... but World War IV continues.

On the whole, I don't disagree with Neal. But I think that he is jumping to some premature conclusions about the new government in Spain.

I can understand his dislike of the Socialists. If I were Spanish, I'd be furious with the outcome of the election. Socialist policy is about as close to economic terrorism as you can get while still operating in a quasi-capitalist economy. But, of course, I'm not Spanish so my opinion matters as much over there as theirs does here.

But to imply (he doesn't come right out and say it, but it is most certainly implied) that the Socialist government will simply roll over for al- Qaida, well I think that that is still yet to be seen.

Zapatero has stated his intention to bring home the Spanish troops in Iraq unless the UN takes over or there is a material change in circumstances. He has stated his desire for closer relations with European nations, while still maintaining "cordial" relations with Washington. Every declaration he has made has been hedged in some way. No wonder he likes Kerry so much more than Bush: they are but two peas from the same pod.

Taking shots at the European Union and Prodi are well justified. We already know what their non-reaction reaction will be. Appeasement is the watchword of the day in the EU itself.

But we really don't know how Zapatero will react once in power. He might be an Axis of Weasel appeaser of Chamberlainic proportions. Or he might be another Tony Blair, a leftie who knows right from wrong when the chips are down. We really can't determine anything more from Zapatero's statements than we can from John Kerry's, they are just way too ambiguous and hedged.

Was Zapatero's election the "toppling" of a Western democracy as has been insinuated? No it was not. Was it an upset? Yes. But the toppling of a government? Not even close.

There have been no charges of the election itself being flawed. Power is transitioning in a normal, peaceful manner. The fact that the government-elect is not one that we would have desired to see in office does not mean that the government was toppled. There is a difference between this transition of power decided on in a fair and open election by the electorate, and the violent civil war transition that is marring the overthrow of Jean-Baptiste Aristide in Haiti. The former is a democracy in action, the latter a revolutionary toppling of a corrupt regime.

Zapatero's election cannot, as of yet, be called a vote for al-Qaida. Is it a bad omen? Most definitely. But until Zapatero sells out to the Islamofascists, we owe it to him, and the Spanish people, to give the benefit of the doubt.

Now what will all this mean come November? I think that the conventional wisdom on this is accurate: there will be a bloody and brutal attempt at influencing the Presidential election like the Spanish election was swayed.

If such an attempt is made, it will be a gross miscalculation on the part of Osama & Co. One that could make the reaction to 9/11 look tame.

Americans have no illusions about the intention of the terrorists. We don't believe that a change in Administration will cause Osama to suddenly decide that we're really a bunch of good guys after all. We don't think that the election of John Kerry will turn the tyrants of the world into true friends. We understand that the only intention of our foe is the elimination of freedom and the imposition of Shar'ia. Nothing less will satisfy them, quite similar to the way in which only the complete destruction of Israel will satisfy the Palestinians.

No, an attack on America in the weeks leading up to November will only ensure the reelection of George W. Bush, with a mandate to hunt down and eliminate any and all terrorist threats to our nation. Our post-9/11 reaction was impersonal. Our reaction to another Machiavellian Spanish-style attempt will be infinitely more personal. If Osama is still recycling air and providing life for a tree (which I personally doubt, I think that he's a stain on a cave painting somewhere, but I digress) another attack will be the equivalent of suicide by military.

I fully expect that al-Qaida will use their faulty calculus in making their ultimate decision (and it will likely be their last organizational decision before they cease to exist). My only question isn't whether or not they'll try to attack the US, but rather if they will take another practice shot at someone else.

If they do make an attempt on France, Germany, or Britain what, if anything, should we do? Should we unleash a fury like they haven't seen? Or should we sit back and allow the act to go unanswered? It is actually still a very valid line of questioning regarding 3/11.

The NATO Treaty clearly states in Article 5:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Spain, a NATO ally, was attacked. We have a right to take such action as we deem necessary to defend the security of the West. France, Germany, and now even Spain may not be publicly happy about us protecting them from, among other things, their own poor decision making, but they cannot help but to be pleased if they no longer have to fear Islamofacist attack.

There are certainly a number of open questions still floating around concerning 3/11 and the new Spanish government.

But I don't believe that it is quite time to start fretting about the course the new Spanish government may or may not take.

It is still too early to start trying to assess the impact the 3/11 or any follow-on aftershocks may have on the November general election.

But it is never too early to determine the manner, method and timing of the defense of Western civilization, no matter which friends, allies, or enemies join us in the fight.

The election is Spain has brought new potential complications, but we have to keep it in perspective. It is not the "toppling" of the government; it is not a vote of confidence for the tactics of al-Qaida.

Life has gone on, just as the Spanish democracy has.

Western civilization has survived another assault, just like the American Republic will.

In challenges, lies opportunity. We now have before us another opportunity to demoralize and destroy the most pervasive terrorist group of our time.

Will we take advantage of the opportunity?

Or will we fritter it away obsessing over the potential ramifications of the successful demonstration of the resiliency of Western democracy?

Do we give Osama the deciding vote?

Cross posted to We The People