Notes on a Spanish tragedy

200 people have died in the attack on commuter trains in Madrid last Thursday. Over 1400 were wounded. Before we delve into politics, let's think about what those numbers mean.

Spain has a population of 40 million. The United States is home to over 290 million, or over seven Americans for every Spaniard.

To appreciate the impact of these attacks, on the people who lost loved ones, or know others who did, multiply the dead and wouned by seven or eight... This tragedy for Spain approaches what 9/11 meant for us. Let's respect that. And however you feel, let's respect the decisions the Spanish people have made, just as we asked the world in our time of grief and outrage.

Now, back to the news. This update is about a day and a half late. Job hunting and resume sending tends to interfere with this enterprise. It was on Monday afternoon, while I sat in the car near a downtown Santa Ana law office, that I heard the election results on NPR:

Reiterating a campaign promise, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the leader of Spain's Socialist Party and new prime minister-elect, pledges to pull his country's 1,300 troops out of Iraq if the United Nations does not take control by June 30.

Zapatero's Socialists won an upset victory in Spain's general elections Sunday. Turning out in unexpectedly high numbers, Spaniards voted to remove Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's ruling party from power. Analysts say the results reflect anger over last week's deadly terrorist attacks in Madrid, which many blame on Aznar's support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

The voter backlash was also fueled by the widespread perception that Aznar's government had tried to exploit the attacks for political gain by blaming the Basque separatist group ETA. On the eve of the vote, a groundswell of anger and demands for full disclosure forced Aznar's government to reveal the arrests of three Moroccans and two Indians.

Earlier, the NY Times reported that President Bush called to congraulate the new prime minister, and "reiterated our solidarity with the Spanish people."

Reiterate? How do you reiterate something that you didn't, um, iterate?? 80 to 90 percent of Spain OPPOSED sending their troops to Iraq. Bush NEVER expressed solidarity with the Spanish people. I guess unilateralism means never having to say you're in solidarity...

With Spain's strong economy, Aznar and his party seemed headed to victory a week ago, despite widespread dislike for his arrogant, authoritarian manner. His arrogance led him to drag Spain into Bush's War - the war on Iraq, not the war on terror. That drew his country into the terrorist line of fire. Aznar could have shown the courage of the soldiers he sent and simply faced the music. He should have said: yes, it was al-Qaeda, they're targeting us now, but let's stand together. Instead, Aznar chose to exploit a national tragedy for political gain by blaming Basque separatists, a tactic which outraged most of the independent voters. His government cried "ETA!", while they CONCEALED the fact that they were arresting members of al-Qaeda! It even ordered the state-owned TV station to avoid covering the widespread protests against the ruling party, and aired a documentary on ETA instead. The party founded and led by Franco supporters was now raising his spectre. So the voters punished them, and now Spain is finally heeding the will of its people. This election was not a blow to democracy. It was a blow to authoritarianism.

Hmm. Arrogance. Lying. Exploiting a national tragedy to punish domestic enemies. Does Aznar remind you of anyone? Anyone?

Blair had his "sexed-up" dossier, Bush had Niger and the missing WMDs, and now Aznar has had his comeuppance. A few months ago, a very smart friend of mine asked me: What was wrong in deposing a bad man like Hussein? The answer, I think, lies in the corruption of our own character. The more dangerous we make our enemies to be, the more desperate we become, and the more willing we are to bend the rules and violate our principles. And those who rise to power in times of paranoia are the least scrupulous kind of people. Democracies may or may not be able to force change in other regimes. And reasonable people may disagree on whether we ought to do so. But we should always adhere to our professed values, because the legimitmacy of all our actions, at home and abroad, depend on it.

What makes this turn of events absurd is, after anthrax and Saddam, the chickenhawks finally can tie something evil to al-Qaeda and not have to lie about it...and they lie about it! Maybe the title to Al Franken's book wasn't overkill after all.

Finally, let's be clear on one thing. There was no cowering, no retreating from al-Qaeda here. While Spain's involvement in Iraq may have led to the attacks, the attacks themselves did not drive voters into the arms of the Socialists. Anyone who conscientiously followed the news from day to day saw that the government's response - which avoided taking on the real terrorists - angered the public which saw it, correctly or otherwise, as duplicitous and appallingly cynical. Just read the NPR report, or better yet, listen to the audio, especially the comments by the Christian Science Monitor journalist. While writing tonight, I haven't heard any other analysis. But I am now looking up what Josh Marshall has been saying - basically, the same thing. Only he does it all in a few sentences.

Of course, I am hardly clairvoyant and often, not even timely. I know a few things about contemporary Spain, but I certainly am not an expert. What lent me a modicum of insight was my experience as an American over the past two and a half years, as a witness to our government's willingness - nay, eagerness - to demonize anti-war protestors, critics of globalization, environmental groups, skeptical nations, even the teacher's union, with words like "terrorist" or "traitor". Such loose talk can trivialize the real demons, the unequivocal terrorism that truly threatens the free world. And it makes those in any potential coalition a little less willing to follow where America wants to lead.