On Thursday, March 11 I awoke to yet another excruciatingly painful sight on television in the Madrid train bombings: the senseless slaughter of innocent people, sobbing mothers, cries of children, and Spaniards of all walks of life trying to come to grips with what had just happened to them. Everyone seemed to react differently - some were too emotional to speak, some seemed shell-shocked and grief-stricken, and others stoic and defiant in the face of terrorism.
Prior to coming to AU I lived for nearly six years in Kenya, during which time my father worked at the American Embassy in the capital, Nairobi. On August 7, 1998, several al-Qaeda members detonated a massive truck bomb near the rear entrance of the Embassy, an attack my father survived. Being in a terror attack akin to the Madrid bombings is very much like being in a war zone; strange and inexplicable things happen that survivors must sort through.
Everyone's reaction is different, both in response to the attack and its aftermath and in development of philosophical questions like "why?" and "how?" These differing reactions hold true in response to any tragedy, but the scope and political implications of terror attacks like Madrid make this kind of national-scale terrorism unique. The victims of political terrorism are distinct because they often feel as if they can come up with an answer to the "why?" question.
In Madrid, Spaniards seem to have decided that the terror attacks were in response to the close involvement of former Prime Minister Jos? Mar¡a Aznar's government with the U.S. in the war in Iraq, and voted three days after the bombings to remove the longstanding conservative People's Party in favor of the Socialists, who have pledged to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq. Assuming that al-Qaeda or an ideologically similar group is behind the attacks, it marks an alarming new tactic for these Islamic extremists. Here, the terrorists did more than kill 201 innocent people; they impacted Spain politically in a way that is unprecedented. With the Socialist victory the Islamic extremists have demonstrated their ability to swing a national election in their favor, contributing to what looks to be a major foreign policy reversal for Spain. This is not to say the attacks themselves were the only reason the government lost, but there is no doubt that whoever planned the attacks wanted to influence the elections.
This Spanish answer to "why?" isn't entirely accurate. Al-Qaeda and its supporters seek to eliminate any Western democracy. Although Spain and the U.K. would seem to be at a higher risk for attack because of their involvement in Iraq, Germany, France, or any other nation that is seen as a part of the secular, globalizing West is fair game for attack. Spain could easily have been a target without the Iraq war; Spain's participation only heightened its profile with Islamic extremists.
The U.S. War on Terror, or war on Muslim extremism, is a truly global conflict that requires equal participation and effort from all countries. Many Americans still feel that the U.S. has been the only major target for al-Qaeda and Islamic extremism, and because of this we must fight back with amazing force.
When asked to explain the massive European opposition to the war in Iraq, many said, "the Europeans don't get it, they didn't have 9-11, they don't know what it's like." This couldn't be further from the truth. Perhaps the attacks of 3-11 have made the threat they face from Islamic extremism a little clearer, but Europeans have been aware of the threats facing them for some time. There was instead a serious disagreement about whether the invasion of Iraq was actually a part of the War on Terror.
The U.S. must be more accepting of international organizations and alliances to fight this kind of radicalism, which is the world's problem. Whether or not Iraq was initially part of the War on Terror before the American occupation is now irrelevant. The War on Terror demands an intense international effort, and by pulling out now, Spain would not be contributing to the development of a free and democratic Iraq.
The War on Terror can only be won through international cooperation and a united front, not simply on the military or financial side but ideologically. The Bush administration has said since 9-11 that the War on Terror is a different kind of war, but we seem to be running away with the military side of the solution and ignoring some of the root causes of the problems.
Listening to Bush and his cabinet speak, one might be inclined to believe that al-Qaeda and the rest of the Islamic terrorists are like a bunch of cockroaches; all the U.S. has to do is go into the Middle East and Afghanistan like red, white, and blue exterminators and kill them all. But "bringing the fight to the terrorists" will only get us so far - you can't kill ideas with missiles.
Al-Qaeda is splintering and weakening, but the organization has become an entire movement, and millions of people all over the world, whether we would like to admit it or not, agree with certain pillars of bin Laden's logic, if not his methods. A huge population in the Muslim world continues to believe that the West is conducting a war against Islam, a precept that U.S. government officials like our own Gen. William Boykin, deputy undersecretary for intelligence at the Pentagon and central figure in the War on Terror, seemed to agree with. He labeled Muslims as idol worshippers believing in a false God, and discussed the War on Terror as a Christian crusade against Satan. His comments drew little real publicity in the U.S. but were played at length in the Muslim world. These are the kinds of things we can control.
Boykin's comments are reinforced when Muslims see a seemingly disproportionate number of violent conflicts deemed as Islamic resistance, from Palestine to Chechnya, on television. The contradictory nature of U.S. foreign policy - the fact that we depose some dictators and coddle others - is also not lost on anyone. We really can't control some factors contributing to the radicalization and dissatisfaction of many Muslims with the West, but we must do all that we can.
These issues are extremely complicated, but certain concepts are clear. Until the U.S. adopts a truly multilateral policy toward the scourge of Islamic radicalism and gives full consideration to some of the core reasons for Islamic anger, the problem will only get worse. The attacks in Spain are a definite reminder of how international the fight really is, and how quickly so many innocent lives can be taken away anywhere in the world. I am hopeful that the U.S., working with the world community, can work to stop this kind of radicalism, but I fully realize that I will be waking up many more times to news that the U.S. Embassy bombings in Africa, 9-11, Bali, and the Madrid attacks have been succeeded by some other instance of mass human slaughter in the name of Islam.
