Politics & Policy

Just a Prelude

The strategic significance of March 11.

–The attack on March 11 was much more than an act of terrorism against innocent commuters. Even more, its repercussions are not confined to Spain alone. Everything appears to indicate that the authors of the massacre were Islamic fundamentalists. If this is true, then al Qaeda will have crossed the Rubicon and carried out its first attack on European soil. Furthermore, it cannot be said that it was held back by a lack of capacity. Rather, it appears that until now this kind of aggression did not suit its plans.

In recent years the Spanish intelligence community believed that the country was being used by Islamic militants only as a logistical base or staging area. Now we can see that al Qaeda (or the groups that shelter under that name) had actually put together an infrastructure much more lethal than that. In the same way, the idea that al Qaeda would not attack in Europe because that would certainly drive Europeans and Americans closer together was also destroyed on March 11. In order to get at the reasons behind this initial attack and to avoid future ones, we must understand the macabre logic of the terrorists. The sooner we do so the better.

The immediate political impact of the bombs may have been a coincidence, but if “M-11″ was connected to “M-14″ (election day) the situation is even more worrying. It would mean that al Qaeda has acquired the ability to understand Spanish society and its reactions even better than we do ourselves, and can thus time its attacks to achieve maximum damage. The terrorists could have quite easily used an off-peak moment to blow up the trains but they chose the rush hour. They could have attacked on February 14 or April 14 but instead they attacked three days before the general elections. It remains to be seen whether the person responsible for the attack knows us so well because he has been living in Spain for years or because he is as intelligent as he is evil.

Clausewitz tells us that war is the continuation of politics by other means. And now terrorism has become the continuation of war by other means. Many call it “4G Warfare,” a sort of asymmetric post-industrial conflict. New ways and new weapons are used by the weak to subjugate the strong. In any action the goals are clearly political, whether they are symbolic or not. From this point of view M-11 can be seen as a tactical action with a strategic outcome: the removal of the government and the withdrawal of Spanish troops from Iraq.

That’s for Spain. But the truth is that the terrorists’ message has sent a shudder that passes far beyond Spain’s frontiers. To start with, there is one aspect of extreme concern: No intelligence agency or information service–whether police-based or otherwise–had any data or suspicions that might have sounded a warning before the attack took place. Contrary to what happened a few weeks ago, when several French and British flights to the U.S. were cancelled and grounded for days, on this occasion nothing was found and not even a single lead was uncovered before the attacks. As in the case of the Americans and 9/11, perhaps there was a dominant feeling that an attack by al Qaeda on European soil was impossible and this could explain, though not justify, the absence of intelligence. Or, more likely, our intelligence services were looking hard but the fundamentalists knew how to hide their plans and went undetected. Whatever the explanation, it will offer little comfort to those who fear that M-11 may be a prelude to further attacks in Europe.

In any event M-11 has issued a clear warning: An attack on Europe has been made through Spain and another could quite easily take place in the not-so-distant future. Although the capacity of the terrorists may be limited, they can cause enormous damage and this capability seems to be well in place in Spain and in Europe. Moreover the attack carries a clear message: Terror pays dividends–in this case high political ones. Of course this message depends on the social and political response to the attacks, but as we all know, the government of the conservative Popular party was overthrown and power passed to the socialists, on the idea that Spanish involvement in the Iraq war was the reason behind the attacks.

Since the Hispano-American War of 1898, Spaniards’ safety has been threatened only by internal forces. Perhaps this is the main explanation for a widespread social mentality that does not perceive or foresee risks or threats that come from abroad. However, perceptions do not always match reality. In reality we live in a turbulent world where there are people who are ready and willing to destroy our way of life. Some might be tempted to think that if we had not sent troops to Iraq or if we had not supported President Bush, al Qaeda would have chosen London as its target instead of Madrid. The problem here is that global terrorism has not become less daring. On 9/11 it used commercial airliners and on M-11 it used conventional explosives. But if it attacks London, Warsaw, or Rome with nonconventional weapons–as it constantly threatens–we would all unavoidably be affected whether we liked it or not. A larger attack or one of even greater devastation than that inflicted on commuters in Madrid would demand collective action and response. In addition, recent history shows that indecision or irresolute behavior does not appease terrorists but encourages them to be more aggressive and daring. That is a danger that no responsible politician can ignore. Too much is at stake.

For some years I have been using the C-2 commuter line to travel between home and my office. I also used it on March 11. By chance and by just a couple of minutes, I did not travel on any of the four trains that were blown up. But it will be difficult to forget the horror I saw from the platform. I have, however, no desire to forget–just the opposite. Only memory can keep us alert to the threats that surround us. What I really want is for the government–whoever is in power–to promise me it will do everything it can to avoid another M-11 in Spain. And I would also like it to help ensure that there will not be another M-11 in Europe or in any other part of the world. Of course I also want it to track down the perpetrators of this carnage whether they are in Spain, Iraq, or Afghanistan.

We Spaniards have had the tragic experience of fighting ETA for 30 years now. But ETA is not global terrorism. No country can protect itself from global terrorism or fight it single-handedly. Let us not fall into the deadly trap of thinking that the Spanish government can negotiate a separate peace with al Qaeda.

Rafael L. Bardají is a senior fellow of the Strategic Studies Group (GEES) and former executive adviser to the Spanish defense minister from 1996 to 2002. The Strategic Studies Group (GEES) is a private and independent think tank based in Madrid, whose main focus of work and research is international security, conflicts, and terrorism.

Most Popular

Sports

Madden 21’s Creepy Colin Kaepernick Coercion

Madden NFL 21, this year’s iteration of the only major football video game in the world, has an average Google user rating of 1.4 out of 5. On Metacritic, it’s .2 out of 10. At CGMagazine, Brock McLaughlin writes that “This game is much like 2020, a giant disaster” and urged those interested to buy it if ... Read More
Sports

Madden 21’s Creepy Colin Kaepernick Coercion

Madden NFL 21, this year’s iteration of the only major football video game in the world, has an average Google user rating of 1.4 out of 5. On Metacritic, it’s .2 out of 10. At CGMagazine, Brock McLaughlin writes that “This game is much like 2020, a giant disaster” and urged those interested to buy it if ... Read More
White House

Hell, Yes

Editor’s Note: If you would like to read more pros and cons on voting for President Trump, further essays on the subject, each from a different perspective, can be found here, here, here, here, and here. These articles, and the one below, reflect the views of the individual authors, not of the National ... Read More
White House

Hell, Yes

Editor’s Note: If you would like to read more pros and cons on voting for President Trump, further essays on the subject, each from a different perspective, can be found here, here, here, here, and here. These articles, and the one below, reflect the views of the individual authors, not of the National ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Pennsylvania Poll: Biden 49, Trump 44

In the final Pennsylvania poll of the 2020 presidential election conducted by Muhlenberg College on behalf of the newspaper Morning Call, Joe Biden leads Donald Trump 49 percent to 44 percent. The same pollster's previous survey, conducted between October 13 and October 20, showed Biden leading Trump 51 percent ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Pennsylvania Poll: Biden 49, Trump 44

In the final Pennsylvania poll of the 2020 presidential election conducted by Muhlenberg College on behalf of the newspaper Morning Call, Joe Biden leads Donald Trump 49 percent to 44 percent. The same pollster's previous survey, conducted between October 13 and October 20, showed Biden leading Trump 51 percent ... Read More

Another Pollster Sees a Trump Win

The Trafalgar Group’s Robert Cahaly is an outlier among pollsters in that he thinks President Trump will carry Michigan, Pennsylvania, or both, and hence be reelected with roughly 280 electoral votes. (I explained his thinking here.) Last week another pollster, Jim Lee of Susquehanna Polling and Research, ... Read More

Another Pollster Sees a Trump Win

The Trafalgar Group’s Robert Cahaly is an outlier among pollsters in that he thinks President Trump will carry Michigan, Pennsylvania, or both, and hence be reelected with roughly 280 electoral votes. (I explained his thinking here.) Last week another pollster, Jim Lee of Susquehanna Polling and Research, ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Some Answers for Nicholas Kristof

The New York Times columnist uses a series of “questions” — not all of them phrased in a way that would be acceptable on Jeopardy — to urge religious conservatives to adopt a more “nuanced” position on abortion. Q: “Why do so many [Christians] see fervent opposition to any abortion as a religious ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Some Answers for Nicholas Kristof

The New York Times columnist uses a series of “questions” — not all of them phrased in a way that would be acceptable on Jeopardy — to urge religious conservatives to adopt a more “nuanced” position on abortion. Q: “Why do so many [Christians] see fervent opposition to any abortion as a religious ... Read More