Editorial 1: Responses to terrorism in Spain, U.S. based on fear

The attack in Madrid last week seems to have been orchestrated
by al-Qaeda, timed to change the outcome of Spain’s
elections.

Apparently, terrorists got their wish.

Though the vast majority of Spain’s population did not
support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, polls showed Spain’s
pro-war president’s handpicked successor was heavily favored
to win ““ until the bombs exploded. At the eleventh hour,
voters changed course and elected a candidate opposed to the
invasion.

No matter one’s views regarding the Iraq war or
Spain’s support for it, that terrorism should achieve any of
its goals is frightening. And millions of Americans now harbor ill
will toward the grieving Spaniards, saying they reacted
wrongly.

But people leveling this criticism must understand: If
terrorists are happy to see an election shift in Spain, they are
also happy to see the reduction of civil liberties and politics of
fear in the United States.

Throughout history, perceived threats have often forced bad
decision-making. Neville Chamberlain was wrong to appease Adolf
Hitler ““ whose threat was real. Franklin Roosevelt was
wrong to intern Japanese Americans ““ who posed no threat.

In each case, the response was based on fear and led to more
harm than good.

Many feel angry about how the Spanish population reacted to the
attacks. But those who say their voters acted out of fear should
realize some U.S. policy is driven by the exact same thing.