Warriors versus capitulators in this War on Terror

By Carol Devine-Molin
web posted March 22, 2004

The message that the Spanish electorate sent was clear --
Terrorism works! It was stunning to see Spain totally capitulate
to the al-Qaida terrorists. In the aftermath of the most deadly
terror attack upon Spain's soil that left over 200 dead and 1500
injured, Spain promptly voted to give the murderous Jihadis
exactly what they wanted – Spanish troops would be brought
home from Iraq. In one fell swoop, Spain's Prime Minister Jose
Maria Aznar was axed, while socialist candidate Jose Luis
Rodriguez Zapatero, who vowed withdrawal of Spanish troops
from Iraq, was handed the reins of power.

The prime minister-elect reiterated his campaign promise to
remove Spain's 1300 troops from Iraq by June 30, 2004. And
he further averred, "It is clear that using force is not the answer
to resolving the conflict with terrorists." Well, what does
Zapatero want? To send in the psychologists and social workers
so that the terrorists can cooperate with therapy and contemplate
their belly-buttons? Obviously, Zapatero is exhibiting incredible
naiveté, and fails to grasp that al-Qaida is comprised of
profoundly dangerous and unpredictable people. In contrast,
Poland's president Aleksander Kwasniewski reportedly told
U.S. President George W. Bush that Polish troops will stay in
Iraq "as long as needed ... plus one day longer." Now
Kwasniewski is a true leader, a man of resolve and integrity, and
one that appropriately responds to the terror threat. He chose to
stand up to the thugs.

Zapatero, on the other hand, is a craven Euro-weasel who's
willing to roll over and play dead when confronted by terrorists.
Was he playing hooky from class when history was being taught?
If nothing else, a study of twentieth century tyrants tells us that
attempts to appease inevitably backfire and only embolden
thugs. Now let's examine al-Qaida more closely – It's bent on
annihilating all infidels, and Spain is already highlighted on the al-
Qaida hit-list for expelling Muslims from Spain back in the
fifteenth century. Sure, this might seem silly to western
sensibilities, but these fanatics like nothing better than to dwell on
historical grievances and even perceived slights involving the
Muslim people.

Moreover, it would behoove Mr.Zapatero to fully examine the
ideology of these radical Islamists to better serve his nation. The
goal of al-Qaida is to establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate
throughout the globe by working in tandem with allied Islamic
extremist groups to overthrow non-Islamic governments.
Moreover, they're consumed by an apocalyptic death-cult
mentality, as they go about the business of purifying the world by
purging it of evil infidels. Christians, Jews, Mormons, Hindus,
Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, etc., even moderate Muslims for
that matter, are mere insects to be squashed in the minds of these
zealots. Now, how can any thinking person really believe that
Spain is going to be spared from further al-Qaida strikes?

However, the "peace at any price" capitulators to terrorism (and
state sponsors of terrorism) cannot be limited to Mr. Zapatero.
Rather, the prime minister-elect of Spain is just one small fish in a
much larger barrel that is opposed to the ongoing Iraq campaign,
and insists on abandoning the entire notion of the "war on terror"
for the purpose of returning to the already tried and failed law
enforcement approach of tackling terror. On this side can be
found the anti-war American Left that is well-ensconced in the
Democratic Party, the European Socialists of "Old Europe" most
notably France and Germany, and nations such as Russia and
China, which have their own Machiavellian reasons for opposing
US policies. The UN also appears to be in this camp, which is
particularly odd since one of the reasons the coalition went into
battle in Iraq was to uphold the integrity of numerous UN
resolutions.

Interestingly, a number of top officials from France, Germany,
Russia, and the UN are now under investigation for accepting
very lucrative kickbacks and bribes from Saddam Hussein's "oil
for food" program (run under the auspices of the UN), which
reportedly generated billions in revenues and did virtually nothing
to benefit the starving Iraqi people. One recent Associated Press
report indicated: "An Iraqi newspaper has published a list of
about 270 former Cabinet officials, legislators, political activists
and journalists in about 46 countries suspected of profiting from
the scam." Could it be that France, Germany, Russia, and the
UN had ulterior motives, other than ideological ones, to oppose
the Iraq War and the ouster of Saddam Hussein? Were a
number of officials on Saddam's gravy train and reluctant to see
it all come to an end? That's a distinct possibility, given the
information that continues to emerge regarding oil contracts and
graft.

And on the other side of this equation are the warriors against
terror. They're best represented by the 30-plus nation "coalition
of the willing" led by the US, including Great Britain, Italy,
Denmark, Poland, Hungary, and Australia, for the purpose of
battling terrorists in Iraq and stabilizing the new nation.

The following reflects some salient themes espoused by
supporters of this "war on terror": a) The Middle East can be
transformed through freedom and democratic reforms that
empower people, providing them with much needed opportunity
and optimism. In turn, people pursuing productive, satisfying lives
have no use for bitterness and terrorism. As President Bush
stated at the one year anniversary of the Iraq War, "We have set
out to encourage reform and democracy in the greater Middle
East as the alternatives to fanaticism, resentment, and terror.
We've set out to break the cycle of bitterness and radicalism that
has brought stagnation to a vital region, and destruction to cities
in America and Europe and around the world. This task is
historic, and difficult; this task is necessary and worthy of our
efforts," b) This is a global war against the forces of transnational
terrorism and the outlaw regimes that aid and abet these terrorist
groups – particularly worrisome is the possibility that a terror-
sponsoring regime might provide al-Qaida or other radical group
with WMDs, c) The antiquated law enforcement paradigm to
fight terrorism, formerly utilized by President Clinton and now
embraced by Democratic candidate John Kerry, has proven to
be an utter failure, and, d) There are no "silver bullets" to quickly
dispose of the radical Islamists and their planned acts of terror
throughout the globe. We must continue to assiduously tackle the
terror threat, which will take years to overcome. Sadly, since
September 11th, myriad nations have been attacked by al-
Qaida, and its affiliate terror organizations, including Indonesia,
Turkey, Pakistan, Morrocco, Saudi Arabia, Tunesia, Kenya,
Spain, and of course Iraq and Afganistan where coalition forces
continue to engage the enemy on the frontlines.
 
Carol Devine-Molin is a regular contributor to several online
magazines.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com