Reverse pyschology  

Bjørn Staerk discusses the logic of attacking Spain just before its elections for the sake of disrupting the coalition in Iraq. Since Spanish voters seem to have toppled their government, potentially in favor of leadership which has promised to withdraw troops from Iraq posthaste, one might say (actually, many are already saying) the attacks have achieved their goal, and that the Spanish are in a sense capitulating to implicit and explicit terrorist demands.

But the flaw here is simple enough. It is not necessarily capitulation to do what the terrorists want, if it's the right thing to do. That is, Spain shouldn't stay in Iraq just to spite the terrorists. They should leave because it was an illegal war, embarked upon because of serious miscalculation/lie about the presence of WMD and the connection to al Qaeda. Or, they should stay, because somebody has to see this thing through and not abandon the Iraqis after ousting their government and demolishing their infrastructure. But to allow terrorists to make this choice for you, whether it's by "toppling your government" or "hardening your resolve", is the real mistake. We, and the Spanish, must make our choices rationally.

MORE: Matt Yglesias deals with some of the same issues.