Greetings from the Pacific
Northwest, where the East winds have abated and we
are socked in with gentle rain.
Everyone is trying to get their two cents
in print before the President’s speech writers are finished with the final
copy of the State of the Union speech, hoping to influence the thinking and
presentation of an important, time-sensitive public policy moment that will be
gleaned for the smallest details between the lines. Friedman puts a lot of things into
perspective we can understand while raising some contentious issues that need
to be aired.
We are discussing consequences here, not
just morality about preemptive force.
Conservatives used to have a strong voice on the intended and
unintended consequences of government. Today, with this White House, they have
lost that edge. Karen Watters
Cole
The earlier column is at
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/22/opinion/22FRIE.html I urge you to read it also if this
subject is important to you.
Excerpt
from that:
“What
liberals fail to recognize is that regime change in Iraq is not some
distraction from the war on Al Qaeda. That is a bogus argument. And simply
because oil is also at stake in Iraq doesn't make it illegitimate either. Some
things are right to do, even if Big Oil benefits.
Although President Bush has cast the war in
Iraq as being about disarmament — and that is legitimate — disarmament is not
the most important prize there. Regime change is the prize. Regime
transformation in Iraq could make a valuable contribution to the war on
terrorism, whether Saddam is ousted or enticed into exile.”
Thinking
About Iraq (II)
By Thomas L. Friedman, NYT, 01.26.03 @
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/opinion/26FRIE.html
In
my column on Wednesday I laid out why I believe that liberals
underestimate
how ousting Saddam Hussein could help
spur positive political change
in the Arab world. Today's column
explores why conservative
advocates of ousting Saddam underestimate the risks,
and where we should strike the balance.
Let's
start with one simple fact: Iraq is a black box that has been sealed shut
since Saddam came to dominate Iraqi politics in the late 1960's. Therefore, one needs to have a great
deal of humility when it comes to predicting what sorts of bats and demons may
fly out if the U.S. and its allies remove the lid. Think of it this way: If and when we
take the lid off Iraq, we will find an envelope inside. It will tell us what we have won and it
will say one of two things.
It
could say, "Congratulations!
You've just won the Arab Germany
— a country with enormous human talent, enormous natural resources, but with
an evil dictator, whom you've just removed. Now, just add a little water, a
spoonful of democracy and stir, and this will be a normal nation very
soon."
Or
the envelope could say, "You've
just won the Arab Yugoslavia —
an artificial country congenitally divided among Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis,
Nasserites, leftists and a host of tribes and clans that can only be held
together with a Saddam-like iron fist. Congratulations, you're the new
Saddam."
In
the first scenario, Iraq is the way it is today because Saddam is the way he
is. In the second scenario,
Saddam is the way he is because Iraq is what it is. Those are two very different problems.
And we will know which we've won
only when we take off the lid. The conservatives and neo-cons, who
have been pounding the table for war, should be a lot more humble about this
question, because they don't know either.
Does
that mean we should rule out war? No. But it does mean that we must do it
right. To begin with, the
president must level with the American people that we may indeed be buying the
Arab Yugoslavia, which will take a great deal of time and effort to heal into
a self-sustaining, progressive, accountable Arab government. And, therefore, any nation-building in
Iraq will be a multiyear marathon, not a multiweek
sprint.
Because
it will be a marathon,
we must undertake this war with the maximum amount of international legitimacy
and U.N. backing we can possibly muster. Otherwise we will not have an
American
public willing
to run this marathon, and we will not have allies ready to help us once we're
inside (look at all the local police and administrators Europeans now
contribute in Bosnia and Kosovo). We'll
also become a huge target
if we're the sole occupiers of Iraq.
In
short, we can oust Saddam Hussein all by ourselves. But
we cannot successfully rebuild Iraq all by ourselves.
And the real prize here is a new
Iraq that would be a progressive model for the whole region. That, for me, is the only morally and
strategically justifiable reason to support this war. The Bush team dare
not invade Iraq simply to install a more friendly dictator to pump us
oil.
And it dare
not simply disarm Iraq and then walk away from the nation-building
task.
Unfortunately,
when it comes to enlisting allies, the Bush team is its own worst
enemy.
It has sneered at many issues the
world cares about: the Kyoto accords, the World Court, arms control treaties.
The Bush team had legitimate
arguments on some of these issues, but the gratuitous way it dismissed them
has fueled anti-Americanism. No,
I have no illusions that if the Bush team had only embraced Kyoto the French
wouldn't still be trying to obstruct America in Iraq. The French are the French. But unfortunately, now the Germans are
the French, the Koreans are the French, and many Brits are becoming
French.
Things
could be better, but here is where we are — so here is where I am: My gut
tells me we should continue the troop buildup, continue the inspections and do
everything we can for as long as we can to produce either a coup or the sort
of evidence that will give us the broadest coalition possible, so we can do
the best nation-building job possible.
But
if war turns out to be the only option, then war it will have to be — because
I believe that our kids will have a better chance of growing up in a safer
world if we help put Iraq on a more progressive path and stimulate some real
change in an Arab world that is badly in need of reform. Such a war would indeed be a shock to
this region, but, if we do it right, there is a decent chance that it would be
shock therapy.
Outgoing mail scanned by NAV
2002
