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
