NYTimes.com Article: Thinking About Iraq (II)

[michaele@ando.pair.com]

This article from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by michaele@ando.pair.com.


thought-provoking article by T.Friedman in
today's NYTimes

michaele@ando.pair.com


Thinking About Iraq (II)

January 26, 2003
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN 




 

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.   

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/26/opinion/26FRIE.html?ex=1044594294&ei=1&en=6773273b73c5f967



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales@nytimes.com or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
help@nytimes.com.  

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company