From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Wed Jun 04 2003 - 12:41:43 MDT
I generally respect Friedman but I think he's probably wrong about the
effects of an American display of power in Iraq. Throughout history
ethnic and religious groups who have been beaten or humiliated by
other groups have harbored grudges. Those grudges have manifested
themselves in retributive violence, rather than just rolling over and
taking it.
Friedman is essentially saying that the US has now shown that it's
tough, and this will bring the Arab governments into line, which will
in turn reduce terrorism.
But Friedman is wrong about the role of states in terrorism, both now
even moreso in the future. The Taliban probably new nothing about the
9/11 attack. The training facilities in Afghanistan were irrelevant
to it. All it took was a couple hundred thousand dollars and some
people willing to die. Future terrorist attacks will just get chaper
and easier as the technology of destruction advances. Increasingly
governments won't matter in terrorism at all - just motivated
individuals, like the angry muslim men who crashed those planes on
9/11. The US attack on Iraq has probably increased the number of such
angry muslim men willing to die if they can take some Americans with
them.
On the other hand, I think what Friedman lists as the "right" reason
to invade attack may pay major dividends. If the US can succeed in
nation building, and help establish a prosperous and democratic Iraq,
it'll have a major positive effect on the region. That effect, in the
long run, could outweigh the short term increase in Arab anger towards
the US.
But if the US only shows strength, and fails to build a prosperous
democracy in Iraq, the invasion of Iraq will be a large net negative,
especially for the US itself.
mez
From: John K Clark [mailto:jonkc@att.net]
Thomas Friedman had a interesting column in the New York Times
today about the true reasons for the Iraq war and I think he was
absolutely correct:
===========
"There were actually four reasons for this war: the real
reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was
that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim
world.
The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with
Iraqis, post-Saddam, to build a progressive Arab regime. Because the
real weapons of mass destruction that threaten us were never Saddam's
missiles. The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of
angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed
or failing Arab states — young people who hate America more than they
love life. Helping to build a decent Iraq as a model for others — and
solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — are the necessary steps for
defusing the ideas of mass destruction, which are what really threaten
us.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 04 2003 - 12:54:01 MDT