Screw the Op-Ed page, Read Playboy So I was reading Playboy tonight (the roomies have a subscription) and I came across this interview with Thomas L. Friedman. I thought some of what he had to say was interesting, so I decided to put my pants back on and post it. Just kidding about the pants, I left them off. But seriously, I wasn't wearing pants anyway, it's too freaking hot.
Anyway, here it is:
Friedman: There were four reasons for the war: the right reason, the moral reason, the stated reason, and the real reason. The stated reason was WMD's. It was an excuse the President used. The moral reason was the genocidal regime responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of its own people. The right reason was regime change, to try to build a democratic context in the heart of the Arab world. But the real reason was to send the following message: "Ladies and gentlemen of the Arab world, we mean you no ill, but we noticed something on 9/11. Many arabs and muslims applauded it. So listen when I tell you the following: You are now going to see American boys and girls go from Basra to Baghdad. Which part of this don't you understand? We will not sit here idly while you come over to our country, kill 3,000 of our brothers and sisters and then bake a cake... to celebrate. Try it again and we are going to come into the heart of your world and there are going to be vast and unpredictable consequences.
Playboy: But Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda did.
Friedman: Yes, but in my view terrorism is 98 percent about what governments let happen- the charities they allow to raise and funnel money, the lies they allow to be told about us in their press and the terrible intolerance they allow to be preached.
Playboy: Then why didn't we attack Pakistan, Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia?
Friedman: We went to Iraq for one reason. We could.
Playboy: But if the real reason was to send a message and deter future attacks, how do you respond to the experts who say the war will create more, not fewer, terrorists because of increased resentment and even hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world.
Friedman: I don't believe it. I'm ready for somebody to prove it to me if it's true. What the left has totally missed is how many people are quietly rooting for us to succeed. Look at Lebanon, Egypt, and Palestine... We have unlocked a democratic movement in that region that has the potential to transform it. And that is how we will win the war on terrorism. Some things are true even if George Bush believes them. The only way to win against terrorism is to win the war of ideas, which can be fought only by Arabs and Muslims. American public diplomacy can't do it.
I'm not the biggest Friedman fan, but I think that makes a lot of sense and hopefully even CharlesPierce will appreciate his pragmaticism. Hey-O! But seriously, sometimes the right thing has to be done for the wrong reasons.
Now onto CharlesPierce's question, it seems to come up in every comment string- so I'll try to just answer it here and let you extrapolate to all the comments:
Anyway, here it is:
Friedman: There were four reasons for the war: the right reason, the moral reason, the stated reason, and the real reason. The stated reason was WMD's. It was an excuse the President used. The moral reason was the genocidal regime responsible for killing hundreds of thousands of its own people. The right reason was regime change, to try to build a democratic context in the heart of the Arab world. But the real reason was to send the following message: "Ladies and gentlemen of the Arab world, we mean you no ill, but we noticed something on 9/11. Many arabs and muslims applauded it. So listen when I tell you the following: You are now going to see American boys and girls go from Basra to Baghdad. Which part of this don't you understand? We will not sit here idly while you come over to our country, kill 3,000 of our brothers and sisters and then bake a cake... to celebrate. Try it again and we are going to come into the heart of your world and there are going to be vast and unpredictable consequences.
Playboy: But Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11. Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda did.
Friedman: Yes, but in my view terrorism is 98 percent about what governments let happen- the charities they allow to raise and funnel money, the lies they allow to be told about us in their press and the terrible intolerance they allow to be preached.
Playboy: Then why didn't we attack Pakistan, Iran, Syria, or Saudi Arabia?
Friedman: We went to Iraq for one reason. We could.
Playboy: But if the real reason was to send a message and deter future attacks, how do you respond to the experts who say the war will create more, not fewer, terrorists because of increased resentment and even hatred for the United States throughout the Arab world.
Friedman: I don't believe it. I'm ready for somebody to prove it to me if it's true. What the left has totally missed is how many people are quietly rooting for us to succeed. Look at Lebanon, Egypt, and Palestine... We have unlocked a democratic movement in that region that has the potential to transform it. And that is how we will win the war on terrorism. Some things are true even if George Bush believes them. The only way to win against terrorism is to win the war of ideas, which can be fought only by Arabs and Muslims. American public diplomacy can't do it.
I'm not the biggest Friedman fan, but I think that makes a lot of sense and hopefully even CharlesPierce will appreciate his pragmaticism. Hey-O! But seriously, sometimes the right thing has to be done for the wrong reasons.
Now onto CharlesPierce's question, it seems to come up in every comment string- so I'll try to just answer it here and let you extrapolate to all the comments:
"Has any country ever started an unjust war? If so, how do you oppose it while still supporting the armed forces? I asked redhurt once whether or not it would be courageous for a Soviet soldier in 1979 to have laid down his arms and refused to invade Afghanistan (the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan being one of the most illogical, bloodthirsty and power-driven conflicts I can think of in recent years.) I say YES. There's the classic debate about following orders, but if your commander orders you to go into a village and rape all the women, you say no, sir. So when do we say no sir to Bush?"I'll go through it point by point, artfully dodging where I can't answer.
- Countries starting unjust wars: Unjust according to our definition of morality, sure. However, I believe they can still be justified though.
- Opposing a war while supporting the troops: I don't think it's possible. The time to dissent is before they engage the enemy. Once they're gone, I think the only thing you can do to support them is to give them all the tools and support to win as quickly and decisively as possible.
- I'll let you get away with comparing rape to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, but not with the Iraq war. They just totally aren't on the same level. A successful conclusion to the Iraq war is mutually beneficial, whereas a Soviet victory results in total exploitation of the Afghani people and no real benefit for the populace of the USSR. I think you have to say no to Bush when our motives aren't altruistic, and the opinion of the people we invade is a little different than this (See A message to Cindy Sheehan, the post from August 12th)
posted by Justin at 9:05 PM 
1 Comments:
Thanks for responding to my question point by point. I do want to point out that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was way more immoral than our invasion of Iraq--I was just throwing it out as a clear example of an unjustified war.
Your point seems to be:
"A lot of good will come out of Iraq."
That's absolutely true. You then move to something like:
"Since a lot of good will come out of Iraq, it's a justified war."
That's where I disagree with you. I think that a lot of good will come out of it, but it was not justified, and that we were lied to.
Post a Comment
<< Home