Tom Friedman is back. Alert the media. America's most prominent columnist and senior fellow at the non-partisan Douchebag Institute has returned from his book writing sabbatical with a slightly less dull knife than before. Although he no longer thinks the Bush administration can get the job done in Iraq, he still thinks the job can get done, and he still thinks it's important for us to spread the gospel of democracy and free markets to the poor, huddled masses living under autocratic regimes in the middle east.
Let me explode a persistent myth with the following rhetorical question: If we replace the autocratic regimes with democracies
who do you think these people will vote for? Here' s my informal poll of who might win a legitimate election in several middle eastern states that currently have autocratic regimes.
- Saudia Arabia - Osama Bin Laden
- Iraq - The Guy Who Cuts Off People's Heads
- Syria - Osama Bin Laden
- Jordan - Osama Bin Laden
- Iran - Whoever won Lebanese Idol.
The fact is we don't want to spread democracy in the middle east. That's the last thing we want to do. Even the Bush Administration isn't that stupid. This was simply the second salvo of a propaganda campaign aimed at justifying an unjust war. To cling to this feeble fallacy is to be intellectually dishonest. And if you're America's most prominent columnist you should be held to a higher standard. Furthermore, let me just say this to get it out of the way so we can grow up and have a real conversation about how we're going to get out of this mess:
The world was better off with Saddam Hussein in power. America was safer with Saddam Hussein in power.
Sorry, but it was. The "surely the world is better off without Saddam" argument is merely the Alamo of the neo-con argument. (Right up there with blaming the liberal media) The fact that this is their best defense shows how desperate they, and the situation are. Unfortunately, the democrats are not in a position to counter this argument (thanks to Kerry's mixed messages) and so they are always backpedaling when this comes up. If someone (besides me) were to state the obvious the whole right-wing argument would implode. (by the way, did you notice how in the debate there was not a single utterance of the phrase flip-flop? It must've been part of the 32 page memorandum of understanding which was about 32 pages longer than the postwar plan for Iraq)
"The world changed after 9/11" is actually inscribed on the cross now so to try and challenge them on that premise is more difficult. However, one could say, "No shit. It's too bad the parts of the country that still support you have almost no threat of terrorism. If 9/11 changed everything then why does New York get the lowest per capita amount of Homeland security funds? Why does Wyoming get the highest? ...just asking.
With regards to Iraq. To say that we have to stay so that the people who want a chance to live in a democracy can be free from the insurgents is ludicrous. They want to be free from us. The longer we stay the worse it gets. If we just pick up and leave there will be factional fighting, instability, and continued bloodshed. Additionaly, Iran will most likely try to fill the vacuum. Still, it's reasonable to think we can contain the damage to within Iraq until a stable government emerges from the scrum. We can help secure ourselves from retaliation by dangling massive carrots in the form of loans, debt forgiveness, and international aid while keeping the sword in plain view. This is the only way to make it an international effort. Otherwise we face more cost, more loss, and more agony.
