Because We Could

VETERANS FOR PEACE ^ | April 28, 2004 | THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

[HowardLSmith.ô¿ô]

The failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.

Why? Because 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. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there — a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.

*****more****

[HowardLSmith.ô¿ô]

Tom Friedman is no friend of the administration or GWB but Friedman's editorial really does explain the need to invade Iraq and remove Saddam. This was recently cited on a radio program as why the US has to be successful in Iraq and in the war on terror. I add this to the FR list of req'd reading to help everyone in their discussions with those who just don't understand that we are in the fight for our survival.

[ReadyNow]

Good article. Friedman has it right.

[HowardLSmith.ô¿ô]

The title should have been "Because We Must"!

[San Jacinto]

bttt Nice article.

[B.Bumbleberry]

Good editorial. Is this the NY Times Friedman? Two criticisms. First, Friedman is still on the "imminent threat" kick. Second, he is right that the real reasons for the war were never stated by the Bush administration, but he leaves out one important motive--oil. Undergirding and overarching all other considerations is the dependence of our econonmy on Middle East oil. Oil is the vital interest that connects us to the region out of sheer necessity. If it weren't for oil, we would be about as interested in what is going on in the Middle East as we are in what is going on in Africa.

[SMARTY]

"Mr. Bush's credibility rides on finding W.M.D.'s..."

See, I don't agree here. I am sure that the WMD threat to the US was/is imminent. Actually finding the 'devices' is not necessary for me.

In fact the war we have on our hands now is the war we invited by our casual response to prior challenges to our sovereignty and open society, both of which we have a perfect right to.

We are fighting terrorists, and not conventional forces, now because we were finally able to strike at the terrorist efforts to obtain or build systems and weapons of a conventional nature. So, here we are fighting with people who are using what ever comes to hand...the kinds of attacks which the Israelis have lived (and died) with since '48. Israelis did and are doing what they can to keep the aspirations of these murderers in check and NOW we are forced to the same (albeit, belated) course. Great world powers, Britain, US are GREAT because with all the unlimited power and resources at their disposal, they refuse to make demands on other, smaller, vulnerable countries, refuse to make attempts at territorial gain at the expense of the weaker nations...etc. Not so with the murderers. Larger and more efficient killing systems and devices must be kept out of their hands because they have demonstrated NO responsibility with the weapons they already can deploy.

Who said "Every generation gets the war they deserve" ??

[randita]

The fact that detailed plans of some of our nation's schools was found in the hands of Iraqi insurgents ought to tip off even the densest among us that Iraq was up to no good.

[bad company]

"Because we could" sounds a little flippant. I don't completely agree with the rest of his premise either but he is close. After 9-11 a state sponsor of terror needed to bite the dust, afghanistan didn't fit the bill because the taliban was more of a puppet govt of the terrorists than anything.

Saddam continually poked the dragon and was a open sponsor of terror, specifically he didn't do it and deny it, he did it and bragged about it. He was also in violation of 17 un resolutions and the peace treaty he signed with us. Saddam wasn't bright enough to see that he should keep a low profile after 9-11 so he won the prize.

[HowardLSmith.ô¿ô]

This is the NYT Friedman.

As important as oil is to our country, it is not nearly as important as our lives. The terrorists are dedicated to attacking our way of life and to take lives where ever possible. Do you really want to buy into the liberal driven "it about oil" argument?