2 Servings of Reality, Please

[frustrated_lefty]

Thomas Friedman seems to be slowly extracting his head from the sand.

"he American public got a real tutorial in diplomacy last week, one that I suspect it could have done without. It was introduced to two concepts: the free rider and the war of choice. How the U.S. public digests these two concepts is going to have a huge impact on our next presidential election.

The free rider lesson was administered by all of America's friends, allies and rivals at the United Nations. President Bush went up there last week, hat in hand, looking for financial and military support for the war he chose to launch in Iraq. I would summarize the collective response of the U.N. to Mr. Bush as follows:

"You talkin' to us? This is your war, pal. We told you before about Iraq: You break it alone, you own it alone. Well, you broke it, now you own it. We've got you over a barrel, because you and your taxpayers have no choice but to see this through, so why should we pay? If you make Iraq a success, we'll all enjoy the security benefits. We'll all get a free ride. And if you make a mess in Iraq, all the wrath will be directed at you and you alone will foot the bill. There is a fine line between being Churchill and being a chump, and we'll let history decide who you are. In the meantime, don't expect us to pay to watch. We were all born at night — but not last night."

Oh, I suspect if the U.S. manages to secure some new U.N. resolution giving more cover to the U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, we will scrounge up a few Indian or Turkish soldiers and maybe a few dollars, but nothing that will make a real dent in the $87 billion price tag the Bush team has presented to the American people."

more

[LittleApple81]

1. But he is still saying that it was justified to have a war of choice. n/t

[wellst0nev0ter]

2. . . .

"You talkin' to us? This is your war, pal. We told you before about Iraq: You break it alone, you own it alone. Well, you broke it, now you own it. We've got you over a barrel, because you and your taxpayers have no choice but to see this through, so why should we pay? If you make Iraq a success, we'll all enjoy the security benefits. We'll all get a free ride. And if you make a mess in Iraq, all the wrath will be directed at you and you alone will foot the bill. There is a fine line between being Churchill and being a chump, and we'll let history decide who you are. In the meantime, don't expect us to pay to watch. We were all born at night — but not last night."

*cough* bullshit *cough* *cough*

[bpilgrim]

3. war of AGGRESSION is more like it...

and illegal to boot. maybe that is why 'democracies' don't usually like to fight wars of 'choice' :puke:

here's a plan fer ya tom...

relinquish control to the UN and let them bring in a multinational force hopefully from the region.

our modern cicero ;->

peace

[Jack Rabbit]

4. Friedman makes my head spin some days

There is no such thing as a "war of choice" that can be morally justified. War is a last resort; if it is fought before diplomatic solutions have been exhausted, it isn't justified.

Of course, there was no diplomatic solution to this issue that would have satisfied the Bush junta. The diplomatic solution was to allow the weapons inspectors to continue their work; they would have found nothing because there was nothing to find. Then, if Bush wanted his war, he would have either made the ridiculous claim that the failure of weapons inspectors to find anything only proved that Saddam was hiding them (no sale); or resorted to the "regime change" defense and claim that the point of negotiation was Saddam's departure, in which case he would be asserting the right to appoint the Iraqi dictator and allow him to serve at his pleasure (again, no sale); or have been more honest and claimed that the point of negotiation was Iraq's obligation to put its oil under the control of the Frat Boy's cronies (again, no sale).

Friedman continues to believe that not only can a war of choice be justified but that this one is justified. He's wrong. See the above paragraph.

Friedman is right in saying that the reconstruction of Iraq is a necessary undertaking. However, he still has blinders on when it comes to Mr. Bush's motivations in Iraq. The purpose of the invasion was to remunerate Mr. Bush's cronies at the expense of the Iraqi people. Bring democracy to Iraq? Really? That isn't Mr. Bush's idea. In fact, it would get in the way.

There should be strings attached to any funds Bush wants. These strings are to assure that the Iraqi people will be the beneficiaries of aid. Fundamentally, the goal should be to turn over power to a real Iraqi governing authority (not Bremer's handpicked quislings)sooner rather than later and to open reconstruction contracts to international bidding under the auspices of the real governing authority. The contracts awarded on a no-bod basis to Bush's cronies should be cancelled. If he wants the UN to help, perhaps they should be given the oversight of the reconstruction of Iraq. The UN is far from perfect, but leaving the Bushies in charge of Iraq would be like putting Willie Sutton in charge of bank security.

In the end, Bush will wish he didn't ask for the money. However, the Iraqi people will be better for it. That should be the goal of any Iraq reconstruction.