Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

I thought this was a terrific editorial, and I don't have much in the way of a summation that isn't already said in it. Needless to say, I agree with it pretty much 100%.

I remember all the bitching about how Clinton was a poll-watcher and wouldn't make a move unless it was calculated by that. Bush isn't that, but he seems to me to play politics just as much as Clinton ever did...the difference is the stakes are higher.

Anyway, something to consider. Discussion welcome.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Mar 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 24745

"Because I tried to think about something as deadly serious as Iraq, and the post- 9/11 world, in a nonpartisan fashion..."


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 26415

Fuck bill's stoopid thread.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: zanzibar
Posts: 10477

Another WSJ editorial, just didn't know where to put it.
Doesn't necessarily disagree with the above, that the mission must succeed, etc.

quote:

---

ARSENAL OF DEMOCRACY

Sometimes, a War Saves People
We must be willing to bring the fight to those who would do evil.

BY JOSE RAMOS-HORTA
Thursday, May 13, 2004 12:01 a.m.

The new Socialist government in Spain has caved in to the terrorist threats and withdrawn its troops from Iraq. So have Honduras and the Dominican Republic. They are unlikely to be the last. With the security situation expected to worsen before it improves, we have to accept that a few more countries--which do not appreciate how much the world has at stake in building a free Iraq--will also cut and run.
No matter how the retreating governments try to spin it, every time a country pulls out of Iraq it is al Qaeda and other extremists who win. They draw the conclusion that the coalition of the willing is weak and that the more terrorist outrages, the more countries will withdraw.

As a Nobel Peace laureate, I, like most people, agonize over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny or genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. That's why I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda in 1979, to oust Idi Amin. In both cases, those countries acted without U.N. or international approval--and in both cases they were right to do so.

Perhaps the French have forgotten how they, too, toppled one of the worst human-rights violators without U.N. approval. I applauded in the early '80s when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed "Emperor" Jean Bedel Bokassa, renowned for cannibalism. Almost two decades later, I applauded again as NATO intervened--without a U.N. mandate--to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoiced once more in 2001 after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world's most barbaric regimes.

So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was terror, summary execution, torture and rape. Forgotten too is how the Kurds and Iraq's neighbors lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in power.
Those who oppose the use of force at any cost may question why overthrowing Saddam was such a priority. Why not instead tackle Robert Mugabe, the junta in Myanmar, or Syria? But while Mugabe is a ruthless despot, he is hardly in the same league as Saddam--a tyrant who used chemical weapons on his own people, unleashed two catastrophic wars against his Muslim neighbors, and defied the U.N.

Saddam's overthrow offers a chance to build a new Iraq that is peaceful, tolerant and prosperous. That's why the stakes are so high, and why extremists from across the Muslim world are fighting to prevent it. They know that a free Iraq would fatally undermine their goal of purging all Western influence from the Muslim world, overthrowing the secular regimes in the region, and imposing Stone Age rule. They know that forcing Western countries to withdraw from Iraq would be a major step toward that goal, imperiling the existence of moderate regimes--from the Middle East to the Magreb and Southeast Asia.

If those regimes were to fall, hundreds of thousands of Muslims who today denounce the "evils" of Western imperialism would flock to Europe, the U.S., Canada and Australia, seeking refuge. As in Iran, Muslims might have to experience the reality of rule by ayatollahs before they realize how foolish they were not to oppose these religious zealots more vigorously.

Fortunately that remains a remote scenario. If we look beyond the TV coverage, there is hope that Washington's vision of transforming Iraq might still be realized. Credible opinion polls show that a large majority of Iraqis feel better off than a year ago. There is real freedom of the press with newspapers and radio stations mushrooming in the new Iraq. There is unhindered Internet access. NGOs covering everything from human rights to women's advocacy have emerged. In short, Iraq is experiencing real freedom for the first time in its history. And that is exactly what the religious fanatics fear.

Iraq's Shiite majority has acted with restraint in the face of provocation by extremist elements in the Sunni minority, Saddam loyalists and al Qaeda and other foreign mercenaries. The coalition authorities would be wise to cultivate responsible Shiite clerics more closely and ensure that their legitimate concerns are met. While a Shiite-dominated regime might not meet America's goal of a Western-style democracy, it is still far preferable to risking the return of Saddam's thugs. The U.S. must reiterate that building democracy will not marginalize Islam. Democracy and Islam coexist in Indonesia, Malaysia and Bangladesh, while Israel offers an example of a state built on a single religion. That could be the case in Iraq, too, as long as it is led by wise clerics who are able to deliver freedom and good governance. The most probable contender to fill this role is Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has emerged as the national leader the country needs to keep it together. He may not be a democrat in the Western mold, but the U.S. needs to cultivate him, and provide whatever support is required to ensure that he emerges as ruler of the new Iraq.

The U.S. also needs to repair the damage done by the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. While it's important to remember that those involved only represent a tiny fraction of U.S. servicemen in Iraq, the fact remains that the abuse was allowed to continue for many months after organizations such as the normally secretive Red Cross sounded alarm bells. Only thorough investigation, including action against those responsible, can restore U.S. standing in Iraq.

Now is the time for Washington to show leadership by ensuring that the U.N. plays the central role in building a new Iraq. As an East Timorese, I am well aware of the international body's limits, having seen first hand its impotence in the face of Indonesia's invasion of my country in 1975. The U.N. is the sum of our qualities and weaknesses, our selfish national interests and personal vanities. For all its shortcomings, it is the only international organization we all feel part of; it should be cherished rather than further weakened. While the U.S. will continue to play a critical role in ensuring security in Iraq, a U.N.-led peacekeeping force would enable many Arab and Muslim nations to join in and help isolate the extremists.

In almost 30 years of political life, I have supported the use of force on several occasions and sometimes wonder whether I am a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace prize. Certainly I am not in the same category as Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela. But Mr. Mandela, too, recognized the need to resort to violence in the struggle against white oppression. The consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were demonstrated when the world did not stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost a million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then? They were just as silent as they are today in the face of the barbaric behavior of religious fanatics.
Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate, but I stand ready to face my critics. It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing.
Mr. Ramos-Horta, the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1996, is East Timor's senior minister for foreign affairs and cooperation.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2000
Location: The Bottom of the Toyem Pole
Posts: 9454

I tend to agree with Friedman more than I disagree (his love affair with globalization is disappointly ignorant, but other than that he generally has a pretty good approach) and I was surprised to see him on board with the war as much as he was. I don't understand Trench's response though. Friedman has never appeared to me to be a raving liberal or anti-Republican. His economic policies are solidly in line with conservatives and he supported the war from the beginning. He has refrained from bringing politics into his discussions and typically maintains a fairly rooted perspective to his topics.

The analysis that Bush is led by self-interest in reelection rather than principle seems to be a valid one. Either that or just plain ignorance, I guess. The third to last paragraph makes some very good points. Has Kerry talked about his Energy independence plan or how he would deal with Israel?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged