luckydevil Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Pretty good, except for the last 3 paragraphs. Otherwise solid piece http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/opinion/24FRIE.html Fighting 'The Big One' By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN n the wake of the bombing of the U.N. office in Baghdad, some "terrorism experts" (By the way, how do you get to be a terrorism expert? Can you get a B.A. in terrorism or do you just have to appear on Fox News?) have argued that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a failure because all it's doing is attracting terrorists to Iraq and generating more hatred toward America. I have no doubt that the U.S. presence in Iraq is attracting all sorts of terrorists and Islamists to oppose the U.S. I also have no doubt that politicians and intellectuals in the nearby Arab states are rooting against America in Iraq because they want Arabs and the world to believe that the corrupt autocracies that have so long dominated Arab life, and failed to deliver for their people, are the best anyone can hope for. But I totally disagree that this is a sign that everything is going wrong in Iraq. The truth is exactly the opposite. We are attracting all these opponents to Iraq because they understand this war is The Big One. They don't believe their own propaganda. They know this is not a war for oil. They know this is a war over ideas and values and governance. They know this war is about Western powers, helped by the U.N., coming into the heart of their world to promote more decent, open, tolerant, women-friendly, pluralistic governments by starting with Iraq — a country that contains all the main strands of the region: Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. You'd think from listening to America's European and Arab critics that we'd upset some bucolic native culture and natural harmony in Iraq, as if the Baath Party were some colorful local tribe out of National Geographic. Alas, our opponents in Iraq, and their fellow travelers, know otherwise. They know they represent various forms of clan and gang rule, and various forms of religious and secular totalitarianism — from Talibanism to Baathism. And they know that they need external enemies to thrive and justify imposing their demented visions. In short, America's opponents know just what's at stake in the postwar struggle for Iraq, which is why they flock there: beat America's ideas in Iraq and you beat them out of the whole region; lose to America there, lose everywhere. One of the most interesting conversations I had in Baghdad was with Muhammed A. al-Da'mi, a literature professor at Baghdad University and author of "Arabian Mirrors and Western Soothsayers." He has spent a lifetime studying the interactions between East and West. "Cultures can't be closed on themselves for long without paying a price," he explained. "But ours has been a vestigial and closed culture for many years now. The West needed us in the past and now we need it. This is the circle of history. Essentially [what you are seeing here] is a cultural collision. . . . I am optimistic insofar as I believe that my country — and I am a pan-Arab nationalist — is going to benefit from this encounter with the more advanced society, and we are going pay at the same time. . . . Your experience in Iraq is going to create two reactions: one is hypersensitivity, led by the Islamists, and the other is welcoming, led by the secularists. [but you have to understand] that what you are doing is a penetration of one culture into another. If you succeed here, Iraq could change the habits and customs of the people in the whole area." So, the terrorists get it. Iraqi liberals get it. The Bush team talks as if it gets it, but it doesn't act like it. The Bush team tells us, rightly, that this nation-building project is the equivalent of Germany in 1945, and yet, so far, it has approached the postwar in Iraq as if it's Grenada in 1982. We may fail, but not because we have attracted terrorists who understand what's at stake in Iraq. We may fail because of the utter incompetence with which the Pentagon leadership has handled the postwar. (We don't even have enough translators there, let alone M.P.'s, and the media network we've set up there to talk to Iraqis is so bad we'd be better off buying ads on Al Jazeera.) We may fail because the Bush team thinks it can fight The Big One in the Middle East — while cutting taxes at home, shrinking the U.S. Army, changing the tax code to encourage Americans to buy gas-guzzling cars that make us more dependent on Mideast oil and by gratuitously alienating allies. We may fail because to win The Big One, we need an American public, and allies, ready to pay any price and bear any burden, but we have a president unable or unwilling to summon either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Good article. I even agree with the ending (for the most part). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiggoDrill Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Actually, I thought the last three paragraphs were the most grounded in reality. The paragraphs beforehand are overly idealistic for the most part: A literature professor was the best person he could find to back his viewpoint? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 I thought for a while that we should have had more concrete plans about the after war before we started the war. I've said as much on here many times (people are probably sick of me harping on it). I just wonder if we had put more thinking in up front if we couldn't have come up with some of the ideas now being belatedly implimented. I like sending potential police officers out of the country for some quick training (8 weeks). To me it's just sad that they decide to impliment this now. We need the police officers yesterday. If this were an idea thought of and implimented from the end of hte war, we'd be getting more police officers every month from here on out. Now, the plan will take 4 months to set up and 2 more for the training before the first batch hits the street in 6 months. And yeah, I do blaim the rush to war without a willingness to talk baout the aftermath on Rumsfield, the Pentagon, and Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 12 years is a rush to war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 I have no doubt that the U.S. presence in Iraq is attracting all sorts of terrorists and Islamists to oppose the U.S. We are attracting all these opponents to Iraq because they understand this war is The Big One. They don't believe their own propaganda. They know this is not a war for oil. They know this is a war over ideas and values and governance. They know this war is about Western powers, helped by the U.N., coming into the heart of their world to promote more decent, open, tolerant, women-friendly, pluralistic governments by starting with Iraq — a country that contains all the main strands of the region: Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds. Gee, almost like someone may have thought this portion through:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Well, I was hardly alone in wanting more concrete plans for what happens when we win and asking for an exit strategy. On the 12 year quote: So I guess rushing to war is a bit of a relative term. Would you prefer I say hastily, going headlong into war, or failing to plan? I wasn't speaking of actual time elapsed, but rather necessary preparations and planning not having been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 gbear, the problem is that we did have plans. Some aspects worked, others have not, but adjustments are being made. Your argument is disengenous because regardless of what they have accomplished, you can always claim it's not enough. How long did it take to rebuild Germany? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 I don't know Kilmer. How long did it take to have a police force in Germany? Not being born till 75, and honestly, most history books from my highschool and college seem to stop right after the war. Reconstruction was limited to the Marshall plan. The looting made it apparent within 2 days that we needed a police force. Now we are looking at another 6 months beofre we start getting a flow of new recruits. In fairness, they did get some of the old police officers back, just not nearly enough. As for me always saying what we're doing isn't good enough, isn't that just a way of ducking ever having to answer the question of "Is what we are doing good enough?" Maybe it's just me, but I think this is a question we should always be asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 gbear, we're still there. The Marshall plan took years to implement. Yet today with 24/7 news and the net, we all seem to want things accomplished yesterday, when in fact it could take years. And the administration has said as much. But people dont want to hear it. On the question of "Is what we are doing enough" I would say no, we could do more. We could deploy our entire armed forces including all guard units and enforce a complete police state. But then we'd be accused of doing too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 For the record, the U.S. Constabulary in post-war Germany was not fully implemented until July, 1946 and a local police force did not take over law enforcement duties until 1948. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Originally posted by luckydevi In the wake of the bombing of the U.N. office in Baghdad, some "terrorism experts" . . . have argued that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a failure because all it's doing is attracting terrorists to Iraq and generating more hatred toward America. I have no doubt that the U.S. presence in Iraq is attracting all sorts of terrorists and Islamists to oppose the U.S. I also have no doubt that politicians and intellectuals in the nearby Arab states are rooting against America in Iraq because they want Arabs and the world to believe that the corrupt autocracies that have so long dominated Arab life, and failed to deliver for their people, are the best anyone can hope for. Here's to stupid enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Uh, I'd rather we fight Islamists THERE where Americans can shoot back, then HERE where they would be blowing us up in malls and on buses. Hate to say this but better we take casualties there than here, because if it happened here, there'd be a LOT MORE casualties of "them" over THERE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 In short, America's opponents know just what's at stake in the postwar struggle for Iraq, which is why they flock there: beat America's ideas in Iraq and you beat them out of the whole region; lose to America there, lose everywhere. Iraq and the rest of the middle east is a virus and we are the anti biotic that is going to start working in Iraq and then watch the cure spread gradually to other areas. As long as we can keep liberalism and the ACLU out we should import americanism there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 As I said on another board earlier in the year that Dubba ya vision of the middle east is brilliant if he can pull it off. Turn Iraq into the Hong Kong of the middle east (well before China took over again). Tourism, Capitalism, Freedom for the various religions and women as well as the oil revenues would turn it into the jewel of the middle east and the masses will want their nations to follow suit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.