LOSING (WINNING?) TOM FRIEDMAN: Seems like Dubya’s news conference last Thursday truly was a bust. It has caused numerous liberals who were formerly on the war wagon finally to jump off. Here I’m talking not just about bloggisti like Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, or the Agonist. I’m talking– with all due respect to the aforementioned– big-time. I’m talking my old friend Tom Friedman.
Tom’s started to agonize a little in print these past two weeks about some of the many possible downsides to war. But today– and in direct response to his actual physical-space presence in the Prez’s ill-fated new conference– he has finally come down against the war.
At least, I think that’s what Tom is saying, though he is not absolutely crystal-clear about it.
In today’s column, Tom focuses in on a key proposition that Bush uttered in the n.c.: “When it comes to our security, we really don’t need anybody’s permission,” and he takes issue with both the introductory premise there and the stated conclusion.
“The first thing that bothered me,” he wrote, “was the phrase, ‘When it comes to our security . . .’ Fact: The invasion of Iraq today is not vital to American security. Saddam Hussein has neither the intention nor the capability to threaten America, and is easily deterrable if he did.
“This is not a war of necessity. That was Afghanistan. Iraq is a war of choice… ”
He then takes issue with Dubya’s conclusion that “we” (the US) don’t need anyone’s permission.” He rightly points out that while no-one doubts that the US can destroy Saddam’s regime at will, rebuilding Iraq will most certainly require the input of a robust international coalition.
This is his conclusion: “So here’s where we are. Regime change in Iraq is the right choice for Iraq, for the Middle East and for the world. Mr. Bush is right about that. But for now, this choice may be just too hard to sell. If the president can’t make his war of choice the world’s war of choice right now, we need to reconsider our options and our tactics. Because if Mr. Bush acts unilaterally, I fear America will not only lose the chance of building a decent Iraq, but something more important ? America’s efficacy as the strategic and moral leader of the free world.”
Well, still not quite the ringing opposition to the launching of a pre-emptive unilateral war that one might hope for from someone as smart as Tom Friedman. Tom’s position still seems predicated on the argument that, “this choice may be just too hard to sell.” So if it were an easier selling job internationally, Tom, maybe you could still be in favor of this war? (Talking of which, when will we ever hear the true reasons for Charlotte Beers’ departure? Maybe, far from being fired, it was a resignation on grounds of conscience– such as has started to happen in the lower ranks of Tony Blair’s government already?)
But back to Tom. Even if his opposition to the war is still a ittle mealy-mouthed or wistful, it’s still significant.
Welcome aboard the anti-war movement, old friend.