September 18, 2002

Iraq, Upside Down

With a Response

recently, I've had the chance to travel around the country and do some call-in radio shows, during which the question of Iraq has come up often. And here's what I can report from a totally unscientific sample: Don't believe the polls that a majority of Americans favor a military strike against Iraq. It's just not true.

It's also not true that the public is solidly against taking on Saddam Hussein. What is true is that most Americans are perplexed. The most oft-asked question I heard was some variation of: "How come all of a sudden we have to launch a war against Saddam? I realize that he's thumbed his nose at the U.N., and he has dangerous weapons, but he's never threatened us, and, if he does, couldn't we just vaporize him? What worries me are Osama and the terrorists still out there."

That's where I think most Americans are at. Deep down they believe that Saddam is "deferrable." That is, he does not threaten the U.S. and he never has, because he has been deterred the way Russia, China and North Korea have been. He knows that if he even hints at threatening us, we will destroy him. Saddam has always been homicidal, not suicidal. Indeed, he has spent a lifetime perfecting the art of survival — because he loves life more than he hates us.

No, what worries Americans are not the deterrables like Saddam. What worries them are the "undeterrables" — the kind of young Arab-Muslim men who hit us on 9/11, and are still lurking. Americans would pay virtually any price to eliminate the threat from the undeterrables — the terrorists who hate us more than they love their own lives, and therefore cannot be deterred.

I share this view, which is why I think the Iraq debate is upside down. Most strategists insist that the reason we must go into Iraq — and the only reason — is to get rid of its weapons of mass destruction, not regime change and democracy building. I disagree.

I think the chances of Saddam being willing, or able, to use a weapon of mass destruction against us are being exaggerated. What terrifies me is the prospect of another 9/11 — in my mall, in my airport or in my downtown — triggered by angry young Muslims, motivated by some pseudo-religious radicalism cooked up in a mosque in Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan. And I believe that the only way to begin defusing that threat is by changing the context in which these young men grow up — namely all the Arab-Muslim states that are failing at modernity and have become an engine for producing undeterrables.

AST

So far, I pretty much agree except for the last paragraph. To ignore the fact that the anger fueling these young Muslims comes partially from America's hypocritical policies in the Middle East is pretty disingenuous from someone as intelligent as Friedman. Certainly even Friedman would admit that America's unswerving support of Israel's brutal occupation, as well as its propping up of repressive regimes throughout the regime, must have just a teeny-weeny bit to do with the fueling of young Muslim anger. But encouraging democracy is a noble goal. Who can be opposed to that?

TLF:

So I am for invading Iraq only if we think that doing so can bring about regime change and democratization. Because what the Arab world desperately needs is a model that works — a progressive Arab regime that by its sheer existence would create pressure and inspiration for gradual democratization and modernization around the region.

AST:

One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry when reading this. Surely Friedman hasn't forgotten that it was Bush the father who provided all those guns to what eventually became the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan? And before that Reagan and Bush alternatively armed and backed first Iran then Iraq in their interminable war, propping up the regimes Bush Jr. now calls the "Axis of Evil?" U.S. post WWII military intervention in this region (and any other for that matter) has never led to democracy replacing tyranny. (Well I'm sure someone can find one case, somewhere, so perhaps I am using the word "never" rhetorically, although just what that case might be momentarily escapes me). On the contrary: even when America goes in with the best intentions, it leaves behind a huge mess. And since Americans have the attention span of a 2 year old, and can't stand dirty messes, inevitably America pulls out leaving the local population to suffer under the far more brutal regime that has replaced whatever regime America didn't like in the first place. And this, as I said, when America has good intentions, which is rarely the case.

If America invades Iraq, disaster will follow as surely as day follows night. And already the long suffering Iraqi people will suffer even more. American actions in Afghanistan do little to reassure that things would be different with Iraq.

Besides, if Friedman was truly interested in democratization and modernization, in creating a progressive Arab regime as a "light unto the Arab world" then there is a solution that could serve as a beacon: the creation of the State of Palestine and a joint Israel-Palestine regional political entity.

Focusing on such an effort would not only not save the lives of thousands of young American and Iraqi soldiers, and Iraqi civilians; it would also save the lives of hundreds of Palestinians and Israelis who are needlessly dying every day. It would show the Arab world, indeed the whole world, that America truly cares about justice, about democracy, about all the values Bush loves to give lip-service too. Not to mention the fact that not only will we save the $200+ billion bill for Son of Gulf War, but the released economic energies in the region will generate positive economic effects the world over. It might even lower the price of oil, a goal so dear to Friedman's heart!

TLF

I have no illusions about how difficult it would be to democratize a fractious Iraq. It would be a huge, long, costly task — if it is doable at all, and I am not embarrassed to say that I don't know if it is. All I know is that it's the most important task worth doing and worth debating. Because only by helping the Arabs gradually change their context — a context now dominated by anti-democratic regimes and anti-modernist religious leaders and educators — are we going to break the engine that is producing one generation after another of undeterrables

AST

Exactly. So why try to attempt this important task with an almost impossible challenge - democratizing Iraq. Let's take the easy way, for a change. Provide democracy, security and freedom for all 10 million people who live in Israel and Palestine, as well as the millions of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon.

TLF

These undeterrables are young men who are full of rage, because they are raised with a view of Islam as the most perfect form of monotheism, but they look around their home countries and see widespread poverty, ignorance and repression. And they are humiliated by it, humiliated by the contrast with the West and how it makes them feel, and it is this humiliation — this poverty of dignity — that drives them to suicidal revenge. The quest for dignity is a powerful force in human relations.

AST

TLF

Closing that dignity gap is a decades-long project. We can help, but it can succeed only if people there have the will. But maybe that's what we're starting to see. Look at how Palestinian legislators just voted no confidence in Arafat; look at how some courageous Arab thinkers produced an Arab Human Development Report, which declared that the Arab-Muslim world was backward because of its deficits of freedom, modern education and women's empowerment.

If we don't find some way to help these countries reverse these deficits now — while access to smaller and smaller nuclear weapons is still limited — their young, angry undeterrables will blow us up long before Saddam ever does. 

AST

Great idea, Tom. So why don't you join me in my call: Israel and Palestine first. Baghdad can wait!