Thomas Friedman is one of the rare American journalists who understands that foreign affairs involves dealing with foreigners. He walked with Robert Fisk thorugh the steaming remains of Sabra and Chatila after the massacre. He doesn’t believe most of the Bushies’ propaganda about the war. Yet still he can write this:
Tell people the truth. Saddam does not threaten us today. He can be deterred. Taking him out is a war of choice — but it’s a legitimate choice. It’s because he is undermining the U.N., it’s because if left alone he will seek weapons that will threaten all his neighbors, it’s because you believe the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated from his tyranny, and it’s because you intend to help Iraqis create a progressive state that could stimulate reform in the Arab/Muslim world, so that this region won’t keep churning out angry young people who are attracted to radical Islam and are the real weapons of mass destruction.
Can someone please explain how the UN is worse undermined by Saddam concealing his weapons than by the Americans using theirs in a war which will very probably have been vetoed by the security council?
Can someone please explain how a war against a sovereign state which does not threaten us today and can be deterred can be legitimised by pious intentions?