Bush, Iraq and Sister Souljah
By Thomas L. Friedman
I am worried. And you should be, too.
I am not against war in Iraq, if need be, but I am against going to war without preparing the ground in America, in the region and in the world at large to deal with the blowback any U.S. invasion will produce.
But I see few signs that President Bush is making those preparations. The Bush team's whole approach was best summed up by a friend of mine: "We're at war — let's party." We're at war — let's not ask the American people to do anything hard.
This can't go on. We are at war. We are at war with a cruel, militant Islam, led by Al Qaeda, we are at war with a rising tide of global anti-Americanism, and we will probably soon be at war to disarm Iraq. There is no way we are going to win such a multidimensional conflict without sacrifices and radically new thinking.
For me, the question is whether President Bush, having amassed all this political capital by effectively responding to 9/11, is going to spend any of it — is going to ask Americans to do things that are really hard to win these wars over the long haul. Does Mr. Bush have a Sister Souljah speech in him? If not, if he is just going to rely on the Pentagon to fight this war — and on Karl Rove to exploit it — then we will reap nothing but tears.
What would the president tell the American people if he were preparing them for this multidimensional war?
He would tell the American people that this war could cost over a trillion dollars, and no one should think that we're going to be able to use Iraqi oil to pay for it. It will be paid for by our Treasury — and that means not just changing the faces of the Bush economic team but also re-examining the surplus-squandering tax cuts at the center of the Bush fiscal policy.
He would tell the American people that he is embarking on a Manhattan project to increase fuel efficiency and slash the cost of alternative energy sources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Yes, it will take time, but gradually it will make us more secure as a nation, it will shrink the price of oil — which is the best way to trigger political change in places like Saudi Arabia — and it will provide the alternative to Kyoto that Mr. Bush promised the world but never delivered.
He would tell the American people that we can no longer afford our selfish system of farm subsidies and textile protectionism. It is a system that tells developing nations they must open their borders to what we make, but we won't give them full access to our markets for what they make: farm goods and garments. If nations like Pakistan continue to live in poverty, if their people can only afford religious schools that teach only the Koran, then we will continue to live in fear. If our national security interests lie in their development, and their development requires access to our markets, we need to open our markets and live what we preach.
He would tell the Palestinians that the U.S. intends to cut off all assistance and diplomatic contacts until they get rid of their corrupt tyrant, Yasir Arafat, because no peace is possible with him. He would tell Ariel Sharon that unless he halts all settlement building — now — the U.S. will start cutting off Israel's economic aid. And he would tell both that he intends to put the Clinton peace plan back on the table as his plan.
He would also tell all Arabs that America has one purpose in Iraq, once it is disarmed of dangerous weapons: to help Iraqis implement the U.N. Arab Human Development Report, which states that the failing Arab world can only catch up if it embraces freedom, modern education and women's empowerment.
Finally, he would tell Karl Rove to take a leave of absence until September 2004 so that nothing the president does in this war will be perceived as being done for political gain.
Friends, we are on the edge of a transforming moment for America in the world. If President Bush uses his enormous mandate to prepare for war — in a way that really deals with our political and economic vulnerabilities, increases our own staying power and convinces the world that we have a positive vision and are responsible global citizens — there is a decent chance we can win at a reasonable cost. But if Mr. Bush simply uses his mandate to drive a hard-right agenda and indulge in more feel-good politics, the world will become an increasingly dangerous place for every American — no matter what war we fight, no matter what war we win.
nytimes.com
==========
Go Slow-Mo, NATO
By Thomas L. Friedman
There are few things you can count on in life. But one is that NATO will end its annual summit, as it did a few weeks ago, with a call for the creation of "a NATO rapid reaction force" to deal with the "new threats of the 21st century." When all else fails, when you can't think of anything for an alliance to do, call for a rapid reaction force. I weep for the trees that will now be chopped down for all the think-tank studies about what this NATO force should do.
A NATO rapid reaction force? Oh, please. A NATO expanded to 26 countries is not going to be reacting rapidly anywhere. NATO already has a rapid reaction force, the only one it needs. It's called the U.S. Army Special Forces. What NATO needs to be relevant is not a new rapid reaction force, it's a bigger no-motion force — a NATO peacekeeping army. We don't need a NATO that can run. We need a NATO that can sit — in more places than Bosnia and Kosovo. And today there's no more important place for NATO to sit than between Israelis and Palestinians.
A year ago I suggested that Israelis and Palestinians invite NATO to take control of the West Bank, Gaza and Arab areas of East Jerusalem (with minor border adjustments agreed by both sides) — both to supervise the creation of a Palestinian state and to serve as a permanent border guard between the two.
The logic was obvious: Israel can't remain in the territories and continue to be a Jewish democracy, and Israel can't just pick up and leave the territories and remain a secure Jewish democracy. Palestinians are not ready to run those areas responsibly. But just letting their vicious conflict burn on will become increasingly dangerous and costly to the U.S. Al Qaeda and all other anti- American forces will draw energy from it — energy they will use to attack Jews and undermine whatever the U.S. tries to accomplish in Iraq.
What to do? The collapse of the Oslo peace, and the subsequent violence, has made an Israeli-Palestinian deal more necessary, but less possible. The mutual trust needed for a self-sustaining peace is gone. The only way out is for a trusted third party to take over the territories and separate the two. The only viable party is a U.S.-led NATO force.
The main Israeli criticism of this idea has been that such an international force would block Israel from hot pursuit of Palestinian terrorists, who would kill Jews and then run behind NATO, and NATO itself would become a target. The fact is, though, Ariel Sharon has adopted a policy of hot pursuit and it has resulted in the Palestinian Authority's being destroyed and more Israelis being killed and feeling insecure than ever. The only way Israel is going to have security is if Palestinians provide it by restraining their own, which will happen only when they have a responsible state, which can emerge only under energetic NATO supervision — not Israeli occupation.
Palestinians are increasingly warming to this idea, because they see it as a way of easing out Yasir Arafat and as their only route to statehood. What's really interesting, though, is how many Israelis — who would also like to see Mr. Arafat removed, but don't want the Israeli Army to fill the vacuum — are now getting interested.
The cover story of the latest issue of the centrist Israeli magazine Jerusalem Report was an article from Kosovo stating that "several high-profile diplomats are convinced that a Kosovo-style international trusteeship over the Palestinian territories provides the only way out of the conflict. And many Israelis are starting to take an interest — including some on the right."
Indeed, the right-leaning Jerusalem Post ran two articles last week about a proposal by a former U.S. ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, for a U.S.-led trusteeship — backed by American, British and Australian special forces — that would oversee the building of a democratic Palestinian state while uprooting the terrorist infrastructure. "President Bush has laid out a grand vision of a democratic Palestinian state, living alongside a secure Israel," said Mr. Indyk. "But he has failed to articulate an effective mechanism for achieving it. Some form of trusteeship is the only workable alternative."
The Bush team can either get ahead of this idea and shape it, or it can get dragged into it because of a total breakdown between Israelis and Palestinians during or after an Iraq war. But it's coming, because it's the only way out. And by the way, all you Europeans in NATO who favor a Palestinian state — here's a chance to put your sons where your heart is.
nytimes.com |
