Opinion fron the New York Times
You Gotta Have Friends
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
LINCOLN, Neb. — While in Nebraska this week, I asked a Republican official there about the mood in his state on going to war with Iraq. He had a quick answer: "Ambivalence." People know that Saddam Hussein is a bad guy with bad weapons, he said, but they feel no threat from him. The lingering threats from 9/11 and the weakening economy and stock market are what have Nebraskans on edge. They will, he added, follow the president's lead — if he makes the case — but they are ambivalent, and they really don't want to fight this war alone.
Having just visited a dozen states, I have found this same ambivalence everywhere, and President Bush would do well to heed it. Mind you, I think some of Mr. Bush's wild and crazy unilateralist rhetoric — STOP ME BEFORE I INVADE AGAIN! — can be useful now. Suggesting to allies that you will go it alone is often the only way to get them to come along with you. I just hope the Bush team doesn't really intend to implement its new pre-emption strategy alone because in the case of Iraq, most Americans would be very uneasy. Our national interest is best served now by taking on Saddam with as many allies, and as much U.N. cover, as possible — for four reasons.
First, Americans understand that the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was a war of "no choice" — and millions of Americans would have volunteered to fight there. Iraq, however, is widely perceived as a war of "choice." Yes, Saddam is dangerous, but he poses no immediate threat to us and has proved to be deterrable. Removing him is a legitimate choice, but it is still perceived as precisely that: a choice. Getting the backing of the U.N. and key allies for that choice would be the best way to reassure Americans that it's the right choice at the right time, and rally more of the nation behind any war.
Second, easing that ambivalence by adding allies is critical because of what could be the prolonged nature of this war. The success of any war in Iraq all depends on what happens on Day 3. That is, on Day 1, the U.S. military will topple the Iraqi regime. On Day 2, the Iraqi people will throw rice on U.S. troops for liberating them. Everything depends on what happens on Day 3 — when, having broken Iraq, we own Iraq.
As I've argued before, America and the world have a real interest in helping Iraqis build a more stable, democratic, decent government on Day 3. Setting up the first progressive Arab state, at the heart of the Arab world, could have a very positive effect on the whole region. It would be a huge undertaking, though, and maybe impossible, given Iraq's fractious history. But to my mind it's the only thing worth debating or doing there — and to keep the American people on board for such a long-haul project, and to defray the costs, we need allies.
To put it differently, nation-building in Iraq could go one of two ways: like Beirut or like Bosnia. In Beirut in 1982, America was a reluctant nation-builder and had little help, and it all ended badly. In Bosnia, working under a U.N. mandate — with NATO allies to share the risks and the costs — America and its friends have been able to sustain a long-term nation-building effort. Bosnia still has a long way to go, but it's no longer an open sore destabilizing Eastern Europe.
Third, it is impossible to predict how Iraqis would react to a prolonged U.S. nation-building occupation, but it is safe to assume that the sooner such an operation would be put under a U.N. umbrella, or some other non-U.S. international framework, the less it would look like American neocolonialism, the less opposition it would engender in the region and therefore the longer it would be sustainable.
And fourth, it's O.K. for the Bush team to talk about its new philosophy of pre-emptive war. But I wouldn't want to live in a world where that became the strategy of every country. At times, pre-emption is necessary, but the more it can be done with allies and U.N. approval, the less likely it is that the doctrine will be abused and the more stable the world will be.
Bottom line: Iraq is a war of choice, not a war of no choice, and it is a war of choice that will require a lot of nation-building if it is to produce a more peaceful Iraq. If the Bush team can enlist the backing of the U.N. and key allies, there is a real chance that such an operation can be successful. If the U.S. can't do that, it should keep Saddam in his box through deterrence and wait for a better strategic environment. Because launching a war of choice in Iraq, with an ambivalent U.S. public and no allies, could make for a frustrating, dangerous and endless Day 3. |
