- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
First, as the Spanish Ambassador very eloquently explained when announcing that country's support for the war, it was because, when Saddam was told (after his venture into Kuwait) that there would be severe consequences if he did not abide by certain internationaly-mandated requirements, and then failed to abide by them, the UN and the West--if they were to maintain any credibility or maoral authority, had to step in and do what they said they would do.
That's very interesting, because the UN didn't back the invasion. It's nice to use the UN as an excuse, but they were horrified at our actions, as was most of the world, including the millions of people who poured out onto the streets in protest. Furthermore, it's interesting that our politicians on both sides of the aisle claimed to believe they were acting in good faith, when citizens of the world knew they were lying even then.
Personally, I am tired of the historical rewrites, not just from Friedman, but from most politicians. It was wrong and a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now.
What predictions were made by the antiwar movement? That invasion would unleash a tide of extremism, that we would occupy Iraq for a decade, that U.S. standing within the international community would fall. We believed that Bush was trying to secure dominance within the region, and also avenge his father's legacy. All of these things have been proven true. And then there were no WMD's, not even a shred of evidence that they existed.
As for Friedman, I'm very sad to learn about his Iraq war position. I first heard of him through his book, Hot, Flat and Crowded. I was really excited by the idea of a Green New Deal, a revolution in green technology. I think that's a fantastic idea! No one specific technology is going to solve everything. Rather, we need to be trying 100 new things. And that's Friedman's idea.
The question I have is this: How should Friedman's ignorance modify my understanding? If he didn't know what a bad idea the war was, then why should I trust his opinions about green technology? It really is a question, and I'm having a difficult time reconciling the two ideas: Friedman as war apologist and Friedman as green technology advocate.
