Quashing Arab Reformers
I like Thomas Friedman. I don't always agree with him, but I think he's got a really good perspective on the Arab world. I also like the fact that I've seen both liberals and conservatives using his columns to support their views. I never really got why he bought into the neocon fantasy about invading Iraq being a good technique for catalyzing positive change in the middle east, but I respect that he always conditionalized his support on things being done correctly. He was one of the first of the pro-war clique to sound the alarm about the mismanagement and incompetence of Bush, Rumsfeld and company. And he has consistently questioned whether Bush wanted to fix the middle east, or just advance his own career and agenda. It was Friedman who I first saw raise the question "If winning in Iraq is the most important thing for America shouldn't it be more important than Bush getting re-elected?" Consistently throughout the campaign we saw that in the eyes of the administration nothing was as important as protecting their own power. Even if it meant letting Iraq slide closer and closer to the precipice of civil war. So, when Friedman asks whether Bush is willing to torpedo Arab-driven reform of repressive governments if it involves criticism of US policy, it gets my attention.
/war_and_terrorism | permanent link | ( ) | edit | trackbacks ()
