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.
The main reason we escaped the Great Depression was not as much the New Deal as it was WWII. War is one of the quickest ways to shake the country out of a recession while keeping the nations attention focused on the conflict instead of economic belt tightening. By wars end the nation will have for the most part escaped the worst of the economic downturn and consumer confidence will be high, ready to spend thus shortening the cycle further. It takes money to make money and war is an investment that almost always turns a profit.
Depends on how you define profit. I lost an Uncle in Vietnam and I would certainly give all the money I could muster to have him back.
King Cheetah, you are one cynical dude. I like Thomas Friedman's articles. He is consistant in his beliefs, and sincere about his conclusions. Even if I don't agree with him on certain issues, I feel that his arguments are always sensible.
I think it is clear that LBJ escalated our involvement in Vietnam because he believed it would right the economy. that had always been the model...poor economy? go to war. Vietnam dispelled that formula. My condolences for your loss...it was senseless for the US to be there.
I don't mean to come across like cynical jerk, I just believe many wars, this proposed Iraqi invasion in particular are influenced by our homefronts current economic situation. In other words war for all the wrong reasons. I intended my post to be anti-war, I have many family members who have served, and are the strongest influences on my current opinion on the war establishment.
The problem is that that formula hasn't worked since the 1940s. I doubt that is the thinking this time around.
Refman - you don't believe in the Truman doctorine? It got us into Korea and Vietnam, but ultimately it allowed us to prevail over Russia. I'm not trying to debate/justify Vietnam, I wasn't around and I don't know anymore than what I read/hear/watch. I just think that is was to political, the military could have won if the government would have let them. It was bad leadership. If we don't stop/limit the spread of Communism what does the world look like today? rimrocker - I am sorry for your uncle also. I am grateful to everyone who has served and died for this country.
You can't win when you can't identify the enemy. We didn't. We LOST the Vietnam war. We accomplished nothing except to cause a great deal of pain to an entire generation of Americans. To grieve families all over the nation because their loved one was not coming home alive.
I just think the military had it's hands tied. We did lose, there was much pain and suffering, that is obvious. What I am saying is that if we didn't commit to the fight what would have been the next domino?
The Gulf War was an amazing success both economically and by boosting consumer confidence. The effect is not always immediate, much to the dismay of G. Bush Sr., Clinton enjoyed the sharp economic upswing that ended the "Reagonomics Recession" and created the Bull market to end them all.
We seriously couldn't identify the enemy. People from the side of Vietnam we were "defending" would befriend our troops...only to suicide bomb them later. 8 year old kids posing as showshine boys had bombs in their shine boxes. We didn't know who the enemy was. We had NO chance to win. I seriously doubt there would have been many more "dominos." Once we bankrupted the USSR...that was pretty much all she wrote.
War doesn't help the economy. It does, however, provide an extremely convenient excuse for the massive government spending which does help the economy, and would regardless of whether or not the money was being spent on war. War spending is just a lot more popular than spending of other varieties.
The main goal of the Vietnam war was to slow the expanse of communism in that regard it was a success. Its a catch 22 without a doubt it was a gross waste of young lives. What would have happen if the expansion was left unchecked? Our presence in Vietnam sent the strong message that communism would be opposed no matter where the next movement began, no matter what the cost.
Who builds the weapons for our wars, stores them, transports them, etc etc. War creates jobs, jobs create spending, spending creates wealth. There is also the strategic gains, do you think we have made any money in Kuwait? We certainly have a nice military base built by american construction equipment. War creates more ways to make money than we can realistically put to use such as specialty engineering of roads or someone like Red Adair putting out oil well fires and the clean-up tools and machinary necessary for the Persian Gulf Oil spill. The list is endless...
Sonny....sorry you are wrong about all of your thinking here. first, communism would have failed anyways. state run economies are almost always destined to fail because of the high amount of waste. thats why you see capitialism flourishing in china now. second, the USSR was going to collapse anyways. its already been shown that we way overestimated the USSR militarily, economically, and socially. their economy was crap which made their military conventional military weak since it was poorly equiped and paid. and socially their whole country was falling apart as can be seen with all the republics that broke away and with the war in chechnya (sp?) right now. third, we could not have won vietnam no matter how many people we killed. my dad was a vietnam vet who server 2 tours in vietnam and was there during the tet offensive and involved in combat. he is also one of the most hardcore republicans you will ever meet and he will be the 1st to say that vietnam was a war that we never should have fought or been involved in. we had no clue what the hell was going on. also we did lose the war. if you don't remember we had to evacuate out of there and the communist forces won the war. sure we beat the hell out of them in kill to death ratios but that doesn't mean we won. the people of vietnam kicked us out of a place where we didn't belong and thats the bottom line. and finally, to the people that made comments about how war is great for the economy then they are morons, because it is not. war does not expand economies it simply gives a quick fix. and king cheetah if you think the gulf war created the economy of the 90's for clinton then i don't know where you rationalize that from. the gulf war did not do anything to help the internet boom or any other bubble that inflated and burst in the 21st century. there was no huge increase in industrial production for the gulf war as their was for world war II. if you want to state that bush sr. fought iraq in the early 90's to stimulate the economy then you are as dumb as the people who said clinton was shooting off cruise missles to distract from his monica affair. i'm sorry that you feel this war with iraq is an economic one because it simply isn't. i do feel that it is somewhat hipocritical (sp?) since other nations in the world are developing weapons of mass destruction, but who knows maybe this is just another step in the attack on al-queda. just give bush a chance he has already conducted things pretty damn good considering all the naysayers said he was going to be a maverick and do things on his own...well he hasn't...he has just been playing politics and using his threats to get something done. and on that note i will shut up and get back to writing my paper
If you spend the money elsewhere, then the jobs, the spending, and the wealth are created in a different sector. They are, nevertheless, created.
Robbie380 I won't bother quoting your entire sugar coated post based for the most part on your amazing hindsight which unfortunately is still far from 20/20. Communism is something we deal with everyday, yes its got its problems but people are people and are generally good natured (Hey Yao). Obviously the Soviet Union went overboard in there land grab mentallity, but that was only a small part of many problems particularly agricultural technology. Everything has a purpose and the mess Vietnam probable did exactly what the war planners had in mind. Does anyone think we wanted to control and police another South Korea? You seem to enjoy throwing words out like moron and dumb to boost your arguments that are based on the idea that war is noble and any possible deviation from that is terrorist talk. As far as war creating economic profit nothing is more proven in this regard. period. If you need proof of this look at our accomplishments to date Al Queda fully operational, Bin Laden free, Taliban hierarchy free, Afganistan less than 10% is secured and attack are increasing. We are currently in a mild recession which will most likely become worse so the answer attack Iraq whose leader was originally placed in power by the CIA.
Zac D your absolutely right- war just does it faster, which is a pretty terrible way to improve our country. War is like the timber industry clear cutting the way to wealth and power.
