From The New York Times
Dated Friday July 22
Giving the Hatemongers No Place to Hide
By Thomas Friedman
I wasn't surprised to read that British police officers in white protective suits and blue gloves were combing through the Iqra Learning Center bookstore in Leeds for clues to the 7/7 London bombings. Some of the 7/7 bombers hung out at the bookstore. And I won't be surprised if today's bombers also sampled the literature there . . . .
Guess what: words matter. Bookstores matter. Video games matter. But here is our challenge: If the primary terrorism problem we face today can effectively be addressed only by a war of ideas within Islam - a war between life-affirming Muslims against those who want to turn one of the world's great religions into a death cult - what can the rest of us do?
More than just put up walls. We need to shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears. The State Department produces an annual human rights report. Henceforth, it should also produce a quarterly War of Ideas Report, which would focus on those religious leaders and writers who are inciting violence against others . . . .
We also need to spotlight the "excuse makers," the former State Department spokesman James Rubin said. After every major terrorist incident, the excuse makers come out to tell us why imperialism, Zionism, colonialism or Iraq explains why the terrorists acted. These excuse makers are just one notch less despicable than the terrorists and also deserve to be exposed. When you live in an open society like London, where anyone with a grievance can publish an article, run for office or start a political movement, the notion that blowing up a busload of innocent civilians in response to Iraq is somehow "understandable" is outrageous. "It erases the distinction between legitimate dissent and terrorism," Mr. Rubin said, "and an open society needs to maintain a clear wall between them."
Read more.
I think Mr. Friedman has a defense here. Ok, what does he mean by
excuse makers? I'd like to hear that from Mr. Friedman, rather than have Mr. Kay assume he knows the answer. Frankly, I might end up agreeing with Mr. Kay, but not before Friedman has his day in court.
It is true that Mr. Friedman supported the invasion of Iraq, foolishly in my opinion. In the run up to the war, Friedman presented reasons that might have better supported an argument for regime change in Iraq only after there was regime change in America. That is not to say I would have agreed with it even then, but at least we should recognize that Friedman's argument was different than the bogus claims of WMDs and terrorist affiliations adumbrated by the neoconservatives. It also presumed a reconstructing of Iraq for the benefit of Iraqis, although Mr. Friedman, a supporter of neoliberalism as a remedy to cure the ills of the developing world, doesn't seem to have a real clue as to how to go about this; nevertheless, it is still better than the cynical neoconservative plan (for want of a better word) to make war for the benefit of war profiteers. Presenting his arguments on the pages of
The New York Times in the winter of 2002/03, Friedman always seemed to forget that the war would be the one Mr. Bush would wage, not the one Mr. Friedman wanted.
Since the end of the war, Mr. Friedman has been critical of the Bush regime's efforts in Iraq, but maintains that the US has a mission there that must be completed. No doubt that in the future, assuming a complete collapse of the US position in Iraq, Mr. Friedman will be among those pundits and historians who will blame that failure on the Bush regime for its lack of planning for the occupation; these people will assume that there was a plan that would work, while others, like Mr. Kay, will take the position that nothing would have worked. This will be a valid point of discussion for the next hundred years.
Mr. Kay accuses Mr. Friedman:
What does Friedman mean by “excuse makers?” Does Friedman expect anyone who is in any way familiar with the history of the Middle East to believe that the bombings in London and other terrorist attacks are unrelated to the policies of the American government and its allies, above all the British government of Tony Blair? Or that the bitter experience of colonialism, decades of violent political meddling in the region, the relentless efforts to control its resources, and the killing of tens of thousands of Moslems with American bombs in various wars have not produced a climate in which people are prepared to commit terrorist acts?
Mr. Kay's points might be well taken. The war on terror has not been fought honestly. Since Saddam's regime had no weapons and no working associations with international terrorists, one would be hard pressed to say that Iraq was invaded as part of a war on terror or for any other reason directly related to US national security. Since it seems more than likely that Mr. Bush, Prime Minister Blair and members of their respective inner circles were aware that the case for war was thin, necessitating justification by fixing intelligence and facts around the policy
(i.e., dissembling and fabricating), one would have to conclude that there were ulterior motives for the invasion that were not spoken. The war was colonial piracy, pure and simple. Iraq's resources would be transferred to western transnational corporations through a colonial-style regime, complete with a colonial-style governor general in the person of Paul Bremer to lord it over the natives and make decisions effecting the long range future of Iraq's economy without the consent of the Iraqi people.
This is a legitimate grievance for the Iraqi people. So far, we score one point for Mr. Kay.
However, several questions should also be asked. The most obvious one is simply whether even this grievance justifies bombing transit systems in Madrid or London. I would maintain that it does not. And no matter how much one may oppose their policies and regard, as I do, Bush and Blair as war criminals, those bombs were set off by jihadists, not by Mr. Bush or Mr. Blair. One may understand why another may resort to armed robbery as a means to support himself; however, an armed robber still needs to taken off the streets as a matter of public safety.
Another question is whether the terrorists in Iraq represent the Iraqi people any more than Mr. Bremer did, or Dr. Allawi's puppet "interim" regime that succeeded him, or the present "transitional" regime. Making any assumption that they do or that they are representative of anti-colonial resistance would play into the hands of the Bush regime, which has consistently justified its leadership in the war against terror with a black-or-white fallacy
(You're either with us or with the terrorists). That fallacy is an attempt to crush dissent.
Mr. Friedman has not bought into this fallacy. Indeed, his own writings, which I regard as wrongheaded in most respects, are a form of dissent against the Bush regime's policies. Mr. Kay almost concedes this point:
Friedman's statements are all the more contemptible given that he himself predicted that the war might lead to attacks. In a column published on December 8, 2002 Friedman wrote that it was necessary to prepare people “to deal with the blowback any US invasion will produce.” He stated that if the war is not managed correctly, and the right justifications are not put in the forefront, the United States would be seen as an aggressor and “the world will become an increasingly dangerous place for every American.”
Mr. Kay also says:
Friedman is attempting to block discussion of the nature and consequences of war by criminalizing dissent. If those rounded up in the “war on terrorism” are subject to torture, indefinite detention without charges and military tribunals, what does Friedman have in mind for those who occupy the position “one notch” below the terrorists?
The only thing with which I can agree with Mr. Kay in this paragraph is that Mr. Friedman's description of "excuse makers" as "one notch less dispicable than terrorists" is over the top. Otherwise, there are two things wrong with this paragraph. First, Mr. Friedman is not attempting to block discussion. He couldn't if he wanted; he is no more in control of police power now than he was in control of US policy prior to the war, when he warned against the folly of the Bushies' approach to Iraq. Second, Mr. Friedman has written pieces excoriating the Bush's regime's detention policies, including one urging that the facility at Guantánamo Bay be closed.
Consequently, if there is a smear, it is not so much is Mr. Kay smearing Mr. Friedman with all others who supported the invasion, as if one wrongheaded pundit or policymaker is just like the next. Thomas Friedman did not present the same reasons for going into Iraq as Donald Rumsfeld, does not suggest the same programs to rebuild Iraq as Dick Cheney and won't justify methods of interrogation approved by Alberto Gonzales.
Mr. Friedman has been wrong and continues to be wrong about Iraq. However, there are so many things wrong with Bush regime policy that one can dissent from it and still not have the right answers. That Bush regime policy is ill-considered, dishonest and even monstrous is clear. What to do in its place of it is an open question; while I disagree with Mr. Friedman, I will defend his right to be part of that discussion.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
