Thomas Friedman (New York Times): The Least Bad Option

[Jack Rabbit]

From the New York Times
Dated Sunday October 12

The Least Bad Option
By Thomas Friedman

As a precondition for helping us in Iraq, the U.N. is demanding that the U.S. hand over "early sovereignty" to an interim Iraqi government and then let those Iraqis invite in the U.N. to oversee their transition to constitution-writing and elections. I too would like to see Iraqis given more control faster and the U.N. more involved. But people are tossing around this idea without answering some hard questions first.
Would the U.S. handing power to an interim Iraqi government really stop the attacks on U.S. forces, Iraqi police, the U.N. and Iraq's interim leaders? I doubt it. These attackers don't want Iraqis to rule themselves, these attackers want to rule Iraqis. Why do you think the attackers never identify themselves or their politics? Because they are largely diehard Baathists who want to restore the old order they dominated and will kill anyone in the way. Will the U.N., which has basically left Iraq, not flee again when its officials get attacked again — which will happen even after Iraqis have sovereignty? Could the Iraqi Governing Council agree now on who should lead an interim government? Will the Europeans really pony up troops and billions of dollars for Iraq, if the U.S. hands the keys to an Iraqi interim government? Will the U.S. public want to stay involved then, as is needed?
Until we are sure these questions can be answered, without Iraq spinning out of control, I'd stick with the status quo as the least bad option — in part because genuine sovereignty means running your own affairs and the U.S. has already done more to build that at the grass roots than most people realize.

Read more.

It is interesting that Friedman now calls the continued US occupation of Iraq "the least bad option." He has never gotten around to admitting that invading in the first place was a bad idea; obviously, he now feels all we have as a result of the invasion is bad options. However, that's another thing that we who march against the war last winter foresaw that Mr. Friedman did not.

It is also unfortunate, but not entirely surprising, that Mr. Friedman is embracing the junta's line that the chaos in Iraq is being caused by Saddam loyalists intent on re-imposing Saddam's discredited regime on Iraq. No doubt that some of it is just that. However, it is foolish or dishonest of Mr. Friedman to ignore the fact that Iraqis not being presented with a Hobson's choice of government by Saddam's murderers or government by Bush's thieves. Thousands of Shi'ites demonstated against the continued colonial occupation of their country this week. These are the same people whom Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz assured us would be greating US troops as liberators "with open arms" because Saddam treated them so brutally.

The Iraqi people needn't put up with a colonial occupation that can't restore electricity, can't provide clean water and can't provide police protection; nor do they need to return Saddam to power just to get rid of the corrupt and incompetent colonialists.

For my money, continued occupation is not the "least bad" option. Having the UN take over the interim administration of Iraq from the colonialists and sooner rather than later turning power to a government responsible to the Iraqi people is the best option.

[Saudade]

1. Idiot

"Would the U.S. handing power to an interim Iraqi government really stop the attacks on U.S. forces, Iraqi police, the U.N. and Iraq's interim leaders? I doubt it."

If US forces left, it would, moron.

Think about it, dicknose.

[KG]

2. tom friedman - totally delusional, or willfully obtuse?.

or does it really matter? he's an american moron either way.

[bemildred]

3. Bait & switch.

Fails to explain why US troops staying there is better.

Instead goes off on what a fine effort Ms Rassam is making,
as I'm sure it is.

We could use some of that grass roots democracy stuff here at
home, too.

[MaryBear]

4. I kind of agree with Friedman in one sense,

and that is on the subject of turning the governing of Iraq to Iraqi's who would then invite in the UN. There is no guarantee that they would do as directed once in charge.

What needs to happen is that the US turn over the entire situation to the UN now, and relinquish control.

[MaryBear]

5. I think Friedman is the only one suggesting that

Most everybody else is suggesting that the UN be given the responsiblity for administrating Iraq, facilitating a constitutional convention and overseeing free elections. This call for the US to turn the country over to Iraqis in order to call in the UN is something I've only heard from Friedman. To which Iraqis does he suggest we turn over power? Chalabi and his quislings? Maybe for a price, they'll do the right thing.

We are in agreement. The thing to do is for the US to turn over control of Iraq to the UN. I doubt it will happen before Bush is disposed from power in America. Bush has no interest in allowing Iraq to become self-governing before his cronies fleece the country of its resources. That is what the war was about.

[Lexingtonian]

6. Oh yay, more lowering of expectations!

I swear, this is going down as the Presidency of Low And Ever Diminishing Expectations. And it's taking all its sycophants and fellow travellers, including Tom The Hack, to ridiculous new lows every week.