Shouldn't Friedman know better? Disappointingly, he is perpetuating some myths in today's column with claims that the Iraq War had "strategic benefits" regarding:
1) "the defeat of Al Qaeda [in Iraq], which diminished its capacity to attack us." --Certainly not. Al Qaeda had no or minimal presence in Iraq before the war. Hussein viewed it as a threat to his regime. Since Al Qaeda's presence was minimal to non-existent in Iraq before the war, defeating it there should be presented, at most, as a zero-gain/loss event. Moreover, any claim that the Iraq War sucked in Al Qaeda so the US could defeat it militarily needs to be counterbalanced by the obvious fact that America's ability to focus on Al Qaeda in other theaters would have been much stronger without the distraction of a nation-building occupation.
2) "the intimidation of Libya, which prompted its dictator to surrender his nuclear program." --Perhaps, but this argument is missing an important context. As Jacques Hymans (a nuclear proliferation experts) told me, Libyan scientists had no idea what they were doing. Reportedly, many of the tools they needed to really start their program were still in boxes. What the Iraq invasion did was give Libya an opportunity to come clean and rejoin the world community on good terms, something it had wanted for quite a while. Much of what changed with the Iraq invasion was that the Bush administration changed its tune and became willing to give Libya easier terms.
3) By saying there were "strategic benefits" Friedman is missing the main problem with the overall strategy, which is that the invasion greatly improved Iran's strategic position by removing a Sunni dictator and handing most of the ruling authority in Iraq to Shias, who are less likely to view Shia Iran as a natural enemy.
Link to Friedman column: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/opinion/friedman-the-end-for-now.html?ref=global-home
No comments:
Post a Comment