You know, just in case we need to.
Just when you think Tom Friedman's seen the light - no such luck.
In today's column (behind the Times Select wall, but I excerpt some relevant material) Friedman finally gives up the waiting game. No more September deadline, no more Friedman units, no more waiting in general for progress that will never come.
In many places Friedman sounds quite sensible. For example,
here:
Obviously, President Bush’s stay-the-course approach is bankrupt. It shows no signs of producing any self-sustaining — and that is the metric — unified, stable Iraq.
and here:
Staying in means simply containing the Iraqi civil war, but at the price of Americans and Iraqis continuing to die, and at the price of the U.S. having no real leverage on the parties inside or outside of Iraq to negotiate a settlement, because everyone knows we’re staying so they can dither. Today, U.S. soldiers are making the maximum sacrifice so Iraqi politicians can hold to their maximum positions.
And in my personal opinion, here:
The minute we start to withdraw, all hell will break loose in the areas we leave, and there will be a no-holds-barred contest for power among Iraqi factions. Our staying there with, say, half as many troops, will not be sustainable.
I appreciate the point Friedman is making about the possibility of a truly tragic civil war complete with ethnic cleansing. After destroying their country, surely we have some responsibility to the Iraqi people not to let the situation dissolve into genocide. I also believe that leaving may be the best way to prevent that.
Friedman really loses me, however, in his analysis of the upsides of leaving Iraq. I with him on reasons one (no more Americans dying), two (best chance to force serious political negotiations), and possibly three (population movement on the ground may, in time, lead to a more stable federation).
But boy do we part company at four.
Fourth, we will restore our deterrence with Iran. Tehran will no longer be able to bleed us through its proxies in Iraq, and we will be much freer to hit Iran — should we ever need to — once we’re out. Moreover, Iran will by default inherit management of the mess in southern Iraq, which, in time, will be an enormous problem for Tehran
This is just about the worst possible reason I can think of for leaving Iraq. What in the world is the point of leaving Iraq if we just turn around and do the same thing in Iran? That we can screw up two countries? Twice as much fun? And if there is no brewing conflict with Iran, why should we ever need to "hit" them? Just in case, one day, maybe, something bad happens? Why would we expect "hitting" Iran to go any better than hitting Iraq?
Even more importantly, why are we even talking about this? Is it better to ignore the saber-rattling against Iran for fear of dignifying it with serious discussion? Or better to engage and try to nip it in the bud?