Why liberals under-appreciate the value of ousting Saddam

Liberals fail to recognize is that regime change in Iraq is not some distraction from the war on al-Qaida. That is a bogus argument. And simply because oil is also at stake in Iraq doesn't make it illegitimate either. Some things are right to do, even if Big Oil benefits.

Although President Bush has cast the war in Iraq as being about disarmament — and that is legitimate — disarmament is not the most important prize there. Regime change is the prize. Regime transformation in Iraq could make a valuable contribution to the war on terrorism, whether Saddam is ousted or enticed into exile.

Why? Because what really threatens open, Western, liberal societies today is not Saddam and his weapons per se. He is a twisted dictator who is deterrable through conventional means. Because Saddam loves life more than he hates us. What threatens Western societies today are not the deterrables, like Saddam, but the undeterrables — the boys who did 9/11, who hate us more than they love life. It's these human missiles of mass destruction that could really destroy our open society.

So then the question is: What is the cement mixer that is churning out these undeterrables — these angry, humiliated and often unemployed Muslim youth? That cement mixer is a collection of faltering Arab states, which, as the U.N.'s Arab Human Development Report noted, have fallen so far behind the world that their combined GDP does not equal that of Spain. And the reason they have fallen behind can be traced to their lack of three things: freedom, modern education and women's empowerment.

If we don't help transform these Arab states — which are also experiencing population explosions — to create better governance, to build more open and productive economies, to empower their women and to develop responsible news media that won't blame all their ills on others, we will never begin to see the political, educational and religious reformations they need to shrink their output of undeterrables.

We have partners. Trust me, there is a part of every young Arab today that recoils at the idea of a U.S. invasion of Iraq, because of its colonial overtones. But there is a part of many young Arabs today that prays the United States will not only oust Saddam but all other Arab leaders as well.

It is not unreasonable to believe that if the United States removed Saddam and helped Iraqis build not an overnight democracy but a more accountable, progressive and democratizing regime, it would have a transforming effect on the entire Arab world — a region desperately in need of a progressive model that works.

And liberals need to take heed. Just by mobilizing for war against Iraq, the United States has sent this region a powerful message: We will not leave you alone anymore to play with matches, because the last time you did, we got burned. Just the threat of a U.S. attack has already prompted Hezbollah to be on its best behavior in Lebanon. And it has spurred Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah to introduce a proposal for an "Arab Charter" of political and economic reform.

Let me sum up my argument with two of my favorite sayings. The first is by Harvard's president, Lawrence Summers, who says: "In the history of the world, no one has ever washed a rented car." It is true of countries as well. Until the Arab peoples are given a real ownership stake in their countries — a real voice in how they are run — they will never wash them, never improve them as they should.

The second is an American Indian saying — "If we don't turn around now, we just may get where we're going." The Arab world has been digging itself into a hole for a long time. If our generation simply helps it stop digging, possibly our grandchildren and its own will reap the benefits. But if we don't help the Arabs turn around now, they just may get where they're going — a dead end where they will produce more and more undeterrables.

This is something liberals should care about — because liberating the captive peoples of the Mideast is a virtue in itself and because in today's globalized world, if you don't visit a bad neighborhood, it will visit you.

Friedman is a columnist for the New York Times, 229 W. 43rd St., New York, NY 10036. Distributed by the New York Times News Service.

Friedman never gets anything right.

Are we supposed to believe that the Islamic world will bed "transformed" (if that's really our goal) by a quick and easy conquest of Iraq (if that really happens)? Historically, a cultural transformation - especially one on the scale contemplated - comes only after brutal destruction on a monumental scale.

There's no reason to believe that the present is any different.

That's the first Friedman article with which I could agree with almost all of it. It was even free of the usual cheap shots at Bush or som eother Republican or conservative.

This is strange. It does illustrate how really stupid are Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle and all the other followers [excuse me, I should have said "trial baloons"] of 42 and 42.5. "Go slow", "be sure to win the peace" how with French and German "help"? You got to be kidding.

The dems know Bush has taken an enormous amount of time and people are wondering, hey get on withthis war already. So, the Dems wnat to force further delay to cause Bush trouble.

It is almost exactly analogous to the strategy dems did on Bush 41. After the "no new taxes pledge", they whined ans cajoled and told him how courageous an dright he would be if only he would go back on his simple -minded pledge and do the right thing with this bi-partisan economic plan with some new taxes. Then they turned on him [as he deserved fo rbeing sooooooo stupid] and castigated him for breaking his pledge and what did we get: William Jefferson Clinton.

I hope that this lesson has been learned and this stage is only the W's calm before the victory.

It is not unreasonable to believe that if the United States removed Saddam and helped Iraqis build not an overnight democracy but a more accountable, progressive and democratizing regime, it would have a transforming effect on the entire Arab world — a region desperately in need of a progressive model that works.

I think you're referring to this paragraph. I find it unreasonable - and without historical precedent.

They will BE transformed..or they will continue to sink into the swamp that their leaders have created for their people. There is a breeze starting to blow through the Islamic world. Now I grant you those asking questions are few but they are there. You might want to look at what is going on in Iran right now.

I hope you're right - but I don't think so.

Muslims look upon the current conflict as a continuation of the Crusades. I doubt that conquest of Iraq will moderate that view.

The tragedy is that we have no choice but to pursue our present course. Friedman is right about that at least.

Even though its written in a whimpy style for his whimpy readership, I'm glad that Freidman finally gets it.

Removing Saddam is merely part of a larger strategy, which is destabilizing the entire Muslim world and halting the slide toward Islamism.

The notion that we won't let them "play with matches" any longer is a good way of capturing it.

And, BTW, I don't expect any columnist or pol to come flat out and describe what we are really doing, although Arab writers have (correctly) described it in their own newspapers.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.