Apropos of my post yesterday that the war has had the opposite effect on the region that critics had predicted, comes this Slate-based e-mail chat amongst "Liberal Hawks".
Writes Christopher Hitchens:
Friedman is right to say that the macro-policy, so often and so stupidly attributed to "neocon" conspiracy, has provided an important vindication. Since the regime changes in Kabul and Baghdad, other regimes from Riyadh to Islamabad to Tehran have quietly but decidedly changed their tune, while some others have gone so far as to drop their weapons. There is no serious state-sponsored hiding place for al-Qaida, whereas a quiverful of measures and tactics now exists, well field-tested, to tackle any new challenger in this field.
Which is a more eloquent version of what I argued yesterday.
And this snippet from Friedman's entry is quite interesting, and on target (and why I think that Iraq is decidedly part of the "War on Terror" with or without 911 connections):
The real reason for this war—which was never stated—was to burst what I would call the "terrorism bubble," which had built up during the 1990s.Posted by Steven at January 13, 2024 12:46 PM | TrackBackThis bubble was a dangerous fantasy, believed by way too many people in the Middle East. This bubble said that it was OK to plow airplanes into the World Trade Center, commit suicide in Israeli pizza parlors, praise people who do these things as "martyrs," and donate money to them through religious charities. This bubble had to be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of the Arab world and smash something—to let everyone know that we, too, are ready to fight and die to preserve our open society. Yes, I know, it's not very diplomatic—it's not in the rule book—but everyone in the neighborhood got the message: Henceforth, you will be held accountable. Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could—period. Sorry to be so blunt, but, as I also wrote before the war: Some things are true even if George Bush believes them.