[Peace-discuss] Thomas Friedman's Bad Bummer

[David Green]

Published on Thursday, April 14, 2005 by
CommonDreams.org  
Thomas Friedman's Bad Bummer  
by Ira Chernus 
  
Thomas Friedman, the pundit I love to hate, is at it
again. In his latest column, Tom points out how easy
it would be for “jihadists” to make another major
strike somewhere in the U.S., despite our best efforts
at homeland security. Then he says we should be extra
nervous now, because the “jihadists” may see
themselves losing in Iraq. 
His theory: “The more the Jihadists lose in Iraq, the
more likely they are to use their rump forces to try
something really crazy in America to make up for it.”
Not a totally compelling theory, but not totally silly
either. What is totally silly is Tom’s conclusion: “So
let's stay the course in Iraq, but stay extra-vigilant
at home.” 

Let me translate: There are lots of people in Iraq who
desperately want U.S. troops, politicians, and
corporate sharks to leave their country. They want
Iraq to be run by Iraqis. Somehow, they got the idea
that this is what real democracy looks like. Some of
them (a surprisingly small number, really) have chosen
to use guns and bombs to get what they want. 

As Americans, we can hardly criticize their choice of
means. After all, we now spend nearly half-a-trillion
dollars a year preparing to use guns and bombs to get
what we want. We call it “national security.” So do
they. 

Some of the violent Iraqis have probably allied with
non-Iraqi Muslims who are waging an anti-U.S.
campaign, by any means necessary. (They’re the ones
Friedman calls “jihadists.”) Again, it’s hard for
Americans to criticize that choice. We have a rich
tradition of allying with anyone who will help us gain
our national goals. And that has included some pretty
nasty characters. 

In other words, the “enemy” is acting in a perfectly
normal, rational, predictable way, by American
standards. They are doing just what we would do, if
we’d been conquered by another country. So the war in
Iraq is not about American good versus “enemy” evil.
It is an ordinary power struggle for control of Iraq. 

That makes it easy to translate Friedman’s words.
“Let’s stay the course in Iraq” means let’s make sure
we do whatever we must to win this power struggle and
get control of the Iraqi political and economic
system. Of course, we’ll let locals do the work for
us. That’s the American way of imperialism. But if
they forget who is really calling the shots, we’ll
have to replace them with more loyal locals. And we’ll
keep killing and torturing people who might get in the
way. 

Tom Friedman understands all this well enough. He’s
made his decision. Iraq is so valuable that it’s worth
making another attack here on U.S. soil more likely.
More Americans have to risk death so that we can keep
control of Iraq. 

Now to translate the rest of Tom’s conclusion: “but
stay extra-vigilant at home.” He’s already explained
that the “vigilance” we have now is of limited value.
Taking off your shoes at the airport may be a
comforting ritual. But it will protect you about as
much as wearing a ritual garlic wreath around your
neck. Homeland security is largely for show. It’s
theater, not security. 

On with the show, Tom calls out. Since the risk must
increase (so that we can run the show in Iraq), we are
going to need lots more of this ritual theater at
home. That’s it. End of column. That’s all Tom can
think of to say. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is
America’s premier foreign policy commentator. 

Well, gee, Tom. What about all of us who think there
is something more to say. We look at the same
situation, and we figure it this way: “They want to
run their own country. If they don’t get that chance,
more of us will probably die. But if they do get to
run their country without U.S. interference, we get to
live much more safely in our own country. Looks like a
win-win to us.” 

I know we’re simpletons. We don’t have your
sophisticated grasp of the subtleties of world
affairs. So I don’t expect you to bother even
responding to us. Still, I would be curious to know
why you think U.S. control of Iraq is really worth
risking our lives. 

And I’d be curious to know whether you are
embarrassed. I mean, you are so supposed to be able to
figure things out. That’s why they pay you the big
bucks. Don’t you feel kind of silly, writing a whole
column just to tell us that we have to get ready to
die, and you can’t find any way around it, when we’ve
got a win-win solution right here, ready to go? 

In any case, Tom, I’m sorry you ran into such a brick
wall in your thinking. It’s the worst feeling, for a
pundit who is supposed to be smart, isn’t it? I know.
I’ve been there myself. Bad bummer, man. 

Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the
University of Colorado at Boulder and author of
American Nonviolence: The History of an Idea. He can
be reached at chernus at colorado.edu

###