Thomas Friedman is in top form in this week's column Roto-Rooter for Syria?:
Syria, and countries like it, will be a problem, and we need a new strategic doctrine in the post-Saddam era to deal with them.(emphasis mine) Read the whole thing.Let's explore this in detail. For me, the best argument for pressuring Syria is the fact that France's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, said on Sunday that this was not the time to be pressuring Syria. Ever since he blocked any U.N. military action against Saddam, Mr. de Villepin has become my moral compass: whatever he is for, I am against. And whatever he is against, I am for.
Yes, Mr. de Villepin did say, while actually visiting Lebanon, that the world should focus not on Syria, but on rebuilding Iraq and advancing the Arab-Israeli peace process. But what he neglected to mention is something I am also for, and France should be for and the world should be for: the end of Syria's occupation of Lebanon, which has been going on since 1976.
And speaking of Syria, it looks like both Syria and Iran have decided to join the Axis of Pretty-Please-Promise-You-Won't-Call-Us-Evil-Anymore-We've-Started-to-Behave-Ourselves. Ha'aretz says: Assad begins to fold as the U.S. demands Damascus behave appropriately
Iranian President Mohammed Khatami said in public that "Iran won't defend Syria if it comes under attack by the United States,"and that "if the U.S. changes its behavior toward Iran, it is possible to consider a change in Iran's policy toward the U.S." ... When Bashar Assad looks around and sees the ruins of Iraq and the Ba'ath party, Syria's rival and sister party; he realizes that the pan-Arabic ideology that continues to guide him and the Syrian Ba'ath party remains without any Arab customers; Gulf states, especially Kuwait, begin to reconsider their investment policies in Syria; Turkey doesn't really change its policy and is now busy repairing the rifts with Washington, and now Iran, with Khatami's new statements.
"She is called 'Dr. Germ,' and he is known as the 'Missile Man.'" : an Iraqi love story.
Wednesday's San Francisco Chronicle used its scarce allotment of ink and paper to print an op-ed by Berkeley professor David L. Kirp that begins like this
The war in Iraq was initially billed as a cakewalk, the aftermath a triumphal celebration, but the Bush administration badly underestimated the difficulties of both war and peace.Wow. The administration never billed the war as a cakewalk, although it did turn out to be far shorter and had fewer casualties than any serious estimate I had seen. The difficulties of the peace are as yet unknowable. Whatever Kirp's arguments might be, he would have established more credibility had he opened with, say, "Once upon a time there was a leprechaun named Saddam Hussein". I didn't bother to venture past Kirp's first sentence. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 18, 2003 12:32 PM
>>although it did turn out to be far shorter and had fewer casualties than any serious estimate I had seen>>
The Israelis since 1991 have said that Iraq woud not be a difficult war to fight. They have also said on numerous occasions that Iran is a greater danger than Iraq was. As in 1981 when the United States sided with Saddam Hussein and condemned Israel for eliminating the Iraqi nuclear threat, [incidentally the intelligence used by Israel to enable the strike, was provided by Johnathan Pollard, and was information thatthe United States was supposed to pass on to Israel, but did not] why should America heed Israel? The US always knows best.
Thomas Friedman uses the French Foreign Minister as his "moral compass" because he, Mr. Friedman, is bereft of any rational moral judgement.
Thomas Friedman personifies the Jewish anti-Jew.
Posted by: David Klotz on April 19, 2003 04:47 AM