Iraq War: Tom Friedman has a lucid moment

It probably won't last for long.  But he seems to have had one in writing this column: Dancing alone New York Times 05/13/04:

"Hey, Friedman, why are you bringing politics into this all of a sudden? You're the guy who always said that producing a decent outcome in Iraq was of such overriding importance to the country that it had to be kept above politics."

Yes, that's true. I still believe that. My mistake was thinking that the Bush team believed it, too. I thought the administration would have to do the right things in Iraq — from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence — because surely this was the most important thing for the president and the country. But I was wrong. There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so. It has always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat liberals at home than Baathists abroad. That's why they spent more time studying U.S. polls than Iraqi history. That is why, I'll bet, Karl Rove has had more sway over this war than Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Bill Burns. Mr. Burns knew only what would play in the Middle East. Mr. Rove knew what would play in the Middle West. ...

... [T]he White House always knew this was a war of choice — its choice — so it made sure that average Americans never had to pay any price or bear any burden. Thus, it couldn't call up too many reservists, let alone have a draft. Yes, there was a contradiction between the Bush war on taxes and the Bush war on terrorism. But it was resolved: the Bush team decided to lower taxes rather than raise troop levels.

Maybe the next time Bush and Rummy and their merry crew try to gin up a war, Friedman will be more cautious about cheering for it.  But don't count on it.  To quote again from Chris Hedges' War Is A Force That Gives Us Meaning (2002):

The prospect of war is exciting.  Many young men, schooled in the notion that war is the ultimate definition of manhood, that only in war will they be tested and proven, that they can discover their worth as human beings in battle, willingly join the great enterprise.  The admiration of the crowd, the high-blown rhetoric, the chance to achieve the glory of the previous generation, the ideal of nobility beckon us forward.  And people, ironically, enjoy righteous indignation and an object upon which to unleash their anger.  War usually starts with collective euphoria.

"High-blown rhetoric":  that's where the Tom Friedmans of the world come in.

But it's nice to see you're having flashes of clear thought unclouded by war fever now, Tom.

Next time, try doing it that way before the killing starts.