> Carl Remick posted:
>
> Friedman has now posted a contribution to that Slate
> forum...
>
> [begin Friedman quote]
>
> 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.
>
> <snip>
>
> 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.
>
> [end Friedman quote]
>
> =================================================================
>
<snip>
> Early and often Stern insisted there was no logical
> link between the events of 11 Sept. '01 and Hussein
> but yelled that it didn't matter since we had to scare
> *the terrorists* (tm) into fearing the Death Star's
> inpregnable might.
touché.
i like especially how ken pollack uses the iran-iraq war as an example of how destabilizing an influence saddam was in the region, conveniently forgetting that american policy supported him in that war precisely as a counterweight to iran . . . not terribly differently than the mixed signals he got on kuwait. is it any wonder he expected support on the second war when he'd gotten support on the first?
what was all that a few months ago about "revisionist history"?
j