Tom Friedman is good again today. I would never have agreed to support the war if its aim was solely to promote "decent, open, women-friendly, pluralistic governments" in the Middle East. It's a laudable goal, but I just don't think you can ask US soldiers and marines to die for that. But, for Friedman, success requires just that in Iraq.
I supported the war because I accepted that Iraq was a threat to the security of the United States. And, now that the war has been fought I would love to see much of this other goal accomplished, but as long as the threat posed by Iraq doesn't rear up again, something short of that would be acceptable to me.
Just wondering if Friedman would consider Tom McGurk among his list of critics who believe we've "upset some bucolic native culture and natural harmony in Iraq, as if the Baath Party were some colorful local tribe out of National Geographic."