Iraq Analysis: Thomas Friedman and the Never-Ending "Liberal Intervention"

UPDATE 0915 GMT: Here is what, in today's power politics, is what the rhetoric of "liberal intervention" props up. Thomas Ricks declares, alongside Friedman's piece in The New York Times, "Leaders in [the US and Iraq] may come to recognize that the best way to deter a return to civil war is to find a way to keep 30,000 to 50,000 United States service members in Iraq for many years to come."

Seven years after the 2003 war and the violence and disorder that followed, Iraq has moved on to other political conflicts and issues. Yet, for some, this will always be a case of returning to the scene to construct victory or to build the excuse for absolution. War must become liberation, crime must become justice, tragedy must become redemption.

Iraq: How Serious is the Sunni Election Boycott?
Photos of the Decade: 2004 (Abu Ghraib)

One of those who persists is New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. This morning Friedman, who used his "liberal" drum to bang loudly and incessantly for the 2003 invasion, opens his column:

From the very beginning of the U.S. intervention in Iraq and the effort to build some kind of democracy there, a simple but gnawing question has lurked in the background: Was Iraq the way Iraq was (a dictatorship) because Saddam was the way Saddam was, or was Saddam the way Saddam was because Iraq was the way Iraq was — a collection of warring sects incapable of self-rule and only governable with an iron fist?

Initially, the sentence is so confusing to risk being vacuous. Don't be fooled: in its morass of words lies the self-belief that distinguishes not only Friedman but many of those who cling to "our" (and "our" has nothing to do with those who live in Iraq) righteousness in waging the conflict.

Friedman has little cognizance of what is happening in Iraq in 2010, but that is not the point of his editorial, which dismisses any need to consider today: "Will Iraq’s new politics triumph over its cultural divides, or will its cultural/sectarian divides sink its fledgling democracy? We still don’t know."

Instead, returning to his tangled opening, Friedman has a different, self-justifying mission: if the man who became (in)famous for repeatedly declaring that the US would triumph in "six more months" (Wikipedia even has re-defined a duration of six months as a "Friedman) can ever declare progress in Iraq, then the US and Thomas Friedman are vindicated for liberating the country from a dictator. If progress is elusive, then it is because of the inherent flaws of these frustrating creatures called "Iraqis". Heads, we win; tails, you lose.

Let's be clear here. For all his chest-thumping of sincerity, Friedman's words pay little if any attention to the concerns or aspirations of those in Iraq. It is notable that the only source for today's thoughts is General Raymond Odierno, the US commander in the country, who Friedman quotes without any reflection. And it is notable that Friedman's ambitions are about the threat to the US, not to Iraqis, and about the fulfilment of "our", not "their", political visions:

The two scenarios you don’t want to see are: 1) Iraq’s tribal culture triumphing over politics and the country becoming a big Somalia with oil; or 2) as America fades away, Iraq’s Shiite government aligning itself more with Iran, and Iran becoming the kingmaker in Iraq the way Syria has made itself in Lebanon.

Let's be clear, however. This issue goes far beyond Thomas Friedman, who will continue to absolve himself at length and at regular intervals. Many commentators as well as public officials, sometimes with good intentions, advocated the invasion of Iraq for the liberation of its people. They usually did so, however, with little knowledge of and regard for Iraqis. Thus the 2005 exchange between Jeffrey Goldberg of The New Yorker and Bush Administration official Douglas Feith:

When I asked...if the Administration was too enamored of the idea that Iraqis would greet American troops with flowers, [Feith] argued that some Iraqis were still too intimidated by the remnants of Saddam’s Baath Party to express their emotions openly. “But,” Feith said, “they had flowers in their minds.”

Hundreds of thousands of deaths later, Iraq faces complex political, economic, and social issues. The reality is that the 100,000+ US troops, as well as numerous diplomats, advisors, and intelligence operatives, in the country are peripheral to the conflicts and negotiations. But Friedman, and those who share his viewpoint, cannot acknowledge that. There must be a vindication for what "we" sought to do for "them" in 2003. There has to be history's verdict, handed down in favour of the US.

Because, in the end, "liberal intervention" means never having to say you're sorry.