Radiofree West Hartford -- AN OPEN LETTER TO TOM FRIEDMAN by Ben Cerruti

AN OPEN LETTER TO TOM FRIEDMAN

By Ben Cerruti

February 25, 2003

Dear Tom:

You are a respected and well-read columnist for a major newspaper. As a world traveler you are recognized as having intimate knowledge of the parts of the world of which you write. I have found your articles very informative and your positions on issues worthy of consideration. In addition, I find myself in agreement with many of your conclusions. With some trepidation I thus take it upon myself to provide a critique of your recent N.Y. Times article titled "Tell the Truth", and those that have preceded it on the issue of Iraq.

You have stated the primary reason for regime change in Iraq is, as you state, "to help Iraqis create a progressive state that could stimulate reform in the Arab/Muslim world so that this region won't keep churning out angry young people who are attracted to radical Islam and are the real weapons of mass destruction". However, I believe you are a bit naive in believing that solely using this as the motive for deposing Saddam would provide the justification necessary to create the support, both domestically and internationally, for military action. When presenting the reason for war to the people, removing the threat of weapons of mass destruction is a much more supportable rationale than creating a new "progressive state".

The statement you make "Saddam does not threaten us today" does not stand the test of rationality since the very reasons you present in your articles for his regime's removal is contradictory to it. The very fact, as you state, that terrorism has its foundation in radical Islam, by itself links the acts of Osama bin Laden's terrorists for a need to stop "churning out angry young people attracted to radical Islam" to your argument for instituting a new "progressive state". However, the act by many including yourself to separate bin Laden's terrorism from the terrorism of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad etc. is fallacious in the sense that terrorism is terrorism plain and simple. To the victims, the "suicide bombers" who have attacked Israeli's are no different to the "suicide bombers" who brought down the twin towers. To say al-Qaida is a separate enemy is to defy credibility since the ideology on which that movement is based is no different than that of the other terrorist groups in the mid-east.

Further, it makes no sense for you to say "Saddam does not threaten us today" and then seemingly in the same breath say "if left alone he will seek weapons that will threaten all his neighbors". Does not Saddam's funding for "suicide bombers" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict constitute a weapon that complicates our ability to resolve that problem? Is there not a link between the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian problem and the terrorism that we face? Your credible answers to these questions would be interesting.

In addition, your simplistic arguments seem to omit the worldwide effects of any success we may have in eradicating this mid-east threat. It is reasonable to presume that it will not be unnoticed by those in the Far East rattling their sabers, including North Korea. There is no doubt that our weak reactions to past terrorist activities from the Reagan administration through 9/11/03 pasted the "paper tiger" label on the U.S. The decision to not pursue the overthrow of Saddam during the Gulf war in 1991 did not help to erase this image.

We now have the opportunity to show we are the "cop" of this world, as we must, in order to maintain its order in a righteous and fair manner. Without the willingness to exert force when it is required to maintain law and order, the show of force becomes meaningless and the law breakers will have their hey day. It would appear that the time has come for the demonstration of the force necessary to show those lawless elements in the world that we are willing to use it against any of its kind.

I believe that you would agree to this view, however I find your willingness to severely criticize the Bush administration on their approach in the difficult task of pursuing the "war on terrorism" rather unfair. In past columns you have made known your distaste for the Bush domestic agenda and the validity of the 2000 election results. Although you may try to diminish this feeling it does underlie much of your views as I read them. In writing this open letter I hope that there will be those who see it as an objective clarification of your views so as to provide another dimension to them.

Sincerely,

Ben Cerruti