Thomas Friedman jumps ship

"And don't believe the polls. I've been to nearly 20 states
recently, and I've found that 95 percent of the country wants to see Iraq
dealt with without a war."

Full text below of Thomas Friedman's (pathetically hedged, granted)
disembarkation of the ship of state..

Jerry Shepperd


NY TIMES 
The Long Bomb
March 2, 2003 
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Watching this Iraq story unfold, all I can say is this: If 
this were not about my own country, my own kids and my own 
planet, I'd pop some popcorn, pull up a chair and pay good 
money just to see how this drama unfolds. Because what you 
are about to see is the greatest shake of the dice any 
president has voluntarily engaged in since Harry Truman 
dropped the bomb on Japan. Vietnam was a huge risk, but it 
evolved incrementally. And threatening a nuclear war with 
the Soviets over the Cuban missile crisis was a huge shake 
of the dice by President John Kennedy, but it was a gamble 
that was imposed on him, not one he initiated.

A U.S. invasion to disarm Iraq, oust Saddam Hussein and 
rebuild a decent Iraqi state would be the mother of all 
presidential gambles. Anyone who thinks President Bush is 
doing this for political reasons is nuts. You could do this 
only if you really believed in it, because Mr. Bush is 
betting his whole presidency on this war of choice.

And don't believe the polls. I've been to nearly 20 states 
recently, and I've found that 95 percent of the country 
wants to see Iraq dealt with without a war. But President 
Bush is a man on a mission. He has been convinced by a tiny 
group of advisers that throwing "The Long Bomb" - 
attempting to transform the most dangerous Arab state - is 
a geopolitical game-changer. It could help nudge the whole 
Arab-Muslim world onto a more progressive track, something 
that coaxing simply will not do anymore. It's something 
that can only be accomplished by building a different model 
in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world. No, you don't see 
this every day. This is really bold.

And that leads to my dilemma. I have a mixed marriage. My 
wife opposes this war, but something in Mr. Bush's 
audacious shake of the dice appeals to me. He summed it up 
well in his speech last week: "A liberated Iraq can show 
the power of freedom to transform that vital region by 
bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. 
America's interest in security and America's belief in 
liberty both lead in the same direction - to a free and 
peaceful Iraq."

My dilemma is that while I believe in such a bold project, 
I fear that Mr. Bush has failed to create a context for his 
boldness to succeed, a context that could maximize support 
for his vision - support vital to seeing it through. He and 
his team are the only people who would ever have conceived 
this project, but they may be the worst people to implement 
it. The only place they've been bold is in their military 
preparations (which have at least gotten Saddam to begin 
disarming).

What do I mean? I mean that if taking out Saddam and 
rebuilding Iraq had been my goal from the minute I took 
office (as it was for the Bush team), I would not have 
angered all of Europe by trashing the Kyoto global warming 
treaty without offering an alternative. I would not have 
alienated the entire Russian national security elite by 
telling the Russians that we were ripping up the ABM treaty 
and that they would just have to get used to it. (You're 
now seeing their revenge.) I would not have proposed one 
radical tax cut on top of another on the eve of a huge, 
costly nation-building marathon abroad.

I would, though, have rallied the nation for real energy 
conservation and initiated a Manhattan Project for 
alternative energies so I would not find myself with 
$2.25-per-gallon gasoline on the eve of this war - because 
OPEC capacity is nearly tapped out. I would have told the 
Palestinians that until they stop suicide bombing and get a 
more serious leadership, we're not dealing with them, but I 
would also have told the Israelis that every new or 
expanded settlement they built would cost them $100 million 
in U.S. aid. And I would have told the Arabs: "While we'll 
deal with the Iraqi threat, we have no imperial designs on 
your countries. We are not on a crusade - but we will not 
sit idle if you tolerate extremists in your midst who 
imperil our democracy."

No, had Mr. Bush done all these things it would not have 
changed everything with France, Russia and the Arabs - or 
my wife. But I am convinced that it would have helped 
generate more support to increase our staying power in Iraq 
and the odds that we could pull this off.

So here's how I feel: I feel as if the president is 
presenting us with a beautiful carved mahogany table - a 
big, bold, gutsy vision. But if you look underneath, you 
discover that this table has only one leg. His bold vision 
on Iraq is not supported by boldness in other areas. And so 
I am terribly worried that Mr. Bush has told us the right 
thing to do, but won't be able to do it right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/opinion/02FRIE.html?ex=1047616676&ei=1&en=584e36057c73a5b8

"When you learn, teach.  When you get, give."
                          -- Maya Angelou