Tom Friedman is right on the money in this recent editorial on "The Real Patriot Act." Excerpt:
In short, a tax that finances the democratization of Iraq, takes money away from those who would use it to spread ideas harmful to us, weakens OPEC, makes us more energy independent, reduces the deficit and overnight improves the world's view of us — from selfish, Hummer-driving louts to good global citizens — would be the real patriot act. (It would also encourage Iraq not to become another oil-dependent state, but to build a middle class by learning to tap its people's entrepreneurship and creativity, not just its oil wells.)
Well, it made sense a year ago, before Iraq, and it makes even more sense now. So the notion that because the American public didn't demand this war, and therefore can't be asked to sacrifice for it, is not an accurate assessment of the political situation. If Iraq is tied to the overall War on Terror, which I think it is, then an energy policy that denies resources to our enemies is certainly at least as relevant. Why isn't anyone on the presidential campaign trail talking about it? (Yeah, I know they all mention it, but not very realistically or with much passion. There's a general recognition that you don't win an election by telling Americans that it might be a good idea for them to drive less.) Have we really lost the capacity to produce leadership appropriate to the challenges that confront us? Does it really make any sense for us to undermine our own security interests by handing over part of our GDP to the people who are likely to fund the madrasas that breed terrorists? Should we really cultivate a half-assed attitude about this war? I mean, isn't this an easy call?
Posted by Demosophist at October 5, 2003 10:40 PM | TrackBack