Freidman on Iraq and the Democrats

The New York Times > Opinion:

Here's the truth: There is no single action we could undertake anywhere in the world to reduce the threat of terrorism that would have a bigger impact today than a decent outcome in Iraq. It is that important. And precisely because it is so important, it should not be left to Donald Rumsfeld. Democrats need to start thinking seriously about Iraq - the way Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton have. If France - the mother of all blue states - can do it, so, too, can the Democrats. Otherwise, they will be absenting themselves from the most important foreign policy issue of our day.

Read the whole thing. This bit here is especially important:

There will be a lot of trial and error in the months ahead. But this is a hugely important horizontal dialogue because if Iraqis can't forge a social contract, it would suggest that no other Arab country can - since virtually all of them are similar mixtures of tribes, ethnicities and religions. That would mean that they can be ruled only by iron-fisted kings or dictators, with all the negatives that flow from that.

I am pretty sure that Arabs are capable of democracy. I find those who insist they are not to be pretty deplorable. It is possible though, for all my certainty, that I am wrong and that only an iron-fisted king can rule them. I hope not. I am pretty sure that in the modern, globalized world tyranny will always be a threat to free nations. Since these nations, either directly or indirectly, will be able to cause increasing harm, we will not long be able to abide co-existence such places. This would leave us with very unpalatable choices: genocide, a permanent 'iron curtain' walling off the Arab world, or surrender and dhimmitude. This is why I so desperately want Iraqi democracy to succeed.