What Iowa means for the war on terrorism

Tom Friedman of the NY Times is thrilled about Howard Dean’s defeat in Iowa since it means the “Blair Democrats” understand the importance of the war on terrorism and a real alternative to the Bush policy in Iraq may emerge. Here’s the key passage about “what the real war on terrorism is about”:

First, this notion, put forward by Mr. Dean and Al Gore, that the war in Iraq has diverted us from the real war on "terrorists" is just wrong. There is no war on "terrorism" that does not address the misgovernance and pervasive sense of humiliation in the Muslim world. Sure, Al Qaeda and Saddam pose different threats, Mr. Marshall notes, "but they emerge from the same pathology of widespread repression, economic stagnation and fear of cultural decline." Building a decent Iraq is very much part of the war on terrorism.

Second, sometimes smashing someone in the face is necessary to signal others that they will be held accountable for the intolerance they incubate. Removing the Taliban and Saddam sent that message to every government in the area.

Third, the Iraq war may have created more hatred of the U.S., but it has also triggered a hugely important dialogue among Arabs and Muslims about the necessity of reform.

This may be the most significant – yet least discernable – aspect of the war on terrorism: getting the entrenched kleptocracies of the Middle East to understand that they must reform or die. Libya’s Khaddafi understands and Syria’s Assad is coming around. Even the Saudis are holding their own experiment with democracy by holding municipal elections. These are all steps in the right direction.