WHAT WE CAME FOR?

A huge chemical weapons plant uncovered by U.S. troops, according to Sky News. We’ll see. My favorite line in this piece, though, is the following: “UN weapons inspectors said they are not aware of any large-scale chemical sites which could be used to make chemical weapons in Najaf.” Imagine that.

TOM FRIEDMAN REPLIES: I got hot and bothered by Friedman’s column yesterday where he invoked the word “unilateral” to describe the war against Saddam. Here’s his defense:

Woh — calm down!! I was not even thinking about the word all that much, even if I used it three times. I was thinking about the perception in France and what is so shocking to them. It is definitely perceived as the U.S., at the end of the day, acting on its own will to launch a major war half a world away. I realize we have Mongolia with us, not to mention Great Britain, and I am glad we do. But this was driven by the unilateral will of the U.S. – as Max Boot points out in his useful piece in the Post today. The most important point, for me, is that this unilateral action will find real multilateral support provided we build something decent in Iraq, which for me is the whole focus. Quite seriously, I don’t understand the sensitivity of conservatives on this issue. It seems to me that conservatives want it both ways. They want to praise Bush for deciding not to be shackled by the U.N. and France in the end, and, at the sametime, want to insist that this is still a multilateral war. This is OUR war, along with England, (maybe I should have said bilateral) and, now that it’s on, I’m glad it is. Judging from what I heard in Paris and Brussels, I am not sure I would bring this back to the U.N. The war must legitimate itself and it can, depending on what we build in Iraq. I think that task is so serious, I am not sure I want to see it shared with anyone, particularly France. I would like the U.N. to help pay for it, though, so I see a dilemma coming. Anyway, thanks for the “generally good!”

Fair enough. But I would also say this about the multilateral left. If you’re so keen on allies, it would behoove you not to ignore and insult the ones we have, while pining for those we could never get. That doesn’t usually apply to Friedman. Despite some disagreement, he’s clearly a good guy in this war.