"And thank god the rest of the world's people are not like those nihilistic Iraqis. Now it is clear what went wrong in Iraq. I urged the United States to invade Iraq for a very simple reason: Iraq was run by a bad man. It was very important to eliminate the bad man and replace him with a good person. Maybe even a woman. Or a transgender person. But two things prevented this plan from the success it should have had. First, the Bush administration refused to follow my suggestions. I repeatedly said that we needed a troop surge in Iraq three years ago. And we needed to spend a lot more money. Not just billions of dollars per day. But trillions per day, if that's what it took. You can't expect to build democracy on the cheap. No, democracy is precious. It is what makes us the peaceful, rich nation we are today. Isn't that worth spending a few trillions to protect? I know what nihilistic defeatists will say: We don't have that kind of money. 'It will bankrupt us,' they say. But I say bankruptcy is a small price to pay for prosperity. But now, it is probably too late."
I have a couple of cynical questions to ask which may appear to indicate an opinion but they are only questions.
1. How many dead would there be if we had left Saddam in power? More or less then we have now?
2. How many dead Americans would there be if we had left Saddam in power? And please produce the WMDs before claiming we were at risk.
3. Is it really worth bankrupting the United States of America to pay for prosperity in a desert country? And does that imply that Iraq was the only bad nation in the world? Are the rest just perfect and once we fix this last one we will have created Nirvana?
Thomas Friedman is a sensationalist writer not fit for anyone with close to 3 digit IQs. Of course in his childish world cause and effect are just words. Trillions spent on a small country far away, that's what we need. I wonder which economy pays for his food?