WMD or PMD?

Thomas Friedman has another insightful piece on the War in Iraq in his column at the New York Times where he asks whether we should be more worried about Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East, or the plague of PEOPLE of Mass Destruction

I don't buy it myself, but one can plausibly argue that 37 years of Israeli occupation of the West Bank have made Palestinians so crazy that scores of them would have volunteered for suicide bombing missions over the last few years. But the U.S. "occupation" of Iraq is only a year old, and the suicide bombings started there within a few months of U.S. forces' arriving, to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam's warped tyranny. So what does that mean? It means that some group or groups have the ability to recruit a large pool of people willing to kill themselves in attacks against American or Iraqi targets on short notice — and we don't have a clue how this process works

I suppose some will argue this is evidence that Iraq is not yet ready for Democracy. I would argue it just shows that the Middle East needs another reminder that not all wars are won with bombs. The IRA still does not have an Ireland totally independent of England, but Ghandi brought about a free and independent India. Whose model is the better one to emulate?