In his oped piece today, Friedman says that Bush is the levee that is holding Baghdad back from the flood of civil war that will erupt if we withdraw from Iraq. Thus, an apologist for war finds in our home grown tragedy an excuse for continuing the war.In the world inhabited by the Friedmans,warmongers like Bush and masters of disaster like, who else,can continue as before with no concern for the victims.Thus I do not find it surprising that TF omits all mention of the dead in New Orleans or in Iraq in the rush to glorify Bush’s resoluteness.In his oped, he mourns the fact that Katrina may weaken Bush’s resolve to stay the course in Baghdad.
A more delusional write up would be hard to find.
Seeesh. I applaud you for finishing it. I bailed on his column about three-quarters of the way through.
I’m also sick of the conservative types ragging on the Sunnis. Sure it would be nice if they put the big picture first, but since they are part of the big picture it is not unexpected that they would want to protect themselves as much as possible. They were not all involved in the previous regime’s evil deeds. And I know of no group on earth that gives up power or privilege without a fight. Look at corporate America.
Sadly, unless our troops serve as a finger in the levee for decades, it is quite likely that civil war will break out whenever we leave. Thousands of more civilians will die — perhaps tens of thousands. There is no guarantee that we will be able to hold on to the strengthened American hegemony that Bush so wanted. Ordinary citizens stand to be worse off than they were for a long time to come.
It is a mess. This was predictable. Romantics like Friedman are not going to get their happy ending. Hubris leads to tragedy.
I believe that the removal of American forces will allow the Iraqis to reach an accommodation among themselves better than our staying there.The American presence is a destabilizing influence on weak and poor countries.By throwing our weight behind one faction or another we create the conditions that lead to stubbornness on the part of these factions.Even the perception that Americans favor one faction leads to strife. Not to mention the arming of the favored factions with advanced weaponry.
I think the term ‘benign neglect’ coined by Moynihan may well be what the doctor ordered for Iraq.
I’m not even going to read it. I trust your assessment. Friedman, more often than not, makes me dizzy. It’s not just the wrongness. It’s the mixed metaphors, the internally contradictory stream of ideas, the way when he does draw conclusions they stand contrary to all the evidence he’s presented, the way he never forgets to mention the brand names of incidental items… I have really pondered why it is that he’s so influential, and the only thing I can come up with is that most of his columns are so inscrutable, so full of doublespeak, that everyone assumes he agrees with them. I can remember when he had a lot of dubiety about war in Iraq. I can remember when he expressed concern that the Bush Administration couldn’t get the explanation down to something that would fit on a bumper sticker, because we certainly can’t go to war with something that can’t be marketed properly. I’m not exactly sure when he became an unreserved cheerleader for this war, but I see now that it was inevitable. How better to “flatten” the world, than to advance our imperialist vision around…no…across… the earth. Soon there will be bumper stickers and brand names for everyone.
People like Friedman exist for only one reason:to provide reassurance to ordinary citizens that our rulers are upright, their intentions are pure even if their actions violate their claims and that we should forever be dissecting our own motives. This is why he has been christened an expert.That term, when loosely applied, means that he is a made man of the administration.Capeeche?