For years I've read Tom Friedman's op-ed pieces in the New York Times and thought, "This guy is such a douche-bag! I oughta pick one of his op-eds apart in a blog diary." Unfortunately, as is the case with most people I never had enough time, always had something more pressing to do, always found an excuse not to, etc. etc.
Not this time! His last op-ed was just too wrought with douche-baggery to let it go. A man who's underlying assumption for all his arguments about the middle-east is that the Palestinians would gladly leave Israel if they were just uplifted economically and given more "freedom" (by his definition of the word) should NOT be writing on Mideast foreign policy.
His op-ed piece is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/opinion/15friedman.html?th&emc=th
More in extended entry...
I will now proceed to breakdown his article bit by bit to show why Thomas Friedman is such a douche-bag. Let's start with this:
"Conservatives don't want to talk about it [Iraq] because, with a few exceptions, they think their job is just to applaud whatever the Bush team does. "
Let's start with the obvious, the Conservatives that don't want to talk about Iraq are the neo-cons and they don't talk about it because a) they already have a plan for Iraq and are enacting it as we speak - pushing the country towards civil war and b) they are staying on message to hold onto that 40% approval rating. This has nothing to do with Bush. Bush is merely the 'sales-guy'. They are letting Bush do his job. Moreover, there are SOME Conservatives who have spoken out against Iraq. Most notable of which is Pat Buchanan. You know there is something seriously wrong with an administration if it puts me in a position where I'm in agreement with Pat Buchanan.
Next:
"Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down don't want the Bush team to succeed. As a result, Iraq is drifting sideways and the whole burden is being carried by our military."
This is just false. Liberals HAVE BEEN talking about the war. It's just Mr. Friedman's devout (and innately racist) Zionist views are at odds with what Liberals have been saying - PULL OUT! So like the Neo-cons he so conveniently admonishes to somehow prove he's a Democrat he refuses to hear what he doesn't like. I'm not even going to dignify the idea that as a result of Liberals not talking about Iraq and wanting it to fail is somehow causing Iraq to "drift sideways" with a response. This is, in a word, bollocks.
Now here's what prompted me to write this diary:
"This is no time to give up - this is still winnable - but it is time to ask: What is our strategy?"
He sounds like a talking-head of the Right... the Israeli Right. From the get-go he's supported the war under the guise of "spreading democracy". He even endorsed a civil-war in one of his op-ed's because "they were long overdo and when the dust settles good things come out of them" [paraphrase]. I'm glad Tommy Douchebag is willing to take on the moral responsibility of condoning a civil war that he will not have to fight. I mean, neighbors are literally killing neighbors and an entire nation is tearing itself apart, it's all good cuz Tom Friedman said so.
This view stems from something much more core that is inherent in all his writing on the middle-east. Arabs are uncivilized barbarians that need to be shown the way by enlightened westerners.
"This question is urgent because Iraq is inching toward a dangerous tipping point - the point where the key communities begin to invest more energy in preparing their own militias for a scramble for power - when everything falls apart, rather than investing their energies in making the hard compromises within and between their communities to build a unified, democratizing Iraq."
No, the question is who is pushing Iraq towards this "tipping point". Standard military policy is that if your base or armaments are going to be overrun you scuttle them so that they dont fall into enemy hands. That is exactly what is happening in Iraq. The neo-con cabal realized that they could not hold Iraq so they pushed for elections. Sounds good right? Well, you never hear HOW these elections were conducted. These "elections" were to push the country towards civil-war - a war that is happening as a type this.
Here is how those "elections" worked. The people did not know who was running and on what platform, the Sunnis boycotted and the Kurds had 110% of eligible voters vote. Yes, that's right - 110%. The candidates were all divided among ethnic lines so they are not voting based on politics they are voting based on ethnicity. That's like if we had all our candidates divided by religion, race and ethnicity and could only vote based on that. So what is the result in Iraq? Overrepresentation of the Kurds, underrepresentation of the sunnis and a suppressed majority now in control = civil war.
"Our core problem in Iraq remains Donald Rumsfeld's disastrous decision - endorsed by President Bush - to invade Iraq on the cheap."
No, our core problem is that the US is a Republic not an empire. We are not equipped physically and mentally to creating a colonial US. Therefore, our core problem is that we went in at all.
"Almost every problem we face in Iraq today - the rise of ethnic militias, the weakness of the economy, the shortages of gas and electricity, the kidnappings, the flight of middle-class professionals - flows from not having gone into Iraq with the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force."
Again, this assumes that military force could solve all our problems. He does not mention that our military was never designed for occupation. We have a fast-reactionary force. Get in, get out - quick! Strike like lightning and hit the enemy hard. Our military is not trained to subjugate a people to build an empire. Our people do not (thankfully) have the stomach for such endeavors.
"Yes, yes, I know we are training Iraqi soldiers by the battalions, but I don't think this is the key. "
It's not key you douche-bag because Iraqi soldiers dislike the US. Why not write an article on why? And not a douchebag article that merely restates "they hate us because of our freedom".
"Who is training the insurgent-fascists? Nobody." I wouldnt exactly call them fascists. Why? Because they dont like the US? They are doing what Friedman endorsed - the "insurgents" are really Sunnis fighting on one side of his Civil War. He should be happy. Furthermore, they are being trained, by ex-iraqi soldiers (from the baathis dominated military that was disbanded).
"Training is overrated, in my book. Where you have motivated officers and soldiers, you have an army punching above its weight. "
I might agree with him here. You can have the most highly trained and equipped army, but the side that wins is the side who's soldier will attach a bayonette to their rifle and run charging the enemy when they run out of ammo. In short, it's about will. The Iraqis see us as invaders. They, like all Arabs, feel humiliated by the policies of the West. These are people who are willing to use themselves as weapons. Who has more will?
"Where do you get motivated officers and soldiers? That can come only from an Iraqi leader and government that are seen as representing all the country's main factions. So far the Iraqi political class has been a disappointment. The Kurds have been great. But the Sunni leaders have been shortsighted at best and malicious at worst, fantasizing that they are going to make a comeback to power through terror. As for the Shiites, their spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has been a positive force on the religious side, but he has no political analog. No Shiite Hamid Karzai has emerged."
No, you get motivated officers and soldiers by having them fight for something they believe in. Which is what they are doing - against our forces and the shiites.
Yeah the Kurds have been great because they want to secede from the rest of Iraq and do what it takes to make it happen. And last I checked, there is still a war in Afghanistan. I guess Hamid Karzai isn't as "motivating" to the Afghans as he is to Tom Douchebag Friedman.
""We have no galvanizing figure right now," observed Kanan Makiya, the Iraqi historian who heads the Iraq Memory Foundation. "Sistani's counterpart on the democratic front has not emerged. Certainly, the Americans made many mistakes, but at this stage less and less can be blamed on them. The burden is on Iraqis. And we still have not risen to the magnitude of the opportunity before us."
We destroyed Iraq and now the burden is on them? It's awesome how Friedman is able to find the minority Iraqi opinion in all of this.
"I still don't know if a self-sustaining, united and democratizing Iraq is possible. I still believe it is a vital U.S. interest to find out."
Then go send your kids to find out Friedman. In fact, I think it is a vital Israeli interest to find out. They have been ardent supporters of the war especially since one of the main threats on their border has been removed.
"Maybe it is too late, but before we give up on Iraq, why not actually try to do it right? Double the American boots on the ground and redouble the diplomatic effort to bring in those Sunnis who want to be part of the process and fight to the death those who don't."
What we should do is bring the factions together, tell them when we are leaving and tell them that anyone who tries to stop us will be shot. These people all want the same thing - power. The last thing anyone wants, even the insurgents, is to plunge the country into civil war. They all want something to rule over. Our presence is a galvanizing force of hatred. If we leave then they must be left to their own vices to figure out how to proceed.
Some would say, "we cant leave now. we cant destroy a country and run". I would argue, we just did. Best to minimize the damage.