Thomas Friedman is an arrogant asshole.
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.
I know several people have diaried this, but I think we need to take this to pie-fight levels! This is a perfect example of the many ways the press insinuates that "liberals hate america."
This has become characteristic of Friedman: make a completely unsubstantiated claim based on his Chrsitine Amanpour-like travels.
Here is another recent example of Friedman's insight gained by hours spent at cafe's around the world, and
Riverbend's quick dispatch of his arrogance:
"Religiously, if you want to know how the Sunni Arab world views a Shiite's being elected leader of Iraq, for the first time ever, think about how whites in Alabama would have felt about a black governor's being installed there in 1920. Some Sunnis do not think Shiites are authentic Muslims, and they are indifferent to their brutalization."
Now, it is always amusing to see a Jewish American journalist speak in the name of Sunni Arabs. When Sunni Arabs, at this point, hesitate to speak in a representative way about other Sunni Arabs, it is nice to know Thomas L. Friedman feels he can sum up the feelings of the "Sunni Arab world" in so many words. His arrogance is exceptional.
Now before we get down on Friedman, we have to remember he has been places most of us haven't. For example, his experience with banana cream pie gives him insight to Arab-Israeli relations that most others couldn't have.
I was in Aman, Jordan, four or five years ago, and went to the Internet cafe in downtown Aman with some Jordanian friends. The owner heard I was there, he came over and said, "Mr. Friedman, you've got to try the banana cream pie." I said, "Why do I have to try the banana cream pie?" He said, "The banana cream pie is made by the wife of the deputy Israeli ambassador in Jordan." And I thought, isn't that cool, you know. The banana cream pie at the Internet cafe in Jordan is made by the wife of the deputy Israeli ambassador. He said, "But we had a little problem, because when the Islamic fundamentalists found out that the banana cream pie at the Internet cafe is made by the wife of the Israeli ambassador, they called for a boycott of our cafe until we got rid of the banana cream pie, and they called for the boycott on the local Internet."
That's the system. It goes both ways. It brings you banana cream pie from the wife of the Israeli deputy ambassador in Jordan and it brings you the boycott from the Islamic fundamentalists at the same time.
So who are we to question? I mean the insight gained from such a delightful anecdote couldn't possibly be gained say,
living in the Middle East for 29 years.
Besides, if Friedman stayed in one place, how would we know what an Indian worker is thinking and thus gain valuable insight into the state of the global economy?
"French voters are trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day. Next to India, Western Europe looks like an assisted-living facility with Turkish nurses."
Of course, he is also an expert on the US and the cold war.
After six weeks of being a foreign correspondent traveling around America, the biggest question I have come home with is not "What's the matter with Kansas?" but rather, "What's the matter with big business?" ...
That domestic strength made us both feared and attractive. Remember: America won the cold war not just with containment, but, even more important, with attraction - attraction for the society we were building.
So there you have it, how we won the cold war. In fact, just read this whole
speech and you will see Friedman is an anecdotal expert on all things -- Singapore, Eskimos, Qatar, etc.
Since Friedman is an expert on global cultures, in this case the Islamic world he was able to explain exactly what a terrorist is thinking as he defended the necessity of the Iraq war:
These undeterrables are young men who are full of rage, because they are raised with a view of Islam as the most perfect form of monotheism, but they look around their home countries and see widespread poverty, ignorance and repression. And they are humiliated by it, humiliated by the contrast with the West and how it makes them feel, and it is this humiliation -- this poverty of dignity -- that drives them to suicidal revenge. The quest for dignity is a powerful force in human relations.
You see, Osama was so upset by the repression of his homeland. If Saudi Arabia just didn't have so many rules and wasn't so frickin fundamentalist and orthodox, Osama wouldn't be upset at all. The terrorist just want to be like the West. Friedman has had tea with Egyptian journalists. He knows! I mean the undeterrables goal is dignity, which can only be brought on by an influx of US-styled reality tv shows. Maybe, a Fear Factor victory would do the trick.
Let's leave aside that Friedman is wandering blowhard who likes to make Kingly pronouncements about humanity. Let's leave aside the fact that contrary to today's editorial, liberals are talking about Iraq and they can't get the press to listen or the Bush Admin to talk straight. We can't propose solutions when the full extent of the problem is kept in the dark. Oh, but I'm leaving this aside -- so let me tell you why the suggestion that liberals don't want the "Bush team to succeed" is so insulting.
First let's look at what Friedman thinks about those who's politacal platform is American failure:
We are up against some really evil, cynical forces: die-hard Baathists, Qaeda-inspired Islamists and criminals. They continue to kill large numbers of innocent Iraqis without ever spelling out a political demand. That`s because their only interest is that America fail. They have no coherent vision for Iraq. Their only vision is that America must fail. Because if the U.S. succeeds in tilting Iraq onto a more progressive track, Baathism and Islamism will be diminished everywhere.
So let me put on my Thomas hat and do some Friedman-esque extrapolation: Liberals want America to fail-->which makes them like the "evil, cynical forces" killing our troops and Iraqis-->liberals know if "...the U.S. succeeds..." Progressivism will be "...diminished everywhere."
Unlike Friedman, I'll just try speaking for myself. I do want the US to succeed but realize something very important: success is measured in different ways. Larry Diamond makes clear that the Bush version of success is a puppet government. A Shia version of success could involve a religious alliance with Iran that wouldn't be much of a US success. For some Sunni's, success is a Baathist regime. If we want to really win, we must be committed to an Iraqi version of success with all its imperfections and possibility that democracy could bring leadership not of US choosing. I think our choosing of leaders (Chalabi and Bush) is suspect anyways.
What is most insulting is that Friedman doesn't acknowledge the people who's success which we are most committed -- our troops. There is only one measure of success for them...coming home.
Of course, I only have a few stamps on my passport, so what do I know. Maybe, Friedman is right. Every morning us liberals open "The Times" with a smile as we look at the latest casualties. Yes, we are clearly more about our party then our country, so we relish each days "I told you so." We see a headline like, Car Bomb Kills 23 and our only regret is that wise Tommy Friedman could be in there, sampling banana cream pie with Baghdad Judy. The horror.