Thomas L. Friedman: Dear Iraqi friends
Opinion Columnist pens letter to Iraqi leaders for President Bush.
Quote:
From: President George W. Bush
To: President Jalal Talabani of Iraq, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Speaker Mahmoud al-Mashadani
Dear Sirs,
I am writing you on a matter of grave importance. It's hard for me to express to you how deep the economic crisis in America is today. We Americans are discussing a $1 trillion bailout for our troubled banking system. This is a financial 9/11. As Americans lose their homes and sink into debt, they no longer understand why we are spending $1 billion a day to make Iraqis feel more secure in their homes.
For the past two years, there has been a debate in America over whether to set a deadline for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. It seemed as if the resolution of that debate depended on who won the coming election. That is no longer the case. A deadline is coming. American taxpayers who would not let their money be used to subsidize their own companies - Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch - will not have their tax dollars used to subsidize your endless dithering over which Iraqi community dominates Kirkuk.
complete article at: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/...edfriedman.php
The irrelevancy of the punditocracy
knows no bounds...
Nor does their inability to know much about their own people, apparently.
For lack of a better term...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hacksaw
Ken,
Really don't know where you are coming from, but to call Tom Friedman irrelevant is silly. While this is done a little tongue in cheek -- I think his read on U.S. approach to Iraq and the nature of our current economic crisis on U.S. grand strategy.
We can disagree on that, though I'd note that I didn't call Friedman, personally, irrelevant (actually, he's one of the more sensible examples of the breed) -- I called the genre irrelevant. IMO, they mostly are; all of them have occasional flashes of lucidity but they generally lapse into gobledygook and idle blathering. As I said, that is in my opinion. I pay little attention to any of them, a habit acquired over a good many years of trying futilely to make sense of what they were saying. They're like Doctors and Lawyers; don't like what one says? Listen to another...:rolleyes:
In this particular case, I can broadly agree with his desires for the Iraqis while believing that his expression of American fears is significantly overstated. In total, the draft letter approach is, I believe, a poor methodology that lends itself to charges of irrelevance. Friedman is not the only pundit to use that style; most who do fail to convince me that they really have much to say...
Quote:
I think I posit the strategic defensive some time ago -- nothing in this article I can't agree with...
Kirk
We can differ on that; my belief is that a strategic defense has merit in some cases while it fails miserably in others. Friedman has spent more time in the ME than have I and he's more current but we have an intense disagreement about the correct approach needed to dissuade the bulk of the people in the ME from counterproductive efforts...
Strategic defense will not work against the ME. It will be misunderstood and simply invite more problems. I may not have been there recently and I may not have that much time there but in a couple of years of fairly extensive travel looking at military forces there, I did discover that willingness to compromise is seen as a debilitating weakness and any statement of own weakness will be seized upon and deployed against you. Among other things...
What is a reasonable expectation of an OP-ED piece?
Ken and Snowden,
Exactly what do you expect from an article like this? His use of the fictional letter as a literary device makes fairly clear that he is positing a/his perspective.
The literary "club" is used to convey to the "Iraq's Leaders" that the events of the last week are not to be underestimated with regard to their downstream impacts.
If you think relevancy is restricted to ability to sway Petraeus, Ordierno and Crocker - pretty limiting. Friedman's aim point is a tad different.
I assume Ken has read most of Friedman's book, JW hasn't, others I'm unsure... but he's largely right, has the ear of mainstream media, and is a US opinion leader. From being an informed person - to dismiss his perspective is limiting. From being a planner trying to discern a long-range trend in US public opinion and shifts - to dismiss his perspective is dangerous. If for no other reason it can be self-fulfilling.
You don't have to agree with him, but if you don't consider his read as a possiblility that requires a conplan -- foolish
Personal perspectives promote Pundit preference...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hacksaw
...Exactly what do you expect from an article like this? His use of the fictional letter as a literary device makes fairly clear that he is positing a/his perspective.
Agreed, however, I believe it is a poor and generally ineffective device and as I said, others use it as well. That it's a poor technique is just my opinion -- which I expressed.
Further, I don't agree with his perspective on the issues or his assessment of what the US populace wants or will bear in the linked article. I'll add that I believe the article is very -- and unneccesisarily -- condescending toward the Iraqis. He tends, IMO, to do that talk down bit frequently to others as well; lectures rarely work.
Quote:
If you think relevancy is restricted to ability to sway Petraeus, Ordierno and Crocker - pretty limiting. Friedman's aim point is a tad different.
His aim point is indeed different -- yet, without influencing the power structure, his utility is marginal; I submit that 'marginal' with respect to influencing governments (as opposed to the media or individuals) describes the bulk of the punditocracy...
Quote:
I assume Ken has read most of Friedman's book(s)
True and IMO "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" was the last that accomplished much. Have not yet read "Hot, Flat and Crowded."
Quote:
...but he's largely right, has the ear of mainstream media, and is a US opinion leader. From being an informed person - to dismiss his perspective is limiting. From being a planner trying to discern a long-range trend in US public opinion and shifts - to dismiss his perspective is dangerous. If for no other reason it can be self-fulfilling.
You don't have to agree with him, but if you don't consider his read as a possiblility that requires a conplan -- foolish
I agree with all that (with a mild quibble on "he's largely right") As is true with all pundits, that assessment is based pretty much on whether the reader agrees with what's being said. I did say he's one of the better ones out there. When he promulgates a new perspective or reiterates an older one, I assess it -- I dismiss it if it seems to merit dismissal. IMO, this particular attempt did merit dismissal on several levels of which technique / the literary device was the least important.
Friedman Jumped the Shark
Do not count me as one of those placing offerings at the altar of Friedman. I would like to meet all those "scholars" as well that bow to his folksy wisdom as well
Friedman is a newspaper columnist, author, pundit, and husband of an heiress, not a universally respected expert. He is a talented writer, but some people (myself included) do not hold his poorly constructed arguments and oversimplifications of complex issues in high regard.
I believe he is right now in the process of his own Friedman Restoration, since he took a beating from both sides of the spectrum for his crappy Iraq prognostications and analysis (Friedman unit, anyone?) and is not hailed as the sage like he once was. hence the leave of absence from his column for awhile (his replacement: Maureen Dowd!!), so he can write a global warming book. The leave gave everyone (especially the center left crowd that formerly adored him) some time to cool off on his Iraq columns, but the true olive branch offering to the cocktail party set was his Global Warming book. Most of the book was probably penned from his county-sized estate on the DC beltway, which uses half a reservoir to irrigate the lawn all summer. . .facts like this are slowing the restoration a bit.
He has often been a fierce critic of Detroit automakers and still is, except when he suggests the Federal Government should bail out the industry and mandate they only produce certain types of cars, instead of becoming solvent, profitable, private corporations again once the nationalization phase is complete.
Again, bailing out private industry with taxpayer funds and mandating the classes of products they can manufacture, rather than ensuring they have a solid business plan to make a profit, part of the center left Friedman restoration.
Of course, he offered a lovely congratulatory column celebrating the selection of president-elect Obama, complete with a biblical opening; restoration continues.
He will probably come out against free trade next, watch for the column. . .
Cheers
I'm not a friedman fan for many reasons, However, I agree with you on this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cavguy
But I respect people who not only criticize isses in oped pages but offer solutions as well - which he does.
He does indeed and I'll give him credit for so doing -- as opposed to many of his contemporaries who do not.
Most of the "reasons" I'm not a fan have to do with the biases, ideology and quality and most often, the practical feasibility of many of those proposed solutions.