Thomas L. Friedman: Dear Iraqi friends

[jkm_101_fso]

Opinion Columnist pens letter to Iraqi leaders for President Bush.

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

[Ken White]

knows no bounds...

Nor does their inability to know much about their own people, apparently.

[Render]

I'm confused...

Is Friedman recommending that we "regime change" the DNC for causing this financial 9/11?

Get the Corp on the line, this is gonna have to be an amphib op.

GOT
CARRIERS?,
R

[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.

I think I posit the strategic defensive some time ago -- nothing in this article I can't agree with...

Kirk

[Ken White]

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...

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...

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...

[Snowden]

Hacksaw,

Thomas Friedman is well-known and informed, but that isn't the same as being effective and relevant. When I think of relevance in re: to Iraq, I think of guys who affect the actors in theater, where the pundits/thinkers' ideas influence military leaders and civilian directors. In that sense, Friedman is utterly irrelevant. Ambassador Crocker might brief Friedman on the current Iraqi political scene, but I greatly doubt that Crocker turns around and takes anything away from Friedman's columns or books.

Furthermore, while Friedman might actually have some solid ideas on several global topics, I finished this column and thought: "This is just a 1,000 word bellyache. No substance, just little potshots at Iraqi politicians mixed with pastiches of American economic distress."

Not his best work.

[Bullmoose Bailey]

Friedman is distinguished and universally respected. His words are to be taken seriously by all serious scholars.

However, he may very well be entirely irrelavent also; due to his globalist focus which, although perhaps ahead of its time, is not applicable in a world still governed by regional federalism & state sovereignty. What say you?