Thomas L. Friedman: Dear Iraqi friends

[Cavguy]

My boss is encouraging me to read "The World Is Flat." I hope this childish piece in IHT isn't typical of his thinking.

I second your boss. Great book at cutting to the core of a complex argument. Friedman is a consistent voice of reason. Agreed there's some hyperbole in this op-ed, but he's been consistent that we need to stop spending money on overseas nation-rescues and re-invest in our own crumbling infrastructure and education if we want to remain competitive in the 21st century. He has been a balanced voice on Iraq, and I have commended him for awhile on his contention that we have horribly mis-aligned our rhetoric and means on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Best also read concurrently with "The Sling and the Stone" - there's some synergy between the flattening of the global economy and the "flattening" of warfare.

[sullygoarmy]

Combine Friedman's The World is Flat with Barnett's The Pentagon's New Map. Both saying the same thing with very different perspectives.

On another note Friedman's From Beirut to Jerusalem is one of the best accounts of the conflict in Lebanon and the corresponding Israeli issues. Even though I do not always agree with Friedman's politics, his writing is exceptional.

[Hacksaw]

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

[Ken White]

...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.

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...

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."

...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.

[Ron Humphrey]

I read World is Flat and thought it was excellent, Barnett is also great for perspective on global dynamics and transformation, That said this article blew me away.

As an American it says everything I would want it to, It scratches an itch; I however am not Iraqi.

Exactly how much do you think the average Iraqi or even politician considers our "normal" standard of living (which IMO is whats being threatened right now ) in so far as the necessity category. So relevant to our current financial woes I'm not sure that would really concern them so much, especially given that the govt there taking over paying everything quicker means they get more say in how things will eventually go.

The line about WMD seems somewhat funny as well considering that although as "we the people" defined it WMD's weren't found but one would think a very large number of those in the country there actually witnessed the uses and even if everything had been destroyed probably would not have bought that line for fear of their experiences. So exactly what does this "acknowledgement" achieve in the discourse other than weakening the speakers position?

It seems amazing to me that so many assume that the Shia actually agree that they have to share, they don't thus the fears of the other two, which are outnumbered once we're gone. So how does threatening that we're going to do exactly that bother them?

Just somewhat confusing???

[Snowden]

You're of course right on his prominence as a pundit. There are few more respected names in the "industry", and its for good reason: he's compelling, fresh, and thought-provoking.

I've read World is Flat and I'm working my way through Hot, Flat and Crowded. He's got some good points when he has a book-length arena to work in. His columns, however, are far too often filled with lazy reasoning and appeals to emotions. In other words, just like most other columnists.

I suppose my beef is more with the entire cottage industry of columnists than with Friedman himself.

[DaveDoyle]

Ron is right. The "letter" has a targeted audience of American readers. The message would almost certainly not have an impact on an Iraqi population. One would have to assume they (Shia, Sunni, Kurd, and members of the IZ Government) have a dramatically different view on these issues. Friedman is bright and clever. I've read most of his books and believe he hits on some interesting points (the golden straightjacket is an interesting concept in light of today's financial dilemma). The fact that we are discussing this is probably what he is after. Can the letter be used to shape policy? Maybe not...