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.

[J Wolfsberger]

"This is a financial 9/11." Using language as a verbal club is, at least to me, an indicator that the speaker/author isn't going to advance an argument that can stand on the basis of facts and reasoning.

After complaining about the fact that Iraqis are still working out the structure of their government, he asserts:

"It is the fact that you are now going to have to step up and finish this job...You Shiites have got to bring the Sunni tribes and Awakening groups, who fought the war against Al Qaeda of Iraq, into the government and army. You Kurds have got to find a solution for Kirkuk and accept greater integration into the Iraqi state system, while maintaining your autonomy. You Sunnis in government have got to agree to elections so the newly emergent Sunni tribal and Awakening groups are able to run for office and become "institutionalized" into the Iraqi system."

It took us 11 years and the War of Yankee Aggression (sorry - ) to "finish the job." And we had a considerably greater experience with rule of law and human rights than the Iraqis today. There isn't much in this piece - Ken and Snowden sum it up pretty well - "gobledygook and idle blathering" for the sake of bellyach[ing].

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

[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...

[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?

[Bob W.]

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

[Cavguy]

Bob,


Friedman has a talent for writing and simplyfing complex ideas. He constructively adds to the national debate on issues. Count me a fan. That doesn't mean I have to agree with everything he writes, no more so than in any other field. But I respect people who not only criticize isses in oped pages but offer solutions as well - which he does.

[Ken White]

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.

[Bob W.]

I just question Friedman's relevance at this juncture. The left pilloried him for his early support for the idea of the Iraq War, never mind the war itself. He was a contrarian when it came to the war, and the left turned on him. If you go to any "left of center" website, almost everything written about Friedman is negative.

Then he takes a sabbatical, writes a global warming book, and comes in at the tail end of the Bush administration with a bunch of left-friendly ideas (how can you go wrong with global warming??), and offers advice about the automakers that counters much of his previous opinions about that industry (even these columns themselves are all over the place). Is it anything else than a gradual restoration?

I also question what idea(s) Friedman will posit at this point that sharply contradict anything the new administration puts out there as a proposed policy; time will tell, but the fact that one of his recent columns evoked biblical imagery when decribing the new President ( And so it came to pass. . .), Ihowobjective he will be? Time will tell. . .

For my part, I stay away from pundits now, and use published scholars to research and support any position I support in written work these day. . .

[Schmedlap]

I think that if there were not a financial crisis going on now, Friedman would have some other excuse for why we need to rush out of Iraq, such as that our HMMWVs are generating too much CO2, that deployments are harming the local economies around military bases, or that the abundance of T-walls detracts from the aesthetic beauty of Iraq. But, the financial situation is the flavor of the moment.

There is a fairly reasonable way to go about arguing that the financial situation has made continued operations in Iraq unteneble. He fails to do that. Instead, he resorts to a half-baked cry of woe regarding the current situation of the average American and attempts to portray Americans as too tired, broken, and weary for our military to continue its mission.

Look in the eyes of Americans who are seeing their savings wiped out, their companies disappear, their homes foreclosed.

Cut the crap. America is the home of taking out a 2nd mortgage to buy more non-essentials and maxing out credit cards on dinners and movies. People go on a 5-year bender, spending gobs of money to live beyond their means, and then when the bill comes due and they can't pay, we're supposed to pretend that we're a nation of victims? Friedman wrote this op-ed not because it is what he sees. He wrote it because he wants other people to believe it. He wants people to convince themselves that they are too burdened, their lives too difficult, and their future too uncertain to continue (doing nothing) to support our efforts in Iraq.

Friedman's relevance will be measured by how many people he manages to convince that their pampered lives are too difficult for the additional burden of occasionally seeing a news story about Iraq or Afghanistan.