Liberals have waited and waited in vain for New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman to issue a sincere apology for his vocal support of the Iraq war in its lead-up and aftermath. No voice of left was more responsible for creating the atmosphere which provided cover for spineless Democrats to endorse a misguided and illegal war, despite the fact that they held the majority in the Senate. Instead he grapples and rationalizes his support and tries to find rays of hope in the disaster that is the reality of current U.S. Foreign relations.
In today's column, Friedman reveals that he has learned nothing from years of writing that has had devastating consequences. Today, Friedman revealed his dream ticket for the 2008 Presidential elction: Obama/Cheney. The columnist suggests that Cheney's craziness would serve as a robust counter to Obama's negotiation-centric foreign policy approach, especially with regards to Iran. Nevermind that Cheney's craziness is the x-factor that gave birth to the implementation of the Neoconservative agenda, generated this country's Iraq War "strategy," and facilitated an unprecedented demise of support for US leadership worldwide.
This latest irresponsible idea from Thomas Friedman is further evidence that this man, though brilliant, should not be taken seriously in liberal arenas. Until Friedman takes responsibility for his past war cheerleading and any number of perplexing foreign policy suggestions, liberals should look elsewhere for enlightened punditry.
11.18.2007
Media Matters: Classic Friedman
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I don't understand why everyone (such as Glenn Greenwald) is misreading Friedman on this. All he is suggesting is that military force - which includes the threat of regime change - should be on the table. Once it's on the table, you can take it off the table in negotiation - but you don't start by ruling things out.
Also, Jonathan, what's "illegal" about the Iraq war?
The war was illegal because it was in violation of the UN Charter. Another resolution authorizing force was necessary for the war to be legal under international law. Even more explicitly, the Iraq War "authorization" passed by Congress only authorized war provided that UN inspectors had finished their investigation, which Hans Blix has clearly indicated they were not anywhere near concluding.
The problem with Friedman is that he is not advocating force as a last resort, as you seem to support. He believes in force as a policy tool, as a means to reshape the Middle East. This was never more evident than last week in an interview with Charlie Rose, in which Friedman said, "We attacked Iraq because we could." In the same interview, Friedman said the purpose of the war was to tell the Arab world, "Suck on this." This just isn't the most enlightened approach to discussing foreign policy, and I would argue that it's dangerous. But that's just my opinion.
I realize there is a debate about the legality in an international context, and whether previous resolutions against Hussein can justify the preemptive strike. It was also unclear when the UN passed a resolution on the Kosovo issue in 1998, with the Russians insisting that it did not authorize war. Some argue, then, that the Kosovo air bombing was illegal.
On the domestic side, I disagree with your reading of Congress' authorization. Here's what I see:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Now, this seems like a blank check to me. I'd be interested in where you find some provision about Blix finishing the inspections. I would just add that the Kosovo bombing wasn't authorized by Congress either - just a thought.
On Friedman: First, it's my understanding that his Iraq remarks were made in 2003, last week. No matter, really, it still correctly demonstrates why people are definitely fair to criticize Friedman. I have no problem with that. But my point was about this particular article and how it seemed as though a lot of people in the blogosphere were taking Friedman seriously on the Cheney thing while missing the more important point, that force should be on the table. But he's been reasonable on Iran. From May 2007:
"If I thought that isolating Iran and Hamas was working, I’d continue it. But it manifestly is not — any more than isolating Castro has worked. So either we find a way to draw them in or we’ll be fighting them — and the hard boys — in Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and Afghanistan for a long, long time."
So he, in my view, wants a balanced approach where the threat of force exists but we are doing the kind of diplomacy most Democrats and liberals are calling for. I think this should still be taken seriously in liberal circles, because you are right, he is brilliant; however, people shouldn't forget his "6 months, 6 months" Friedman unit and the fact that he got Iraq wrong.
Post a Comment