Posted on 02/24/2006 5:14:44 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
February 24, 2006
If NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman is for many the voice of the center-left foreign policy establishment in the U.S., then his nuanced and not-altogether-bleak assessment of the situation in Iraq on this morning's GMA merits consideration.
It was tempting to headline this entry with the provocative notion Friedman floated that perhaps only a Saddam was capable of holding Iraq's fractious components together. But Friedman was by no means endorsing Saddam's despotic rule, musing rather whether Saddam was a cause or an effect. As Friedman put it:
"Is Iraq the way Iraq is because Saddam Hussein was the way Saddam Hussein was or was Saddam Hussein the way Saddam Hussein was because Iraq was the way Iraq is - a congenitally-divided country that could only be held together by an iron fist? We never had the definitive answer to that question but I think we're going to real soon."
Friedman noted that "Shiites have resisted all [previous] provocations but this attack on the Golden Dome Mosque is the straw that broke the camel's back and has brought Iraq to the edge. One of two things is going to happen: Iraqis are going to stare into this abyss and pull back or I'm afraid they're going to fall into this abyss and we're going to know real soon if anything is salvageable."
Friedman's response to Gibson's query as to who would want to bomb the mosque was fascinating, as it suggested that not only has Iraq become the climactic battleground of the war against terrorism and Al-Qaeda, but that the current wave of violence may reflect Al-Qaeda's perception that it is losing that battle.
Friedman:
"People have often asked why has there been no terrorism in the United States since 9/11 and my answer to them is my answer to you. I believe Al Qaeda . . . their main focus right now is to defeat us in the very heart of their world. Their focus right now is on defeating us in Iraq. After all, they want to control the Middle East. They're not interested in controlling Las Vegas.
"They know if they defeat America in the heart of their world, the resonance that will have is enormous. In contrast, if we defeat them in the heart of their world in collaboration with other arabs and Muslims by putting together some kind of decent democracy there, it will be a terrible defeat. So what you're seeing is in many way acts of unspeakable violence. I mean, going into one of the most prominent Shiite shrines, the reason they're doing it is -- that in some ways they're losing. The closer we get to producing a decent outcome there, the crazier our opponents are going to get because they know if they lose it's strategic."
Will those in the center-left of our political spectrum heed Friedman's nuanced, somewhat sanguine message, or will we hear nothing but more of the "Iraq is a disaster" drumbeat from the Democratic political establishment?
GMA/NewsBusters ping to Today show ping list.
'"Is Iraq the way Iraq is because Saddam Hussein was the way Saddam Hussein was or was Saddam Hussein the way Saddam Hussein was because Iraq was the way Iraq is - a congenitally-divided country that could only be held together by an iron fist?"'
One should never take a writer who asks the reader questions seriously.
Yes it will be.
I think I know the answer to that question and so does Howard Dean. And what Howard Dean knows the MSM knows. It will be the drumbeat path for sure.
"One should never take a writer who asks the reader questions seriously."
Sorry, but I believe writers who ask questions are precisely the ones we should listen to. And regardless of whether you're a Republican or Democrat, Tom Friedman is a writer worth taking very seriously.
Finally!!
Geez, it only took you 4 years to get it. Better late than never, I guess?
Friedman does this only to cover for Hillary & Kerry and their vote for intervention... he only pimps the top DNC whores.
A defeat for Al Qeada in Iraq is a defeat for Democrats in the US so their reaction will mirror the escalating and ever more desperate attacks of Al Qeada. Stand by for ever escalating rhetoric from Dean and Gore and Kerry and Hitlery and Teddy etc.
Great piece, GL.
p.
I think we all know the answer to that one
Many thanks, Paul. Not one of my red-meat-engine-starters, but I did find Friedman's take interesting and noteworthy. Glad you enjoyed it.
Merely a rhetorical question for sure.
IOW:
- Our opponents are not in solidarity with Muslims in general so much as they are rule-or-ruin fascists. And,
- Bush's move into Iraq was not a "diversion" from getting ben Laden but a strategic move against al Qaeda.
Excellent observations, IMO.
All Friedman is saying as what the Administration and Military have been saying for 3 years. He just nuanced it in order to save face.
It sounds like an act of desperation. They are losing so they see no harm in kicking over the table to shake things up.
To put it simply, Friedman is an a**. I don't care how many Pulitzers he has. The only time he's right is when he restates the blindingly obvious.
So, it appears, Freidman thinks President Bush's strategery is working (finally he sees). Fight them over there, instead of over here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.