Thomas Friedman (The New York Times): No Mullah Left Behind

[Jack Rabbit]

From The New York Times
Dated Sunday February 13

No Mullah Left Behind
By Thomas Friedman

The Wall Street Journal ran a very, very alarming article from Iran on its front page last Tuesday. The article explained how the mullahs in Tehran - who are now swimming in cash thanks to soaring oil prices - rather than begging foreign investors to come into Iran, are now shunning some of them. The article related how a Turkish mobile-phone operator, which had signed a deal with the Iranian government to launch Iran's first privately owned cellphone network, had the contract frozen by the mullahs in the Iranian Parliament because they were worried it might help the Turks and their foreign partners spy on Iran.

The Journal quoted Ali Ansari, an Iran specialist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland, as saying that for 10 years analysts had been writing about Iran's need for economic reform. "In actual fact, the scenario is worse now," said Mr. Ansari. "They have all this money with the high oil price, and they don't need to do anything about reforming the economy." Indeed, The Journal added, the conservative mullahs are feeling even more emboldened to argue that with high oil prices, Iran doesn't need Western investment capital and should feel "free to pursue its nuclear power program without interference."

This is a perfect example of the Bush energy policy at work, and the Bush energy policy is: "No Mullah Left Behind."

By adamantly refusing to do anything to improve energy conservation in America, or to phase in a $1-a-gallon gasoline tax on American drivers, or to demand increased mileage from Detroit's automakers, or to develop a crash program for renewable sources of energy, the Bush team is - as others have noted - financing both sides of the war on terrorism. We are financing the U.S. armed forces with our tax dollars, and, through our profligate use of energy, we are generating huge windfall profits for Saudi Arabia, Iran and Sudan, where the cash is used to insulate the regimes from any pressure to open up their economies, liberate their women or modernize their schools, and where it ends up instead financing madrassas, mosques and militants fundamentally opposed to the progressive, pluralistic agenda America is trying to promote. Now how smart is that?

Read more.

I have problems with Friedman as a rule, but this time he's got something worth reading.

[Skink]

1. How come Mullahs can invest....

And I start my Roth Ira in 2000. That's right down down down. And even further down.:hurts:

[imenja]

2. Does anyone else resent Tom Friedman?

Tom Friedman's support of the Iraq colors my perception of everything he says. I will never forgive him. He used all of his influence to promote the war in Iraq and now is somehow surprised that Bush has bungled the occupation? WTF did he expect! His criticisms of Bush energy and middle east policies strike me as profoundly hypocritical given his role in supporting their illegal intervention. As far as I'm concerned, he bears some of the responsibility for the rise of Mullahs in Iraq.
The point he raises above is a good one, but it's also something any thinking critic of this administration has known and said for at least two years.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

3. That's how I feel! Fraudman needs to shut up!

[Colorado Blue]

7. Friedman ticks me off about Iraq BUT he has some very

strong ideas about the environment vs. the oil industry. He really does have something say if you can forgive him for his misguided
ideas on the war. He wrote a piece in the NY Times recently about his idea, calls it "Geo Greens". Made sense!

[Coastie for Truth]

19. I am a follower of Amory Lovins and Stan Ovshinsky

and my mind was warped by too much thermodynamics and physical chemistry -- and in my biased, warped opinion -- Friedman is 100% right on "geo green" and on our petro-administration.

[98geoduck]

4. Why is he distancing himself from this administration? Hmmmm.

[Benhurst]

5. Maybe he'll start a stampede of rats from the sinking ship of state. NT

[98geoduck]

6. I think were starting to see the rats squirming.

[rodeodance]

8. "The president's priorities are totally nuts."---yet, right on the button

[tinfoilinfor2005]

16. I must be confused; please clear this up for me...

Wasn't it Friedman who said "You can't go to war on the wings of a lie" right before we invaded Iraq? This saying has stuck in my mind from day one, and I always attributed it to Friedman.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. He could have said that as a critique of Bush

I was in the habit at that time of excoriating Friedman in this and other forums for his advocacy of the invasion. Friedman's case seemed particularly curious to me because on the one hand he supported what Bush was doing (invading Iraq), but on the other he warned that it could turn out badly because Bush was doing it for the wrong reasons and didn't seem to have a plan for problems that would arise after the invasion.

I could at least agree with him that it would turn out badly for the reasons he stated. To me, Friedman's logic should have led him to oppose the invasion. After all, Bush was invading Iraq for the reasons he wanted to invade -- reasons he and his aides dare not state publicly -- not the reasons Friedman wanted to invade, and Bush would have had a bad plan (or no real plan) for what do afterward, regardless of whether Friedman's ideas were any good or not (and I had my doubts about those, too).

Friedman, unlike the neoconservatives, really wanted to bring democracy to Iraq. Furthermore, unlike your humble servant, he thought (and seems to still think) that democracy is something that can be transferred from one culture to another through military occupation following a war that had no other purpose. I don't agree with him on that last point. If I did, I'd be more inspired than horrified at Bush's inaugural address last month.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

20. Thanks for the explanation. I read him from time to time,

but not religiously, so all that had really stuck in my memory was that line. However, I did get the impression at other times that he is pro democracy in the middle east. I assume that is because of his Jewish roots and the desire to see peace and sanity in that area. But I agree, I don't believe that the end justifies the means in this instance. I just can't see it working through any means, frankly.

[imenja]

21. neo-cons do want to bring democracy to Iraq

I don't see a reason to dispute their stated ideology. One of the key differences between Friedman and the neo-cons--and there are many--is that Friedman does not advocate the unbridled expansion of American power. The neo-cons insist on a muscular use of American power to remake the world in our own image, and our own limited version of democracy is part of that. What makes Bush so dangerous, in my view, is that he actually believes this. Previous administrations have been far more pragmatic in their views of ideas like spreading democracy. The peril of the Bush White House is that ideology has overtaken realistic limits of American power to the point where they have endangered our national security.

[Jack Rabbit]

22. Good critique, but . . .

I have always maintained that Bush and the neocons knew that Saddam was a paper tiger and that the only thing wrong with the intelligence provided to them is that it didn't support their case for war. They lied to the entire world and lied deliberately.

Their motivation was colonial piracy, not nation building. Consequently, I dispute their stated ideology, even granting that their idea of democracy is far more limited than mine.

[imenja]

23. I agree with what you say about motives for the Iraq war

I believe the fundamental purpose of the Iraq war is to expand the American empire. But for them, capitalist democracy is part of that. I don't mean to say their motivations for invading Iraq were in any way altruistic, but I believe them when they say they see the Iraq war as initiating a chain reaction of democratization. For them, democracy means corporate capitalism and pro-US policies legitimated through the ritual of elections. It seems pretty clear the Iraq invasion has had the opposite effect, spawning increased recruits to Islamic terrorist organizations and creating an association between internal democratic reform movements and American imperialism. Evidence, however, means nothing to this White House. They interpret the world through their own distorted prism. As Walter Russel Meade noted on PBS' "The News Hour," the Bush administration doesn't see the Iraq war as a failure. As a result, the prospect of invading Iran is not terrifying to them as it is to the rest of us. Their ability to create an alternate reality is terribly dangerous because it allows them to justify any action and reinterpret disastrous policies as successful.

[Jack Rabbit]

18. You bet I do. However . . .

There is an old Buddhist saying that one should believe the truth, not the person telling it.

A corollary to that might be that one should listen to wisdom, not the fool spouting it.

[cap]

9. Osama wanted oil prices around $50/barrel

eom

[Coastie for Truth]

14. A "consistent" $50/bbl plus or minus

is the honest to God, Excel and Lotus 123 break even point for a Prius to be cost saving. (I have a Prius - but, honestly, it's a political statement and a vindication of some bull in my PhD thesis).

It is also the break even point for a lot of alternatives (biomass, ethanol, blends, etc.) to be cost saving.

[Wright Patman]

10. This $1 per gallon tax hike

Friedman speaks of from time to time would be suicidal for whichever party enacted it, so I say "Go for it, KKKarl!"

But he won't, because, as a political "genius," he knows what I just said is true.

Friedman also must know that a petro-based administration would not want to kill off its chief product either. So he is just bloviating.

[Jack Rabbit]

11. The Bushies won't go for it because they are the oil men's government

Friedman also must know that a petro-based administration would not want to kill off its chief product either. So he is just bloviating.

This administration is dedicated to the heavy use of petroleum by American consumers. A $1-a-gallon is not part of their agenda. In its place one may expect people like Cheney to diss the very idea of conservation:

Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.

[Coastie for Truth]

12. Energy Policy for Peace In the Region Is My Personal Obsession

-I admit it.

We will not see peace in the region until we balance our energy equation, and put our energy disorderly house into order.

Money may not be the root of all evil -- but energy exploitation of Arab peoples is the deepest root of the evils.

I personally think that scientists like Lovins and Ovshinsky should get the Nobel peace Prize for their alternative and renewable energy work.

Sorry for the "dupe" - I am out here on Pacific Standard time in the bluest region of the bluest state --

dupe: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=86668&mesg_id=86668&page=

[Coastie for Truth]

13. DUPE - sorry

Sorry for the "dupe" - I am out here on Pacific Standard time in the bluest region of the bluest state --

dupe:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=86668&mesg_id=86668&page=

[Spiffarino]

15. Kicked and nominated

:kick:

And thanks to Coastie for helping me find this thread. :toast:

[dameocrat]

24. I am skeptical of his altruism

He probably also wants to get Hugo Chavez who is much farther from the Mullahs than George Bush. His whole purpose in life is to find progressive excuses for Neocon imperialism. He hasn't changed. If we hadn't invaded Iraq the oil prices wouldn't be so high and the mullahs would be facing judgment from there own people. The Iraq war empowered them enormously and he fucking knows it. Don't fall for it Jack Rabbit. He is a neocon down deep and still has no grasp of reality.

[Jack Rabbit]

25. You are talking about Friedman as if he is running for office

Last time I checked, he wasn't.

I think we can afford to critique what Friedman says without impugning his motives. I've called him naive, occasionally dumb, often wrong, but never dishonest. I've said he's got to be either a liar or a fool, but never really seriously considered the former. He has no motive to be dishonest. He knows what he's going to be doing this time next year: writing a twice-a-week column for The New York Times, regardless of whether his ideas of what's good for the Middle East pan out or not.

Yes, I agree that much of the power of the mullahs is a consequence of foreign policy blunders that Mr. Friedman supported and continues to support. Nevertheless, he's never quite been in the neocon's camp. Here, he speaks of America's problem with the Middle East as being related to our thirst for oil. Lessen that dependence on oil and we lessen our need to enmesh ourselves with Middle Eastern politics. I certainly don't disagree with that much, even if I disagree with his support for neoliberal trade policies and laugh at his tendency to support his argument with purely anecdotal evidence.

[dameocrat]

27. I impune his motives sorry

Bottom line is he always supports the neocon agenda for progressive reasons, and fails to support the liberal one. He is a propagandist for them, who has been carefully crafted to fool liberals into supporting neocon imperialism. He knows damn well Bush will never accomplish any of his claimed agenda and everyone else should too. Whether Biden offers a more constructive vision is irrelevant in light of the piss poor chance Bush will adopt it.

[umtalal]

26. I have no use for Friedman. He is a simpleton w/ a good pen.

[MISSDem]

28. I value Tom Friedman's opinion, always. He has

lived in the middle East and studied it for years and knows much more about that culture than all of us sitting here in our cubies or homes talking about it. He has never remotely been a conservative.

[Cocoa]

29. useless posturing

Friedman is just shoring up his "liberal" credentials, which he's been doing a lot of lately, since his war blew up in his face.

These proposals and criticisms are not serious and they are no threat to Friedman's masters.