Friedman: Let's Talk About Iraq

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/opinion/15friedman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print

Ever since Iraq's remarkable election, the country has been descending deeper and deeper into violence. But no one in Washington wants to talk about it. Conservatives don't want to talk about it because, with a few exceptions, they think their job is just to applaud whatever the Bush team does. Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down don't want the Bush team to succeed. As a result, Iraq is drifting sideways and the whole burden is being carried by our military. The rest of the country has gone shopping, which seems to suit Karl Rove just fine.

Well, we need to talk about Iraq. This is no time to give up - this is still winnable - but it is time to ask: What is our strategy? This question is urgent because Iraq is inching toward a dangerous tipping point - the point where the key communities begin to invest more energy in preparing their own militias for a scramble for power - when everything falls apart, rather than investing their energies in making the hard compromises within and between their communities to build a unified, democratizing Iraq.

Our core problem in Iraq remains Donald Rumsfeld's disastrous decision - endorsed by President Bush - to invade Iraq on the cheap. From the day the looting started, it has been obvious that we did not have enough troops there. We have never fully controlled the terrain. Almost every problem we face in Iraq today - the rise of ethnic militias, the weakness of the economy, the shortages of gas and electricity, the kidnappings, the flight of middle-class professionals - flows from not having gone into Iraq with the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force.

Yes, yes, I know we are training Iraqi soldiers by the battalions, but I don't think this is the key. Who is training the insurgent-fascists? Nobody. And yet they are doing daily damage to U.S. and Iraqi forces. Training is overrated, in my book. Where you have motivated officers and soldiers, you have an army punching above its weight. Where you don't have motivated officers and soldiers, you have an army punching a clock.

[Cha]

1. Fuck you tommy boy

friedman and the gravy train you rode in on.

You pushed an illegal war based on LIES>..ya got blood on your hands, asshole.

[bemildred]

5. Mega-dittos to that Z.

:applause::applause::applause::applause:

[firefox]

6. You gotta create a more realistic fantasy than that

insurgent fascists- defn. 1. A term created by a government propaganda machine and distributed to phony journalist in order to bludgeon people with lies in hopes of keeping their own fascist illusion alive.


2. A nonsensical term in a continual stream of propaganda to tire the mind of the average working man supported by an endless use of the term insurgent on the entertainment the television media calls news.

3. A term for irrelevant discourse on reality to turn things completely on their head.

4. A term for an Iraqi patriot in defense of their occupied country with meager weapons against the largest budget of any government program on earth determined to steal their resources and project military power on the opposite side of the world.

[applegrove]

2. I think Liberals just want the killing to stop and don't quite believe

that staying in Iraq - even after an Iraqi army is created - will stop the insurgents. Or anti-American movements from gaining strength and numbers by continued presence.

Neocons have already failed. They failed in the 1980s to promote democracy. They failed in this war to plan. Both of these things are causing the insurgency. Neocons fail. I think that many liberals would like to see the Iraqis give it a go for once.

[applegrove]

3. Were are talking about Iraq.

[acmavm]

4. By Tom old boy. You did enlist, didn't you? I mean, if it's still winnable

I think you better scurry your little rat ass over there and do your part. And if you would happen to die, well then we all know that you won't regret it in your last moments. It's not like you're another coward who never served but has not trouble with the thought of other people's kids dying for a war built on a crime made possible with lies.

[oblivious]

24. Yes Tom, show us you mean it. Walk the walk. Boots on the ground.

You'll still have time to scribble those shitty columns and email them to the Times, so there'll be no loss of income.

Do it, Tom. Do it. Show the world you're not just bluster.

[Memekiller]

7. Friedman wants US to fail in Iraq

My letter to Friedman:

There have been so many vile and dispicable things said about non-Republicans, I guess I shouldn't be surprised any more. We have been called traitors, America haters and everything in between, yet just when you think the national discourse has fallen as low as it can go, Friedman and the New York Times prove they can stoop a little lower. Now those who were right about this war find themselves falsely accused by Friedman of wanting America to fail in Iraq. Shame on you. SHAME.

WE are not afraid to talk about this war. We have done everything to ensure it was a success. We warned Bush to bring more soldiers. We warned him to have a plan for an insurgency. We warned him not to turn his attention from the people who attacked us. We ARE talking about it. We have been talking about it from the beginning TRYING to make this a success, PRAYING we can turn this thing around. Time after time, from WMD to Mission Accomplished, Bush and his cheerleaders (i.e. Friedman) have been proven wrong about this war, and we have been proven right. And then we are accused of wanting failure?

You want to hear us talk about Iraq? Stop shutting us out of your paper! You ignore our pleas, then accuse us of keeping silent? Have you no sense of decency at all?

Make no mistake about it, if our men and women end up dying in vein, their blood is on your hands, not ours. Let us know when YOU'RE ready to talk about this war.

[bemildred]

8. Not bad.

:thumbsup:

[cybildisobedience]

17. excellent letter

I'm sure it will never see the op ed pages of the NYT since it is brutally truthful, but great job articulating the situation -- they didn't want to hear us as they cheerleaded for this war. Now it's OUR fault?

[amandabeech]

20. I have a small correction, if you haven't caught it yourself.

That's "dying in vain," not "dying in vein." "Vein" is a blood vessel or other flow channel. "Vain" is everything else.

End of Miss Amanda's homonym lesson.

[BlueEyedSon]

9. "This is no time to give up - this (Iraq) is still winnable "

As if "winning" was ever the goal. You're a stupid, gullible fuck, Friedman.

[IndianaGreen]

28. "this is still winnable"

The issue is not whether this is winnable or not (it isn't), the issue is whether we should win a war in which we were the clear aggressor.

Our troops should come home at once! We should be paying reparations and compensation to Iraq. Those responsible for this war should be prosecuted.

And POS like Tom Friedman, who used their influence with the public to sell this war, should be fired!

[BlueEyedSon]

10. "Double the American boots on the ground"

Good luck!

Anyway,does he really think we're going to leave? Is his head so far up his butt that he is unaware of the 4 to 14 permanent military bases and the billion-dollar embassy?

[Bread and Circus]

11. "Double the American boots on the ground "

What kind of fantasy land does he live in?

[ikojo]

12. A land where members of his privileged class are

not called upon to make any sacrifices, either financially or by way of their kids and other loved ones. I am sure Tom Friedman does not know anyone PERSONALLY who is in the current military. The higher up the class system one goes in this country the less likely it is that a relative is currently serving in the military...

I am working class:
I have a niece in the marines
My brother was career army and served in the first Gulf War

[kliljedahl]

13. I thought this line was telling

Rumsfeld Doctrine - "Just enough troops to lose."

Maybe that could become a new meme.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Wright Patman]

14. Does this not describe his beloved Israel?

"(A) totally insecure environment, where you can feel safe only with your own tribe."

So what's new about this, Tom? Didn't you notice the huge fence they've been building to wall themselves off from the "occupied territories" on your trips there?

It's not surprising to see the fawning remarks toward the wonderful Kurds either.

I finally figured out after the first Gulf War when William Safire kept writing column after column for partitioning out "Kurdistan" and imploring Old Man Bush to recognize it as a sovereign state that the Kurds are trustworthy enough toward Tel Aviv's aims that they can be classified as honorary Israelis.

Safire was probably already clued in back then on the plan for the newly-independent Kurdistan to resurrect the Mosul-to-Haifa oil pipeline which is in the news again today.

[oblivious]

25. That article proves the Iraqi govt is a sham. The DOD makes the decisions

U.S. checking possibility of pumping oil from northern Iraq to Haifa, via Jordan
By Amiram Cohen

The United States has asked Israel to check the possibility of pumping oil from Iraq to the oil refineries in Haifa. The request came in a telegram last week from a senior Pentagon official to a top Foreign Ministry official in Jerusalem...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=332835&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y


If there really were an independent democratic government in Iraq, why wouldn't it make the request? Why would a foreign military official make it?

Proof. As if we needed any.

[KoKo]

15. "Iraq is still winnable." Yeah, like a Football game? NASCAR race...

What's with the "sport" analogies, idiot Tom Friedman darling to his readers who hang on his every word like the idiots who hang on every Heritage Foundation utterance from George Will.

Everytime Freidman writes an article it's picked up all over the country by newspapers and quoted on C-Span and by the talking heads and quoted as if he's the Guru who has total wisdom about Middle East policy.

The man seems unhinged...The guilt over his "writing us into Iraq" must be getting to him. :puke:

[quiet.american]

16. What an ass-clown. "Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq"!!?!!!

Iraq is all we talk about, almost 24/7.

We talk about the lack of material support from this administration for the troops over there.

We talk about the civilian casualties.

We talk about the corruption of Halliburton and the rest of Dick's gang.

We talk about the dynamics of the new Iraqi government.

We talk about the lack of an exit strategy.

We talk about bringing the troops home.

We talk about the brutal torture.

We talk about every aspect of Iraq.

Friedman is an ass-clown, bar none. How did this guy ever get a Pulitzer Prize?

[GreenArrow]

18. "double the US boots on the ground"

Persuading the "liberals" to accept the policy. Friedman is the highbrow liberal version of Rush Limbaugh.

[Julius Civitatus]

19. Friedman is a scumbag and a liar

Let's do some tally here:

• WE were right ALL ALONG and warned about this mess in Iraq
  
  
• Neocon Tom was wrong about Iraq and still cheer-leads this failed effort as an idealistic crusade to bring a neocon fantasy regime to the middle east.
  
  
• We have been SHUT OUT of the mainstream media, called "traitors" and "unpatriotic" because we could see the neocon gang driving this one off a cliff. We never stopped talking about Iraq, but unfortunately the MSM will only put on voices that cheerlead this neocon war.
  
  
• Neocon Tom has the gall to tell us that we "don't want to talk about Iraq," when people like him have made sure our side of the discourse is shut out and ridiculed.
  
  And the motherfucker still has the balls to suggest we are all a bunch of traitors that want to lose this war.

FUCK YOU, asshole!

[Memekiller]

21. ...and the horse Friedman rode in on.

I guess I can't blame Friedman for not wanting to swallow his pride and admit, yet again, that we were right and he was wrong about the realities of Iraq. After stepping in every pile of dog doo we warned him about five miles back, Friedman now finds himself neck deep in the cesspool of his own making, saying there's time to turn around before the waterline reaches our lips as he carries Bush on his back, screaming "Onward!"

Easier to lash out at us and claim we hope he drowns in his own crap than admit we were right all along when we warned him where this path would lead. Better to claim that he is the only one brave enough to talk about the lack of soldiers despite the fact that we on the left have been talking about the lack of troops before we even invaded Iraq. Better to say we are hoping for failure than admit we have been forced to address this problem underground at places like Dailykos.com because our concerns have been shut out of his paper of record.

Yet again, Friedman is forced to admit our predicaments four months too late and attacks the people who raised them four months too early, as he makes excuses for the ones who would rather not ever talk about our predicament at all. Yet again he props up the ones who got us here as he vilifies the ones who warned him from the beginning that this is where he'd end up if he didn't change course. "Onward!" Bush screams and onward Friedman goes, waxing about how there's still time to turn around, if only we'd listen to him and not those of us on shore.

Like I said, I can't blame him. No doubt he's considering his place in history, and looking back at the naivete of his past columns, no doubt he has glimpsed the uncomfortable fact that things have played out exactly as his harshest critics had warned him they would.

Here's this critic's next prediction: Bush won't do anything to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq. It would cost him politically, and Bush will never do anything that costs him politically, even when a war is at stake. He would rather let our army hemmorrage and bleed than risk alienating his base. That's right, Tom. Bush would rather we lose. And you're going to help him.

Don't say we didn't warn you -- again. Can't wait to hear the insults you throw at us when you're forced to admit it.

[tashidelek]

22. RIP Tom

Couldn't happen to a "nicer" guy....

at least one who is willing to have OTHER people suffer the consequences of your opinions....


or are they REALLY YOUR opinions??

Rest well.

[aneerkoinos]

23. Winnable?

It never was and never will be.

For the simple reason that it was started and is run by self-deceiving clowns with most unpure motivations.

This totally unpure war is destroying US by destroying the moral and motivation of it's officers and soldiers, and even more importantly by bringing closer the imminent bankrupty of debt-driven US economy. For which I'm sort of glad, because it unavoidable and necessary tragedy, just like the fall of Soviet Empire was.

[Skittles]

26. LET'S TALK ABOUT REPUBLICAN WHORES

JAYSUS I can't take these sanctimonious bush bootlicking F***S whining about the CLUSTERF*** IN IRAQ. :puke:

[Blue_Tires]

27. yecch.....go kill yourself, tom n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

29. Friedman is still hanging on to his fantasy of a neoliberal liberation

It's just as much horsepucky today as it was two and a half years ago when he was shrilling for the invasion months ahead of it.

Friedman has this very strange idea that neoliberal policies benefit poor people in developing nations, when in fact they are just crooked schemes to send wealth and resources north and debt south. That is why where Latin Americans voters (or, in the recent case of Bolivia, a mobilized population) have had an opportunity to speak, they have rejected neoliberalism in favor of economic nationalism. They know what neoliberalism means. It means what happened to Argentina could happen to anyone.

Since people in developing nations can no longer be persuaded to accept neoliberalism, force is now the accepted method. It wouldn't have worked even if Bush had sent in an adequate number of troops.

While I agree with Friedman that there are many elements about the insurgency that a progressive American cannot embrace, the reason why Iraq's army is just "punching a clock" instead of punching the insurgents is because the real scheme is to transfer Iraq's wealth to transnational corporations and screw the Iraqi people. Bush calls this "democracy", but most of us in the west call it "colonialism" and the Iraqis know the difference, too. They're not going to stand by and let foreigners expropriate their mineral rights and privatize their economy.

It is too late. It was too late two years ago.

[wiggs]

30. Wrong.

"Almost every problem we face in Iraq today - the rise of ethnic militias, the weakness of the economy, the shortages of gas and electricity, the kidnappings, the flight of middle-class professionals - flows from not having gone into Iraq with the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force."

No. So wrong that I wonder if the point of the piece is to shift blame to tactics rather than policy.

Almost every problem we face in Iraq today is because we illegally invaded a country we didn't understand in order to spread empire and profit from it. Our intentions were never good and Iraqis know this.

Ritter: you will create 20 million insurgents if you invade Iraq

President of Epypt: you will create 100 Osama bin Ladens if you invade Iraq

Hussein: American will leave Iraq in body bags, unable to handle the bloodshed

Yes. The tactics were bad...truly incompetent, assuming that the aim of the administration was stability and democracy (debatable). BUT THE POLICY OF GOING IN THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE MAY GO DOWN AS ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS, OBSCENE BLUNDERS IN AMERICAN HISTORY.

Why an intelligent man like Friedman misses the point as often as he does raises suspicion. So I echo your sentiments, zidzi.

[Beetwasher]

31. Fuckhead Friedman Questions LIBERALS Motives But NOT Bush's!!!!

What a complete and utter douchebag.

So, liberals who criticize the war and the run up to it want Bush to fail? Friedman's a fucking mind reader and can question Liberal's motives and their real reasons for doing things, even though Liberals were CORRECT over and over and over! And yet, Bush who's actions tell us EVERYTHING we need to know about HIS TRUE motives, and it's all flagrantly out there for everyone to see,gets a free pass from Friedman who thinks Bush's heart is in the right place and only has true and honorable motives.

There are no words to describe the loathing I have for Friedman. He's obviously a conscious propogandists. There's no way he can be that fucking oblivious. Friedman is a traitor, plain and simple and he's peddling hateful filth.

[Dervill Crow]

32. What horse sh*t.

"Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down don't want the Bush team to succeed."

I've talked about Iraq until I'm blue in the face, as the saying goes. The only failure I've wished on the "Bush team" is their bid for the White House.