Friedman: Long Spoon Diplomacy

[Wetzelbill]

Long Spoon Diplomacy
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: October 9, 2003

There is an old proverb that says, "If you're going to sup with the devil, use a long spoon." Does the White House pantry have any long spoons? I ask because if President Bush really wants to achieve his objectives in Iraq, he may have to sup a little with Yasir Arafat, the Iranian leader Ali Khamenei and Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad.

First, let me state my own bias: Iraq is the whole ballgame. If we can produce a reasonably decent, constitutionally grounded Iraqi government, good things will happen all around the Middle East. If Iraq turns into a quagmire, it will be a disaster for U.S. interests all around the world. So, for me, everything should be focused on getting Iraq on the right path.

Which is why we may need to let some of the Axis of Evil out on parole — or at least out on work-release. We can't allow the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to spread into a Israeli-Syrian-Shiite-Hezbollah conflict. It would greatly complicate the ability of Iraqis to work openly with us and would greatly enhance the ability of anti-U.S. forces in Iraq to mobilize militants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/09/opinion/09FRIE.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fThomas%20L%20Friedman

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Ok is it me or is the administration

using friedman to float policy?

There is a balloon, lets see how it plays

[joeybee12]

2. He's a friggin' nutcase!

This column is not as offensive as those in the past, however, the idea that democracy will just blossom in the Middle East is the insensible rantings of a crazed man.

I guess you don't need any common sense to be a pundit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. He has sold his soul

That is why I say, he is now being used to float
policy balloons.

And at one point I respected him.

Though he did deal well wiht why they hate us
in the Discovery Channel special, but the level
of disconect between that special and his columns
is just plain out amazing

[Wetzelbill]

5. me thinks Ol' Tom

spends too much time trying to be optimistic instead of being frank and candid. It makes him sound delusional when he really isn't. Well, usually isn't. He does come up with some classic what-the-fuck type columns, that's for sure.

[mistertrickster]

4. I liked this paragraph the best . . .

"As for the Syrians, they got the message from the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but maybe too much so. They are so convinced they are next on the Bush hit parade that they have been easing the entry of anti-U.S. guerrillas into Iraq — because the more preoccupied the U.S. is there, the less likely it is to invade Syria."

Uh duh, isn't that what we were warning about -- screaming at the top of our lungs in fact -- BEFORE the invasion?

It's like "Don't drive over the cliff!" and then in mid-air the driver says, "maybe we shouldn't have driven over that cliff."

Now we get to watch that slow descent into an "honorable end" just like Vietnam . . .

[KG]

6. more droppings from the chicken hawk.

:puke:

[Jack Rabbit]

7. The best and the worst of Friedman are on display here

Friedman's comments on the Iraq quagmire have been those of a journalistic quack since before the invasion. He found what he thought were noble reasons for the invasion and then forgot that the real reasons for the war were whatever His Illegitimacy thought they were. Friedman said it was bout bringing democracy to Iraq; as far as Bush was concerned, it was about making his cronies more money.

However, Friedman's comments on the Isreali/Palestinian conflict are often worth the read. Yes, whether the Isrealis or anybody else likes him or not, Arafat is the legitimate leader of Palestine. The best the Isrealis can do is deal with his designated PM. Also, whether the Palestinian leadership likes it or not, making peace with Isreal means cracking down on Hamas and IJ. No government of any state, or even a quasi-state like Palestine, can allow loose cannons to determine her policy. Whether it has been done by accident or design, it is time to tell Shiekh Yassin and his ilk that they have no right to usurp the PA's authority to make war and peace.

Friedman is advancing more realistic and better options here than he advanced in the Iraq war. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that Mr. Bush has any more interest in making peace with Syria and Iran than he had in leaving Saddam be, as distasteful as many might have found that. Bush will do what he believes is best for Exxon and Halliburton, not for the world or for America.

[Cocoa]

8. Friedman does this a lot

gives advice that is reasonable, but which he knows Bush is not going to take.

Makes his support of Bush sound conditional, but in fact Friedman will continue to support Bush, even though Bush will definitely not do any of these things.

[Saudade]

9. Friedman

I think that Tom Friedman is pathetic in this sense:

With all of his completely wish-washy opinions, he has made himself irrelevant in a world where the powers he apologizes for (Bush, Israel, with minor, carefully drafted criticisms) see things in terms of "us v. them."

Friedman's drivel about a "kinder, gentler" Israel must make Sharon laugh, while the left responds with contempt, and his crap about how Bush's Iraq war will prove to be worthwhile when "democracy is established in Iraq," is just laughable.

Friedman wants to be taken seriously ("liked")by both sides in the debate, but ends up just looking foolish.

[KG]

10. tom, take that 'long spoon' and shove it up your butt.

:grr:

[lanlady]

11. Friedman--the ultimate Ivory Tower intellectual

why this torn-from-life clown merits an NYT column is beyond me.

[teryang]

12. I usually don't comment on Friedman

But I find this coloumn especially outrageous.

As usual he admitted the truth once at the outset:

<But every military strategy Ariel Sharon has tried has failed.>

This is his false flag strategy. He tries to earn credibility. He knows his credibility and bias is in the untrustworthy category.

Friedman wanted war and occupation in Iraq. He was the big advocate of a costly and failed policy. That's his bias. He was one of the rose petal people. He repeats the utopian neo con propaganda mantra about the Iraq strategy.

Iraq won't "turn into a quagmire," it is a quagmire due to our policies and invasion. The war there is still ongoing. Opportunities in which a sovereign and stable Iraq is friendly to our belligerent regime are pie in sky wishful thinking and any semblance thereto are will be virtual realities projected onto gullible taxpayers and voters by people such as Friedman. The projection now is a potemkin village viewed from the Centcom briefing room or a helocopter gunship only for pliable journalists who want to keep their pens. The projection is interrupted by gunfire, explosions, and death every day on the ground.

It's very similar to the interminable security situation in Lebanon and Israel. It is a result of the who cares what you think of the extremist far right dominating both countries. Should Iraq somehow ever regain its sovereignty in spite of American policy to deny it, they would of necessity be opposed to American Israeli policies. I hate to admit it but the only future for Iraq which would remotely favor desired outcomes by the neocons is something like Egypt. A permanent dependency ruled by a military junta and a secret police in which there is no freedom, democracy or ability to exercise an independent foreign policy.

He is also wrong about Iran. Iran has Russian backing for its nuclear power efforts and is not going to be diverted by external foreign influences and threats, now that it has a Russian commitment. Should reforms occur this will not result in a favorable view of the belligerent occupying Army next door nor the threats to bomb it by Israel.

As far as the entire region from the Levant to the Persian gulf becoming engulfed in chaos, that would be the result of any attempt to invade or have a regime change in Syria. The fact that the Americans have significantly increased the area engrossed in chaos is the result of expert exhortations of those such as Friedman.

[bemildred]

13. Well said.

I am skeptical they can manage even an Egypt-like
solution in Iraq. Egypt has a natural unity that Iraq
does not, and Iraq has a number of interested neighbors
who may be expected to meddle, where Egypt has not.

One wonders when we will hear about "taking the gloves
off" and "letting our brave soldiers fight to win" and
other such horseshit.