T. Friedman (finally pulls head out) "Iraq II or a Nuclear Iran?"

[Inland]

For three years and more, Tom Friedman has been writing columns about how Iraq was at a critical time but if thing were done right, the adventure would turn out right. Every month, after the administration didn't take his advice, he would write another column on how it was a critical time and no more chances for screw ups, but things in Iraq could still end up okay for Iraqis and the US.

Finally, he's come to the point where I've been for three years--there's no sense thinking up the big, high stakes plan that would require careful and nimble execution, given the gang of pirates and incompetents that would be in charge of making it work. Too bad he's only applied that lesson to the Iran invasion, so far. But the same argument can be made for pulling out of Iraq as well. Just forget what a competent, honest US government that isn't hobbled by a failed occupation and huge deficits and endangered economy could do. We are going to work with what we have. That means, as Friedman says, telling our current leaders that their driving privileges are revoked. Congress, are you listening?


*****************************
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/04/19/opinion/19friedman.html?_r=1&oref=login

Thomas L. Friedman


"Iraq II or a Nuclear Iran?"

If these are our only choices, which would you rather have: a nuclear-armed Iran or an attack on Iran's nuclear sites that is carried out and sold to the world by the Bush national security team, with Don Rumsfeld at the Pentagon's helm?

I'd rather live with a nuclear Iran.

While I know the right thing is to keep all our options open, I have zero confidence in this administration's ability to manage a complex military strike against Iran, let alone the military and diplomatic aftershocks.

As someone who believed — and still believes — in the importance of getting Iraq right, the level of incompetence that the Bush team has displayed in Iraq, and its refusal to acknowledge any mistakes or remove those who made them, make it impossible to support this administration in any offensive military action against Iran.

I look at the Bush national security officials much the way I look at drunken drivers. I just want to take away their foreign policy driver's licenses for the next three years. Sorry, boys and girls, you have to stay home now — or take a taxi. Dial 1-800-NATO-CHARGE-A-RIDE. You will not be driving alone. Not with my car.
******************

[Demeter]

1. That WAS An Amusing Column This Morning!

With Tom Friedman and Maureen Dowd blasting Rumsfeld and Bush on the same day, and the same page, I could recommend buying the NYTimes!

I think Maureen did an excellent knife job on Rumsfeld--pure artistry in her autopsy of a failure...

[Inland]

2. Dowd was good too.

I just thought Friedman finally had the thought he should have had years ago. You can't push a string, and you can't win with this incompetent group of neocons.

[On the Road]

3. Maybe This Dude Will Come Around

I never read the NYT editorials, but I am reading his book on globalization, "The World is Flat." Actually quite good, and he is able to step back from partianship enough to give both sides of an issue and doesn't seem to toe any line. His suggestions for health care, for example, come from the Progressive Policy Institute.

[wellst0nev0ter]

4. Too Little, Too Late For Flat-Earth Friedman

BTW, I think he still supports the Salvador Option, but just for Shiites and Kurds with the Sunnis "reaping the whirlwinds".

[katty]

5. Rip van Friedman finally wakes up to reality-too late

the world has changed.

[necso]

6. Sometimes when you pick up

a perspective, it is startlingly illuminating, cutting through the fog of conflicting, less-illuminating points-of-view, and showing things with great clarity. (Of course, this perspective must bear the scrutiny of close examination and verification.) And then it becomes clear that this perspective must form (part of) the basis on which you act.

And the realization that the bushies (neocons, generally) just cannot be trusted to competently use military force is one such perspective. (Afghanistan is going poorly; Iraq is a mess... Wishful thinking, unfounded beliefs, etc, are not a substitute for a good working understanding of reality.)

(In the case of militarily attacking Iran, I would suggest that the potential vulnerability of our forces in Iraq is another such perspective, but neocon military incompetence -- they are like bad-tempered, egomaniacal, domineering, mentally-ill children playing with very dangerous weapons -- is more universal.)

...

I suppose that I should point out the obvious, that this "Last Stand of the Generals" ("La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!") is a great-big vote of no-confidence in the current civilian military-leadership. And considering the timing and context, the future takes on an ominous note.