My 'Democratic' response to Thomas Friedman

[SquireJons]

I'm fairly proud of this one which I posted on his NY Times Blog.

Once again Mr. Fiedman shows his true colors.
Blue and White. Not Red White and Blue.

In my opinion, Mr. Friedman is frequently on target when he discusses American domistic issues. But when he writes on any issue about the Middle East, he reverts to an Israeli stooge. This has got to be the umpteenth article he has written promoting the virtues of the illegal invasion of Iraq. The only possible benificiary of this US action is Israel. He dismisses the critisizms without saying why. He seems to love the war but ignores the vast carnage and refuses to concider history or regional reality with all of his rah rah cheerleading. I'm not even going to comment on his appeal to Democrates (which he is decidedly not).

It is clear to me that the quagmire (yes, quagmire) that is Iraq today is not going to get better unless there is an extreemly violent combined Shia and Kurdish putdown of the Sunni uprising. The U.S. can not accomplish this ourselves because the Iraqi people now associate the U.S. military with the Israeli military, and refuse to support it, no matter what we do. In fact, the locals refer to U.S. troops as 'the jews.'

So, the only way to accomplish the supression of the Sunni uprising is to creat a new 'Shaw of Iraq' that will do U.S. bidding while we turn a blind eye to massive abuse. Hardly Freedom on the March.

Mr. Friedman also ignores the last hundred years of history and misunderstands the people of the region. It is a fact that the region is more than just Muslim Arab States. First of all, Iranians are not Arabs, but Persians. A distinction not lost on the people of the Middle East (Friedman often justifies the invasion with references to Iran). Iran is Shia though, while the vast majority of the Arab Muslim people are Sunni.

Then there is Turkey, which is secular and democratic (sort of - but far more democratic than Iraq will be). He also ignores the danger presented by Pakistan, which, if it could, would blow Israel away in a heartbeat (oh yeah, they actually can - fortunately the Pakistani's are too busy hating India to bother with Israel - yet). Weapons of mass distruction and radical hate groups are the order of the day in that country. 85% of the boys born In Pakistan today are being named Osama.

And then there is India, the worlds most populous democracy. It is moronic to think that the nation of India can not influence the politics of the Arab world. They are technilogically advanced, have a huge middle class and elect their own leaders. Oh yeah, they're right next door, just like Turkey. If a 'free and democratic' Iraq was going to be so miraculous to the Middle East, than why hasn't it happened already? Or perhaps Mr. Friedman might explore the experiences of the French and British trying to remake the Middle East less than 70 years ago(that's another discussion).

I bring all of this up to highlight the vacuous bleeting of Mr. Freidman whenever he speaks of Iraq or the Middle East in general.

And one more thing... if it weren't for the at least $60,000,000,000 (that's billion, with a B) annual subsidy Isreal gets from America, they would be no better off economically than Jordan and perhaps less stable. Israeli political and economic superiority to the Muslim states is the underpinning to all of Mr. Friedmans theories on Mid East politics.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother reading him at all.

[SquireJons]

1. This is in response to NY Times editorial, 2-10-05 n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I agree completely.

Make sure you duck when they start throwing anti-Semitism claims at you though. Heaven forbid you criticize someone for being too pro-Israeli, after all...

[centristo]

3. you won't like this response

I don't find your post anti-semitic by the way, just misguided.

Friedman is an interesting character because of the way he is so demonized by both the right and left. Not many out there that can lay that claim.

Anyway, your article misses the point Friedman is making. You cannot dwell on the "illegal war" and the "quagmire of Iraq". Yes we all know the situation there. We get it. But guess what, our troops are there. We just had an election. The world is a different place because of it. We need to be able to deal with it and make sure the election is a success or all those lives lost (on both sides) and all that money spent will be for absolutely nothing.

I also noticed plenty of odd statements in your post.

"...because the Iraqi people now associate the U.S. military with the Israeli military"

Bro, this has been going on for decades, where have you been? And much of the Arab/Muslim world makes this connection.

"Mr. Friedman also ignores the last hundred years of history and misunderstands the people of the region"

Mr. Friedman has lived in the region for some 10-20 years and is an expert on the region's ethnic groups, past wars and political climates. How long you been over there? Isn't it possible he understands the situation a little better than you do considering his credentials and contacts made over the years? I'm not saying that makes him or anyone else an automatic expert on the Middle East but it does grant him the benefit of the doubt in most cases.

And then you bring up Pakistan, India (?!) and Turkey? OK, but these have nothing to do with his article. The guy has a limited amount of space to do his commentary and Middle East politics is kind of complicated to say the least.

I also found an article about boys in Pakistan being named "Osama". It was from 1999 but yeah, it checks out.

[SquireJons]

7. Perhaps you just don't understand.

So I'll try again.

Friedman is so blinded by his love for Israel that he will say and do anything to justify the current situation, including ignoring all the facts.

So what he lived in the middle east, he still full of $#!t. I lived in D.C. for half of my life and that doesn't make me an expert on U.S. politics. (I get that from reading thousands of articles each year). The reason he is disliked by both the right and the left is because he speak out of both sides of his mouth. I don't trust him. I'd rather give Brooks a listen, because he's just as wrong, but more consistent. And he actually tries to back up what he says. That is something Friedman never does. You give Friedman the benefit of doubt. I'll read his words and point out when he's feeding us the same crap that Wolfie, Connie, Rummy, Dickieboy and * have been for the last four years.

But as to your specific criticisms of my post:

"We just had an election"

Huh? You mean in November? Yeah, the world is a different place. Just ask Lynne Stewart. But it is a far worse and dangerous place.

I guess you were referring to the Iraqi election? In that case it isn't "we." Or at least it isn't supposed to be. My point was that elections are not new in that part of the world. And nothing has changed, and nothing will as a result of this election, even if it was fair and open - which is wasn't. The point that Friedman keeps trying to make is that the shear experience of voting will transform the Middle east. That's bull. What the Iraqi people got was another caretaker government in which they will have virtually no say, run by either theocrats or plutocrats (on the CIA payroll).

Yea?

And I disagree with your statement that we were seen as agents of Israel for decades. Is that why so many Arab states joined in against Iraq in 1990? If they actually thought that, they never would have joined us. In fact, every other US president has taken pains to distance themselves from the divine mission that is Israel. Until now...

As for the neighboring democracies - it has everything to do with what Friedman keeps saying. That just seeing other Muslims voting will cause the people to demand greater political freedom. Well, they have seen it, and for decades. Guess what? Nothing has changed. Why? Because the 'western democracies' keep conspiring to take away their land and overthrow their governments. I wouldn't trust democracy if I kept getting screwed by it either (come to think of it...) So, I don't know what Tom was doing all those years on a Kibbutz, but it wasn't studying up on regional politics. At least not from anything he writes. But then again, he may know better, but the money is just too damned good to pass up.

[Igel]

4. A few comments are in order.

Not everything needs to be seen through the eyes of the I/P conflict. Alternative theories about oil, or even the seemingly impossible idea that * was just stupid, also work.

You seem to have taken Pipes' 1990 attitude towards the Palestinians as your own and transferred to the Arab Sunnis in Iraq: complete defeat is required before progress can be made (even though Pipes rejected that view in 2003, opting for hope instead of destruction). If they're all going to live in one country, having the Sunni Kurds or the Shi'a Arabs killing thousands of Sunni Arabs is a bad start. I applaud the Shi'a (apart from Sadr) for being able to take scores of casualties without responding. An all-out civil war may be necessary, but I think it's one of the least desirable outcomes (apart from a new "shah", where you oddly apply a Persian word to Iraq). The fewer Fallujahs, the better.

Turkey's taken 80 years to get where it is. Granted, it doesn't have a strong Salafist tradition like the Hanafi Arabs in Iraq, it also doesn't have entirely traditional Middle Eastern traditions (Turks are the newcomers to the area, unlike the Kurds), and it's one case for less-than-full democracy in Iraq. Call me an idealist, I don't want to assume that because they're Muslims or mostly Arab Iraqis can't set up some sort of more democratic state. Regardless of how they got to their present condition, I hope they can. But it's early in the day, my idealism wears off and I become more cynical and grumpy as the day goes on, so I might well agree with you by midnight.

Iranians are not all Persians, any more than Americans are all WASPs. Some are Turkic. And some Iranians are even Arabic speaking. http://www.ethnologue.org/show_country.asp?name=Iran is a fairly reliable (although I think they split languages a bit too much).

And while Israel's aid from the US is in excess of Egypt's $2 billion/yr, I doubt it's $58 billion *per year* greater. I think you have some total confused with the annual rate.

American troops are "jews"? Gee, that's got to be worse than "Crusader" (you know, where Europeans stood up to 500 years of Muslim aggression, and showed they were no better). And it even includes the AA, Asian, and Latino soldiers? Wow, you don't see that kind of blind bigotry and race/religious hatred every day. Sort of like the stories about Jews or Westerners using magic to steal Sudanese penises, with all the "it happened to me!" 1st person accounts and "it happened to a friend" tales. Not exactly "reality based", if you get my drift.

[SquireJons]

8. Nice Reply

But a few thoughts of my own:

"Not everything needs to be seen through the eyes of the I/P conflict. Alternative theories about oil, or even the seemingly impossible idea that * was just stupid, also work."

Looks to be a combination of all three to me. Funny how Nixon had the same plan during the 1973 oil crisis though. Seems to point to one reason being a little stronger than the others. We will be gone when the spigot runs dry - and not a day earlier. My point about Israel being the only beneficiary of our action presumes that this is not a good thing for the U.S. Your call.

I do not wish for chaos in Iraq. But I don't think trying to transform the Middle East through pipe dreams is worth one life - American or Iraqi. 4000 Americans died at the hands of Saudi's and Egyptians, so we kill 100,000 Iraqis and radiate their country while stealing it's natural resources? I guess that makes us part of the "Access of Evil".

I am constantly amazed at the patience that the Shia majority have displayed. But not necessarily comforted by it. Not too long ago, 7 Shia tribes surrounded a Sunni town and demanded the handover of several men accused of killing Shia's in the south. I think they are biding their time. They know that they hold the keys to power. My point was that there isn't going to be a way to put down this uprising without extreme measures. The same type of measures the Shah of Iran used for three decades with U.S. encouragement. That is the shining future for Iraq, and I don't think it's worth the life of my nephew, who was conned into joining the Marines while still in high school by his football couch. He doesn't want to go, but guess what? He has no choice. I still do, and I'm going to call bullshit on anyone who tries to sell me this snake-oil. Even if he does occasionally serve up something decent.

Your points about the variance of peoples in specific countries is accurate, but besides the point. The Shia's hate Sunni's, and the Sunni's hate Shia (the Muslims hate the Hindu's, and everybody hates the Jews - but during National Brotherhood week...) The only way to avoid a blood bath is for us to stay in the middle so they have a common enemy. The minute we're gone - Pow!!!

It's all pie in the sky for people like Friedman. At least Cardinal Cheney isn't so foolish. He's in it for the cash.

By the way, that's an interesting depiction of the Crusades. Doesn't fit with my understanding, except the part about how they might not have behaved themselves while there. Oh, little things like cannibalism. If I had to live anywhere between 800 AD and say 1500 AD, it would have been China, and except for the occasional slaughter at the hands of the Mongols, the Middle East. They were far more tolerant, affluent, educated, advanced... you get the gist.

[simcha_6]

5. Careful, yeled, you're in dangerous territory

While you're not anti-Semitic, some of your phrasing comes close to paralleling Judeo-paths wording. You'll get grief it you keep saying things like that. The "Dual Loyalty" arguments kind of old, it'll rub some people the wrong way.

Also, $60,000,000,000/year? It's two, I'm almost positive. We give it because they gave up the only territory with the possibility of energy resources to Egypt, who also gets over a billion dollars in U.S. aid for taking that land.

And Israel in relation to the U.S.? They give us the best weapons we have. We mass produce them and give them some back. And a lot of the two billion dollars we give them goes to buying the weapons that they design and we mass-produce, supporting our military industrial complex that, however unfortunate, runs the U.S. economy. Israel also has (or will have in a year or two) the most advanced algae agriculture research center in the world, is a leader (or was in the nineties) in alternative energy, and provided the world with the cell phone (a Motorola design office in Israel) and Windows XP (Microsoft design center in Israel.) The cell phone's pretty good. Windows XP is up for debate.

I've got class now, got to go. If you have any issues with my post, let me know and I can respond later.

[SquireJons]

6. Thoughtful, but not accurate.

I appreciate you opinion, but I disagree with many of you assumptions.

First, it is 60 billion. In fact, many think it's much higher - black budget stuff, don't ya know. How do you think Israel built that nuclear compound underground? With donations from local Temples? How about the nuclear subs they have?

Second, while I know that Israel has many smart people and good companies, so would I if I got all that money for decades. If we spread it around a lot more, we'd have a lot more friends in the region and we'd be safer. As far as I'm concerned, Israel is a foreign country, with foreign interests which have nothing to do with the United States. That's been pretty well documented and is accepted by historians and the military.

Third, I'm not anti Semitic (and I don't eat owls) but I am no fan of Israels. It is an expansionist near theocracy which uses methods that are nothing short of inhuman. If there is a god, she's pissed.

[dummy-du1]

9. Submarines

How do you think Israel built that nuclear compound underground?


AFAIK, they got the technology, resources (uranium, heavy water, ...) and massive support from France. The US found out about the Dimona complex after an U-2 reconnaissance plane overflight, but more or less ignored the project for decades.


How about the nuclear subs they have?


They don't have nuclear submarines. They have German U-212 dolphin-class submarines, that have a very silent diesel-electric propulsion. Those were outfitted with four (in total 10) torpedo tubes, that could be used to launch long-range nuclear-capable cruise missiles. They only paid for one of them, the other two were donated by Germany for the good cause.

[centristo]

10. i've got to call you out

SquireJons, you're either reading biased sources or are making up figures. I have a problem with you getting on here and posting outright fiction and claiming it as fact.

A $60 billion ANNUAL subsidy from the US-Israel?? Really? Present your source. I found a right-wing anti-Zionist site that listed it as $84.8 billion, from 1949 to 1998!!!

"Even excluding all of these extra costs, America's $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation."

http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=321

Of course, this article also claims the only reason Israel has any problems is because of its 1967 land grab. Yeah, there were no problems with the Jews and Palestinians before that...

You need a serious brush-up with the facts of the region and would benefit well from a long study of unbiased figures. This is a link to the Library of Congress. Some of the info is current only to 1988 but it is the history of the region that you need the most help with. Once you get caught up then we can talk about current events. Good luck.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/iltoc.html

[simcha_6]

11. No doubt they have "foreign interests"

That's kind of a given for a foreign country. They've done some awful things; they had intel on the Lebanon attack that killed 200 marines, and withheld it, and also misled the U.S. on a couple of terrorist attacks trying to frame the PLO (Gideon's Spies: Secret History of the Mossad). But we've done some stupid things to them too- vote for their creation, then but an arms embargo on them, etc. And as for anti-Americanism, people often blame the U.S. support for Israel for the anger at the U.S. worldwide, and while it doesn't help things, cutting aid wouldn't get them happy. Anti-Americanism is created most often by governments as a way to keep citizens' anger from hitting their own government. (There's an article about that in Foreign Affairs from last year- I forget which issue).

Also, money assists Israel's technological development, I agree with you there. But that algae plant is at a kibbutz. Most of the money we give Israel I think goes to weapons, not the kibbutzim (probably why their not not doing as well as they used to.) And Israel has one of the highest percentage of citizens with degrees, higher, I think, than the U.S. (I'm not positive about where I heard this, but until you can give me info to the contrary, I'll continue to believe this.)

Our money helps Israel, but Israel did fine before the U.S. started supporting it (around JFK, I think) and their success isn't just the effect of the United States. It also, I think, goes with their socialist skeleton and a culture which encourages progress, although recently their emphasis on education (and thus progress) has waned considerably.

For excellent balanced coverage of Israeli news, check out <http://www.haaretzdaily.com>

[simcha_6]

13. Thomas Gordon, I think, wrote Gideon's Spies

[Darranar]

12. Pro-Israeli policy sentiments are not the only cause of inaccuracy...

a fanatical adoration for neo-liberalism has the same effect, and Friedman seems to suffer more from the latter than the former....