Thomas Freidman gives the LECTURE OF THE YEAR on Iraq and the U.S.

That was definitely worth watching. Thanks for the link.

 

Absolutely fantastic find, Universal. The first half about 9/11 is brilliant: his understanding of the Arab and Muslim world is beyond any other American commentator I've seen. The "Bin Laden Wheel" with the various spokes churning out the two types of terrorists is particularly helpful.

I also like how he calls on the Muslims to take on the ideas of Bin Laden, recognizing that 25 have recently done so. My sense is that there are a good number of Arabs and other Muslims active in challenging the Bin Laden vision, but they are mostly artists and scholars and in any case still too dispersed. [For those interested in seeing how this has been approached by some, here's a good list to begin with, off the top of my head: Nagib Mahfouz, Tahar Benjelloun, Edward Said, Fatima Mernissi, Nawal El Sadawi, Ibrahim Abu Lughod, Mushirul Hassan, Salman Rushdie, Tariq Ali, Eqbal Ahmad--see other threat on Roots of Religious Right--, and Aijaz Ahmad. Mernissi, IMO, may ultimately become the most important of the names on that list, as she seems to have remained the most grounded in her Muslim roots while attempting to challenge it from the inside. Quite simply, she meets the Koranic scholars on their own terms and it's breathtaking at times, especially in "The Veil and the Male Elite."]

Anyway, back to Friedman and my one complaint. Namely, his ultimate lukewarm support for "some" kind of Iraq War seems entirely idealistic and (as he even admits) not at all in touch with the reality of how the current administration views it. Note: this is also my problem with Hitchens and Rushdie, two leftists who are behind the war: this whole notion of bringing Enlightenment to Iraq via the sword is just SO far from the reality of how our leaders envision this thing going down. Sure, they've begun to tack on a version of this idea to their push recently, but we've ALWAYS said that was our goal, from Vietnam to Nicaragua. Why in the world should we expect Bush to really mean it now.

Furthermore, it seems a bit odd for Friedman to suggest that we need a "progressing" Muslim model-country, but overlook that we have two more likely candidates already that we WOULDN'T have to invade in order to work on it: Jordan and Morocco. The new King of Morocco, Mohammed 6, has, in his first few years, already made significant steps towards democratization and empowering women. And Jordan has a (hottie) American born, Princeton educated Queen Mother with whom our government agencies have very close ties. So if our goal is to offer Muslim countries examples of "success," why not start where we already have MAJOR footholds (both are current Peace Corps operations, the only two in the Arab world), and both are crawling with various Western NGOs working on all kinds of development projects.

Meanwhile, as Friedman himself notes, Saddam is entirely containable. Honestly, I'd like to hear why he thinks Iraq (using war) is a better choice than these two alternatives.

By the way, he is of course also correct than ALL of this is predicated on first/simultaneously solving the Palestine question.

 

Toni Gardiner didn't go to Princeton.

p.s. Damnit, that was six words.

 

Thanks for posting that link. Definitely worth a look, regardless of what side you come down on.

It's refreshing to see an opinion/argument without the BigSoccer cynicism.

P.s.- the audio sucks. To anyone who decides to take the time (45 minutes) to watch this, turn your bass all the way down when listening...

 

Good call, that should read, "Queen Step-Mother."

By the way, I'd lik to point out to those who see Universal's original message and think, "Hm...45 minutes? Nah..." Friedman is VERY engaging and colorful as a speaker, and the talk feels much shorter than that. Seriously, it's worth a viewing whether you are for or against the war--and he does offer strong arguments for both sides.

 

Funny, I did a research project in Morocco just over 5 years ago, and I'm 99% sure Fatima Mernissi was one of the people we had come talk to our group of a dozen or so students (our group leader was a Fulbright Scholar whose major area of study was North African women's rights, so she was both in the know and connected to these people). I know we talked a lot off and on about Mernissi, and we did have several very interesting female speakers stop by - I'd have to go look through my old stuff to see if it was indeed her who met with us, but I'm pretty positive it was.

 

This is TOO funny. I think I gave your group your Orientation talk when you first arrived in country! Check your PMs.

 

Wow, that was really good, and, I have to say, I agree with him on basically all counts. His explanation of the 'European' Arab terrorists was one I don't think I've heard anyone throw out before. Very interesting stuff.

-Adam

 

More than Terry Tate??


Alex

 

Universal, thanks for that link.

I was kicking myself for missing this CSpan show, and I am glad I had a chance to watch it. Unlike you, I happen to disagree with Friedman only about 5% to 10% of the time.

Three things about his talk really hit home.

--The first was his belief that in order for the troubled Middle East to extract itself from it current morass, the Islamic world has to achieve, broadly, the understanding that church and state MUST be separated.

--The second was the notion that Bin Laden's ideas needed to be challenged with an opposing set of modernist ideas consistent with the authentic practice of the religion.

--The third was that the Arab states must become progressive -- not necessarily democratic, but progressive.

How likely are these things to occur in some widespread fashion? The odds are long -- very long. But I think we have to do EVERYTHING we can to lubricate these possibilities.

Finally, on Iraq. Basically, his argument boils down to "right war, wrong time." A Bridge Too Far, as he put it. I guess it is the correspondent's prerogative to call reality as he sees it, but to take a pass on providing policy alternatives.

So my question to him would be, "If not now, when? And how do we get there?"

The Bush Administration has made a hash of the diplomacy leading up to this, but I honestly believe that even the slickest, smoothest, diplomatic minds would have a hard time selling military action. Timing is sometimes everything, sometimes a very minor consideration, if the good end result is there.

Oh, one last thing. Even IF our timing were perfect, Friedman's metaphor of the "enevelope" please --

"Congratulations, you have a secular mercantilitist state with a highly educated population. To produce democacy, add water and stir...."

or

""Congratulations, you now have a fractured state, impossible to govern, with warring factions at each others throats...."

....well, these opposite poles would STILL be operative, even if we had COMPLETE consensus and our timing was impeccable.

 

Re: Re: Thomas Freidman gives the LECTURE OF THE YEAR on Iraq and the U.S.

Those are available on the web.

You did it, so I had to hit it!

 

good analysis, Karl.

Did you catch the piece on 60 Minutes about the leader of Qatar? It was interesting.

 

Re: Re: Re: Thomas Freidman gives the LECTURE OF THE YEAR on Iraq and the U.S.

that's a long distance phone call doug.

comedic goldmine.

 

Although I think he is highly overrated and thinks too highly of his own "thinking", I would love to read it if a text version is available.

 

Answer?

Nobody's perfect.

 

Who are you, and what have you done with Karl?



Friedman was just on CNN "In the Money" moments ago, and I found myself saying YES!" to virtually everything he was talking about.

First, on the ME, he said that bush/cheney are radioactive over there, and we will never win hearts and minds behind them. On the other hand, it doesn't go to the other extreme either.

He also said that the whole idea of democratization has "gotten under the hood" in several places which can be a good thing, but that with $60 a barrell oil, democracy will never take hold because the authoritarians have way too much to lose in the current market.

Next, he was talking about energy. He made the interesting observation that we are funding both sides of the war on terror. Our side -- which is obvious -- and their side through our appetite for energy. He gave bush a minor pat for acknowledging our addiction to oil, but that in the tax cutting world he lives in, that will never have teeth.

Then he ripped cheney a new one. He said his solution to energy problems is to drill our way out of them. He sees any talk of conservation, hybrids, plug-ins, ethanol etc. as "tree hugging, pinko, girlie man" policy (pretty close to his exact words).

Then he said the truth is that "green" is the new red, white and blue. That smart conservation policy is patriotic, geopolitically correct policy that will allow us to move away from the ME, will help with global warming and will help restore our credibility with our allies.

Of course, here is the rub. That patriotic track is supported by big time gas taxes to reduce consumption.

Anyway, I am sure I don't have this all correct, but that is what I heard, and what I heard, I loved. I will try to watch this lecture later today.

 

First of all, that quote was from over two years ago...but I still believe today about Friedman what I said back then, except maybe my percentage disagreement is a bit higher.

And I don't think that what I said then is all that inconsitent with what I say today.

Again, in that lecture, Friedman made the case that it was the right war, wrong time. That's a serious argument, worth seriously considering.

Yet, as I said then, when IS the right time. If not then, when? Friedman's not paid to be a policy expert, but he ventured onto policy ground without offering up any real alternative.

For the rabid left, the war will always be wrong, its motives always tainted. No matter what is happening in Iraq, the left will never concede that (1) the outcome could STILL be good and (2) the effort to free the Iraqi people from the decidely UNprogressive Hussein regime was a noble undertaking.

The bombing of the Samarra mosque got everyone into hyperventilating hyperbolic apoplectic fits of pessimism that the country was on the verge of a civil war.

Well, I've actually read about civil wars, and what's happening in Iraq right now has virtually NONE of the qualities of a civil war.

You see, people on this board either don't read about, don't know about, choose to ignore, or otherwise fail to understand history.

For example, do you know how many collaborationist/Vichy French, as well as members of the Parti Populaire Français, Francistes, and Rassemblement National Populaire, were killed/assasinated by their countrymen after the Allies swept through, and the Germans were gone?

The estimates were as high a 10,000. TEN THOUSAND. And only 1500 were executed by some form of formal trial.

No one said France was on the verge of a civil war then.

In Italy? Some 15,000 were killed.

In other words, after 30 years of a brutal regime like Saddam, there's bound to be some payback.

Look, NO ONE knows how Iraq is going to play out. Many on here have already decided it's lost, it's hopeless, it's all going to fall apart. It just might.

Then again, it might not. All I can say is, for those who think they are good at predicitons,they should try buying some stock and see how that goes first.

 

Wow. I didn't notice the date of the original post or responses.


Anyway, I don't think you need to use labels like "rabid left." preemptive war is rightly a controversial topic. Such rabid lefties as Cardinal George and Pat Buchanan trumpeted the "just war theory" prior to our invasion to demonstrate that, in their minds, you are correct in stating that they would never consider it just.

I still haven't had time to watch the entire 45 minute clip, but I don't disagree with your "timing" argument, although I would probably look more to the timing based on the Iraqis. One of the BIG mistakes we made was assuming that we could set up a govenrment, call it a democracy and sit back and watch it flourish.

The Iraqis simply weren't ready. There was not a significant reform movement within their country. Therefore, there is no concept of things like separation of church and state, or for that matter, the rule of law.

I don't want to rehash the arguments of two years ago, except to say that I have always maintained that a contained Saddam was better for us than the unknown Iraq that awaited us after our invasion. For the Iraqi people? That question will remain open for some time.

I know that you know that the bombing of the Mosque is not the only troubling sign that is pointing in a bad direction. People here do tend to glam onto the sensational, but then again, that is pretty sensational.

Your examples of France and Italy are well taken. There is a parallel in the vacuum created by the sudden defeat of a totalitarian rule. Of course, it is also distinguishable from Iraq on many fronts. You bring up political divisions and we are dealing with sectarian divisions. Northern Ireland may be the better comparison.

Considering the level of sustained violence over a period of decades, it is not difficult to imagine that the only thing that prevented a civil war there was the military presence of the British (not that I am claiming that they were a disinterested 3rd party -- before my Irish friends come calling ).

Unfortunately for us, our military presence will not be capable of stopping a civil war if that is where this path leads. Frankly, our inability to build a functioning democracy in Haiti probably says a lot about our collective dedication to the hard work necessary to take on such a massive undertaking.

We don't know how Iraq is going to turn out. We do know that the initial predictions of setting up a constitutional, representative form of government did not materialize the way it was predicted by the administration. Instead we have a framework that, at its best, may give us some stability if the cards all fall into place. On the other end of the spectrum, we are looking at a mess.

 

Karl,

In Iran case, a democratic secular government (overthrown by CIA)-> dictatorship secular government (overthrown by Revolution)-> religious government.

In Iraq case, a dictatorship secular government (overthrown by US troops)->religious government.

Looks we are going the wrong way.

 

A most interesting thread. I also only now realize this thread was started three years ago.

---

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395492959&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull