Nothing annoys me more about New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman than his tendency to scuttle his occasionally insightful commentary with fabricated assumptions to fit his narrative.
This makes it really hard for me to like him.
You know that irritation that grows under your skin when somebody is making a lot of sense and then suddenly — wham — they hit you with a doozy so ridiculous you feel disproportionately deflated?
Well, that is my Friedman experience time and time again. Not always though — sometimes I am irritated from the get-go.
Within days of President Obama’s inauguration last January, I began writing of a military attempt to “bump him” on three fronts: preventing the closure of Guantanamo Bay, getting more troops in Afghanistan, and delaying the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq.
Well, the commanders, backed by key individuals in the Executive and the complications of Congress, succeeded on the first two matters. And, days before Iraq’s national elections, they are pressing again on the third. General Raymond Odierno, the commander of US forces in Iraq and a man who (a la General David Petraeus) has learned how to work the press, started telling favoured reporters that Obama’s August date for removal of most combat troops might not be tenable. Prominent columnists like Thomas Friedman and Thomas Ricks soon rolled out the arguments for sticking around.
In contrast to last year, this is not yet a head-on clash with the President; Odierno and his allies, possibly including Petraeus, now head of the US Central Command for the region, are working around him through media channels. But it does set up a challenge for Obama, especially if expected political complications with the elections occur: does he again give way on policy to his military brass?
UPDATE 0915 GMT: Here is what, in today’s power politics, is what the rhetoric of “liberal intervention” props up. Thomas Ricks declares, alongside Friedman’s piece in The New York Times, “Leaders in [the US and Iraq] may come to recognize that the best way to deter a return to civil war is to find a way to keep 30,000 to 50,000 United States service members in Iraq for many years to come.”
Seven years after the 2003 war and the violence and disorder that followed, Iraq has moved on to other political conflicts and issues. Yet, for some, this will always be a case of returning to the scene to construct victory or to build the excuse for absolution. War must become liberation, crime must become justice, tragedy must become redemption.
One of those who persists is New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. This morning Friedman, who used his “liberal” drum to bang loudly and incessantly for the 2003 invasion, opens his column:
From the very beginning of the U.S. intervention in Iraq and the effort to build some kind of democracy there, a simple but gnawing question has lurked in the background: Was Iraq the way Iraq was (a dictatorship) because Saddam was the way Saddam was, or was Saddam the way Saddam was because Iraq was the way Iraq was — a collection of warring sects incapable of self-rule and only governable with an iron fist?
2200 GMT: Your Late-Night Cyber-Treat. On Google, type “Ahmadinejad President of Iran”. Hit “I’m Feeling Lucky”.
2140 GMT: We started this morning (see 0715 GMT) by noting the possible significance of the “reformist” criticisms of Dr Javad Etaat making their way onto Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting. We end today by posting the video of the first part of the interview and an English translation.
2030 GMT: Cyber-Warfare Strike. Hacking the website of Iran’s Hezbollah (Party of God) is one thing. Doing it with the slogan “The End is F***ing Near” is another. And accomplishing it with a diversion to the domain http://www.getasexpartner.com/hiz-bol.htm, well… Let’s just say that Iran’s police chief Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam (see 1220 GMT) may want to get a bigger Internet manual if he is serious about taking on the opposition in a Web slugfest.
1935 GMT: Quality Analysis of Day. Well done, Asadollah Badamchian, member of Parliament: “The assassination [of Professor Ali-Mohammadi] and terrorist operation was a previously planned step in the Green Velvet Revolution.” The movement, Badamchian said, consists of five sub-groups, “each of which are gradually eroding”. Read the rest of this entry »
Sharmine Narwani, writing in The Huffington Post, takes apart Thomas Friedman’s lecture to Arab peoples, “America vs. The Narrative”:
Hard as I try, my mouth is fixed in an unattractive gape — unable, it seems, to correct itself. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, in his usual clumsy attempts to suggest liberal sympathy while in fact propagating many, many Mideast myths, has caused this unfortunate disfigurement.
In his most recent column on Saturday, Friedman decided to help us understand a phenomenon sweeping the Arab and Muslim worlds, and was generous enough to coin an actual phrase to simplify this concept for the benefit of all Western civilization — he calls it “The Narrative.”
According to the New York Times columnist, “The Narrative is the cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11.” Yes, he capitalizes it. Like “The Donald.” Or “The Treaty of Versailles.”
Kind of him to generalize this way. It would have been far more difficult for me if I actually had to think about the Arab-Muslim world as a diverse grouping representing real-life individuals from varying cultures, histories, religions, political persuasions and stages of social, political and economic development.
In Enduring America on 12 February, Chris Emery evaluated the announcement of former President Mohammad Khatami that he would stand in June’s election. He wrote, “[It is] an error…to link Khatami’s entry to the tentative prospect of normalised relations between Iran and the US,” and focused on internal dynamics of Iranian politics: “It had been widely reported that Khatami would not run if former Prime Minister Mir-Hussein Mousavi chose to….So all Iranian eyes will now watch if Mousavi, another popular reformist, is now the one to withdraw.”
Three months later, and 24 hours before Iranians cast their votes in the first round of the Presidential election, I read Chris’ piece with pride. He was half-right on the issue of the potential challenger to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — it was Khatami who withdrew, leaving Mousavi in the race — but months before many “Western” journalists and analysts noticed the campaign or dismissed it out-of-hand (only yesterday Thomas Friedman cast it aside as a “pretend election”), Chris saw its significance. This would not be a procession for the re-election of Ahmadinejad or a charade for Supreme Leader Khamenei to hand-pick a winner but a political space for Iranians to consider their political and economic present and future. Equally important, he got to the core of the issues that would shape the outcome: “It will be over presidential legacies and broken promises.”
Yet, with respect, not even Chris could forecast how dynamic — and potentially important — this campaign has become. Read the rest of this entry »
One useful way of considering tomorrow’s grand Middle Eastern speech by President Obama is to recall that it was supposed to be delivered three or four months ago. Soon after the election, Obama’s advisors briefed the press that the new President, within weeks of the Inauguration, would be addressing the world from Cairo. His high hopes for a new region, with the vision that long-term enemies could live and progress together, would be followed by talks fostered by US representatives. Read the rest of this entry »
A disturbing picture is emerging of one of the countries at the center of the Global War on Terror, a terrifying confluence of events which constitutes a “perfect storm” of instability. This country, which President Bush formerly praised as a “leader” in the fight against militant Islamism in Central Asia, now appears to be increasingly ungovernable, what we in the West commonly refer to as a “Failed State.”
A porous border facilitates the funneling of arms and resources to a booming narco-insurgency next-door, an insurgency which takes the lives of innocent civilians, militants, soldiers and police on a daily basis. In the halls of power and government, corrupt western-educated oligarchs continue to, in the midst of catastrophic economic collapse, wildly pillage the state treasuries while their rural fundamentalist constituencies, and the militant industries they patronize, fuel money and weapons to the neighboring insurgency, often with the explicit help of state intelligence services. And yet even though the citizens have recently achieved some modest democratic gains, the central government seems oblivious to their cries for justice against members of the criminal ex-regime. Meanwhile, a brutal domestic terrorist outbreak, flush with recently unemployed recruits, continues without mercy, killing over 50 civilians and security services in a series of suicide attacks over the last month.
Sharmine Narwani writes in The Huffingon Post:
Sharmine Narwani, 
In Enduring America on 12 February, 
One useful way of considering 
Entries (RSS)