Tom Friedman Throws in the Towel on Iraq
By Matthew Rothschild
The Progressive
Finally, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has thrown in the towel on the Iraq War.
“It is now obvious that we are not midwifing democracy in Iraq. We are baby-sitting a civil war,” he wrote in his Times column on August 4.
Long the war’s leading liberal defender, Friedman came late and reluctantly to the realization that the jig is up.
“We can’t throw more good lives after good lives,” he wrote.
Beyond the human costs of the quagmire, which the peace movement has long tallied, Friedman also recognized what we in the peace movement have been saying about the security ramifications: “The longer we maintain a unilateral failing strategy in Iraq . . . the stronger the enemies of freedom will become,” Friedman concluded.
This marks quite a journey for Friedman.
In his columns leading up to the war, Friedman supported the effort to take Saddam out, though not in the unilateralist fashion favored by the Bush Administration.
Nevertheless, in his final column on March 21, just as Bush was launching the war, Friedman wrote: “Bush’s view is that in the absence of a UN endorsement, this war will become ‘self-legitimating’ when the world sees most Iraqis greet U.S. troops as liberators. I think there is a good chance that will play out.”
He also said that defeating Saddam was necessary but not sufficient to achieve “a more progressive Iraq and a world with fewer terrorists and terrorist suppliers dedicated to destroying the U.S.”
Even at that moment, he understood that the Bush team’s bullying approach had to change. “It needs to get off its high horse and start engaging people on the World Street, listening to what’s bothering them,” he wrote, saying that the Bush folks need an “attitude lobotomy.”
(The rest is here.)
The Progressive
Finally, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has thrown in the towel on the Iraq War.
“It is now obvious that we are not midwifing democracy in Iraq. We are baby-sitting a civil war,” he wrote in his Times column on August 4.
Long the war’s leading liberal defender, Friedman came late and reluctantly to the realization that the jig is up.
“We can’t throw more good lives after good lives,” he wrote.
Beyond the human costs of the quagmire, which the peace movement has long tallied, Friedman also recognized what we in the peace movement have been saying about the security ramifications: “The longer we maintain a unilateral failing strategy in Iraq . . . the stronger the enemies of freedom will become,” Friedman concluded.
This marks quite a journey for Friedman.
In his columns leading up to the war, Friedman supported the effort to take Saddam out, though not in the unilateralist fashion favored by the Bush Administration.
Nevertheless, in his final column on March 21, just as Bush was launching the war, Friedman wrote: “Bush’s view is that in the absence of a UN endorsement, this war will become ‘self-legitimating’ when the world sees most Iraqis greet U.S. troops as liberators. I think there is a good chance that will play out.”
He also said that defeating Saddam was necessary but not sufficient to achieve “a more progressive Iraq and a world with fewer terrorists and terrorist suppliers dedicated to destroying the U.S.”
Even at that moment, he understood that the Bush team’s bullying approach had to change. “It needs to get off its high horse and start engaging people on the World Street, listening to what’s bothering them,” he wrote, saying that the Bush folks need an “attitude lobotomy.”
(The rest is here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home