Re: Friedman and the Truth

No doubt, it was at least part of the reason why I forwarded it to the
WSN list.  Friedman had an equally "interesting" piece in the NYT
immediately after Sept.11, 2001.  It said that this was the moment when
Americans need to start thinking, almost for the first time, about the
nature of what it is that is happening in the US and in the world,
something most Americans do not feel they have to because they appear to
be complacent about US power.

There are times - and the times we live in are the ones that I am
referring to in particular - when both conservatives and
non-conservatives converge in relation to some aspects of the questions
of what is to be done.  Both are unanimous with regard to the question
of serious thinking on what is going on domestically.  The conservative
critique of the US state is in line with the capitalist critique of the
US state.  If you remember no one at the January Davos Forum was happy
with Colin Powell's war-message.  It is an unsustainable war and it
means loss of enormous businiess profits.  I have seen no estimates of
costs of warmaking in Iraq from the State.  I have read an economist's
estimate in the NYRB: for a short war $121 billion, for a slightly
longish war $1595 billion! (Nordhaus).  Capital and some more
intelligent conservative interests as well, are strongly opposed to such
senseless and vindictive warmaking.  It is why it is hard to disagree
with those statements that you highlight in the Friedman piece.  It is a
sign of the times as well.  Ganesh Trichur.

francesco ranci wrote:

> To tell you the truth I enjoyed this article (the
> first I read of T. Friedman). I agree on the generally
> held view according to which a war against Iraq today
> would be another useless massacre, and this time
> totally without a reason: the only possible one was
> 9/11, if it had been done by Iraq.
>
> Friedman does not agree with that, but the point he
> makes is good, when he says: "I am also very troubled
> by the way Bush officials have tried to justify this
> war on the grounds that Saddam is allied with Osama
> bin Laden or will be soon. There is simply no proof of
> that, and every time I hear them repeat it I think of
> the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. You don't take the
> country to war on the wings of a lie". (Even though I
> know nothing about the "Gulf of Tonkin resolution",
> that does not change the crucial point)
>
> I almost agree, also, with sentences like:
>
> 1. Al Qaeda is a separate enemy that will have to be
> fought separately, and will remain a threat even if
> Saddam is ousted (except I would say "has to be
> fought").
>
> 2. You're not going to get much support in Europe by
> telling people, "You are either with us or against us
> in a war on terrorism, but in the war you care about
> -for a greener planet - America will do whatever it
> wants." (Even though I do not believe Europe cares
> that much about having "a greener planet").
>
> 3. "The Bush folks are big on attitude, weak on
> strategy and terrible at diplomacy". I would just add
> that Bush does not show any sign of "compassion" or
> even respect for the Iraqi people - we must admit that
> such people are not doing much to get rid of Saddam
> Hussein, whether we like it or not. Friedman makes a
> fool of himself when he says that "all his political
> prisoners - i.e., most Iraqis were crying" (what do we
> really know of the Iraqi people ? And what do they
> know of us ? Could anyone please talk about this ?).
>
> --- Trichur Ganesh <tganesh@stlawu.edu> wrote:
> > Thought I would pass this on to you from our all
> > time favorite
> > truth-teller T. Friedman.
> >
> > Tell the Truth
> > February 19, 2003
> > By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
> > As I was listening to the French foreign minister
> > make his
> > case at the U.N. for giving Saddam Hussein more time
> > to
> > comply, I was struck by the number of people in the
> > Security Council chamber who applauded. I wish there
> > were
> > someone I could applaud for.
> >
> > Sorry, I can't applaud the French foreign minister,
> > because
> > I don't believe that France, which sold Saddam his
> > first
> > nuclear reactor, the one Israel blew up, comes to
> > this
> > story with the lofty principles it claims. The
> > French
> > foreign minister, after basking in the applause at
> > the
> > U.N., might ask himself who was clapping for his
> > speech
> > back in Baghdad and who was crying. Saddam was
> > clapping,
> > and all his political prisoners - i.e., most Iraqis
> > - were
> > crying.
> >
> > But I don't have much applause in me for China,
> > Russia - or
> > the Bush team either. I feel lately as if there are
> > no
> > adults in this room (except Tony Blair). No, this is
> > not a
> > plague-on-all-your-houses column. I side with those
> > who
> > believe we need to confront Saddam - but we have to
> > do it
> > right, with allies and staying power, and the Bush
> > team has
> > bungled that.
> >
> > The Bush folks are big on attitude, weak on strategy
> > and
> > terrible at diplomacy. I covered the first gulf war,
> > in
> > 1990-91. What I remember most are the seven trips I
> > took
> > with Secretary of State James A. Baker III around
> > the world
> > to watch him build - face-to-face - the coalition
> > and
> > public support for that war, before a shot was
> > fired. Going
> > to someone else's country is a sign you respect his
> > opinion. This Bush team has done no such hands-on
> > spade
> > work. Its members think diplomacy is a phone call.
> >
> > They don't like to travel. Seeing senior Bush
> > officials
> > abroad for any length of time has become like
> > rare-bird
> > sightings. It's probably because they spend so much
> > time
> > infighting in Washington over policy, they're each
> > afraid
> > that if they leave town their opponents will change
> > the
> > locks on their office doors.
> >
> > Also, you would think that if Iraq were the focus of
> > your
> > whole foreign policy, maybe you would have handled
> > North
> > Korea with a little less attitude, so as not to
> > trigger two
> > wars at once. Maybe you would have come up with that
> > alternative - which President Bush promised - to the
> > Kyoto
> > treaty, a treaty he trashed to the great anger of
> > Europe.
> > You're not going to get much support in Europe
> > telling
> > people, "You are either with us or against us in a
> > war on
> > terrorism, but in the war you care about - for a
> > greener
> > planet - America will do whatever it wants."
> >
> > I am also very troubled by the way Bush officials
> > have
> > tried to justify this war on the grounds that Saddam
> > is
> > allied with Osama bin Laden or will be soon. There
> > is
> > simply no proof of that, and every time I hear them
> > repeat
> > it I think of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. You
> > don't take
> > the country to war on the wings of a lie.
> >
> > Tell people the truth. Saddam does not threaten us
> > today.
> > He can be deterred. Taking him out is a war of
> > choice - but
> > it's a legitimate choice. It's because he is
> > undermining
> > the U.N., it's because if left alone he will seek
> > weapons
> > that will threaten all his neighbors, it's because
> > you
> > believe the people of Iraq deserve to be liberated
> > from his
> > tyranny, and it's because you intend to help Iraqis
> > create
> > a progressive state that could stimulate reform in
> > the
> > Arab/Muslim world, so that this region won't keep
> > churning
> > out angry young people who are attracted to radical
> > Islam
> > and are the real weapons of mass destruction.
> >
> > That's the case for war - and it will require years
> > of
> > occupying Iraq and a simultaneous effort to defuse
> > the
> > Israeli-Palestinian conflict to create a regional
> > context
> > for success. If done right, such a war could shrink
> > Al
> > Qaeda's influence - but Al Qaeda is a separate enemy
> > that
> > will have to be fought separately, and will remain a
> > threat
> > even if Saddam is ousted.
> >
> > It is legitimate for Europeans to oppose such a war,
> > but
> > not simply by sticking a thumb in our eye and their
> > heads
> > in the sand. It's also legitimate for the Bush folks
> > to
> > focus the world on Saddam, but two years of their
> > gratuitous bullying has made many people deaf to
> > America's
> > arguments. Too many people today no longer accept
> > America's
> > strength as a good thing. That is a bad thing.
> >
> > Some of this we can't control. But some we can,
> > which is
> > why it's time for the Bush team to shape up - dial
> > down the
> > attitude, start selling this war on the truth, give
> > us a
> > budget that prepares the nation for a war abroad,
> > not a
> > party at home, and start doing everything possible
> > to
> > create a global context where we can confront Saddam
> > without the world applauding for him.
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/