EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Is This Tom Friedman's 'Walter Cronkite Moment' on Afghanistan?
The Iraq war's chief New York Times cheerleader has reversed field on Afghanistan. Does it mean there will be no escalation?
In early 1968, after the devastating Tet Offense, CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite pronounced the Vietnam War unwinnable. Lyndon Johnson knew he had "lost middle America" and soon declined to run for a second term. The war dragged on for seven more hellish years. But the hearts and minds of the American public had been lost.
Tom Friedman is no Walter Cronkite. His Times column is influential in certain circles, but has nowhere near the nationally unifying force as Cronkite's evening broadcasts.
On the other hand, his admonition to "Don't Build Up" in Afghanistan indicates that the Pentagon PR blitzkrieg demanding more troops has failed in key corporate circles.
Friedman's arguments are both strategic and monetary. "We simply do not have the Afghan partners, the NATO allies, the domestic support, the financial resources or the national interest to justify an enlarged and prolonged nation-building effort in Afghanistan," he warns.
Ceding (finally!) the inability of the United States to dictate to countries that don't like us, Friedman manages to make the whole argument without mentioning Vietnam. He never even hints at the possibility that the US might not actually have the RIGHT to interfere in the politics of other nations.
But in this case he says the military's plan to pour troops into "stabilizing" Afghanistan "is a 20-year project at best, and we can't afford it."
This stunning admission comes alongside Friedman's signature assertion that "we are the world. A strong, healthy and self-confident America is what holds the world together and on a decent path."
What he fears is that "a long slow bleed in Afghanistan" could doom the United States, and thus the planet. "Shrinking down in Afghanistan will create new threats," he concedes. "But expanding there will too. I'd rather deal with the new threats with a stronger America."
Above all, we "desperately need nation-building at home."
Thomas Friedman is nothing if not a megaphone for the corporate elite. He supports atomic power and consistently pumps global trade agreements, US military adventurism and top-down decision-making in ways that can draw howls of outrage with a single smarmy sentence.
His Times cohort Roger Cohen has been selling the war as hard as he can. Puff pieces on hawk General Stanley McChrystal's global campaign to build military support for a massive escalation have been filling the Times's pages for weeks now. It recently concocted a non-story about the "impatience" of the military brass awaiting tens of thousands of new troops. It gave front page billing to McChrystal's completely inappropriate campaigning with NATO commanders who love McChrystal's demand for more troops but likely won't be sending more of their own any time soon.
It's impossible to assign tangible value to Friedman's loss of faith in escalation. But those of us hoping to avoid a catastrophic dive off the Afghani abyss have expected nothing but grief from this mainstay of the Iraqi catastrophe.
That a key cheerleader for that war is now waving his editorial pompoms for de-escalation can only be good. Let's make sure the White House gets the message.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
34 Comments so far
Show AllTwenty years? Why, that's forty whole Friedman Units!
"Thomas Friedman is nothing if not a megaphone for the corporate elite."
Thus, it is likely Corporate America - which has reasons for wanting to control Afghanistan, but it is nothing compared to Iraq - is deeming escalating the war unnecessary. Thank you grand corporate overlords... of course, in the corporate media no discussion will ever be had about all the hundred of thousands of Afghans who have lost their lives, no one will talk of the hundred of billions of dollars in reparations we owe the Afghans for using their country for 30 years as a pawn on a chess set, and no one will ever look in the mirror and ask ourselves whether it was morally justified to ever venture into Afghanistan. Corporate institutions are incapable of such reflection; they must eventually be brought to justice for their deeds.
"Thus, it is likely Corporate America - which has reasons for wanting to control Afghanistan, but it is nothing compared to Iraq - is deeming escalating the war unnecessary."
I would think that the only reason the Empire might pull troops out of Afghanistan would be to put them in Iraq (I hope not Iran). That is where the really big money is. I do not think the proposed pipeline through Afghanistan can compete.
" That is where the really big money is".You are forgetting the 62 billion $ a year drug trade in Afghanistan that the CIA is clandestenally and covertly involved in. And the 62 billion $ figure is a conservative estimate.
But does the CIA really need several thousand US troops in the area to continue its lucrative covert operations?
And is Israel worried about funding by our congress with too much money going to pentagon Afghanistan war profiteers? There's a money problem in New Yohk for the Zionists. Friedman is, above all else, a zionist. He is an American after Israel is serviced. I believe that is what is behind his changed tune.
from the article:
It's impossible to assign tangible value to Friedman's loss of faith in escalation.
Tangible value? Friedman's opinions? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha...
As Paul Revere states, there is one thing of tangible value within the Afghanistan miasma, and that is heroin...where all else is mirage, the poppy crops and production plants are not...
Don't forget the empires dream of the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline. There was hopes to stabilize Afghanistan so they could run a pipeline from the "Stans" to the Arabian sea. But with Pakistan also getting somewhat unstable the chances of making this "Pipe"-dream a reality are fading fast.
You're right...those pipeline plans are oft-mentioned, but don't quite pass the 'tangible' test...the heroin, however, is real...
Tom Friedman's 'very serious, thoughtful, pontificated' analysis is, as usual, a day late and a dollar short!
Seriously, Tom, who cares what you think???!
Rat abandoning the sinking ship! Even this administration may take notice.
As you were told eight years ago, Friedman, you stupid shit.
Ha ha!
Hey, Tom Friedman! Suck. On. This.
Friedman here. Suck on this? No, see Kent I don't have to suck on that. Now that the world is flat I can suck on anything I want, anywhere I want, anytime I want, (and trust me I do!)
This is due to Globalization. Thanks to Globalization, things now suck pretty much everywhere in the world for all you little folks. So sorry. Just retrain yourself for some nonexistent high tech job and leave me alone in my Ivory tower.
But don't worry all is fine with me, all the fictional novels I have written for some reason have been accepted as non-fiction works and sales are brisk. I really have no problem with these misinterpretations, as long as I get paid I really don't care how people feel about my writings. Ta-Ta for now!
I doubt that Thomas Friedman really means what he's saying. Let's see if he really means his change on the position. There's a 95% chance that he won't.
But THIS is the New York Times' "Walter Cronkite Moment" on Afghanistan --- and the Times seems to be parting ways with their star pro-war propagandist, Tommy boy!
This unusual and unexpected 'anti-war' Op-Ed allowed by the NYT may be the 'Walter Cronkite moment' for the Afghanistan War.
Much thanks to the NYT for publishing this compelling lesson of Soviet EMPIRE history today:
Op-Ed Contributor
"Transcripts of Defeat"
By VICTOR SEBESTYEN
Published: October 28, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/29/opinion/29sebestyen.html?ref=opinion
Such advice and sanity today is better than waiting for the NYT to have to print the "Pentagon Papers 2.0" later --- disclosing that our deceitful ruling-elite corporate/financial EMPIRE knew the truth about the Afghanistan War's trajectory all along.
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
PS. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana
"That a key cheerleader for that war is now waving his editorial pompoms for de-escalation can only be good. Let's make sure the White House gets the message."
I wouldn't count on it. Nearly everyone in TV news is framing the issue so that if Obama doesn't give McChrystal all the troops he wants in the leaked request, he "wants America to fail" and it'll kill the Democrats in the next election cycle.
Friedman must have outgrown his cheerleading outfit--can't think of any other reason this pro-war, anti-Muslim zionist would call for troops out of any Middle East country.
Nation building is not the purpose underlying the Afganistan war, PIPELINE building is what its about.
Maybe he changed his mind because he golfed with Obama, who knows? Whatever, I hope the White House agrees with what he has written.
It's the most sense he's made so far.
I guess that Thomas has a burning desire to be on the right side of history for once. One can get a kick out of claiming later "I was right!" However, the notion that the White House or the Pentagon will listen to let alone agree with TF is preposterous. The WH is looking at the elections of 2010 and 2012. The Pentagon is looking at WH advisorships, more baubles, and promotions. Both know that the Taliban/Qaeda will not board their canoes in Karachi and peddle to our West Coast to do nasty things.
Tom Friedman is a braying ass who doesn't even deserve the ironic commentary of a decent man like Harvey Wasserman.
No offense to donkeys, of course, which are very fine creatures. It's just a manner of speaking.
The Democrats insulted donkeys far more than you ever could, don't worry about it.
So right.
But in this case (Friedman) says the military's plan to pour troops into "stabilizing" Afghanistan "is a 20-year project at best, and we can't afford it."
And what about all the people who will die for nothing? Or don't they count? Only the money matters.
I wonder how much money it would take to induce Tom "Tough Hombre" Friedman and Holy Joe Lieberman to leave the United States and promise contractually never to come back? Lieberman strikes me as far more corrupt and personally revolting; so his price would undoubtedly be cheaper. Perhaps if someone offered Friedman a portfolio in the Andorran or Liechtenstein governments he could be induced to go.
"And what about all the people who will die for nothing? Or don't they count? Only the money matters."
Of course. After all, we can't afford universal healthcare, remember? But of course we can afford 44,000 citizens who die prematurely each year simply because they don't get necessary health care due to lack of insurance coverage.
The Uzbek, Turkman, Tajik, Pashtun-- "Afghan"-- freedom fighters and patriots, who don't like each other, much less occupying troops from a brutal foreign power, will welcome 40,000 more targets.
Just defend the oil pipeline. That's all we really want. I would think the CIA could "find bin Laden" just as well as all the troops haven't.
There is nothing wrong with arguing for scaling back operations in Afghanistan by pointing out that we are fighting a war we can't afford.
Some people may respond to the moral dilemma created by war.
Some people may respond to the strategic errors.
Some people may respond to the financial aspect.
I have written letters to the editor that discuss only the financial disaster our two wars represent----mainly because you have to be brief. You can't exactly write thousand word essays.
I am surprised by all the vitriol here for someone who is saying the right things. Seven and a half years ago would have been better, but now is good too.
Too bad Harvey had to throw in Friedman's support of atomic power, as if this makes him the pinnacle of corruption. Some people support nuclear power because it is a better alternative to fossil fuels. But I digress.
jstevens,
You are "surprised by all the vitriol here for someone who is saying the right things." Don't be. Independent thinking is rare and far apart, group thinking is not. Vitriol comes with territory. Attitude toward nuclear power, 100% negative on this site, is one of group thinking's atribute - you nail it down. Unconditional support of everything Arab - is but another example. DC became the same noise machine as Fox News. In complex number plain +infinity and -infinity is the same point.
Just do not worry - caravan of History will proceed.