Friedman Calls for Iraq Deadline

The problem with Thomas Friedman is that he has a large audience and on occassion he has a reputation for making sense. For years, many of his articles sold the idea of globalization before many of us realized that the ones actually defining what globalization meant tended to be big corporations and right wing conservatives; Friedman's ideas weren't necessarily wrong but his rose-colored interpretation of globalization rarely matched the reality. Something of the same overhyping happened with Friedman's view of the war in Iraq. Editors & Publishers has the story:

New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq more than three years ago, and has repeatedly called for staying the course there since, on Friday for the first time suggests setting a deadline for U.S. withdrawal.

Friedman observes that "it is time for America to starting talking 'deadlines.' Too many Iraqi factions think they can just keep wrestling each other for small advantage while the country burns, but the U.S. Army provides a floor of security that prevents total chaos. The Iraqi parties need to know that we are not going to be played this way forever. Only an Iraq that can come together and make a fist can crush this militia culture."

Earlier in the column, Friedman notes: "President Bush has told us that the question of whether to withdraw from Iraq is one that his successor will have to deal with — not him. I don't think so. Mr. Bush is not going to have that luxury of passing Iraq along."

I never understood why Mr. Friedman put so much faith in George W. Bush and his team. Although he's no right winger, Friedman, I realize, got caught up in the 'idea' of democracy but failed to look at the instruments to impose democracy. There are times in history when there are things worth fighting for. Unfortunately, in the process of fighting, military officers can be caught in the contradiction of telling their soldiers, "I'll blow your head off if you don't fight for your freedom!" That's an exaggeration of course, but not by much. It's nearly what we have been saying to the Iraqis.

If repeated too often, knocking doors down and putting a boot on the head of a man lying on the floor in front of his family isn't likely to get across the benevolence of our intentions. In Iraq, our democracy goals and our military goals have rarely met on the same page for any length of time. If imposing democracy on the residents of another country was possible through military force, and I don't know that it was possible, the failures are not those of our soldiers but the officials in the Pentagon and the White House who failed to see so much that was obvious to others. Those mounting failures are exacting a price of our soldiers and our nation. Friedman has been slow to come around.

But let me give Friedman some due credit. Pakistan and India almost had a nuclear exchange back in 2002; if it had not been for globalization and India's booming economy and the realization that many international corporations, including American, would have pulled out of India if the tensions had gotten any worse, there might very well have been a nuclear exchange. And that would have been a dark day for everyone.

Of course, a significant part of India's economic boom has been a result of outsourcing American jobs and that's an issue that can no longer be avoided: Americans need good paying jobs too. And a better government.