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.
--
Harvey Wasserman's SOLARTOPIA! OUR GREEN-POWERED EARTH is at www.harveywasserman.com, along with HARVEY WASSERMAN'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Wouldn't he first have to be Walter Cronkite?
Maybe it's more a George Will moment?
Friedman is the Joe Alsop of our day only sucking up to power probably pays better nowadays. American journalism has long ago come to resemble stenography. At least the "cables" put on a good food fight.
Why do liberals always accentuate the negative?
On the bright side, consent is one of the few things we still manufacture in our great land.
Congratulations for a great article! Would this change of heart of the Fried-person mean that the Mosad is also having second thoughts about this particular proxy war?
Friedman Accidentally Stumbles Over Coherent Position On Afghanistan
Sees Opening For Redemption
Enthusiastically Embraces Cronkite-Comparison Accolades With Both Arms
... but still the same obsequious, self-adoring dilettante who cheered the invasion of Iraq.
You know this country has a long imagined tradition of freedom.
Maybe, you didn't hear the cry of millions of barrels of Iraqi oil yearning to be free.
But I can assure you that I and Brother Tom did.
Watch Hannity flat out lie about seeing a poll that supposedly shows a majority of Americans supporting a troop increase in Afghanistan.
http://pro
Tom Friedman always bases his comments on how American action will affect Israel. He encouraged the invasion of Iraq because he thought it would be good to neuter one of Israels harshest critics. Since Afghanistan has no bearing on Israel I guess he now feels its not worth risking American lives for.
But he beat the drum for war loud and clear when Bush was contemplating invading Iraq. He is a very unreliable inconsistent source of information.
Absolutely right on his "unreliable inconsistent source of information".
May I add, this seems to be a general trend for the NYT. Just two weeks ago they were beating the drums for Gen. McCrystal pushing the administration to give him the troops he wants. Also, let's remember how the NYT was all for the Iraq War. Their main sources where the same anonymous sources they get today. Whenever the NYT or the Washington Post (or all the medias in general) comes with so many anonymous sources to sustain the story, we must ask ourselves what are the intentions behind those anonymous sources. In short are we being duped again by the Press?
When a country loose its press this is a tragedy.
Well it's not a great time to promote unregulated markets so Tom ..........
Will this lead to Pres Obama being One Term Obama [OTO] & the 21st century's 2d failed war POTUS? Expect the NYT to crow endlessly about it till the NYT folds-if my Stupid, Wildly, Absurd, Guess [SWAG] becomes fact.
Good comments, all. Tom Friedman is beyond infuriating---he's dangerous. It's a very telling comment how he suddenly turned up in the green movement while still advocating nuclear power, the ultimate anti=green technology. he supports it to this day, spouting all the standard laugh lines from the industry cheat sheets. if, god forbid, a plant melts, will he suddenly change tune yet again, or pollute the air with denials?
nonetheless, this commentary on afghanistan is a ray of hope. i'm told he recently played golf with obama. best case scenario is that obama is thinking the same way and will listen to biden and not escalate. we can also hope he fires mcchrystal and gates and put some people atop the military who actually believe in civilian rule.
Part3of3
Friedman lost his credibility and mojo. I gave up on Friedman and stopped reading his column a couple of years ago. But I haven't given up on voicing my opinions about him and warning others. The NY Times should have ditched him with Kristol.
I will say this about Friedman's outlook on Afghanistan. If he is right, it's coincidental and not a product of his experience or intellect. In the big picture, Friedman is a Lilliputian. It's time for Friedman to leave the room so adults can address our important issues.
Part2of3
After the public lost confidence in GWB and gave Democrats control of Congress in 2006, Friedman tried to weasel himself from being an expert on geopolitics and Middle East affairs to an expert on economics and the green movement.
If he is such an expert on economics, why did his family's (in-laws) multibillion (with a B) real estate business fail? GGP's stock went from a high in the $70s to $0.24 and later filed for bankruptcy. It became our history's biggest real estate bankruptcy. Now GGP is trying to resurrect itself after massive losses. If that's not enough, GGP asked the bankruptcy court to approve bonuses for it's top management. Bonuses?
http://www
One would think that Friedman could have saved that company and warned others about the economic calamities of the Bush years. Friedman isn't responsible for GGP's collapse but should have warned them.
If Friedman is so sincere about the green movement, controlling energy waste, and using renewable energy, why does he live in a house of 11,400 square feet? His daughters are grown up so it's only him and his wife living together. Are we supposed to take Friedman seriously when he wastes so much energy? What about all that jet setting and carbon emissions attributable to him for his very frequent traveling? Remember, in the end he still gets it wrong.
Part1of3
Harvey Wasserman,
You're killing me! Figuratively speaking of course. Look at Friedman's past. He obtained two degrees on Middle Eastern studies, lived in the Middle East for several years, his daughters were born there, worked as a reporter, columnist and author, traveled frequently and extensively, won 3 Pulitzer Prizes and other awards.
Yet he was so wrong about so many things. Economists oppose and ridicule his assertions that the world is flat (commercially) and his representation of countries and economies by Lexus and olive trees.
Comments Friedman recently made about Afghanistan also applied to Iraq since 2002 when GWB sounded war drums for Saddam Hussein to hear. Where was Friedman to warn us of the pitfalls and consequences of invading Iraq? He was cheering with GWB and neocons.
During his stubborn and irrational defense of the Iraq War, he earned the nickname "Six Months Friedman" for stating for about 3 years that in 6 months the war will improve. It didn't, not until our counter insurgency, the cooperation of Sunnis to fight Al Qaeda and restraint by Shias. He ridiculed Iraqi people. Sadly, he didn't even have the gumption or fortitude to apologize for his support for GWB and his war of choice. It's all on video in Charlie Rose's archive.
No. Friedman's analysis is very superficial. Is positions on Iraq have been wrong a lot.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
