Juan Cole had a generally good commentary on the column that T-Fed wrote yesterday calling for an end to the GWOT. Juan zeroed in on the “bad for business” aspects of the GWOT that Tom had focused on.
Juan did not, however, mention an intriguing little two-word insertion in Tom’s text that imho we should seek much more clarification of.
Tom was writing of (I think) Americans in general– though speaking for myself and for everyone else who agitated strongly against the post-9/11 warmaking, I say, “Count me out!”. He wrote this:
- our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.
Is this the beginning of the mea culpa I have been seeking for so long now– from Tom, as from all the rest of those liberal hawks whose voice was so important in both strengthening and legitimizing the Bushites’ pre-March 2003 push to invade Iraq?
I don’t know. Tom doesn’t give any further clarification of his views on Iraq. We can note, though, that if the US’s reaction to 9/11 “knocked America completely out of balance”, then it had an impact on the 26 million people of Iraq that was far, far worse than that.
So I think we do need to have clarity from Tom regarding how he feels now about the pro-invasion position he energetically espoused prior to March 2003. (It would be good to have that conversation with Juan, too, at some point, though I think the support he gave to the invasion was somewhat less energetic than that of T-Fed, Jim-Boy Hoagland, and numerous other wellpaid heavyweights in the so-called “liberal” wing of the commentatoriat. And it goes without saying the neo-con wing was, in general, far worse.)
What Tom did write about, to illustrate the ways he thought the US had been “knocked completely out of balance”, was mainly Guantanamo– or perhaps I should say, those perceptions of Guantanamo that non-Americans have, that make them less happy to do business with the US as a result. He wrote, too, about those intrusive aspects of US border-control ops that dissuade non-US business execs and tourists from visiting our lovely country.
I should note that his column does raise one interesting possibility regarding how this thing called the “GWOT” might be expected to end. Many people have worried about this. In the traditional history of war, a war is first declared, by the competent arm of any given government, against one or more other named governments. It is then waged, using army-versus-army force, until either (a) one side is completely obliterated, in which case the victor becomes the “occupying power” in the other guy’s country and assumed the responsibilities associated with that status, or (b) a surrender is negotiated between the governments concerned; and then the two sides implement the terms of that surrender, which may or may not include a limited-term occupation by the stronger side of the terrain of the weaker side.
But at least, in traditional warfare, everyone understood their rights and responsibilities– and most importantly of all, there were clear criteria that marked off the situation of “at war” from the situation of “at peace.” (In WW2, the victory over Germany took form “a” above, while that over Japan took form “b”.)
But with this amorphous thing that Bush announced in late 2001, called the “Global War on Terror”, there were no clear limits at all– either spatially or temporally. One had no idea when the GWOT could be declared “over”, since there was no clearly identified opponent whose vanquishing would constitute victory. Indeed, we were never given a definition of victory. We were just asked for hundreds of billions of dollars to carry on waging this thing.
So now, T-Fed has done us the service of suggesting some actual criteria for when the GWOT can be declared over. In his argument, it could be considered over when Microsoft, the US Chamber of Commerce, and the Association of US Travel Agents tell us it is “time to move on.”
Under international law, you will note, this all looks most unusual and irregular.
Well, the whole GWOT has looked quite irregular under international law, all along.
It is time, indeed, for a new paradigm. (Amazing! That’s what my new book will be about! Hint: It’s called “Global Inclusion” and involves returning to and strengthening the long-established structures of international law…)
But as we all– US citizens and the other 95% of the world’s people– work together to build and work for this new paradigm, I think we still need to hold to transparent account all those, both inside and outside the US government, who bear some responsibility (including the responsibility of public incitement) for having taken the US into its illegal and extremely harmful invasion of Iraq. Please, let’s not simply sweep that historical record under the carpet.
This is not a question of schadenfreude or personal vindication. It is important that we learn from this whole experience… about the nature of war; about the need for caution and conservatism in the use of force; about the possibility of fatal mismatches between intentions and effects; about the need to listen carefully to others inside and outside the country who have differing views; and about the fact that warmaking is actually, these days, not very good at– or quite possibly even harmful for– the attainment of moral goals of real and lasting substance.
So Tom Friedman (and the rest of you onetime “liberal hawks”) please tell us a lot more about how exactly you think it was that the US went “completely out of balance” after 9/11. And in particular, whether you now think it is possible that your own views and writings on Iraq in the lead-up to March 2003 might have been a part of that.
Helena, I wonder if it is really possible for these pundits to achieve such self-awareness and to acknowledge their responsibility. They are committed to their own importance, I think. In this sense, 9-11 had no noticeable effect. Prior to that event, pundits believed in themselves and afterwards, they still do. They think they serve some important purpose in what they wish to believe is the democratic press. They don’t trust their audience but they presume the significance of their relationship to that audience.
The silliness of their presumptions doesn’t seem to matter to their employers, so I have to assume that this is what those rich fellows want them to say.
Pundits accept no responsibility for their own deliberate lies and confabulations; indeed, look at this week’s Frank Rich column to see this at work. He says that Al Gore had a clear shot at the presidency, no obstacles, everybody on board, it was Al’s to lose. But all of us who were reading the pundits and the news during 1999 and on know that wasn’t the case. The pundits hated Al Gore, people like Rich made up stories about him, called him a liar, a flip-flopper, sneered at his clothing, made fun of him for being too smart and snotty, etc etc etc. And these same pundits said Bush was just such a great guy, common man, good fella, compassionate conservative, blah blah blah. Bush won, sorta, we got us one fine war, and here’s Frank, saying it’s Hillary’s to lose because she is too complacent.
The only people who strike me as complacent these days are these pundits who apparently can keep drawing their mighty big paychecks no matter what crap they say. They face no consequences for their own revision of their own history.
I would like to hear what that puffed up, self-important orientalist racist windbag has to say now about statements like this:
“I think it [the invasion of Iraq] was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie.
…
“We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big state right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble, and there was only one way to do it.
…
“What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, “Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?”
“You don’t think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna to let it grow?
“Well Suck. On. This.
“That Charlie was what this war was about. We could’ve hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. We coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.”
For someone who is supposedly a “Middle East expert” (self-appointed, of course), he certainly is 1) clueless about, 2) in contempt of the object of his expertise. He reminds me a bit of Bernard Lewis in that regard, only Bernard Lewis has less of an excuse because he really WAS a decent historian whereas Friedman is a complete fraud.
I don’t know. Tom doesn’t give any further clarification of his views on Iraq.
“WE BREAK IT; WE OWN IT” end of the story
Do you think we need to?
He spelt his words many times and long time and he did his best with all “(the rest of “liberal hawks”) gang that still be believed and listen to.
I wonder how people in the west keep listen to them?
How people in the west keep believe in them?
Unless all the people in vein with T. Friedman and other his hatred toward Arab/Islam spelt very well and over
then it had an impact on the 26 million people of Iraq that was far, far worse than that.
He did say his views in the last two OP-ED Columns What’s Missing in Baghdad He is very clearly put the blames on Iraqi themselves, although Iraqis have some of the blame, but he forgot this status of “Manageable chaos” in Iraq, who was created it,who is behind it and who is fuel it?
Then he nicely put this:
Mr. Mandelbaum argues that democracy is made up of two elements: liberty and popular sovereignty. “Liberty involves what governments do” — the rule of law, the protection of people from abuses of state power and the regulations by which government institutions operate, he explains. Popular sovereignty involves how the people determine who governs them — through free elections.
Very nice words about democracy and how set it and talking about?
Any of the above words comply with what US did and doing in Iraq?
Is western democracy style that T. Freidman likes and talking about, which basically built upon the split between the state and the religion which never seen to be deploying in Iraq from early days of Americans administration in Iraq represented by Paul” Jerry” Bremer II.
In fact the tensions between different ethnics and religious groups inside Iraq started and encouraged before the invasion of Iraq when “No Fly Zones” introduced by promoting one group against other.
Now T. Friedman and some ME specialist talking about Iraq as a groups of Gated Cantons of different ethics and religious factions but they forgot this status was reaches after more than FOUR years of invasion! So you got it now when Tony Blair said “Will Carry On Until The Job Is Done”? that my all time question, which Job needs to be done for the occupied Iraq?
Then his recent column titled And Letter From Baghdad
Which basically reflecting and conveying to Americans readers misleading truth when he said:
Ameriya is a Sunni neighborhood
The reality is Ameriya (west Baghdad) mix residential area, these sections of land was sold to Iraqis (without any ethnic preferences taken in accout) most of them well qualified from teachers to engineers and doctors, includes many high rank state official early 1970’s.
Helena this is T. Friedman, he will never changes these people they think in all time with selfrightness and all other who not agree with them just forget them.
One question Helena did Henry Kissinger Changed his thinking and his attitude?
When T. Friedman talking about democracy and what done and doing in Iraq is this:
Kill them all to silence them into Peace. Murder them all so they can submit, surrender to Peace. Hunt them down, exile them and let them wish for a return to Peace. Give them divided pieces so you can shove Peace down their throats, like a cork before their grief explodes your Peace. Make them skeletons of Peace. Riddle them with Radiation, Bacterias, Germs, Viruses and they will swallow Peace. Imprison them and torture them till their skins fall off and form scabs of Peace. Starve them so you can see through their ribs and they will beg and eat Peace. Let them stutter with fear so they can murmur Peace. A beautiful peaceful Genocide. A silent, peaceful Holocaust from the makers of Peace. Orations and speeches of Peace. Human rights and conventions of Peace. Laws and jurisdictions of Peace. Congresses and Nobel Peace Prizes. A wonderful piece.
http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2007/09/corner-of-peace.html
“GWOT”?
Based on the work of Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard public finance lecturer Linda J. Bilmes, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) recently determined that the Iraq war costs $720 million per day, $500,000 per minute – enough to provide homes for nearly 6,500 families, or health care for 423,529 children in just one day.
It is a systemic problem for a democracy to link corporate profits and war-making, and it has metastasized as this war has been increasingly privatized (there are now more contractors than soldiers in Iraq).
Ending War for Profit
09/27/2007 @ 8:33pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut?pid=237655
26 million people of Iraq
* 5 Millions left during Sanction time till 2003.
* 2-4 Millions left after invasion till now they are mostly in neighbouring countries.
* 1 Millions killed from 2003 till now.
* 2-3 Millions displaced inside Iraq.
* 14 Millions Iraqis under poverty line.
More to come, what heartless people are there in this world who keep silent of this man made tragedy, you all be ashamed of this crimes of humanity happening each day in name of Democracy you all talking about it, but the only real democracy Iraqis can see is their silent murdering.
Shirin,
“decent historian ” ?! Tch-Tch Shirin ! You are far too intelligent to use that word so generously. First Boxer, now Bernard Lewis?! Who’s next: Dershy-boy?
Bernard Lewis WAS a decent historian. That does not impact whether or not he was or is a decent human being.
I think as politicians go Barbara Boxer is fairly decent. Certainly compared to her “Lieberman Lite” California colleague she is far better.
Dershowitz does not, will never, and probably never has deserved to be called decent.
Aunt Deb – you rule!
Friedman readily admits what’s bothering him:
“I still can’t get uninterrupted cellphone service between my home in Bethesda and my office in D.C.”
Poor dear!!
Perhaps he recognized the GWOT never had any legs. How can you have a war with a tactic.
The GWOT was a temporary interlude following the Cold War until something more substantial replaces it.
My bet is Iran will trigger a Cold War II with a Russia/China alliance. Once we arrange that the GWOT may RIP. It served it’s tour of duty with honour. I think TF has it figured this way as well and figured it’s time to declare Victory or an end to the GWOT so we can be free to march on to the next war.
The oil is secure and we have an excuse to maintain military spending to win the next big war over resources. What more could the MIC ask for. Life is good for these critters and their CFR partners.
Well Alan Greenspan won’t reproach Thomas Friedman for failing to be candid. In this January 5, 2003 column, entitled “A war for oil?”, Friedman was unequivocal:
“Is the war that the Bush team is preparing to launch in Iraq really a war for oil?
My short answer is yes. Any war we launch in Iraq will certainly be — in part — about oil.”
More specifically:
“The primary reason the Bush team is more focused on Saddam [than North Korea] is because if he were to acquire weapons of mass destruction, it might give him the leverage he has long sought — not to attack us, but to extend his influence over the world’s largest source of oil, the Persian Gulf.”
And, as with Greenspan, this was all fine and legitimate with Tom: “I have no problem with a war for oil – if we accompany it with a real program for energy conservation.”
I wonder how he feels about all this now.
Guys
Time pressure means I cant take part in the fun of particpating in these forums any longer.
I have particularly enjoyed the comments of Shirin, John C, Scott, Dominic and last but not least Salah. I have learned from you and wish you all well.
I will leave you with this thought from George Freedman
Iran, Iraq: Upping the Ante with SAMs
Oct 01, 2007
Signs indicate that Iran is planning to supply its militant proxies in Iraq with shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles. The threat of SAM shipments into Iraq is a useful pressure tactic for Iran to use in its negotiations with the United States over Iraq, but should the threat materialize, Tehran will be crossing a huge redline with Washington.
http://www.stratfor.com/
John C., you should read IOZ’ takedown of high Friedmanese. You can find it at http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/i-was-able-to-interpet-this-feeling.html
Aunt Deb, the link does not work. Try again, please. :o}
Shirin, hope this works for you now.
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2007/10/i-was-able-to-interpret-this-feeling.html
Thanks for the link Auntie.
As the world transitioned from the Cold War to the war on radical Islam former CIA director James Woolsey said: “We have slain a large dragon. But we live now in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes.”
http://www.iags.org/n0108071.htm
Each one have his side of the story!
JC,
Yes you are right, that’s why Iraq still a live with his very very bloody history by those ruthless occupiers back 5000 years till now.
Why Iraq?
It’s God Well.
Tom Friedman, the namesake of the Friedman Unit (or F.U.) for “measuring” the “next six critical months” of interminable colonial quagmire, succinctly explained America’s criminal lunge into needless War on Iraq as follows:
“We had to hit somebody.”
That single cavalier sentence tells us all we need to know about the depth and breadth of Thomas Friedman’s opinions on matters of historic national consequence. What two things does he think before he writes? Obviously, (1) not much and (2) not often.
Friedman reminds me of George Orwell’s famous dismissal of conventional pundits. “Political and military commentators, like astrologers, can survive any disaster; because their more devoted followers do not look to them for an appraisal of the facts but for the stimulation of their nationalistic loyalties.” I long ago put Thomas Friedman down as little more than a nationalistic, if not Zionist, loyalty-stimulator.
I once heard this plausibly-glib, but essentially shallow slogan-spouter, proclaim on the PBS program Washington Week in Review that “the foreigners don’t understand us.” When I stopped laughing and crying at the same time, I thought: “Tell that to Chiang-Kai Shek (Chinese), Syngman Rhee (Korean), Ngo-Dinh Diem (Vietnamese), Ahmed Chalabi (Iraqi), Osama Bin Laden (Saudi Arabian), and any Israeli above the age of twelve, et al.” Despite Friedman’s ludicrous delusions of American “mystery,” no people on earth deserve the label “scrutable” more than conformist, predictable Americans. Just determine the irrational American bogeyman du jour and tell the American government you “oppose” it: then watch (and collect your percentage on) the billions in corrupt military aid that instantly — and for at least decades — materializes. Some “mystery.” Some “inscrutability.” Everyone understands America but the Americans.
Anyway, since I never believed a word of what Thomas Friedman ever wrote or said about anything, I have nothing to disbelieve about what he writes or says now. Not believing self-serving pundits mouthing guru-management-jargon in the first place saves a lot of time and trouble later on trying to rationalize one’s own gullibility for lending credence to the incredible. Witness the continued tortured contortions of New York Senator You-Know-Her as she tries simultaneously to claim “experience” for higher office based on the obvious disqualification that a dyslexic dwarf chimanzee like Deputy Dubya Bush — if not the laughable likes of “liberal hawk” Thomas Friedman — effortlessly made a cheerleading militarist, if not AIPAC Zionist, monkey out of her.
Unfortunately for America, Iraq, and probably Iran, both Thomas Friedman and Senator You-Know-Her will probably survive the disasters they help foment and incite because as the late historian Barbara Tuchman said in The March of Folly: “People tend to accept a successfully dramatized self-estimation.”
Michael, thanks for contributing that great Orwell quote. It’s from his Notes on Nationalism, which I read (twice) a long time ago… definitely worth a third read now, I think.
definitely worth a third read now, I think.
Love this essay. Especially the passage on ‘negative nationalism.’
War is a tragedy – for anyone involved in.
Would America and non-Muslim world have been more secure if Saddam has still plotted directly/indirectly the factually terrorism-supportive actions against the West?
What is better: to deliberate such possibilities in protected peaceful US cities or praying for a safe return from streets as in many places round a globe it happens, then Kosovo and recently Jerusalem are surely among them?
GOD BLESS AMERICA for courage demonstrated by Pr. G.W.Bush and the US Senate in Iraq – if even it is hard, unpopular and costly decision surely requiring a finalization of direct US activities in that country and steady peace in a region.
Hello Helena,
One nice thing about the Internet. It’s introduced us to rich new sources of illiteracy. Case in point, the previous post of Kerjman, whose transparent panic about Muslims has caused his prepositions to go MIA.
Although I don’t agree with him I do think that his thought needs to be clarified and so I, selflessly, take the task upon myself. And so here is his letter rephrased for the clarity I know that he would want, were he able to speak English. The square brackets [] enclose proposed additions; the angle brackets > enclose deletions. Don’t thank me. I wanted to do it.
“War is a tragedy for anyone involved. .
Would America and [the] non-Muslim world [be] more secure if Saddam [were] still [plotting, ] directly [or] indirectly [,] actions against the West? [These measures of Saddam’s were supported by facts.]
[Which] is better[?] t To deliberate [upon] such possibilities in protected [and] peaceful US cities or praying [that one may safely return from a simple errand in the street] as [is the situation] in many places [a]round [the] globe[.] [This is the actual situation in such places as Kosovo and Jerusalem.]
(This reconstruction is speculative, Bob C.)
GOD BLESS AMERICA for [the] courage demonstrated by Pr[esident] G.W.Bush and the US Senate [for their actions] in Iraq – [even though] it is [a] hard, unpopular and costly decision [and, surely, we all want a conclusion to direct US activities in that country and a lasting peace in the region.]
(Again, this reconstruction is speculative, BC.)
So there you have it, Kjerman’s reconstructed thought, not so bizarre once the verbiage is spruced up. And now, without interruptions, I present to you Kjerman’s thought in its pristine glory:
“War is a tragedy for anyone involved.
Would America and the non-Muslim world be more secure if Saddam were still plotting, directly or indirectly, actions against the West? These measures of Saddam were supported by facts.
Which is better? To deliberate upon such possibilities in protected and peaceful US cities or praying that one may safely return from a simple errand in the street as is the situation in many places around the globe. This is the actual situation in such places as Kosovo and Jerusalem.
GOD BLESS AMERICA for the courage demonstrated by President G.W.Bush and the US Senate for their actions in Iraq – even though it is a hard, unpopular and costly decision and, surely, we all want a conclusion to direct US activities in that country and a lasting peace in the region.”
The question remains, who is Michael Kerjman? An internet search turned up a ‘Michael Kerjman’ who reviews Chinese sex-oriented movies on Amazon.com but I hardly think that this is our man. His English is too good.
On the other hand, how about this letter written by a ‘Michael Kerjman’ to something called ‘NATFHE’ which is spear-heading the movement to prevent boycotts of Israeli universities by foreign institutions. Here’s a sample:
“Dear NATFHE Officials,
As clear from a submission No. 340 to the Senate Committee on the Inquiry into the Higher Education http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/COMMITTEE/eet_ctte/publicuni/submissions/sublist.htm , an author well understands and shares concerns of equal possibilities to be qualified and express an independent opinion even at the first-world universities.
To his belief, pushing a higher education into politics outside an area of its performance-related jurisdiction is divisive rather than an intellectually sustained action, which brings about more controversy than good either in Israel or wherever.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Kerjman”
This was a little better phrased than our letter but, same grammar, same thought, same guy? You be the judge.
Bob Consoli
“BORDERLINE ABUSIVE – and proud of it, man.”
‘War on terror’ has been a ‘disaster’: British think tank”
The US-led “war on terror” has been a “disaster” and Washington and its allies must change their policy in Iraq and Afghanistan to defeat Al-Qaeda, an independent global security think tank said.
“Extraordinary rendition”, detention without trial and prisoner abuse should stop immediately; countries should commit to advancing the stalled Middle East peace process, because of its central role in anti-Western sentiment, it said.
A long time English linguistics professional, I am sick and tired reading Bob Consoli’s simplified corrections of M. Kerjman’s text short of academia-sustained grammatic sophistications definitely.
Intrigued with this discussion, I did find more M. Kerjman’s works in Internet. These submissions are much more close to a topic deliberated than only exercising the English spelling on these pages.
Back to an article, just a smaaaaaaal nuance makes me wondering.
Is Mr. T.Friedman really ready to implement his ideas more practically in realistic environment of East Jerusalem (not speaking of Gaza or even Istanbul, Cairo, Dubai, omitting Teheran, Kabul, Damascus et al), IN SITU, as natives to these ALL places had been practicing already around the West, in the USA and UK undoubtedly?
In what language is A.P.D. a ‘long time English linguistics professional’? Inquiring minds, you know..
Robert Consoli
In English.
Both A.P.D. and M. Kerjman are highly respected professionals: A.P.D. specialises in international law, and Michael Kerjman of a non-Anglo-background is an exceptionally talented engineer, scientist and multilingual publicist.
There is different Kerjman in newspapers sometimes – he is a known European sportsman and hardly interested in the U.S. politics.
Bob Consoli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Consoli (is it your URL?)
Thank you for reading comments on Asian/China’s/Hong Kong’s/ by ethnic Chinese-produced movies: sometimes, they are not much worse than those of a Hollywood origin. However, comments on both the US and European-created films are either present, in the NY Times Out, for instance.
As above mentioned UK-initiated boycott was being linked with the US activities surely, its further developments are of some interest to following this discussion:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3454344,00.html
Presumably, has polishing English, both writing and accent (of which origin as even native speakers of different countries hardly understand each other themselves?) stabilized Iraq and a region in general, it is worth to improve language skills worldwide – and your English grammar on your personal merits surely.