Friday, December 01, 2006

Friedman Fighters and Friedman Fries

Those of you who have been reading this blog for a while know by now that at least I, Helmut, am a Thomas Friedman hater, a Friedman fighter. I can't stand him - he's a simplistic, dishonest, elitist, self-serving faux-journalist prancing around with faux-intellect and faux-morality. I'll pretty much always take the occasion to link to a good Friedman bashing, though it is a tad too easy. I just like to see Friedman fry. Glenn Greenwald takes some shots today.
...and so I spent the day yesterday and today reading every Tom Friedman column beginning in mid-2002 through the present regarding Iraq. That body of work is extraordinary. Friedman is truly one of the most frivolous, dishonest, and morally bankrupt public intellectuals burdening this country. Yet he is, of course, still today, one of the most universally revered figures around, despite -- amazingly enough, I think it's more accurate to say "because of" -- his advocacy of the invasion of Iraq, likely the greatest strategic foreign policy disaster in America's history...

Put another way, these are the premises which Friedman, prior to the invasion, expressly embraced:

(1) If the war is done the right way, great benefits can be achieved.
(2) If the war is done the wrong way, unimaginable disasters will result.
(3) The Bush administration is doing this war the wrong way, not the right way, on every level.
(4) Given all of that, I support the waging of this war.

Just ponder that: Tom Friedman supported the invasion of Iraq even though, by his own reasoning, that war was being done the "wrong way" and would thus -- also by his own reasoning -- create nothing but untold damage on every level. And he did so all because there was some imaginary, hypothetical, fantasy way of doing the war that Friedman thought was good, but that he knew isn't what we would get.

To support a war that you know is going to be executed in a destructive manner is as morally monstrous as it gets. The fact that there is some idealized, Platonic way to fight the war doesn't make that any better if you know that that isn't what is going to happen. We learn in adolescence that wanting things that we can't have -- pining for things that aren't real or possible -- is futile and irrational. To apply that adolescent fantasy world to war advocacy is the hallmark of a deeply frivolous and amoral person.
Lots more....

3 comments:

troutsky said...

A whole day reading Friedman? I would have to be put in restraints.The only form of torture more heinous would be listening to him speak for a whole day.

Anonymous said...

I see many of the same things Thomas Friedman sees, yet I interpret them very differently. Although I don't agree with his assessment that things have gone horribly wrong, there were better candidates to be had than Iraq if the U.S. feels the need to invade someone. Syria comes to mind. Iran as well if it were not beyond the capabilities of our greatly leaner volunteer force.

Also, though he appears to contradict himself, his reasoning for opinion is internally consistent given his view of the region.

It's nice to see Bush-haters taking potshots at eachother though :).

helmut said...

That's silly, anon. I've thought Friedman was a buffoon long before Bush came along and showed that there are at least two high-profile buffoons. Disliking Friedman has very little to do with disliking Bush, although they do share that peculiar quality of being pretty oblivious to the world around them and then acting as the big guys on the world stage.