On Top of a Pile of Money, with Many Copies of 'The World is Flat' Posted by Patrick Barry

Browsing the New York Times website today, I noticed that a lot of people are reading Tom Friedman's column opposing the President's decision on Afghanistan.  That's really too bad, because the column is one of the silliest pieces of commentary I've read about the war.  The man is entitled to his view, but anyone seeking to base their opinion on Afghanistan on the what Friedman says should really think twice.  Certainly, it's within reason to assert that Afghanistan "is just too expensive, when balanced against our needs for nation-building in America, so that we will have the strength to play our broader global role."  That's some compelling cost-benefit analysis.  In fact, you might even say it should be the principle that's applied everytime the U.S. considers a larger-scale operation on foreign soil. But, as Friedman's stubborn refusal to issue a genuine mea culpa on the Iraq war illustrates, he has decided to ignore his own advice.

It's astonishing to me that Friedman can argue (somewhat persuasively) that Afghanistan is not worth the investment, when the long-term vitality of the country requires that investment be directed elsewhere, and in the same breath say that the Iraq War, costly though it may have been, was somehow worth doing because of fantastical idea that the U.S. military could transform the entire Middle East.  I feel like mashing my finger down on the question mark key.

Comments

[David desJardins]

I generally don't like Friedman, but I think this column is excellent. The way in which he puts a need for a US presence in the world, acknowledging that it has not always been good but that the absence could be worse, is particularly good.

The argument that Friedman was wrong about Iraq and therefore his arguments about Afghanistan should be dismissed is pure ad hominem. Let's suppose that Friedman is a complete hypocrite who refuses to recognize or admit his poor judgment on Iraq to defend his ego. Even if that were all true, it's not relevant to evaluating his arguments about our proper role in Afghanistan.

[David desJardins]

Furthermore, Friedman never even says in this column that the Iraq war was not a mistake. He basically acknowledges it has been a disaster.

Finally, the argument that if the Iraq war was a good idea then a similar war in Afghanistan must be a good idea for the same reasons, is simply fallacious. Circumstances in Afghanistan are not like Iraq. This is a country stuck in the 15th century, with near 80% illiteracy. Whatever you think of the prospects for building a modern democracy in Iraq, the prospects for the same in Afghanistan are much more remote.

[sikiş]

thanks admin exciting blog
information is the most beautiful treasures

[mangan]

Hi,
The good news is that Friedman thinks most newspapers are covering the mess objectively. The bad news is that it's hard to determine what, at this point, "objectively" means on any given day.