Every where in the mideast where we invaded, we have ousted regimes and then left power vacuums. ISIS filled these vacuums . If we had colonized these conquered lands instead of installing or not installing compliant new regimes that allowed western oil extraction, there would be no vacuum. But we despise the mideast. No American wants to live there . All we want is their oil. Hence ISIS is predictable. The only way to extinguish terror in europe is to to foster kurdish style democracy, barring that we must colonize, or get out of the oil grabbing empire game entirely.
22
Uh, why is it our job to "defend the free world"?
32
Except that Iraqi Kurdistan is NOT strictly a "self-generated" democracy. Do you imagine for a moment that it would even be in this conversation if not for the American intervention in Iraq that first encouraged Kurds to rise up against Saddam, then prevented air attacks on Kurds from Saddam, and ultimately removed Saddam from power and handed him over for execution?
6
Thank you, Mr. Obama for your calm and thoughtful actions in the Syria-Iraq's region. I don't know if there are too many happy worriors "advising" you to get on the bandwagon and "fix things" in the Middle-East, but am I glad you are the Commander in Chief and not the McCain/Palin team or the living room worriors such as Dick Cheiney and family advocating a "tougher approach", as they say. It is NOT President Obama's job alone to bring about more peace in the Middle-East. The Iraq experience taught us what it cost in human sacrifice to go and try to "fix things" in a country at war within itself. That was a lesson learned for Mr. Obama.
38
Coming from a guy that thought that invading Iraq would be a great idea and that Americans would be welcomed as liberators, you have got to wonder why we should take Friedman's opinions seriously.
60
Yes, he does.
Thank you for you input, sir.
Thank you for you input, sir.
17
Previous US interventions in this region have had disastrous results, one of them being ISIS. Obama is right not to repeat the past mistakes.
38
I share Obama's disgust for Middle East leaders. They are not national leaders. They are for their own personal and group enrichment.
Thomas, of our major Muslim nation allies,
Will Turkey allow further Kurdish independence since it encourages its own Kurdish citizens?
Will Saudi Arabia put the defeat of ISIS over its rivalry with Iran?
Will Saudi Arabia stop spreading its hate filled brand of Islam around the world?
Will Saudi Arabia take in Syrian refugees?
These leaders keep telling us we don't understand the complicated politics of their region. For once I'll take their words at face value. And I conclude we should far, far away.
Thomas, of our major Muslim nation allies,
Will Turkey allow further Kurdish independence since it encourages its own Kurdish citizens?
Will Saudi Arabia put the defeat of ISIS over its rivalry with Iran?
Will Saudi Arabia stop spreading its hate filled brand of Islam around the world?
Will Saudi Arabia take in Syrian refugees?
These leaders keep telling us we don't understand the complicated politics of their region. For once I'll take their words at face value. And I conclude we should far, far away.
19
“Don’t just sit there, President Obama, do something!”
“Oh, no, President Obama, don’t go into the Middle East with guns blazing! Look what a mess that sort of thing caused when Bush and Cheney tried it after 9/11.”
“Get the Iranians to do the heavy lifting in Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIS, President Obama!”
“What on earth are you thinking, President Obama? We can’t be dealing with Iran! Get Saudi Arabia to go into Syria and Iraq to wipe out ISIS!”
“Are you crazy, President Obama? Don’t rely on Saudi Arabia! The House of Saud financed and inspired ISIS, after the group was created by George W. Bush sending them armed into Syria because they used to work for Saddam Hussein?”
"Get the Kurds to nail ISIS, President Obama. Everybody in the area -- Turks, Iranians, Syrians -- like The Kurds."
"Forget the Kurds and forget ISIS, President Obama. Afghanistan is where we should be putting our money and our troops. The Taliban and al Qaeda are the real threats!"
“Forget Afghanistan and the Taliban and al Qaeda, President Obama. We lost enough American lives protecting the drug pushers in that country!”
“How can you be so stupid, President Obama? Do you want to abandon Afghanistan and turn it into another Pakistan?”
Ah yes, the value of good advice.
“Oh, no, President Obama, don’t go into the Middle East with guns blazing! Look what a mess that sort of thing caused when Bush and Cheney tried it after 9/11.”
“Get the Iranians to do the heavy lifting in Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIS, President Obama!”
“What on earth are you thinking, President Obama? We can’t be dealing with Iran! Get Saudi Arabia to go into Syria and Iraq to wipe out ISIS!”
“Are you crazy, President Obama? Don’t rely on Saudi Arabia! The House of Saud financed and inspired ISIS, after the group was created by George W. Bush sending them armed into Syria because they used to work for Saddam Hussein?”
"Get the Kurds to nail ISIS, President Obama. Everybody in the area -- Turks, Iranians, Syrians -- like The Kurds."
"Forget the Kurds and forget ISIS, President Obama. Afghanistan is where we should be putting our money and our troops. The Taliban and al Qaeda are the real threats!"
“Forget Afghanistan and the Taliban and al Qaeda, President Obama. We lost enough American lives protecting the drug pushers in that country!”
“How can you be so stupid, President Obama? Do you want to abandon Afghanistan and turn it into another Pakistan?”
Ah yes, the value of good advice.
34
Obama doesn't hate all the Mideast leaders. You are showing your bias. The trouble with your critique is that Obama has a strong argument and may be right!
What are US interests in the Middle East... exactly? We don't have strong interests in the Middle East. That's a fact. Historic and emotional alliances with Saudi Arabia and Israel are no reason for American boys to die on the sand for no good reason.
Obama raises a very good point in saying that Europe isn't carrying the load. They pulled him into Libya, with Clinton's strong support, and then simply backed away while we carried the load.
Europe is under heavy terrorist threat, and their security and defense services aren't handling it ... again. We should not step in front. They must take care of themselves, and as an ally, we should support.
What are US interests in the Middle East... exactly? We don't have strong interests in the Middle East. That's a fact. Historic and emotional alliances with Saudi Arabia and Israel are no reason for American boys to die on the sand for no good reason.
Obama raises a very good point in saying that Europe isn't carrying the load. They pulled him into Libya, with Clinton's strong support, and then simply backed away while we carried the load.
Europe is under heavy terrorist threat, and their security and defense services aren't handling it ... again. We should not step in front. They must take care of themselves, and as an ally, we should support.
44
Mr. Friedman seems to have a romantic over-estimate of what can be achieved with U.S. intervention or the willingness of the American people to sustain a prolonged involvement after 14 years in Afghanistan, Iraq, the crumbling of Libya (Benghazi!), and the current bombing of Syria. Is it possible for "the West" to be "all over Tunisia with economic, technical and military assistance?" Mr. Friedman seems to assume a non-existent political will and consensus. He should discuss the EU members and their policy and differences and difficulties in joint decision making. And Mr. Friedman omits any mention of Erdogan's Turkey which complicates and opposes any support for Iraqi Kurdistan, but is vital to the EU's policy of restricting migrant flows from the Middle East.
Intervention in Tunisia and Iraqi Kurdistan would not solve the problem of terrorist cells among Europe's alienated Muslim youth or weaken ISIS, which is in Syria/Iraq and Libya. Would Mr. Krugman also want the U.S. to intervene there and how, and with what European allies?
Intervention in Tunisia and Iraqi Kurdistan would not solve the problem of terrorist cells among Europe's alienated Muslim youth or weaken ISIS, which is in Syria/Iraq and Libya. Would Mr. Krugman also want the U.S. to intervene there and how, and with what European allies?
14
Mr. Friedman, when was the last time that you wanted to avoid a war in the Middle East? Your trigger-happy "solutions" are precisely why ISIS continues to recruit young people, many with only slight interest in Islam. How much refugee-producing destruction is enough?
34
Why does it have to be us? If the flood of syrians into Europe threatens to destabilize the E.U., then they should do something about it...like help Syria.
And btw, what about our bridges?
And btw, what about our bridges?
27
So what should we do? Send more Americans to die in Iraq? And what makes you think that will do it? What makes you think this situation is even in our power to fix?
The same pundit class (including Friedman) that supported the Iraq War wants the US to get back in there.
That tells me all i need to know.
The same pundit class (including Friedman) that supported the Iraq War wants the US to get back in there.
That tells me all i need to know.
32
'Standing up and demanding' that terrorists stop their attacks is not a plausible strategy.
6
I had to read this headline a few times. Does Obama Have This Right? Do you mean - Does he have this correct? Or do you mean - Does he have the authority? The answer to both questions is yes he does.
28
He's not underestimating - he's ignoring
2
'The West should be all over Tunisia with economic, technical and military assistance. “Tunisia is a start-up democracy,” its former Prime Minister Mehdi Jomaa told me. “It may be small, but its leverage for the future of the region is enormous. I can’t imagine any stability in the region if Tunisia doesn’t succeed.”' Former Prime Minister Jomaa's fluency in Friedmanese is remarkable.
7
According to your logic, the US should go into Syria to help the E.U.
Why doesn't the E.U. do that itself if it feels the same? Why is it always American lives and American money?
And once we have a military "victory" in Syria, are the Syrians going to be well disposed towards us? Iraq certainly wasn't, and we rid them of a brutal dictatorship.
Obama is wise to be staying out of these places. And as to Europe, if it feels inclined to act, let it act. It's far from helpless.....
Why doesn't the E.U. do that itself if it feels the same? Why is it always American lives and American money?
And once we have a military "victory" in Syria, are the Syrians going to be well disposed towards us? Iraq certainly wasn't, and we rid them of a brutal dictatorship.
Obama is wise to be staying out of these places. And as to Europe, if it feels inclined to act, let it act. It's far from helpless.....
18
Maybe this is too simple: It's not the presidents job to declare war. That's congress's job. If you want a war, call your congressman and tell him to send up a bill.
It's not it his job to do their job.
If the neocons want a "war on radical Islam", they should write up a bill and put it before the house. The public can watch the debate on C-SPAN and pretend we live in a democracy.
It's not it his job to do their job.
If the neocons want a "war on radical Islam", they should write up a bill and put it before the house. The public can watch the debate on C-SPAN and pretend we live in a democracy.
25
Perhaps Tom Friedman has a point, that a little support to Tunisia and the Kurds could pay political dividends. Obama is right, that we can't afford to be the dumbest, richest kid at the poker table. Could someone at the NYT explain to me why Israel deserves three billion dollars a year of US support, when it is destroying any chance of peace through it policy of occupying Palastinian lands.
Perhaps we could cut off or wind down our support of Israel, while increasing our aid to Tunisia and the Kurds, and Detroit and Flint Michigan.
Perhaps we could cut off or wind down our support of Israel, while increasing our aid to Tunisia and the Kurds, and Detroit and Flint Michigan.
30
The centennial of WWI is upon us, a war started because of a terrorist assassination. Does that kind of response sound like a good idea?
10
Wrong, wrong, wrong. We must simply protect human rights in all countries, including our "friends" in Saudi Arabia, and Israel, and leave mere self-governance the politics to the locals. No More Empire Building!
9
Sounds to me as if you are being quite judgmental. Without having the credentials of public office or the political experience to provide a foundation.......
10
When you consider the results in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the US has provided economic, technical, and military assistance, I fail to see why you would wish that upon Tunisia or Kurdistan.
66
You make a good point.
But, it's too bad you lost all credibility in such matters with your support of the Iraq invasion; and your later prevarications on the subject.
Just say'n.
But, it's too bad you lost all credibility in such matters with your support of the Iraq invasion; and your later prevarications on the subject.
Just say'n.
18
Tom, perhaps if we had pulled out of the Middle East completely eight years ago - no radical religious bent ISIS would exist today. Look, these terrorist attacks are the result of our occupation and killing of hundreds of thousands of Muslims these past 13-years.
What would you do it a powerful country invaded your homeland and killed your people year after year after year. Wouldn't you want to strike back?
My heart goes out to the Europeans who were killed along with the thousands in the Middle east - but lets not forget - we started these wars and created these terrorist.
What would you do it a powerful country invaded your homeland and killed your people year after year after year. Wouldn't you want to strike back?
My heart goes out to the Europeans who were killed along with the thousands in the Middle east - but lets not forget - we started these wars and created these terrorist.
12
Obama does not hate leaders of ME countries not did he indicate such in the Atlantic article. Mr. Friedman is demonizing on that issue, shame on you. Mr. Friedman is becoming naive. Where are the vital interests in the ME today? Not oil, not nuclear weapons, so what is our vital interest in Tunisia? Kurdistan is like waving a red flag at a bull to Turkey. It would be insane to do anything without the UN and/or NATO with Turkey, our ally.
11
Mr Friedman, I can understand why we should help Tunisia, but since when has Kurdistan become an independent country? Are you suggesting that one should be created by us, carving bits of territory from Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria? Has'nt the West done enough of nation-state creating after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of colonialism? Where has it brought us today?
10
So more aid to Tunisia and Kurdistan is Friedman's fix for radical Islam and Obama's foreign policy? Somehow I'm doubtful. It sounds like he went on a field trip and desperately needs to file a column to justify it.
8
Iraq should have been federated just like they are now deliberating for Syria. I believe it was Joe Biden that made that call when the Bush regime was in office.
5
We have the disaster of the Iraq invasion looming over us. The significant loss of life and tremendous financial costs weigh heavily against further involvement in the Middle East. And for good reason -- it is indeed an extremely complicated region and we are NOT the experts on dealing with it. It MUST be an international coalition that addresses the issue of ISIS with the USA supporting it, not leading it.
If we feel we are empowered to step over the line once again and become the Crusader that invades the Middle East once more, we will simply repeat Iraq all over again, drawing further attacks upon the USA by terrorist organizations. We have to operate with the LONG TERM in mind, not short term vengeance. Obama is taking the prudent and sensible approach, not making hot headed decisions like those suggested by Donald Trump.
If we feel we are empowered to step over the line once again and become the Crusader that invades the Middle East once more, we will simply repeat Iraq all over again, drawing further attacks upon the USA by terrorist organizations. We have to operate with the LONG TERM in mind, not short term vengeance. Obama is taking the prudent and sensible approach, not making hot headed decisions like those suggested by Donald Trump.
61
And in Israel we already know
The seeds of more terror each day will grow.
Each little push, each deadly tank foray
Will get the Islamics madder than they are today.
... even more true today tan when i wrote it 13 years ago
The seeds of more terror each day will grow.
Each little push, each deadly tank foray
Will get the Islamics madder than they are today.
... even more true today tan when i wrote it 13 years ago
10
You mean "hands-off".
1
Fair enough on Tunisia. But Friedman errs badly on his analysis of Iraqi Kurdistan. It's not that we shouldn't help them, but how can you talk about US support for Kurdistan without mentioning what this would cost us in our relationship with Turkey. We need Turkey to help fight ISIS. At least mention it in your article. Don't pretend that the downside to supporting the Kurds isn't obvious and severe.
2
It's like Mr Friedman only read part of the Atlantic piece, ignoring the entire "free-rider" issue. Please explain to me, Mr Friedman, why my tax dollars should be spent bolstering the world's largest economic zone's security? Your foreign policy sounds like "protect everyone, everywhere, regardless, because otherwise we're going to be affected." This is politically unfeasible, in part because it's totally crazy.
17
One of Sun Tzu's axioms was that one should never engage in warfare without a clear and obtainable goal. In the Mideast is the goal to stomp out one fire in a bed of coals? Is there an end-point, or do we pacify a specific region for as long as we are willing to occupy it? Another axiom is that ultimately there must be political gain. Is there any feasible outcome in the Mideast which will benefit us?
11
I do support Obama's goal of keeping us out of the Middle East as much as possible -- and of making other players take the lead there instead.
While I understand Mr. Friedman's point that *not* intervening can sometimes be as bad as intervening, our record in the Middle East is one of intervening again and again, with disastrous consequences. Far better that we try a different approach. I appreciate that the President is willing to take the heat to do it.
While I understand Mr. Friedman's point that *not* intervening can sometimes be as bad as intervening, our record in the Middle East is one of intervening again and again, with disastrous consequences. Far better that we try a different approach. I appreciate that the President is willing to take the heat to do it.
17
The ME needs to arrive at a new equilibrium. G. Bush's Iraq invasion (and lack of pressuring Israel) has turned the area inside out. Obama's strategy seems to be to play on the edges, hoping that time and a new generation of wired men and women will eventually rise to self govern themselves. We have an ocean of bad investments, armaments, and racism to work through. However, all the king's horses and all the king's men aren't going to put this back together again.
Without capable honorable local leaders, how can the U.S. expect anything other than loss of life and treasure? Hasn't Tom looked around our own country?
Without capable honorable local leaders, how can the U.S. expect anything other than loss of life and treasure? Hasn't Tom looked around our own country?
6
Let's fix things at home first before trying to fix the rest of the world.
11
Friedman writes about Obama underestimating "...the opportunity for U.S. power to tilt this region our way."
There is no tilting this region in one direction or another.
It is anything but homogeneous.
The U.S. should support the fledgling democracies in Tunisia and Iraqi Kurdistan. The common people in other Middle East countries most likely yearn for a nation moored in democratic institutions. Yet, to think that their existence will matter one iota to the collection of autocrats, despots, tyrants, thugs, and religious fanatics who rule the rest of the Middle East is risible.
There is no tilting this region in one direction or another.
It is anything but homogeneous.
The U.S. should support the fledgling democracies in Tunisia and Iraqi Kurdistan. The common people in other Middle East countries most likely yearn for a nation moored in democratic institutions. Yet, to think that their existence will matter one iota to the collection of autocrats, despots, tyrants, thugs, and religious fanatics who rule the rest of the Middle East is risible.
4
I long for the good old days when the US and Soviets each took turns in propping up dictators around the globe who kept a lid on extremism in their countries for a relatively minor "fee" paid directly to their Swiss bank accounts. The average person in Iraq, Syria and Libya was better off under Hussein, Assad and Gaddafi. Those that suffered under those regimes were almost always those that wanted power for themselves or their particular sect/tribe. Coming from an Eastern Block country I know that all you needed to do to live a happy and unbothered life under a dictatorship was to stay out of politics. You could work, spend time with family, eat, drink, holiday and otherwise have a complete and full life, but you couldn't challenge the government in power politically. So now we have civil wars in Iraq, Syria and Libya with 100s of thousands dead, millions displaced, and billions in economic loss all of which will, in a best case scenario, take generations to address. But hey, we got rid of those "brutal dictators" - aren't we smart?
10
Europe went through the Renaissance and bloody wars to reshape itself. That is the fate of nations that anchor themselves on the religions of the Middle East. The Arab World has yet to undergo its own Renaissance and bloody wars to reshape itself. No nation, no matter how powerful, can prevent the tectonic shifts that are starting in the Arab world. It takes both wisdom and courage to control one's impulse to flex muscles where they are counterproductive. The E.U., a confederation of 27 nations, closest to the epicenter of the coming tectonic shifts, are neither unified nor ready to agree on what constitutes their paramount interests. The new counterweight to America's power, not unlike many nations in the Middle East, profits relying on the remaining Superpower's expenditure of its own resources to further their own interests.
Can Obama be wrong about the Middle East? No one can know for sure. What one does know is that to answer that question, one must identify and dispose the presuppositions of policies and practices that have lead us into disaster after disaster.
Can Obama be wrong about the Middle East? No one can know for sure. What one does know is that to answer that question, one must identify and dispose the presuppositions of policies and practices that have lead us into disaster after disaster.
4
Today Obama answered Trump and Cruz and Friedman: "We are approaching this in a way that has a chance of working, and it will work. And we're not going to do things that are counterproductive, simply because it's political season," he said. "We're going to be steady. We're going to be resolute. And ultimately, we're going to be successful."
21
Perhaps. I'll consider this opinion from someone I have labelled as a fascist.
This has meat. It resonates...
What are the seeds of democracy in the middle east? The Kurds and an other moderate groups.
But please, Thomas, don't ignore the plight of American Democracy in carrying out these policies!
That's all I ask!
This has meat. It resonates...
What are the seeds of democracy in the middle east? The Kurds and an other moderate groups.
But please, Thomas, don't ignore the plight of American Democracy in carrying out these policies!
That's all I ask!
The technological and financial intervention Mr. Friedman is championing had failed and will fail to bring peace and prosperity to the Middle East and Africa. All we have done is transfer leadership from corrupt regimes to those that are unable to avoid the temptations of corruption. Civil society can't be purchased or compelled. Europe took two millennia to realize value of a tolerant, cooperative, egalitarian societies. And here, where our experience is more limited, many are now tempted to abandon it by voting for demagogues and allowing armed patriots to roam our Universities and enforce conformity on our streets. Why is that we expect more of others that we do of ourselves?
3
Obama has the right idea. This is not only an American problem and it is a relatively small problem. I would not have referred to ISIS as the JV team, but the fundamental truth behind that characterization is true. As usual, Obama has not fully communicated his strategy well enough for the American people to understand and support. Unfortunately, we need to let the rest of the world suffer a bit before they will step up and do their fair share in combating ISIS. We are not the policemen of the world and by the same token we should not be the dumping ground for the world. This is primarily a middle eastern problem that repeatedly spills out into the west. Mutti Merkel is just now realizing she needs to reject the mass immigration from the middle east and force the other countries of that region to deal with the problem. The next few decades will be painful for much of the world as the middle east emerges from the middle ages, but life is not always sweet and easy. We must resist the temptation to meddle too much in their evolution. Above all, we need to protect ourselves.
13
Obama's policy is absolutely 100% right. Attacking Iraq resulted in all the problems that seem to irk Mr. Friedman. Attacking Syria will not bring an iota of solution but a sea of problems.
26
I have a friend who is a very pro-Palestine Muslim, politically active but cynical. When I asked her about why she thought the U.S. had bombed Libya, removing Qaddafi from power and helping the democracy movement, she said, "Oh, that was to protect French oil interests." That's what many Muslims believe.
I guess my point is, even when we do the "right" thing and get rid of an evil dictator and try to help a democracy movement, we are still perceived of as acting completely selfishly. So it seems to me that it's wise to sit things out as much as possible when there's literally no way you can win in the perceptions war, and the perceptions war in the Middle East is everything.
I guess my point is, even when we do the "right" thing and get rid of an evil dictator and try to help a democracy movement, we are still perceived of as acting completely selfishly. So it seems to me that it's wise to sit things out as much as possible when there's literally no way you can win in the perceptions war, and the perceptions war in the Middle East is everything.
26
Obama isn't President of Belgium. It's not his duty to assure Belgium's security. You neocons want to take over the whole world. Forget it.
12
Does Obama have this right? Seems like a clickbait title designed to make you read an incoherent article pressing us to be even more involved in the ME. Which Thomas Edsall do we trust? The one that agreed with President Obama's refusal to start a ground war in Syria? Or the cheerleader Thomas Edsall that wants us to begin invading countries after a terrorist attack? After Newtown, CT and the killing of 22 children, we all learned to move on, just like we will after this recent attack in Brussels.
4
Does Obama have this right?
In a word, "No."
In a word, "No."
1
Perhaps you're putting too much emphasis on the notion that establishing democracies should be a fundamental goal of US foreign policy. It's important to remember that most Arab nation-states are contrivances that do not have roots in the ethnic or cultural make up of their populations — a situation that does not lend itself to unified democracies. The new 'Kurdistan' stands in proof.
In practical terms, the 'uncorking' of Iraq was far more consequential in terms of the unraveling in the mid-East and North Africa than anything done or not done under the Obama administration. While it's useless to keep heaping blame on Bush, the complete destruction of the Iraqi government and dismantling of its military without the hint of a follow-up plan led to the anarchy that fostered the evolution of al Qaeda in Iraq into ISIS.
If, as you assert, Obama has been too passive, then that implies he needs to take more action. How exactly can America and the EU establish safe zones in Iraq and Syria to stem the flow of refugees without invading militarily, which you've taken off the table? And even if such safe zones are established, then what?
In practical terms, the 'uncorking' of Iraq was far more consequential in terms of the unraveling in the mid-East and North Africa than anything done or not done under the Obama administration. While it's useless to keep heaping blame on Bush, the complete destruction of the Iraqi government and dismantling of its military without the hint of a follow-up plan led to the anarchy that fostered the evolution of al Qaeda in Iraq into ISIS.
If, as you assert, Obama has been too passive, then that implies he needs to take more action. How exactly can America and the EU establish safe zones in Iraq and Syria to stem the flow of refugees without invading militarily, which you've taken off the table? And even if such safe zones are established, then what?
4
So how can anyone say that Obama's go slow approach hasn't been working? Maybe we have foiled numerous plots which haven't made their ways into the news. Absence of terror could be a sign of success.
6
Mr. Obama is chief appeaser of our time: Neville Chamberlain reincarnate.
Those who believe America has no business nor interest in protecting
Europe are fools.
Mr. Obama's ignorance of and disinterest in the Middle East has left a
power vacuum into which Russia, Iran, and ISIS have gladly stepped--and has
reassured that Assad will remain in power in Syria. And guess what the
consequences of this vacuum are?: an exporting of terrorists to Europe and America. (Of course, Mr. Obama can't even bring himself to say what these
people really are: Radical Muslim jihadists and/or Islamic terrorists--Mr. Obama is more interested in politically correct semantics than dealing with a metastasizing problem of the highest order,)
It is almost certain that several Americans were killed at Brussels
Airport. And what will Obama do about it? Nothing.
No one fears him, because he has shown himself to be a pushover
who doesn't keep his word.
So, Thomas Friedman--No, Obama doesn't have this right, and all the
kneejerk non-interventionists don't either.
Those who believe America has no business nor interest in protecting
Europe are fools.
Mr. Obama's ignorance of and disinterest in the Middle East has left a
power vacuum into which Russia, Iran, and ISIS have gladly stepped--and has
reassured that Assad will remain in power in Syria. And guess what the
consequences of this vacuum are?: an exporting of terrorists to Europe and America. (Of course, Mr. Obama can't even bring himself to say what these
people really are: Radical Muslim jihadists and/or Islamic terrorists--Mr. Obama is more interested in politically correct semantics than dealing with a metastasizing problem of the highest order,)
It is almost certain that several Americans were killed at Brussels
Airport. And what will Obama do about it? Nothing.
No one fears him, because he has shown himself to be a pushover
who doesn't keep his word.
So, Thomas Friedman--No, Obama doesn't have this right, and all the
kneejerk non-interventionists don't either.
4
Here's what I don't understand, which is unusual for me as a Black attorney in Washington DC. Like most working lawyers, if you give us a $20 Starbucks card, high speed internet and 72 hours, we could pretty much translate the Dead Sea Scrolls in 4 languages. But this one is a "puzzler" like the guys from Car Talk used to call them.
Why do Tom Friedman and the NYT Obama elite circle back to the same questions/conversations about Obama's failed presidency? Obama gave you the answers you seek.
Let's start from ground zero. I will briefly summarize the Obama liberal position on the Middle East: It's all Bush's fault, the Middle East can't be fixed, there are no good choices, we can't be the world's police.
Sound familiar? It should because Barack Obama used all those things in 2008 to run against the Bush presidency.
Yet here we are in 2016, and Barack Obama has continued neocon nation building, is still sending US combat troops into the Middle East to fight a perpetual, unwinnable war he opposed in 2008 to become President. It was Barack Obama who shook hands with Dennis Kucinich at a 2008 debate and promised to abolish the defense dept and create a department of peace.
Does Obama have it right? The 2016 Obama says yes. The 2008 Obama would call for the 2016 Obama's impeachment. THERE is your answer.
Why do Tom Friedman and the NYT Obama elite circle back to the same questions/conversations about Obama's failed presidency? Obama gave you the answers you seek.
Let's start from ground zero. I will briefly summarize the Obama liberal position on the Middle East: It's all Bush's fault, the Middle East can't be fixed, there are no good choices, we can't be the world's police.
Sound familiar? It should because Barack Obama used all those things in 2008 to run against the Bush presidency.
Yet here we are in 2016, and Barack Obama has continued neocon nation building, is still sending US combat troops into the Middle East to fight a perpetual, unwinnable war he opposed in 2008 to become President. It was Barack Obama who shook hands with Dennis Kucinich at a 2008 debate and promised to abolish the defense dept and create a department of peace.
Does Obama have it right? The 2016 Obama says yes. The 2008 Obama would call for the 2016 Obama's impeachment. THERE is your answer.
2
Per Thomas Friedman and Roger Cohen in the Times today, we'd all be much safer if we would just start some more wars in the middle east.
So much for learning from history...
So much for learning from history...
18
War is always the answer, right? Let's spend another trillion dollars on war in the middle east. Wait till HIllary is president. There never was a war she didn't like.
6
Thomas Friedman, in a series of odd columns, backed Bush's invasion of Iraq. In doing so, he forfeited the right to ever again be taken seriously about America's role in the Middle East.
17
Quoting from the article:
Kurdistan and Tunisia are just what we dreamed of: ... But they need help.
The West should be all over Tunisia with economic, technical and military assistance.
Mr. Friedman, I read that as nation building...
Might I suggest you don't hang out with elites in these countries.
Instead, hang out incognito with the ordinary people and determine what true nation building takes.
Another quote:
More U.S. aid conditioned on Kurdistan’s getting back on the democracy track would go a long way.
So, a US Czar to determine what are acceptable conditions?
The hubris of this article is mind-boggling.
Kurdistan and Tunisia are just what we dreamed of: ... But they need help.
The West should be all over Tunisia with economic, technical and military assistance.
Mr. Friedman, I read that as nation building...
Might I suggest you don't hang out with elites in these countries.
Instead, hang out incognito with the ordinary people and determine what true nation building takes.
Another quote:
More U.S. aid conditioned on Kurdistan’s getting back on the democracy track would go a long way.
So, a US Czar to determine what are acceptable conditions?
The hubris of this article is mind-boggling.
7
Stop being critical of the president, Friedman.
6
"... he pretty much hates all the Middle East's leaders...."
Not to mention Cameron, Duda and, formerly, Sarkozy, Republicans, Mubarak, bitter clingers, Tea Partiers, Trump, police officers, the Pope and other Christians (particularly the beheaded ones), etc.
Hyperbole aside, he appears to favor Iran, Cuba, Arab Springs, however ill-advised, and vacillation in the face of the monstrosity that is ISIL.
After nearly eight years the minions of the left are finally beginning to hint that the childish likes, dislikes and fears of this President have diminished his effectiveness in office at home and abroad. Full blown acknowledgement of his resultant failures would be a great public service, particularly in the face of the meteoric rise of Donald Trump, Obama's childish, Republican mirror image.
Not to mention Cameron, Duda and, formerly, Sarkozy, Republicans, Mubarak, bitter clingers, Tea Partiers, Trump, police officers, the Pope and other Christians (particularly the beheaded ones), etc.
Hyperbole aside, he appears to favor Iran, Cuba, Arab Springs, however ill-advised, and vacillation in the face of the monstrosity that is ISIL.
After nearly eight years the minions of the left are finally beginning to hint that the childish likes, dislikes and fears of this President have diminished his effectiveness in office at home and abroad. Full blown acknowledgement of his resultant failures would be a great public service, particularly in the face of the meteoric rise of Donald Trump, Obama's childish, Republican mirror image.
Such an insightful column, Tom. After all, since we were greeted as liberators in Iraq and our invasion went so very well, we should invade somewhere else real soon now. Why not Belgium?
15
Friedman criticizes Obama's Middle East policy but he does not make a coherent argument for invading the Middle East. In fact, there is strong reason to believe that the US invasion of Iraq and poor strategic planning lead to the growth of ISIL.
Why would Friedman believe that invading the Middle East is the answer to peace and stability?
Why would Friedman believe that invading the Middle East is the answer to peace and stability?
5
Which country do we invade this time? Belgium?
If the USA can find a way to support Tunisia, Kurdistan, and for that matter Jordan without our money disappearing to Swiss bank accounts (maybe we should invade Switzerland, too?), that would be a good idea. A multilateral force could enter Raqqa and kill many ISIS leaders in a few weeks—but what would come after? Every one of these invasions has been a long-term disaster, as events mock the combination of optimism and truculence they had at the start. Discretion is still the better part of valor.
If the USA can find a way to support Tunisia, Kurdistan, and for that matter Jordan without our money disappearing to Swiss bank accounts (maybe we should invade Switzerland, too?), that would be a good idea. A multilateral force could enter Raqqa and kill many ISIS leaders in a few weeks—but what would come after? Every one of these invasions has been a long-term disaster, as events mock the combination of optimism and truculence they had at the start. Discretion is still the better part of valor.
6
The Middle East is to me semi: hopeless, absurd, reactionary, devolving, primitive, insane, contradictory, regressive, barbaric, and I've not consulted Roget because the diseases/adjectives are unfortunately my consciousness/ thinking.
"Semi" because Iraq is the cradle of civilization, and there are two contemporary refutations that TF urges BHO to at least help.
So with good, rational, human exceptions, the M.E. is depressing, frustrating, backwards, and deathly with countless refugees.
Turkey is regressing.
Iran is ultimately ruled by half-demented elders.
Egypt is tragic: the Arab Spring was fantasy, predicted by the cynic in me.
The Palestinians, many/most DNA proven descendants of ancient Hebrew tribes, yet so ignorantly choose Hamas & Hezbollah.
I mainly worry about the survival of Israel within M.E. turmoil.
"Semi" because Iraq is the cradle of civilization, and there are two contemporary refutations that TF urges BHO to at least help.
So with good, rational, human exceptions, the M.E. is depressing, frustrating, backwards, and deathly with countless refugees.
Turkey is regressing.
Iran is ultimately ruled by half-demented elders.
Egypt is tragic: the Arab Spring was fantasy, predicted by the cynic in me.
The Palestinians, many/most DNA proven descendants of ancient Hebrew tribes, yet so ignorantly choose Hamas & Hezbollah.
I mainly worry about the survival of Israel within M.E. turmoil.
2
Much as I appreciate Mr. Friedman's thought, I would rather see US dollars spent on providing textbooks, desks and chairs to our failing inner city public schools rather than sent to Tunisia or Kurdistan.
8
Those who suggested that the war against Iraq was not another Vietnam were right: it wasn't another Vietnam. It was worse!
As a 15 year old kid in a small backwater town in northwest Washington State I was amazed by the ignorance of our country's leadership with regard to Chinese / Vietnamese relations.
And now, 50+ years on I am seeing the same ignorance about the Middle East and the same arrogance that suggests military involvement in a region of the world we don't/won't understand.
As a 15 year old kid in a small backwater town in northwest Washington State I was amazed by the ignorance of our country's leadership with regard to Chinese / Vietnamese relations.
And now, 50+ years on I am seeing the same ignorance about the Middle East and the same arrogance that suggests military involvement in a region of the world we don't/won't understand.
11
And who's to say that aid to Tunisia and Kurdistan would not end up like the $700 billion in oil money that disappeared in Iraq? There's the ever present danger of falling into a Rumsfeldian fantasy about "how free people behave" and the power of good intentions.
4
The Brussels terrorists who thus far have been identified are not recently arrived refugees from Syria or Iraq. Neither were those involved in the Parisian Bataclan attacks. They all were European citizens. So rather than spinning linkages between current Middle Eastern wars and the bombings in European cities, perhaps Thomas Friedman should address the failure of so many European Islamists to accept the values of the nations they have chosen to call their home.
4
As others have pointed out, where's the invasion from the European countries into these hotbeds of martyrdom that are destroying their culture; Europe as we know it.
5
Provocative lead, making use of that trendiest of contemporary words, hate. Too bad it's overblown and totally loaded. The president certainly has issues with all those leaders, but to say he hates them is just provocation for its own sake, and accordingly irresponsible.
11
The problem may be that in the very early years of his presidency Obama was prematurely awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, undeserved, though well intended. My thesis is that he has ever since tried to earn it and not to spurn it, when in fact stronger measures seem to have been needed. I hope that if Hillary is elected, she will build on his foreign policy yet be much more aggressive.
If Trump is elected, there is no hope; all out war will be likely. Between world aggressors worse, within America.
If Trump is elected, there is no hope; all out war will be likely. Between world aggressors worse, within America.
1
I am incredibly thankful that Barack Obama is our President.
After the stupidity and arrogant recklessness of the Bush administration it's crucial that we have a leader with the intelligence and objectivity not to jump into "boots on the ground" whenever something bad happens in this world.
Terrorists attacks will continue, because terrorists want to drag us into armed conflict in an attempt to paint us as "crusaders" against Islam. Al Qaeda said as much, and ISIS is doing the same thing. It's amazing to me that the pundit class and the entirety of the Republican party is too blind to see this. Bush's war in Iraq was the impetus for ISIS and a recruiting poster for terrorists and extremists. Going into Syria would do exactly the same, with unforeseen and extreme consequences.
Remember, Iraq was supposed to be a six month long cakewalk, where we were going to be "greeted as liberators". I don't have any confidence that the people who got that situation so colossally wrong should be listened to in any capacity when it comes to geopolitical affairs.
After the stupidity and arrogant recklessness of the Bush administration it's crucial that we have a leader with the intelligence and objectivity not to jump into "boots on the ground" whenever something bad happens in this world.
Terrorists attacks will continue, because terrorists want to drag us into armed conflict in an attempt to paint us as "crusaders" against Islam. Al Qaeda said as much, and ISIS is doing the same thing. It's amazing to me that the pundit class and the entirety of the Republican party is too blind to see this. Bush's war in Iraq was the impetus for ISIS and a recruiting poster for terrorists and extremists. Going into Syria would do exactly the same, with unforeseen and extreme consequences.
Remember, Iraq was supposed to be a six month long cakewalk, where we were going to be "greeted as liberators". I don't have any confidence that the people who got that situation so colossally wrong should be listened to in any capacity when it comes to geopolitical affairs.
11
Stay away from the Middle East. Europe and Arab states need to solve this. We created the mess with Iraq and Libya and Iran and Israel in 60 years of hubris and blunders. But we should just walk away from this.
If we do go there, then we need to tax the people and the corporations to pay for it. And throw in a military draft.
Then let's see how popular it is.
If we do go there, then we need to tax the people and the corporations to pay for it. And throw in a military draft.
Then let's see how popular it is.
9
I hate to get technical with Tom Friedman, who knows everything there is to know about the Middle East, but Tunisia is located in North Africa. There is also no independent nation of Krudistan on any map either. Exactly where is Kurdistan?? How big is it? What's the name of its president or whoever is in charge this week?
7
You're right Tom, but I can't imagine how tough it might be to tack to every fickle wind everywhere. And how tough it might be to keep trying to persuade the EU to do what's right. But hey - he did just open Cuba.
"Does the president have this right?" What kind of ridiculous question is that? Congress declares war, not the President. Where is Congress, when it's busy not confirming Supreme Court nominees? Or not trying to repeal the ACA for the 60th time? Congress is nowhere to be found, because it doesn't want to have to commit on whether we should be intervening militarily in the Middle East or not. So don't be laying this one off on the President.
Besides, Tom, haven't we been bombing and droning (is that a word?) ISIS targets for years? Should we commit 300,000 troops on the ground to this little adventure as well? Just so, you know, 2 of its guys won't get on a plane and kill 30 in Brussels, or elsewhere. Please connect the dots between increased American military involvement in the Middle East and fewer ISIS-inspired attacks on the West.
And please don't EVER rattle your saber without also demanding a re-institution of the draft. If any Americans are sent to war, then ALL of America should be at war, supporting the effort. No exemptions or deferments. Then we'll see how eager everyone is for a fight, when the fighting and dying can't be outsourced to an all-volunteer force, like it is today.
Besides, Tom, haven't we been bombing and droning (is that a word?) ISIS targets for years? Should we commit 300,000 troops on the ground to this little adventure as well? Just so, you know, 2 of its guys won't get on a plane and kill 30 in Brussels, or elsewhere. Please connect the dots between increased American military involvement in the Middle East and fewer ISIS-inspired attacks on the West.
And please don't EVER rattle your saber without also demanding a re-institution of the draft. If any Americans are sent to war, then ALL of America should be at war, supporting the effort. No exemptions or deferments. Then we'll see how eager everyone is for a fight, when the fighting and dying can't be outsourced to an all-volunteer force, like it is today.
12
NY Times never ceases to amaze me. Here we have an economist basically advocating more military intervention. Is this a precursor for Trump or Hillary? Obama has learned over 7 years, that all of our military efforts in the past 20 years have been the seeds and fertilizer for radical Islam to recruit and terrorize.
11
Friedman demands that the President, "DO SOMETHING !!"
What, precisely would Friedman have the President do?
He points to Tunisia and Kurdistan as obvious places to help. Tunisia I do not know much about, and cannot reasonably conclude what, if anything, would help and not be seen as outside interference by the locals. (And remember, the locals even here in the U.S. don't necessarily support our "intervention" to secure our own territory, such as the Malheur Refuge.)
Supporting the creation of a functioning, de jure Kurdistan may well be a good idea, but anyone who supports it better come up with how to deal with the vehement and sometimes violent opposition from Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran.
Even if we "cleaned" up those two areas, it would not solve the ISIS problem. It has no need for every piece of turf, just a couple safe havens and influence it can project elsewhere.
Again, I would ask Friedman, "Just what would you have the President do?" Yes, I agree we must do something, but flailing one's arms cannot successfully replace strategy, especially when the enemy is fighting an international guerilla campaign. America should have learned that during "Shock and Awe", if not long before during the Viet Nam War, when our massive bombing of three countries did little to accomplish our government's goals.
What, precisely would Friedman have the President do?
He points to Tunisia and Kurdistan as obvious places to help. Tunisia I do not know much about, and cannot reasonably conclude what, if anything, would help and not be seen as outside interference by the locals. (And remember, the locals even here in the U.S. don't necessarily support our "intervention" to secure our own territory, such as the Malheur Refuge.)
Supporting the creation of a functioning, de jure Kurdistan may well be a good idea, but anyone who supports it better come up with how to deal with the vehement and sometimes violent opposition from Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran.
Even if we "cleaned" up those two areas, it would not solve the ISIS problem. It has no need for every piece of turf, just a couple safe havens and influence it can project elsewhere.
Again, I would ask Friedman, "Just what would you have the President do?" Yes, I agree we must do something, but flailing one's arms cannot successfully replace strategy, especially when the enemy is fighting an international guerilla campaign. America should have learned that during "Shock and Awe", if not long before during the Viet Nam War, when our massive bombing of three countries did little to accomplish our government's goals.
6
I doubt that we should pay attention to the views of those who advocated the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
17
When reading Mr. Friedman' musings on US involvement in the Middle East, it's important to remember that he was a cheerleader for our disastrous invasion of Iraq.
12
It is disappointing to see you fall so readily to terrorists' long-term goals, to short-term thinking - the kind of thinking that keeps conflicts alive. It is so easy to manipulate public opinion - simply throw a bomb - one had hoped for a measured response from you.
1
"That all sounds great on paper, until a terrorist attack like the one Tuesday in Brussels comes to our shores. Does the president have this right?" When did Friedman become a Trump/Cruz Surrogate?
3
I fundamentally agree with Mr Friedman but no one should question and/or blame Obama. He is absolutely right and wrong. Right because he is avoiding unnecessary US involvement (ground troops and such) and wrong because latter is needed but it just needs to be 10-30% US, 10-30% EU and 40-50% middle eastern superpowers like Saudi or even Israel for that matter. Latter is in heart of this madness. EU has long mislabeled W's war on terror as US conflict with middle east. well now go figure, its at your doorstep, too bad too late. W in some sense now looks like a quasi hero who can say "I said so, remember" (of course he is not a hero). EU must take the initiative and work with Obama and Clinton/trump administration to build a massive coalition of troops and intelligence, else how much ever I hate trump, i agree scrap NATO funding...this is not Marshal plan.
5
How about this. How about if Europe wants to invade Syria, we'll back them this time instead of the other way around since this is right on their doorstep and they're bearing the brunt of the problems from ISIS right now. Maybe it would be a good thing for them to take the initiative in dealing with their own security instead of depending on us to always send our military half way around the world to lead the effort on their behalf.
4
Wow! The leader of the free world admitting he hates other world leaders!?
Has there ever been a more immature American President?
Even George W Bush had more diplomatic tact.
Has there ever been a more immature American President?
Even George W Bush had more diplomatic tact.
He "admitted" no such thing. Those are words Friedman put in the president's mouth.
Who's the immature one again?
Who's the immature one again?
8
everybody's got an answer. none of them ever works.
1
Tom Friedman: mustachioed war-monger and peddler of platitudes.
7
Mr. Friedman describes Obama's reluctance as "Passivity". It is far worse than that. It is outright cowardice.
Obama is a fearful, cowardly, hand-wringing, liberal-progressive who cannot understand that the world we live in is complex and filled with those who seek to destroy Europe, Israel, Turkey, Eastern Europe, Pakistan, South Korea and Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, South America and of course the United States.
Obama does not understand that our enemies do not want to talk or negotiate. They don't want peace. The don't even want our capitulation. They want our total destruction and annihilation.
Even Mr. Putin, who's horrific bombing of Syria, invasions of Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea, has realized that the ideology of the terrorists is worse than his own demagoguery and his military adventurism. In his bombing of Syria the indiscriminate bombing was meant to send a message that "Russia will destroy all of you if that is what it takes to destroy ISIS or the rebels."
Obama believes, wrongly, that when the United States withdraws or stands down and just watches, that is better than shedding American blood. He doesn't get it that passivity begets more terrorism or military adventurism. Obama invited these disasters. But, he doesn't get it. The world needs leadership and courage. Obama lacks both.
Obama is a fearful, cowardly, hand-wringing, liberal-progressive who cannot understand that the world we live in is complex and filled with those who seek to destroy Europe, Israel, Turkey, Eastern Europe, Pakistan, South Korea and Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, South America and of course the United States.
Obama does not understand that our enemies do not want to talk or negotiate. They don't want peace. The don't even want our capitulation. They want our total destruction and annihilation.
Even Mr. Putin, who's horrific bombing of Syria, invasions of Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea, has realized that the ideology of the terrorists is worse than his own demagoguery and his military adventurism. In his bombing of Syria the indiscriminate bombing was meant to send a message that "Russia will destroy all of you if that is what it takes to destroy ISIS or the rebels."
Obama believes, wrongly, that when the United States withdraws or stands down and just watches, that is better than shedding American blood. He doesn't get it that passivity begets more terrorism or military adventurism. Obama invited these disasters. But, he doesn't get it. The world needs leadership and courage. Obama lacks both.
1
OK..lets think together about Europe about what to do and keep blaming Obama for everything.
One reason Europe receives terrorists abundantly now may have something to do with the beating IS has been taking- no?
One reason Europe receives terrorists abundantly now may have something to do with the beating IS has been taking- no?
1
All of you neocons who want to invade the Middle East, I encourage you to urge your children and grandchildren to enlist. I won't do the same with mine. I did not bring them into this world to be wasted as cannon fodder.
9
“What happened to the $700 billion [in oil money] that came to Iraq, and not a single bridge was built? What happened to this $700 billion?
We already poured money and aid into the region and it was looted. American cities crumble, American children in these cites can't get a good education and we should pour another trillion dollars into Iraq and Syria. The gulf states destabilized Libya after the west intervention, you left that part out.
We already poured money and aid into the region and it was looted. American cities crumble, American children in these cites can't get a good education and we should pour another trillion dollars into Iraq and Syria. The gulf states destabilized Libya after the west intervention, you left that part out.
3
First Mr. Friedman your point that our inaction on Syria has perforce made economic migrants flee into the EU thus causing our NATO allies much grief. Let’s suppose we do put an expeditionary force again on the ground in Syria or some other location. Do you suppose this will slow or increase the flow of refugee’s out of the Mid-East?
Have we learned nothing since 9/11. We took a terrorist act, a criminal act and converted into two wars which are abject failures both militarily, economic and diplomatically. The cost to the civilian populations is beyond measure. Believe it or not those are real people under those war planes and Drones not chess pieces in a grand game.
We now have a number of candidates for President who have only one solution to the Mid-East bomb and re-invasion. I believe we will go back into this mess because we have become a dysfunctional republic whose legislative branches have been captured by corruption hidden under the guise of laws.
Your comments on Kurdistan while well-meaning are a little short of reality. Should the United States now endorse the carving up of Iraq into tribal and religious countries? What about the Kurdistan dream of taking part of Turkey and other neighboring states and creating a greater Kurdistan. What do you think will be the reaction of Turkey for instance?
Yes, we should do more for Tunisia but right now it is a bit player in the tragedy that is part of the legacy of the Bush/Cheney Imperium!
Have we learned nothing since 9/11. We took a terrorist act, a criminal act and converted into two wars which are abject failures both militarily, economic and diplomatically. The cost to the civilian populations is beyond measure. Believe it or not those are real people under those war planes and Drones not chess pieces in a grand game.
We now have a number of candidates for President who have only one solution to the Mid-East bomb and re-invasion. I believe we will go back into this mess because we have become a dysfunctional republic whose legislative branches have been captured by corruption hidden under the guise of laws.
Your comments on Kurdistan while well-meaning are a little short of reality. Should the United States now endorse the carving up of Iraq into tribal and religious countries? What about the Kurdistan dream of taking part of Turkey and other neighboring states and creating a greater Kurdistan. What do you think will be the reaction of Turkey for instance?
Yes, we should do more for Tunisia but right now it is a bit player in the tragedy that is part of the legacy of the Bush/Cheney Imperium!
2
First Mr. Friedman your point that our inaction on Syria has perforce made economic migrants flee into the EU thus causing our NATO allies much grief. Let’s suppose we do put an expeditionary force again on the ground in Syria or some other location. Do you suppose this will slow or increase the flow of refugee’s out of the Mid-East?
Have we learned nothing since 9/11. We took a terrorist act, a criminal act and converted into two wars which are abject failures both militarily, economic and diplomatically. The cost to the civilian populations is beyond measure. Believe it or not those are real people under those war planes and Drones not chess pieces in a grand game.
We now have a number of candidates for President who have only one solution to the Mid-East bomb and re-invasion. I believe we will go back into this mess because we have become a dysfunctional republic whose legislative branches have been captured by corruption hidden under the guise of laws.
Your comments on Kurdistan while well-meaning are a little short of reality. Should the United States now endorse the carving up of Iraq into tribal and religious countries? What about the Kurdistan dream of taking part of Turkey and other neighboring states and creating a greater Kurdistan. What do you think will be the reaction of Turkey for instance?
Yes, we should do more for Tunisia but right now it is a bit player in the tragedy that is part of the legacy of the Bush/Cheney Imperium!
Have we learned nothing since 9/11. We took a terrorist act, a criminal act and converted into two wars which are abject failures both militarily, economic and diplomatically. The cost to the civilian populations is beyond measure. Believe it or not those are real people under those war planes and Drones not chess pieces in a grand game.
We now have a number of candidates for President who have only one solution to the Mid-East bomb and re-invasion. I believe we will go back into this mess because we have become a dysfunctional republic whose legislative branches have been captured by corruption hidden under the guise of laws.
Your comments on Kurdistan while well-meaning are a little short of reality. Should the United States now endorse the carving up of Iraq into tribal and religious countries? What about the Kurdistan dream of taking part of Turkey and other neighboring states and creating a greater Kurdistan. What do you think will be the reaction of Turkey for instance?
Yes, we should do more for Tunisia but right now it is a bit player in the tragedy that is part of the legacy of the Bush/Cheney Imperium!
4
Obama is rightfully taking his clues from Europe's leaders. They are not sending troops to the Middle East. Maybe European leaders know something that Friedman does not.
3
At this point in time it's already clear, even to Tom, that President Obama didn't deserve his Nobel peace prize. The parallels to Nero are so close even sycophantic followers are beginning to see how bad things are. Obama was elected because he was the anti-Bush, now we may get Trump because he's anti Obama and Bush. Yikes!
1
How exactly would an invasion in the Middle East have prevented the attack in Brussels?
7
U.S. citizens, and voters, from left to right in the political spectrum, are sick of U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, and rightly so. Evidently Thomas Friedman, the war hawks useful fool, cheerleader in chief for the 2003 Iraq invasion, has learned nothing since his completely ignorant pro-war chanting in 2003. Obama's disgust with the Middle East leadership is spot on. With friends like these, who needs enemies? Financial aid to Jordan, and possibly Tunisia and Kurdistan, perhaps taken from the billions we lavish on Israel every year, yes, perhaps. But a military presence, whether described as "conditional help", or in any other way, never again.
4
So Tom Friedman, who rooted for the US to do great things and create democracieis by invading Iraq in 2003 now thinks the US should openly pour support into Kurdistan.
1) The US has supported the Kurds.
2) If the US openly supported Kurdish independence, what would happen next? Thriving democracy? Or a new regional war with our allies Turkey and Iraq joining with Asad of Syria to destroy the Kurds?
Tom Friedman is in his 2003 mode of shoot first and face disaster later. The rest of us should pay attention to the actual fissures that criss-cross the region and use the wisdom of experience to avoid repeating the monumentally stupid mistakes of 2003.
1) The US has supported the Kurds.
2) If the US openly supported Kurdish independence, what would happen next? Thriving democracy? Or a new regional war with our allies Turkey and Iraq joining with Asad of Syria to destroy the Kurds?
Tom Friedman is in his 2003 mode of shoot first and face disaster later. The rest of us should pay attention to the actual fissures that criss-cross the region and use the wisdom of experience to avoid repeating the monumentally stupid mistakes of 2003.
3
Seems to me, Tom, you were all in for the invasion of Iraq in 2003, regime change as the goal. With the same reasoning, establish something on the order of a relatively secular democracy in the Middle East, with the rest of the region soon to follow in a new age of enlightenment. You should live so long! Wishful thinking then, as now.
4
Mr. Friedman, you seem to have forgotten that the unjustified invasion of Iraq and the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan have made Americans averse to fighting and dying for people who resent us. Obama recognized this and was elected and re-elected in part because of it. So the short answer to the your title question is, yes!
4
No Friedman, he does not have a right. He has an obligation. This man is the fourth great president in this nation's history. Not just important but transcending and great, joining Washington, Lincoln and FDR. He is a brilliant, clear headed, clear eyed leader of a most cantankerous and divided nation in a civil war over what it is and means is meant to be America and an American.
He deserves better than cheap shots from someone like you who knows so much.
He deserves better than cheap shots from someone like you who knows so much.
8
Other 'genius reporter' that jumps to the clown car of experts that is against President Obama because ... oh well, just because they need to find fault where there is none.
We are still trying to undo the disaster that Mr. Friedman's, GW Bush, created. We don't need further involvement there.
We are still trying to undo the disaster that Mr. Friedman's, GW Bush, created. We don't need further involvement there.
4
This, from the man who supported W's invasion of Iraq, and when it all fell apart, still supported the invasion but said the invasion and subsequent occupation was done poorly. And from the Iraq invasion came ISIL.
Perhaps there is no good way to invade and occupy in the Middle East. We may never be able to recreate our post war occupation of Germany and Japan. We aren't the same country we were then. We aren't the good guys anymore.
Perhaps there is no good way to invade and occupy in the Middle East. We may never be able to recreate our post war occupation of Germany and Japan. We aren't the same country we were then. We aren't the good guys anymore.
4
We need to stay out of the Middle East as I believe ISIS and many of the issues we're confronting today are as a result of U.S. and NATO involvement. Invasion? Really? We still think we can invade countries and eliminate extremist groups? Are our memories that short - have we forgotten 10 years and $1 trillion in Afghanistan - have we forgotten Iraq - how we 'thought we could bring democracy' to the Country. The US has never understood Eastern culture and never will.
3
'Unfortunately, Obama seems so obsessed with not being George W. Bush in the Middle East that he has stopped thinking about how to be Barack Obama here"
I think you mean not being the George W. Bush who lied about intelligence to start a war, spent multiple trillions of borrowed dollars invading Iraq, and who's policies led to the deaths of 5k U.S. service men and women. Is that the George W. Bush Obama doesn't want to emulate?
I think you mean not being the George W. Bush who lied about intelligence to start a war, spent multiple trillions of borrowed dollars invading Iraq, and who's policies led to the deaths of 5k U.S. service men and women. Is that the George W. Bush Obama doesn't want to emulate?
6
At the end of the day the USA finds itself between two bad places. Either we do nothing in the Middle East and watch the cancer grow or we do something and feed the root of that cancer.
I think the only long term action the USA can take is a targeted but strong set of actions. We should help in a big way Tunisia and the Kurd's while telling everyone else you only get help if you clean up your act.
As a practical matter we should be sending a lot of help to the Tunisians. That is really straight forward. For the Kurd's and the Syrian mess we will have to do something we do not want to do.
We will have to fight. An action that solve several several issues, but be limited and focused, would be a ground invasion of about 200 miles wide on the Mediterranean shore at the Syrian-Turkish boarder. We should push across northern Syria to the Iraq (Kurd) boarder. We should also tell, not ask, the EU that they will be hitting the shore with us using everything they have militarily. If they refuse, withdraw from Europe.
Such an action would have four things in its favor.
1. Slow the flow of fighters to ISIS and slow the flow of money to ISIS.
2. Set up a 200 mile wide strip safe haven for Syrians at the Turkish Boarder.
3. Create a way to support the Kurd's directly by the Med if the Baghdad powers don't stop the graft and corruption and get on with nation building.
Anything more would be a quagmire. Anything less will let the ISIS cancer metastasize.
I think the only long term action the USA can take is a targeted but strong set of actions. We should help in a big way Tunisia and the Kurd's while telling everyone else you only get help if you clean up your act.
As a practical matter we should be sending a lot of help to the Tunisians. That is really straight forward. For the Kurd's and the Syrian mess we will have to do something we do not want to do.
We will have to fight. An action that solve several several issues, but be limited and focused, would be a ground invasion of about 200 miles wide on the Mediterranean shore at the Syrian-Turkish boarder. We should push across northern Syria to the Iraq (Kurd) boarder. We should also tell, not ask, the EU that they will be hitting the shore with us using everything they have militarily. If they refuse, withdraw from Europe.
Such an action would have four things in its favor.
1. Slow the flow of fighters to ISIS and slow the flow of money to ISIS.
2. Set up a 200 mile wide strip safe haven for Syrians at the Turkish Boarder.
3. Create a way to support the Kurd's directly by the Med if the Baghdad powers don't stop the graft and corruption and get on with nation building.
Anything more would be a quagmire. Anything less will let the ISIS cancer metastasize.
1
After reading your column carefully, I agree with you. Unfortunately, the way you structured the column may lead the more casual reader to conclude that you support a more general, and even military, increase in engagement. I thought that until I was about half done, and I understand a lot of people these days don't read that far.
For those that think that we desperately need more troops in the Middle East to strengthen the US, how about if you and your children line up to those troops. It is so easy (and the neocons are guilty of this) to send others in harms way to back up your argument that we need to be strong. How about if you lead by volunteering? Oh, maybe it may not be so worth it then.
5
Please read 'sun tzu art of war', recent American foreign policy has ignored its age old wisdom, and we have suffered dearly as a result.
4
Our meddling in the Middle East starting with the CIA backed overthrow of the government of Iran back in the 1950's through our Bush/Cheney folly of the war in Iraq has contributed greatly to the situation we find ourselves in now. Maybe, Mr. Friedman it is time we stayed out of an area we do not understand. President Obama realized this some time ago. I dare say he has a better grasp on the reality of the Middle East than you have.
5
We could drop bombs on people from now to the end of time and that would never end terrorism or groups like ISIS.
The only thing that will work--the ONLY thing--is if the Western world comes together and shares the resources of the planet with everyone else. Twenty percent of the planet currently uses eighty percent of its resources.
Terrorism comes from this basic sense of inequality.
Even those radical Islamists would be hard pressed for religious followers if we made sure the poorest in the Middle East and Africa had basic things for survival, like food and health care.
The chant goes "no justice, no peace."
But, in reality, it goes "no sharing, no justice, no peace."
This is not the United States burden to do alone. But we can lead it if we wish.
The only thing that will work--the ONLY thing--is if the Western world comes together and shares the resources of the planet with everyone else. Twenty percent of the planet currently uses eighty percent of its resources.
Terrorism comes from this basic sense of inequality.
Even those radical Islamists would be hard pressed for religious followers if we made sure the poorest in the Middle East and Africa had basic things for survival, like food and health care.
The chant goes "no justice, no peace."
But, in reality, it goes "no sharing, no justice, no peace."
This is not the United States burden to do alone. But we can lead it if we wish.
5
I believe it was Thomas E Ricks, the author of Fiasco, who said--probably between 2004-2006--that the "best" America could hope for in the Middle East was that the Iraqi war did not spread to other states. By that time the pie in the sky hopes of 2003--bringing democracy to Iraq, stabilizing Iraq, burnishing America's reputation in the region--were all clearly off the table.
Obama understood that. And, yes, his foreign policy has been nothing more than an effort to leave the neighborhood. Before we criticize him, I have two thoughts. 1. America can not be the world's policeman, or social worker, or marriage counsellor. 2. Remember, the second shoe has not dropped. Saudi Arabia is a bloated, corrupt, venal government of radical thought and action. And they are doomed.
The reconfiguration of the Middle East will be much more comprehensive than just recognizing the Kurds. There are many American leaders that believe they can pick the winners and losers in the Middle east. George Bush Sr understood that is a fools errand. His son didn't. America must be very very careful how we use our power in the ME. Obama is cold and calculating: He has decided the ME is not absolutely crucial to US security and wealth, and acted accordingly.
Obama understood that. And, yes, his foreign policy has been nothing more than an effort to leave the neighborhood. Before we criticize him, I have two thoughts. 1. America can not be the world's policeman, or social worker, or marriage counsellor. 2. Remember, the second shoe has not dropped. Saudi Arabia is a bloated, corrupt, venal government of radical thought and action. And they are doomed.
The reconfiguration of the Middle East will be much more comprehensive than just recognizing the Kurds. There are many American leaders that believe they can pick the winners and losers in the Middle east. George Bush Sr understood that is a fools errand. His son didn't. America must be very very careful how we use our power in the ME. Obama is cold and calculating: He has decided the ME is not absolutely crucial to US security and wealth, and acted accordingly.
3
Things will never change in the Middle East. The best and least expensive action the US and Europe can do is just let most of them act as if it's still 1199.
And bomb them into the stone age for any time they even think of committing terrorism on the West.
Leave Obama out of this. He's busy in Cuba watching a baseball game where he can't do any damage.
And bomb them into the stone age for any time they even think of committing terrorism on the West.
Leave Obama out of this. He's busy in Cuba watching a baseball game where he can't do any damage.
1
The Kurds are not Arabs and as Muslims, they do not practice their religion the way fundamentalist Arabs do. Tunisia has specifically repudiated sharia as a basis for its civil establishment which is run by western-style politicians. So neither the Kurds nor the Libyans--nor the Israelis, obviously--are any sort of positive sign about the Middle East.
You suggest these examples should encourage Obama to intervene to either prop them up or tell the other failed Muslim states to follow their example. Yes, if we could, we should protect the Kurds as a precious exception, even encourage the formation of a Kurdish state out of the various elements in neighboring countries. But that won't happen. We can't intervene in the Muslim chaos.
No, Obama is responding in the only rational way an American president can to an essentially intractable situation on the ground in the Middle East. Sending our soldiers in against indoctrinated, hopeless, desperate, fanatics solves nothing, kills our own clueless heroes, and succeeds only in pushing a goal line back and forth across a sandy waste that is the symbol of Islam's eternal emptiness.
Want to understand what's going on and where the US fits into it all? See www.afghan-web.com/sports/buzkashi.html
You suggest these examples should encourage Obama to intervene to either prop them up or tell the other failed Muslim states to follow their example. Yes, if we could, we should protect the Kurds as a precious exception, even encourage the formation of a Kurdish state out of the various elements in neighboring countries. But that won't happen. We can't intervene in the Muslim chaos.
No, Obama is responding in the only rational way an American president can to an essentially intractable situation on the ground in the Middle East. Sending our soldiers in against indoctrinated, hopeless, desperate, fanatics solves nothing, kills our own clueless heroes, and succeeds only in pushing a goal line back and forth across a sandy waste that is the symbol of Islam's eternal emptiness.
Want to understand what's going on and where the US fits into it all? See www.afghan-web.com/sports/buzkashi.html
Mr. Obama is for the most part doing the right thing in the Middle East. For an American president, the right thing is defined as "what is best for America" and other than a few missteps such as intervening in Libya and getting involved in Syria, he's been doing pretty well. There's nothing passive about not intervening any more than not interfering with a police officer arresting a criminal is passive. It's disciplined non-interventionism, and it beats undisciplined action every time.
3
I think Obama is right by not involving US in middle east. Before the rise of IS, we had al qaeda conducting terrorist attacks on foreign soil. We had bombings in London and madrid conducted by sleeper cells operated under Al qaeda. No body blamed George Bush at that time. In fact, we were entrenched in two bloody wars in Iraq and Afganistan and still wasn't able to stop this. These are home grown terror, the citizens of the nations conducted the attacks. The same has happened in Paris and now in Belgium. Yes, we could strike as hard as we can in Iraq and Syira. But, that is not going to stop the citizens of Belgium conducting the attacks against their own country. These are terrorist from within Europe.
No amount of American intervention in middle east will solve this. This is something Belgium, France and other EU nations need to confront and solve. There needs to be more intelligence sharing within EU. If you have open border, you need to be able to foresee the unintended consequences and have a infrastructure in place to prevent these events Yes, we will be there as friend, ally to help you to identify the threat and neutralize. But the will and action has to come from within Europe, not US. Please don't jump into conclusion that another intervention is the key here.
No amount of American intervention in middle east will solve this. This is something Belgium, France and other EU nations need to confront and solve. There needs to be more intelligence sharing within EU. If you have open border, you need to be able to foresee the unintended consequences and have a infrastructure in place to prevent these events Yes, we will be there as friend, ally to help you to identify the threat and neutralize. But the will and action has to come from within Europe, not US. Please don't jump into conclusion that another intervention is the key here.
3
"After all, the president indicated, more Americans are killed each year slipping in bathtubs or running into deer with their cars than by any terrorists, so we need to stop wanting to invade the Middle East in response to every threat.
That all sounds great on paper, until a terrorist attack like the one Tuesday in Brussels comes to our shores."
What do you mean "sounds great on paper?" That's literally the whole point--that we shouldn't get sucked up in multi-trillion dollar wars every time we see a terrorist attack on the news. It's a shame that people tap into their availability heuristics so much by focusing solely on what graphic scenes are readily available. I highly respect a president's hesitation to go to war.
I've never understood why people think it safer to send our own citizens to war rather than protect the general public against a few terrorist attacks. It's probably because actual death toll statistics sound too good to be true on paper.
That all sounds great on paper, until a terrorist attack like the one Tuesday in Brussels comes to our shores."
What do you mean "sounds great on paper?" That's literally the whole point--that we shouldn't get sucked up in multi-trillion dollar wars every time we see a terrorist attack on the news. It's a shame that people tap into their availability heuristics so much by focusing solely on what graphic scenes are readily available. I highly respect a president's hesitation to go to war.
I've never understood why people think it safer to send our own citizens to war rather than protect the general public against a few terrorist attacks. It's probably because actual death toll statistics sound too good to be true on paper.
2
Military intervention is more glamorous but has proved disastrous for America. Military campaigns have only worked for owners of companies making weapons. If America wants to be a leader in the world that is respected and it wants to put it's resources to use for that, it should spend on selling western liberal values. It should spend those resources on building a soft power such that America is actually seen as a helper.
1
Mr. Freidman and all of us can say whatever we care to about the Middle East countries. Free speech provides that. Thank you forefathers.
The insanity of US involvement there for decades has not taught us that we need not be there?
Please, let us tend to our own.
The insanity of US involvement there for decades has not taught us that we need not be there?
Please, let us tend to our own.
Well Tom, since you called the Invasion of Iraq dead wrong, acting as cheerleader on the sidelines in 2003 while millions of us with a modicum of foresight were marching in the streets, anticipating the ill-justified murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis might have repercussions decades into the future - it takes more than a modicum of gall to question how Obama cleans up the mess you helped make.
3
Hmm, safe spaces in Libya and Syria and non-intervention. Sounds like Trump's plan to me. And by the way, this insane president_caused_the situation in Libya and Syria, not to mention Egypt. And it was only because of Congressional Republicans that we are not involved in war against the Assad regime in Syria, a regime that-, by the way, was praised by our government as a valuable ally in the War on Terror.
1
Perhaps our POTUS should heed John Quincy Adams' "go not forth in search of monsters to destroy", which channels George Washington's admonition against getting involved in external wars.
Leave the Middle East to destroy itself. Assist those governments - such as Israel - that protect individual rights and freedoms. Stop paying bribes (aid) to governments that don't protect individual rights or freedoms (Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, the Palestinians).
Stop violating my rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness by taking my tax dollars and spending them to win hearts and minds in people who hate us.
Leave the Middle East to destroy itself. Assist those governments - such as Israel - that protect individual rights and freedoms. Stop paying bribes (aid) to governments that don't protect individual rights or freedoms (Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, the Palestinians).
Stop violating my rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness by taking my tax dollars and spending them to win hearts and minds in people who hate us.
3
Were we to interfere more directly in Tunisia and Kurdistan, these democratic experiments would no longer be perceived to be "self-generated." Their leaders would lose legitimacy, they'd be seen as puppets of the West, and they would become targets for terror.
Also, Turkey would never allow this kind of support to the Kurds, especially in the aftermath of a new wave of Kurdish terrorist attacks in Turkey's major cities.
And how does this help the EU, exactly? You think migrants will go to Tunisia and Kurdistan instead of the EU? Surely you don't think other Arab dictatorships will just want to emulate two tiny "democracies" that are dependent upon Western aid. Have we already forgotten the false promise of the "Arab Spring?"
Also, Turkey would never allow this kind of support to the Kurds, especially in the aftermath of a new wave of Kurdish terrorist attacks in Turkey's major cities.
And how does this help the EU, exactly? You think migrants will go to Tunisia and Kurdistan instead of the EU? Surely you don't think other Arab dictatorships will just want to emulate two tiny "democracies" that are dependent upon Western aid. Have we already forgotten the false promise of the "Arab Spring?"
1
Mr Friedman,
You have provided a very nice summary of why I am so glad that President Obama is making these decisions and why I worry about the possibility of a President Clinton. To me, what you call "passivity" is a strong leader who is able to see beyond the immediate pressures of crowd mentality (all too often represented by the views of the NYT Editorial Board) that might lead a lesser leader to react by taking military action without weighing the long-term consequences.
You have provided a very nice summary of why I am so glad that President Obama is making these decisions and why I worry about the possibility of a President Clinton. To me, what you call "passivity" is a strong leader who is able to see beyond the immediate pressures of crowd mentality (all too often represented by the views of the NYT Editorial Board) that might lead a lesser leader to react by taking military action without weighing the long-term consequences.
1
Obama is right. The United States has nothing to gain and a lot to lose by sending troops once again into the Middle East inferno. It hasn't benefited us or anyone else in the past, and there is no reason to think that this time will be any different. In fact, Western military action in the Middle East only plays into the narrative of the jihadists. There is no Western military solution to jihadism. Military action just breeds more jihadists.
The best option for the West to defuse jihadism is 1) End all military and financial assistance to Middle Eastern entities, especially including Israel. Israel needs to make peace with its neighbors, not use American backing to outrage them. 2) End anti-Muslim prejudice toward Muslims living in Western nations. Prejudice verging on racism toward Middle Easterners and North Africans is rampant in Western Europe. It just fans the flames, alienates young Muslim men, and drives them toward jihadism. Western Europeans need to take a hard look at themselves and change behaviors that create enemies in their midst. The same is true of Americans drawn by the siren songs of the likes of Trump.
The best option for the West to defuse jihadism is 1) End all military and financial assistance to Middle Eastern entities, especially including Israel. Israel needs to make peace with its neighbors, not use American backing to outrage them. 2) End anti-Muslim prejudice toward Muslims living in Western nations. Prejudice verging on racism toward Middle Easterners and North Africans is rampant in Western Europe. It just fans the flames, alienates young Muslim men, and drives them toward jihadism. Western Europeans need to take a hard look at themselves and change behaviors that create enemies in their midst. The same is true of Americans drawn by the siren songs of the likes of Trump.
2
We pour trillions into Middle Eastern countries. We have hammered away with our military. It has only gotten worse. You sir are wrong and the President correct.
1
Thomas,
I would be more motivated to read your column if only I could forget that you supported Bush's entry into Iran. Obama has the "right" to set policy because he was elected president and I voted for him.
I would be more motivated to read your column if only I could forget that you supported Bush's entry into Iran. Obama has the "right" to set policy because he was elected president and I voted for him.
1
Fairly amazing how consistent T. Friedman is a paragraph or two and all the cheerleading for the Iraq invasion and war rushes to mind. When virtually everyone was coming to the conclusion it was not going well Mr. Friedman expressed a few reservations. Any lessons learned? Apparently not, war is so satisfying, for a while.
As I remember it, Friedman was a cheerleader for U.S. meddling in Iraq. He just can't acknowledge that our messing around in the Middle East accomplishes nothing at best, backfires at worst. It's time for Europe, which is suffering the consequences of Mid East turmoil, to take over. Along with the "good' Arab countries. If Israel is attacked, we should come to its aid. Otherwise, leave the region to sort out its own problems. We have our own oil now.
1
Great idea. Let's invade the Middle East again. That'll lead to less death and misery. We have a great track record here.
1
Well said. If President Obama is not listening, I expect Hillary Clinton is and will act on these matters given the chance. By the way, doubt very much the President hates the king of Jordan, who is a strong ally and carrying a heavy weight in refugees from Syria and Iraq.
Whatever the reasons for it may be -- the goodness of his heart, the purity of his soul,
the way he was brought up, his education, his skepticism about military solutions, his
community organization days in Chicago, his sympathy for downtrodden people -- President Obama is not a war president. Would he ever have utilized massive scorch-the-earth tactics like those employed by Lincoln, FDR and Truman? I believe the answer is no. Yes, the wars they fought were fought in times and under circumstances very different from the present day, but not so different as the differences in temperment and outlook between President Obama and those presidents. Our next President must be a man or woman built for war.
the way he was brought up, his education, his skepticism about military solutions, his
community organization days in Chicago, his sympathy for downtrodden people -- President Obama is not a war president. Would he ever have utilized massive scorch-the-earth tactics like those employed by Lincoln, FDR and Truman? I believe the answer is no. Yes, the wars they fought were fought in times and under circumstances very different from the present day, but not so different as the differences in temperment and outlook between President Obama and those presidents. Our next President must be a man or woman built for war.
1
Invading middle eastern countries doesn't seem to help. We've done it before. Enough of that.
A thought-provoking article even though flawed. Friedman's key premise is that while toppling Saddam was a disastrous move, the situation in the region now continues to get worse in ways that come ever closer to the US - e.g. refugees and ISIS are now threatening Europe's stability. He flirts with a new US invasion and then pushes instead for economic help for the 2 small indigenous democracies - Tunisia and the autonomous Iraqi Kurds. That seems a pretty small idea for a huge problem.
The bigger more useful question he raises for me is, how can we actually help anywhere over there, in any way? For so many mideast players, any assistance we offer is jaundiced by our support of Israel. Our help becomes a political football for the recipient. So I question how we can play any other role in the region. Working with cynical 'frenemies', like the Saudis, becomes our only, and fraught, choice.
The bigger more useful question he raises for me is, how can we actually help anywhere over there, in any way? For so many mideast players, any assistance we offer is jaundiced by our support of Israel. Our help becomes a political football for the recipient. So I question how we can play any other role in the region. Working with cynical 'frenemies', like the Saudis, becomes our only, and fraught, choice.
The Republican way is all war all the time isolationism - much more dangerous and only enriches the military industrial complex while killing thousands including our own, and solves nothing beyond that. Why is that better?
USMC WO1 1968-1976, Vietnam 1969-70.
USMC WO1 1968-1976, Vietnam 1969-70.
1
The invasion and destabilization of Iraq spawned ISIS. If we were to invade another nation in the Middle East to kill off ISIS, what nightmare would spring up in its place?
President Obama is right when he suggests that there are too many “free-riders” in the Middle East and Europe who expect the US to come in, wave our military might and put it all back together again. It is long past due for European nations and Middle Eastern countries to pull their own weight and to try and solve their problems. The terrifying rise of Donald Trump here in the US suggests that we need to start doing some nation building here at home!
President Obama is right when he suggests that there are too many “free-riders” in the Middle East and Europe who expect the US to come in, wave our military might and put it all back together again. It is long past due for European nations and Middle Eastern countries to pull their own weight and to try and solve their problems. The terrifying rise of Donald Trump here in the US suggests that we need to start doing some nation building here at home!
1
I had the opportunity, through work, to view and experience the Mideastern and African way of life. I don't believe our form of government, one that's based on Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness and the Separation of Church and State can successfully be adopted by their societies. So what is it that we wish to accomplish? And how long will our intervention be required? Should we be trying to force our way of life on their citizens. WW2 ended in '45, the Korean War in '53 yet we still have troops based in Europe and Korea. And, problems between N and S Korea have never been settled. The record from previous US military intervention doesn't offer us hope that we would have any better chance for achieving positive results from future intervention. We also need to be reminded that the major military actions taking place in those countries is civil, Muslim against Muslim. Loss of life due to Israeli/Arab fighting is minimum as measured against the horrors and loss of life the Muslims inflict on each other. Obama is right, our military involvement should be kept to a minimum. Don't listen to politicians who wish to commit US troops and money to a NO-WIN situation.
1
Incredulous. Stripped of the thin veneer of sympathy for the victims, this column is nothing more than classic neocon thinking that every problem in every part of the world can and (evidently) should be resolved by direct American (military) intervention. Seriously, Thomas? A bomb blows up in Brussels and Obama could and should have prevented it by direct action in the Middle East? Did Dick Cheney ghost write this brain spasm for you?
2
The President is right. We cannot continuously spend the lives of American soldiers to make some people feel we are doing something. Have we learned nothing from Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. The insertion of American ground troops will further exhaust our military, sacrifice untold American soldiers and accomplish nothing.
2
Having resigned himself to the fact that the majority of the American people are tired of American interventionism in the Middle East, Mr. Friedman now uses clichés to advocate for American support of fledging ( and almost failing) democracies such as Tunisia and Kurdish enclaves in Iraq and now advocates spending American taxpayer money in that endeavor.
I would respectfully suggest to Mr. Friedman that, as part of the 1%, he starts by paying more taxes himself to pay for his advocacy, and stop advocating for spending more of mine. Or to put it less delicately, start by putting your money where your mouth is Mr. Friedman. The rest of us can no longer afford it.
I would respectfully suggest to Mr. Friedman that, as part of the 1%, he starts by paying more taxes himself to pay for his advocacy, and stop advocating for spending more of mine. Or to put it less delicately, start by putting your money where your mouth is Mr. Friedman. The rest of us can no longer afford it.
1
Before Tom Friedman starts advising President Obama on foreign policy, he should acknowledge and apologize for his own responsibility as an influential and trenchant backer of President George Bush's unprovoked, unjustified invasion of Iraq, a criminal calamity that triggered the current catastrophe. Own up, Tom
3
The United States can quickly deliver military assets anywhere in the world, the problem is what do they do when they get there. In both Iraq and Afghanistan the ability to find and destroy the enemy and the enemy's logistic and manpower systems depended upon good relations with the governments and the ability to gain intelligence directly from the people, or else our troops were never where they needed to be to confront and to destroy the enemy. That results in long term occupation and the building friction with the local people over time. Once the military has done what it can do, will it leave the country stable, safe, and without need of further attention. With ISIS/ISIL there is the additional problem of terrorist cells and lone wolf terrorists who empathize with ISIS/ISIL. How to find them and to neutralize them? Interactions with the people with who these people interact to identify them. Again, it's not easy and big technologies and big intelligence agencies cannot do much without good sources of information, reliable sources, not some lumbering and garbage gathering big data dragnet and not torturers forcing people to tell them what they want to hear. As hard as it is to accept there are not any big, decisive ways of combating our foes with respect to those in strange and different countries nor to terrorists who can live normally amongst us, especially in populations who we mistrust and who mistrust us.
Mr. Friedman, You are one of my favorite and most thoughtful writers. However, I wish you hadn't characterized President Obama as hating the Arab leaders. In reading the Atlantic article, he is frustrated that Arab leaders and very reluctant to take leadership roles in the destiny of the region.
He is right, European leaders need to take ownership on areas such as the middle east and stop looking for us to bear the burden of our treasury and troops. This is not to suggest disengage, but burden sharing would be more appropriate way to describe what is needed.
Continue your geat writing and observations.
Vaughan Jones
Evanston IL
He is right, European leaders need to take ownership on areas such as the middle east and stop looking for us to bear the burden of our treasury and troops. This is not to suggest disengage, but burden sharing would be more appropriate way to describe what is needed.
Continue your geat writing and observations.
Vaughan Jones
Evanston IL
Where is it written that it's ok for western troops to trespass in other nations? ISIS, Al Quaeda and any other nationalist or religiously motivated group will all stop their bloody attacks on the west when the western powers get the hell out of their countries.
The oil, automotive, steel--most of the big corporate players want us to stay there. Why? The question's the answer. I keep wondering how Americans would behave if foreign troops and businesses stomped all over our cities, fertile plains...; killed us, stole our national treasures--sucked us dry.
Am I naive? According to once autonomous middle eastern vs. western exploitative colonial history--right up to today--I am. To maybe 95% of liberal and conservative Americans (maybe less, maybe more?), it's a given, and it's been a given that the west has a natural right to move into ME nations and to bomb and murder any of those citizens who object and resist. Are we objectively any different than the Nazis killing French resistance fighters? Our whole economy and our military structure operates on the assumption that the US gets to take what it wants when it wants. Very few of US object.
Get out, leave Israel to its own devices, and remove the fundamental reasons for Islamic terrorism. We in the west are bringing home the terror and slaughter by our own silence--as much as the atrocious actions perpetrated by our own leaders and spineless followers.
The oil, automotive, steel--most of the big corporate players want us to stay there. Why? The question's the answer. I keep wondering how Americans would behave if foreign troops and businesses stomped all over our cities, fertile plains...; killed us, stole our national treasures--sucked us dry.
Am I naive? According to once autonomous middle eastern vs. western exploitative colonial history--right up to today--I am. To maybe 95% of liberal and conservative Americans (maybe less, maybe more?), it's a given, and it's been a given that the west has a natural right to move into ME nations and to bomb and murder any of those citizens who object and resist. Are we objectively any different than the Nazis killing French resistance fighters? Our whole economy and our military structure operates on the assumption that the US gets to take what it wants when it wants. Very few of US object.
Get out, leave Israel to its own devices, and remove the fundamental reasons for Islamic terrorism. We in the west are bringing home the terror and slaughter by our own silence--as much as the atrocious actions perpetrated by our own leaders and spineless followers.
2
On Nov. 4, 2012, President Barack Obama announce triumphantly, "I said I would end the war in Iraq. I ended it." Well...he didn't. He just abandoned Iraq at a time that it made no sense to do so. Soon after the US left Iraq, ISIS, formerly a JV team, entered Iraq, grabbed nearly a billion dollars in cash, access to oil wells, and vast munitions, and morphed into a global menace killer.
4,000 US soldiers lost their lives to free places like Mosul from an insane dictator and Obama gave it to ISIS by abandoning post when he did. What would happen if we left Iraq was not only predictable it was predicted.
It is almost impossible to calculate the number of people who have died due to the fiasco of that US pullout, but it's a very large number and there is currently no end in sight. Now this global menace killer is driving millions of refugees into Europe, which is threatening at minimum a Brexit and at maximum the end of the European Union.
The stability the US was returning to Iraq and thereby the Middle East has been destroyed, and the ramifications will reverberate for generations in the form of human and economic disaster in the Middle East, the EU, and in the US. Like it or not, at this point that is Obama's foreign policy legacy.
4,000 US soldiers lost their lives to free places like Mosul from an insane dictator and Obama gave it to ISIS by abandoning post when he did. What would happen if we left Iraq was not only predictable it was predicted.
It is almost impossible to calculate the number of people who have died due to the fiasco of that US pullout, but it's a very large number and there is currently no end in sight. Now this global menace killer is driving millions of refugees into Europe, which is threatening at minimum a Brexit and at maximum the end of the European Union.
The stability the US was returning to Iraq and thereby the Middle East has been destroyed, and the ramifications will reverberate for generations in the form of human and economic disaster in the Middle East, the EU, and in the US. Like it or not, at this point that is Obama's foreign policy legacy.
Tom, I don't trust your instincts about the Middle East. You're too hawkish and you have been very wrong in the past. President Obama is right, given the situation on the ground. Where to do you attack in the first place? How much American blood and treasure should be spent on a religious tribal conflict in more than dozen different countries? US intervention in the Middle East is the primary cause of the escalating conflict. So The why pour more fuel on the fire? This bellicose mindset that you share with GWB and the old neocons is a major cause of the problem.
2
Mr. Friedman starts with the wrong question. The first question a writer should ask is "Do I have this right?" In Friedman's case, he always begins with the presumption that his perspective and sources are infallibly accurate, hence others' (in this instance, Obama) don't measure up, or they're mistaken, or ignorant, or misdirected, or obsessed. Having read many of Friedman's essays over the years, I've come to see him as the one who's more "mistaken" and, perhaps, "obsessed" with defending his own opinions. Please, sir, a little self-reflection would help make you a better writer.
2
We do not need to intervene militarily - we just need to stop immigration from the Middle East, and rid Europe and the US of would be terrorists who already live there. Muslim ghettos should be eradicated (by deportations and stripping terrorist sympathizers of citizenship). That's where we should be putting our resources -- but that runs contrary to the open borders and globalization mantra that the NYT supports. Wake up, people.
2
That is one nasty opinion Mr. Friedman where you complain, wonder and muse about all sorts of unfortunate circumstances and then arrive at a conclusion that maybe we, the citizens of the United States of America, should sponsor a couple of fledgling democracies(?) in a cauldron of chaos. You could have made that point in one sentence.
And to answer your question - yes Mr. Friedman, President Obama does have it right.
And to answer your question - yes Mr. Friedman, President Obama does have it right.
3
As several experts on the region have observed, the solution to the Syria/Iraq problem is to partition the countries into semi- or fully autonomous homelands for the Kurds, the Sunnis and the Shia. While I lived there, the primary concern of Syrians I spoke with was security. Since there is no trust among the different sects, helping each go to his or her own corner seems a reasonable solution.
The question to be asked: where is the partner that the Kurds deserve? If there is a people that deserves a nation the first in line would be Kurds. They are in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, etc. They should have a say in their future.
Mr. Friedman, the problem is that you seem to think that taking some mild measures would solve many of the problems in the Middle East. However, to a great extent, our actions in the Middle East have created the problems they now face. Interesting also that you take the safe road by not stating exactly what our country should be doing with respect to Kurdistan and Tunisia.
3
Good grief, Tom endless war is not peace. Please stop. We are not going to "tilt" a region that has been defined by a core religious conflict for more than 1200 years. Blundering around in that region yet again at the cost of a few more trillion dollars and thousands more dead to support the latest "ally" or "democracy"? Please stop.
5
Does any evidence exist showing that aggressive violent approach works anywhere? Don't like the outcome in Lybia: what should have been done differently. What has nearly 10 years of trying to impose our will on Iraq and Afganistan accomplished. Easy to go to war, harder to get out with no idea on unanticipated outcomes. Anybody recall increasing Iranian influence in the region as a goal of the Iraq invasion? But clearly an unintended effect of the war.
2
No, Mr. Friedman,
No more interventionism. No more wars. We are not the masters of the universe. Our young people are not pawns in the game of global hegemony. Obama is going to resist the drumbeat of War.
No more interventionism. No more wars. We are not the masters of the universe. Our young people are not pawns in the game of global hegemony. Obama is going to resist the drumbeat of War.
4
For me comparing your president to the leaders of the M.E. countries on Friedman's list he stands out as being by far the best leader based on policy, temperament and overall good judgement. And for that I twice thank the voters who elected him.
1
Countries that breed Terrorists do so because they have bad governments. Terrorism is the weapon of last resort. You can't fix that without fixing where they live. Our track record with regime change is pretty dismal, so Obama is practical, if not exactly inspirational.
1
"That all sounds great on paper, until a terrorist attack like the one Tuesday in Brussels comes to our shores. Does the president have this right?"
There was an attach in Paris, another in Brussels. This is not American soil. Europe has armed forces which they refuse to deploy against the Islamic State. How about their boots on the ground to protect their own countries for once? How about stopping to rely on American blood?
There was an attach in Paris, another in Brussels. This is not American soil. Europe has armed forces which they refuse to deploy against the Islamic State. How about their boots on the ground to protect their own countries for once? How about stopping to rely on American blood?
2
As a European I don't understand the need to invade far off, foreign countries to fix domestic terrorism problems. The terrorists came from Belgium. They were not Syrians or Iraqis. The terrorists involved in the London bombings in 2007 were homegrown jihadis. This is a European security problem, it is not going to going to be fixed by invading Syria. Another Middle East invasion will create more refugees and this will probably make the situation worse.
A similar mistake was made after 9/11 when Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded. When bin Laden was chased into Pakistan, he was not followed. The politicians pretended he had disappeared. The US stayed in Afghanistan and fought the Taliban, who had nothing to do with 9/11. We need to focus on fighting one enemy at a time, not create new ones. The real enemy in Europe is homegrown.
A similar mistake was made after 9/11 when Afghanistan and Iraq were invaded. When bin Laden was chased into Pakistan, he was not followed. The politicians pretended he had disappeared. The US stayed in Afghanistan and fought the Taliban, who had nothing to do with 9/11. We need to focus on fighting one enemy at a time, not create new ones. The real enemy in Europe is homegrown.
1
Mr. Obama's policy looks just right to me. The Syrian situation is awful, but it is totally unclear to me that US intervention would have helped; indeed in the long run t might have made matters worse. It is not even clear to me that we need to pour money into Kurdistan or Tunisia. If 700 billion can vanish into thin air in Iraq, it can do so elsewhere too. Our "constructive engagement" in Afghanistan hasn't amounted to a hill of beans.
The idea of military assistance to Tunisia is the worst of all. In fact, Mr. Obama should be looking to disengage as much as possible from the region. In terms of active steps, he should be working for a 100 year embargo of all weapons sales to the entire region. The US has sold around $100 Bil worth to the Saudis over 5 years, the Belgians are a leading seller of small arms to everyone including Syria, the French sell to the Saudis, Egyptians, Qataris, ... you name it. If we can resist the lure of the money and the jobs it creates back here and stop our own sales, we have a better chance of pressuring the Russians and others to also stay out. Where do you think ISIS gets its weapons? The Saudis have killed around 5000 Yemeni civilians in the last year or so using our weapons. You can bet we have made a lot of new enemies for life in Yemen.
The Middle East is a mess. Let the fires burn themselves out until they can figure out how to move beyond medieval tribalism and corruption.
The idea of military assistance to Tunisia is the worst of all. In fact, Mr. Obama should be looking to disengage as much as possible from the region. In terms of active steps, he should be working for a 100 year embargo of all weapons sales to the entire region. The US has sold around $100 Bil worth to the Saudis over 5 years, the Belgians are a leading seller of small arms to everyone including Syria, the French sell to the Saudis, Egyptians, Qataris, ... you name it. If we can resist the lure of the money and the jobs it creates back here and stop our own sales, we have a better chance of pressuring the Russians and others to also stay out. Where do you think ISIS gets its weapons? The Saudis have killed around 5000 Yemeni civilians in the last year or so using our weapons. You can bet we have made a lot of new enemies for life in Yemen.
The Middle East is a mess. Let the fires burn themselves out until they can figure out how to move beyond medieval tribalism and corruption.
82
I'll take a reasonably passive Obama over Trump, Cruz, or Hillary, for that matter. Obama has been bashed for his very gutsy decision trying to bring Iran into diplomatic relations. Friedman's attack on him for not getting involved in the Tunisian and Kurdistan experiments is not justified.
3
You are correct, Thomas. This is what many of us have been saying all along. It's all about Obama and his image and it always has been. And yet, we want to replace him with the female version, who also just wants to be president, just because. Hillary Clinton also only cares about her own self and image. And yet, people continue to line up for these folks and then when people like Trump rise (its irrelevant if I agree with him or not and I don't), people stand around scratching their heads why? Hows this possible? Hmm, I don't know, could be that a simple few words were used, such as "it's about all of us -- not just Blacks, you the people, the middle class, and let's keep out agitators, and non productive citizen". It's so painfully obvious that Trump will be our 45th president.
President Obama can't end his term quick enough and that's not me saying that I want it too or not, on his end, he's counting the days so he can make it out safely, as you said, to be defined a certain way; as the president who ended war or some garbage like that. All Obama did was end war abroad and bring it home with deep racial division and class seclusion. If I weren't mistaken, my guess is these have everything to do with another as to have people focus on one thing and not the other. Our threat has never been about the workplace that has 20 people, 14 of which are women, and its deemed unfair or the police when a young Black man wrestles a gun away from an officer and killed in the process.
President Obama can't end his term quick enough and that's not me saying that I want it too or not, on his end, he's counting the days so he can make it out safely, as you said, to be defined a certain way; as the president who ended war or some garbage like that. All Obama did was end war abroad and bring it home with deep racial division and class seclusion. If I weren't mistaken, my guess is these have everything to do with another as to have people focus on one thing and not the other. Our threat has never been about the workplace that has 20 people, 14 of which are women, and its deemed unfair or the police when a young Black man wrestles a gun away from an officer and killed in the process.
1
So Thomas and Roger raise the flags of hawkish militarism and financial intervention in the Middle East simultaneously and in response to another terrorist attack? Both assume some kind of magical powers the U.S. is just sitting on, with our President the sitter-in-chief. Active support of the Kurdish state would make Turkey our declared enemy. Active support of Tunisian democratic progress (where " Islamist terrorists coming from Libya, which we recklessly uncorked, are helping destabilize the Tunisian experiment." Phaw! What a 'reckless, uncorked' assumption) would unleash unexpected consequences with the nest of tyrants in the vicinity. To put a million western warriors in the Levant is... I don't know, insane. And to say the U.S. is being "passive" in the region in dismissive of fact. What the.....?
2
Friedman inevitably slips into thinking that any middle east mess is a place for the US to send in the military and straighten things out. We've been doing that for decades and it hasn't worked. The rational he, and Cohen, offer for their hawkish plans is to point out what a mess the middle east is. We know that, and we've seen that the army doesn't fix it. Don't blame Obama for being smart enough to see that, and strong enough to resist the chicken hawks who keep thinking that next time will be different.
2
One important thing to remember about Obama's response to Syrian gas attacks is that Congress refused to authorize air strikes (as Obama perhaps anticipated). What the GOP really wanted is for Obama to act unilaterally so they would be free to criticize if anything went wrong, as it inevitably would have. You compare an existing reality with a hypothetical model and the model always comes off better: see Communism and Libertarianism. The real world is another story.
2
Excellent well reasoned Op Ed piece. Targeted well thought out policies will enhance America's influence and build a safer and better world.
1
Thomas, do you mean does he have the legal right, or the moral right? Legally, he is the sitting president, and obviously has the right to decide America's strategic plan for the Middle East. Morally, as an outgoing president, it would seem highly problematic to commit to long-term engagement even with "friendly" countries such as Tunisia and Kurdistan when the next president might be an isolationist. I'm also curious as to what your definition of an "invasion" is, if not "being all over Tunisia with economic, technical and military assistance." Military intervention that keeps the existing government in power is still an invasion, don't kid yourself.
1
Even if a Brussels event happened next week, it still wouldn't indicate much of a risk to the average American. More than 1,000 times as many Americans die in car crashes every year, and we cheer the auto industry bailout. Imagine if those crashes got as much press per victim as we're seeing for the Brussels attack. From that point of view, even Obama's "limited" approach is a huge overreaction.
1
There is no compelling national security threat that would necessitate us to start another war in the Middle East.
1
Please explain how the military equivalent of playing whack-a-mole in the Near East is productive or a deterrent to terrorist actions elsewhere?
2
"Initially, I thought Obama made the right call on Syria."
Exactly. One shouldn't overly rely on one's predictions about the region.
One can choose an approach, stick to it and pray for better.
Obama's approach seems reasonable. Who would be arrogant enough to claim to see the future?
Exactly. One shouldn't overly rely on one's predictions about the region.
One can choose an approach, stick to it and pray for better.
Obama's approach seems reasonable. Who would be arrogant enough to claim to see the future?
What's not to "pretty much hate" in regard to most of the leaders referred to, I'd like someone to answer?
In any case, be careful what you seem to be wishing for---given their chance, Cruz or Trump would find more active ways to show hate for the majority of them.
In any case, be careful what you seem to be wishing for---given their chance, Cruz or Trump would find more active ways to show hate for the majority of them.
Mr. Friedman,
I don't believe Pres Obama is "giving up" or is trying to be the opposite of Pres Bush. The U.S., Tunisia, Australia, Canada, Mexico all sought freedom from kings, queens dictators. Europe is just as much intertwined with each other as far as cousins, tribes, relations, etc. as the Middle East. they too faced a breaking off, a revolution, a psycho, a dictator, a clash of ideas.
Look no further than our VEEP who said this will never work in Iraq.
I don't believe Pres Obama is "giving up" or is trying to be the opposite of Pres Bush. The U.S., Tunisia, Australia, Canada, Mexico all sought freedom from kings, queens dictators. Europe is just as much intertwined with each other as far as cousins, tribes, relations, etc. as the Middle East. they too faced a breaking off, a revolution, a psycho, a dictator, a clash of ideas.
Look no further than our VEEP who said this will never work in Iraq.
The real truth is that we can't be an honest broker anywhere in the region. We have armed all sides at one time or another. We can't bless one side without changing the dynamic for the worse for them. This country has no real options than to work through others and hope that will work.
1
Can we please consider the possibility that the attacks are time to influence our election and get American blood spilled overseas? The way to fight terrorism is with intelligence not boots on the ground. The Brussel police said it takes 25 officers to follow around one suspected terrorist everyday. Instead of sending boots, send money to beef up European intelligence and for that matter our own. Forget boots on the ground, except for the Saudis boots. Let them send an army against ISIS in Iraq. When we have real armies to fight then boots on the ground are called for. As long as the terrorists are on their own turf they can not harm Europe or America. The Brussel authorities say the damage is done. They are already swarming with terrorits in their country.
Does the president really believe believe there's no difference between dying in a car accident and a terrorist attack? Dead is dead? There so much to life than statistics and empirical evidence. A biggrr picture. How do the well educated fall into this trap? A human beings has to be worth more than a number. Or is it to much for the scientific mind to grasp?
America being the leader of "The New World Order" has not worked out well for America nor the rest of the world. Our hubris that we could rule the world and dictate what kind of governments we want to rule the Middle East has ended in disaster. American Exceptionalism has taken the same path all great nations take when they set out to rule the world. History has shown this path is destined to ruin.
1
"But sitting here also makes you wonder if Obama hasn’t gotten so obsessed with defending his hand’s-off approach to Syria that he underestimates both the dangers of his passivity and the opportunity for U.S. power to tilt this region our way — without having to invade anywhere."
With this statement, Friedman, who was a supporter of the disastrous invasion of Iraq, offers a new version of the same Kool-Aid that was pushed by the Bush Administration, that of a Pax Americana.
This time, the component of invasion is removed from the formula. It's a seemingly enticing brew, one lacking the element of invasion that led to the rise of ISIS and trillions of dollars of debt to be born by this generation of American citizens and their descendants.
Friedman fails to explain how this magic elixir could work. He points out areas of opportunity, but fails to explain how to exploit them. Perhaps Friedman doesn't know. In that case, he would be following in a grand tradition of uncooked American foreign policy decisions that have proven costly to the US economy and as importantly to its security.
Thanks, but no thanks.
With this statement, Friedman, who was a supporter of the disastrous invasion of Iraq, offers a new version of the same Kool-Aid that was pushed by the Bush Administration, that of a Pax Americana.
This time, the component of invasion is removed from the formula. It's a seemingly enticing brew, one lacking the element of invasion that led to the rise of ISIS and trillions of dollars of debt to be born by this generation of American citizens and their descendants.
Friedman fails to explain how this magic elixir could work. He points out areas of opportunity, but fails to explain how to exploit them. Perhaps Friedman doesn't know. In that case, he would be following in a grand tradition of uncooked American foreign policy decisions that have proven costly to the US economy and as importantly to its security.
Thanks, but no thanks.
1
At the start of the 20th century, Presidents like Teddy Roosevelt and Wilson projected American soft and hard power to dominate the globe -
At start of the 21st century, President Obama is only recognizing the limits of this power, it is no admission of weakness, only an exercise of wisdom.
At start of the 21st century, President Obama is only recognizing the limits of this power, it is no admission of weakness, only an exercise of wisdom.
1
Our Western ways of strategic thinking or war planning do not apply in the ME. A square + B square somehow never results in C square over there. If we get a Republican president he'll desperately attempt to convince us that this time it will, and the propaganda and media will follow in support. I am glad that our President Obama has learned that simple fact and saved countless human lives by not getting us further involved in that mess.
1
Thomas Friedman and Roger Cohen belong to that courageous, upper class and cosmopolitan society David Halberstam called " the best and the brightest". The society of the best and the brightest supported Anthony Eden in the Suez Affair, campaigned for U.S. intervention in Vietnam and for the invasion of Iraq. The best and the brightest don't fight themselves, nor do they pay the consequences in death and taxes. They have more important matters to attend to: parties in Georgetown, conference at think tanks. After all, they are the best and brightest.
1
Time for a radical re-think of our role in the Middle East. Let's start by being honest: but for the oil, we would stay as far away from the Middle East as humanly possible. Other than depriving anyone with a ME zip code from gaining nuclear capability, we would have nothing whatever to do with the ME. And other than insuring the flow of oil from there - until we develop alternatives to fossil fuels - and preventing anyone from getting a nuke, we should have a very, very small and inconspicuous footprint in the ME. We have no right to be meddling in their affairs and we are in no way capable of doing so intelligently and effectively. We simply do not understand the complexities of their societies or their psychologies.
We have got to stop assuming that democracy is innate in all people. Or that it is our obligation to bring it to the world like so many overly ardent evangelicals. In those people to whom it is innate, they will find their way to it. In those to whom it is not, no amount of our "help" will lead them to it.
That bad things happen in the world is a terrible thing: Assad is undeniably a mass murderer. But it is not our pre-ordained obligation or right to correct that particular wrong. Do we sit back and watch innocents slaughtered? If there is no way to drive an Assad into submission economically, then sadly yes. If the Syrian people want democracy they will have to wrest it from a despot.
Let the ME sort itself out by itself. We cannot.
We have got to stop assuming that democracy is innate in all people. Or that it is our obligation to bring it to the world like so many overly ardent evangelicals. In those people to whom it is innate, they will find their way to it. In those to whom it is not, no amount of our "help" will lead them to it.
That bad things happen in the world is a terrible thing: Assad is undeniably a mass murderer. But it is not our pre-ordained obligation or right to correct that particular wrong. Do we sit back and watch innocents slaughtered? If there is no way to drive an Assad into submission economically, then sadly yes. If the Syrian people want democracy they will have to wrest it from a despot.
Let the ME sort itself out by itself. We cannot.
1
Had this been a column about Palestinian statehood it would undoubtedly generated far more than the now current 500 comments. Yet here, Thomas Friedman illustrates two examples of Middle Eastern peoples - Tunisians and Kurds - who are building democratic civic institutions, including universities and a free press, in an effort to build functioning civic societies, even in the midst of war and turmoil.
Meanwhile Salam Fayyad - hated by both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority - who worked to build Palestinian institutions was removed from power by President Mahmoud Abbas in 2013, and no such institution building efforts have been undertaken by Hamas or the PA since that time.
So when so few Americans have much regard for issues aside from Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it should come as no surprise that the President Obama isn't willing to invest much capital in the nation-building efforts of other Middle Eastern peoples. Just as it is not much of a surprise that Palestinians aren't working to build civic institutions when their American and European supporters make no demands of the Palestinians to end their military campaign and turn to the hard work of institution building.
Meanwhile Salam Fayyad - hated by both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority - who worked to build Palestinian institutions was removed from power by President Mahmoud Abbas in 2013, and no such institution building efforts have been undertaken by Hamas or the PA since that time.
So when so few Americans have much regard for issues aside from Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it should come as no surprise that the President Obama isn't willing to invest much capital in the nation-building efforts of other Middle Eastern peoples. Just as it is not much of a surprise that Palestinians aren't working to build civic institutions when their American and European supporters make no demands of the Palestinians to end their military campaign and turn to the hard work of institution building.
1
The neo-cons have come out in force, it appears, having learned nothing from our fruitless, costly, and brutal incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps they aren't quite insane, but no reasonable person would repeat the same thing over and over expecting to get a different result. And so the result we have produced by nation building of any kind (and Obama is somewhat guilty in having supported the "democracy" that now reigns in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia) has been to destabilize the region and radicalize a tiny but violent part of the Muslim population in our own countries. Now why suggest more of that?
1
Tom, you have a lot of great columns but this one is probably the worst I have ever read. By the way, given your support of the Iraq invasion (a.k.a. the greatest boondoggle in US History), you have zero credibility on this issue.
What happened to the $700 billion? Great question. Well a lot of it went to Haliburton and Blackwater. The rest as you note, got siphoned off or was used to pay off corrupt leaders. We have been paying off leaders in the Middle East for decades. Mubarak et al.
Worse still, we have asked young Americans along with their families to make extraordinary sacrifices that is not only unappreciated but is also resented. This makes us less safe at home.
That leads me to my second point. What is this about? If this is about saving American lives, then we can do that here at home. We can invest money saved by not invading on infrastrcuture to make our roads, bridges and WATER safer. We can invest in medical R&D. We can invest in education. Finally we can invest in bolstering our intelligence services both national and local to prevent these attacks.
That is not to suggest we don't need to help organize military action by local forces in the Middle East while bombing targets of opportunity. Ultimately, the people of the Middle East are going to have to sort this out. We can't do it for them.
As for Belgium, they had 50 Million Euro invested in their counterintelligence. Not our fault.
What happened to the $700 billion? Great question. Well a lot of it went to Haliburton and Blackwater. The rest as you note, got siphoned off or was used to pay off corrupt leaders. We have been paying off leaders in the Middle East for decades. Mubarak et al.
Worse still, we have asked young Americans along with their families to make extraordinary sacrifices that is not only unappreciated but is also resented. This makes us less safe at home.
That leads me to my second point. What is this about? If this is about saving American lives, then we can do that here at home. We can invest money saved by not invading on infrastrcuture to make our roads, bridges and WATER safer. We can invest in medical R&D. We can invest in education. Finally we can invest in bolstering our intelligence services both national and local to prevent these attacks.
That is not to suggest we don't need to help organize military action by local forces in the Middle East while bombing targets of opportunity. Ultimately, the people of the Middle East are going to have to sort this out. We can't do it for them.
As for Belgium, they had 50 Million Euro invested in their counterintelligence. Not our fault.
Thomas Friedman, there has not a tool that the US has not tried or used in the Middle East. From overt and covert regime change, coddling dictatorships, supporting repressive monarchies to 'shock and aw' invading sovereign nations and supplying and training jihadists masquerading as rebels and freedom fighters, the US has used every tools in its militarized and rather unimaginative toolbox and the consequences are laid bare for all to see. More active involvement as you have confusingly advocated will only lead to more of the same. The regional power struggle and sectarian conflict will have to be resolved by the people of the Middle East as Obama has said they will have to learn to live with each other - the Saudis must accept a 'cold peace' with the Iranians. Yes, it is a fact, which is lost on people like Friedman, that America's power is limited in today's world where military technologies and economic advantages are more diffused. More American involvement only benefits the arms industry, the capitalists, and those who cannot accept or forgetful of the lessons of history.
Thomas Friedman, there has not a tool that the US has not tried or used in the Middle East. From overt and covert regime change, coddling dictatorships, supporting repressive monarchies to 'shock and aw' invading sovereign nations and supplying and training jihadists masquerading as rebels and freedom fighters, the US has used every tools in its militarized and rather unimaginative toolbox and the consequences are laid bare for all to see. More active involvement as you have confusingly advocated will only lead to more of the same. The regional power struggle and sectarian conflict will have to be resolved by the people of the Middle East as Obama has said they will have to learn to live with each other - the Saudis must accept a 'cold peace' with the Iranians. Yes, it is a fact that, which is lost on people like Friedman, America's power is limited in today's world where military technologies and economic advantages are more diffused. More American involvement only benefits the arms industry, the capitalists, and those who cannot accept or forgetful of the lessons of history.
If you want people to stop attacking us, the first step is stop attacking them. We (Europe and the U.S.) started this by using violence and subterfuge to make the Middle East safe for big oil. It would have been a lot cheaper if we had just overpaid for oil in the first place. But we had to foment revolution, and put people like the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein in power, support the beheading, extremism exporting Saudi Princes, and when all else failed, invade multiple times.
What do we have to show for it? Chaos, terrorism, and indirectly, global warming.
They don't hate us because we're free. They hate us because they are not free, and they know that a big reason why is that we have supported strongman leaders who will sell us cheap oil over democracy for almost 100 years. The anarchistic Kurdish democracy is probably the best hope for the middle East, and we should send supplies for them and the refugees that they house. But if the leader is trying to take too much power it is probably the CIA that is encouraging it.
The U.S. cannot send an army to create democracy. It never works.
Friedman You were wrong in 2003 and you're wrong now.
What do we have to show for it? Chaos, terrorism, and indirectly, global warming.
They don't hate us because we're free. They hate us because they are not free, and they know that a big reason why is that we have supported strongman leaders who will sell us cheap oil over democracy for almost 100 years. The anarchistic Kurdish democracy is probably the best hope for the middle East, and we should send supplies for them and the refugees that they house. But if the leader is trying to take too much power it is probably the CIA that is encouraging it.
The U.S. cannot send an army to create democracy. It never works.
Friedman You were wrong in 2003 and you're wrong now.
A thought provoking article. I imagine, though, that there is quite a bit the U.S. is doing - via military, CIA, State, etc. - that doesn't get noticed since to publicize it would provoke a backlash in the middle east.
My frustration with Obama isn't so much passivity, but rather the lack of creative approaches. The current turmoil has both ideological and, even more, economic roots in which military action would do little. More creatively and aggressively focusing on those and finding ways to promote strong, non-corrupt institutions are the only hope. I haven't yet seen real conversations around what such solutions could be, but that's where we should start.
My frustration with Obama isn't so much passivity, but rather the lack of creative approaches. The current turmoil has both ideological and, even more, economic roots in which military action would do little. More creatively and aggressively focusing on those and finding ways to promote strong, non-corrupt institutions are the only hope. I haven't yet seen real conversations around what such solutions could be, but that's where we should start.
This is a very difficult question. It's worth remembering that when Assad used chemical weapons, Obama asked Congress to approve use of US military force in Syria; Congress utterly refused to touch the subject.
So right now, any military adventure operates under a cloud, legally stretching definitions in the Iraq war resolution to the utter extreme. We are a country of laws, and when our lawmakers refuse to function, we are hamstrung -- and so is the President.
Moreover, as this column briefly mentions, the parties on the ground are inextricably focused against one another, in ways that really limit options for outsiders. Europe tried to ignore that by imposing its own diktat after WWI, and we are still reaping the results. What exactly does Friedman want us to do in Kurdistan and Tunisia, beyond what we have done already, and why in the world does he think it would have one whit of success?
So right now, any military adventure operates under a cloud, legally stretching definitions in the Iraq war resolution to the utter extreme. We are a country of laws, and when our lawmakers refuse to function, we are hamstrung -- and so is the President.
Moreover, as this column briefly mentions, the parties on the ground are inextricably focused against one another, in ways that really limit options for outsiders. Europe tried to ignore that by imposing its own diktat after WWI, and we are still reaping the results. What exactly does Friedman want us to do in Kurdistan and Tunisia, beyond what we have done already, and why in the world does he think it would have one whit of success?
We are constantly making trade-offs between where we should "interfere" and when. President Obama is making the right choices considering the players involved, not all playing with a full deck, some playing with hidden hands and other playing with idealistic views and unrealistic plans for their future. It is never any good to back countries that are not stabilized. What happen in Brussels in the result of decades of backing the wrong leaders in the Middle East not only militarily but financially. The small amount of aide we can give in war torn Syria is being dispensed. We may be able to curtail the length of the war by stopping arms going into Syria but the enemies are not easy to see. Helping Europe get through the migrant crisis is more feasible. The hands off agenda is the best solution at this time, it may change. But that is why we need to have plan B. The President's plan is working. Of course, that doesn't help Belgium people right now, nor any deaths that may come later.
I tend to think about the Middle East as being similar to Europe, 300 - 500 years ago.
In the period of 1400 to mid-way through the 1900's, the countries of England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Austria, Spain and other countries were continually in various conflicts with one another. Young America was a proxy, as were other nations.
Religion played an important role in the unrest. The continent was in transition from Monarchy rule to more Democratic forms of government. There were revolutions, dictators, overthrows, imperialism, internal strife and conflict.
Finally after WWI and WWII, the European continent gelled into a more peaceful and cooperative environment, but still with religious strife dividing certain societies.
The Western World tends to think about the current state of Islam and the Middle East as something from the middle ages. And they are playing out many of the same secular and sectarian issues.
In garnering an understanding of how the US and Europe should address the Middle East, perhaps we need to review our own history.
In the period of 1400 to mid-way through the 1900's, the countries of England, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Austria, Spain and other countries were continually in various conflicts with one another. Young America was a proxy, as were other nations.
Religion played an important role in the unrest. The continent was in transition from Monarchy rule to more Democratic forms of government. There were revolutions, dictators, overthrows, imperialism, internal strife and conflict.
Finally after WWI and WWII, the European continent gelled into a more peaceful and cooperative environment, but still with religious strife dividing certain societies.
The Western World tends to think about the current state of Islam and the Middle East as something from the middle ages. And they are playing out many of the same secular and sectarian issues.
In garnering an understanding of how the US and Europe should address the Middle East, perhaps we need to review our own history.
Whether our strategy is to be based solely in national security, or to include humanistic concerns, it must be empirical, that is, realistically based on an approach that has worked in the past. Can interventionists point to any such successes? I don't believe they can. In fact, I believe all of our recent interventions in the Middle East - including the recent one in Libya - have been political rather than strategic. They have neither transformed the conflicted nations nor increased our security or prestige. The two noted successes occurred in the absence of US involvement, suggesting that our best strategy might indeed be to stand back.
1
I've just two questions re: the turmoil in the Middle East.
1. When do these countries take responsibility for self-government, with the common thread being a stable, peaceful region?
2. If U.S. involvement is necessary, will it reinstate the draft so that the children of warmongers are eligible for service?
We've neglected our own national security by letting a crumbling infrastructure rot to the point of poisoning our citizens. That's what two trillion spent warring got us; deteriorating roads, bridges, pipes and electrical grids. We can't even secure our ports.
So, yes President Obama has it absolutely right. Charity begins at home.
1. When do these countries take responsibility for self-government, with the common thread being a stable, peaceful region?
2. If U.S. involvement is necessary, will it reinstate the draft so that the children of warmongers are eligible for service?
We've neglected our own national security by letting a crumbling infrastructure rot to the point of poisoning our citizens. That's what two trillion spent warring got us; deteriorating roads, bridges, pipes and electrical grids. We can't even secure our ports.
So, yes President Obama has it absolutely right. Charity begins at home.
1
Today is March 23, 2016.
Barack Obama took office on January 20, 2009.
I am a Black attorney in Washington DC, and I've been in Washington for the entire Obama presidency. I also volunteer through our legal clinics to help the homeless and mentor kids in Black communities. Barack Obama has never placed one foot in the poorest Black community in Washington DC, which isn't even a 10 dollar cab ride from the White House.
As of 2013, according to the USDA, 1 in 4 Black children in America are starving to death. 2013 marked first year of Obama's 2nd term in office and fifth overall.
There are more Black people suffering during the Obama presidency from long term unemployment, mass incarceration, youth gun and drug related crime/violence, poverty and homelessness than any other race in America. The last time Black people suffered more than any other race for longer periods of time than any other race was in the mid 1850s, when slavery was legal in America.
As of today, 114 million Americans have given up on finding a job during the Obama presidency.
Where does charity begin?
Barack Obama took office on January 20, 2009.
I am a Black attorney in Washington DC, and I've been in Washington for the entire Obama presidency. I also volunteer through our legal clinics to help the homeless and mentor kids in Black communities. Barack Obama has never placed one foot in the poorest Black community in Washington DC, which isn't even a 10 dollar cab ride from the White House.
As of 2013, according to the USDA, 1 in 4 Black children in America are starving to death. 2013 marked first year of Obama's 2nd term in office and fifth overall.
There are more Black people suffering during the Obama presidency from long term unemployment, mass incarceration, youth gun and drug related crime/violence, poverty and homelessness than any other race in America. The last time Black people suffered more than any other race for longer periods of time than any other race was in the mid 1850s, when slavery was legal in America.
As of today, 114 million Americans have given up on finding a job during the Obama presidency.
Where does charity begin?
1
It's hilarious how many Democrats are outraged at the Times' bias, now that it's directed against one of their favored candidates. You never cared about the Times' vile bias when it was directed against Republicans, conservatives and Catholics. Biased media isn't very nice, is it?
Oh. Tom, Tom. This takes me back to the days when you were so in favor of the invasion of Iraq. You told us how you listened to "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" on your car stereo to keep your spirits up. You recounted the messages you were getting from your Arab friends who predicted that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would lead to pro-democracy uprisings throughout the Middle East . . .Yet, now you would not invest a dime in the Iraq Stock Exchange.
Go back and read your old columns and you will understand why your new proposals for new wars to remake new countries in the Middle East are simply not credible.
Go back and read your old columns and you will understand why your new proposals for new wars to remake new countries in the Middle East are simply not credible.
3
Yes, he does. Next question.
6
You started off well, with your painfully learned admonition about meddling in distant countries that we don't understand...
1
Not being Bush is meritorious enough..
2
Mr. Friedman have you already forgotten the botched US invasion of Iraq and the seemingly never-ending war in Afghanistan? You know the ones that have cost trillions of dollars, not to mention the sacrifice of our service people? Most Americans are sick and tired of any armed engagement in the Middle East. Obama got this right. That's one of the reasons he got elected and reflected. Enough already. Let them figure it out.
2
Was this written by Ted Cruz? "Utterly botched Obama-NATO operation"? This guy should be writing for FOX. Yes, it is healthy to discuss all sides of an issue, but the clearly biased speech w/o a minimum of reasoning on the issue of this article is very disappointing.
Should the international community just let the Libyan civilians get massacred by Gaddafi's military? Libyan civilians started the civil war, not "Obama-NATO", they just prevented Libya's military from using their tanks & jets from mass murdering civilians. Just like Syria, no boots on the ground. Also, it is well known that the Arab's use the "get out of my land" rhetoric to fight occupying westerner forces, therefore getting out was the best available option to avoid "Obama-NATO" soldiers and civilians from getting killed. And compared to Syria, Libya is overall in better shape.
Should the international community just let the Libyan civilians get massacred by Gaddafi's military? Libyan civilians started the civil war, not "Obama-NATO", they just prevented Libya's military from using their tanks & jets from mass murdering civilians. Just like Syria, no boots on the ground. Also, it is well known that the Arab's use the "get out of my land" rhetoric to fight occupying westerner forces, therefore getting out was the best available option to avoid "Obama-NATO" soldiers and civilians from getting killed. And compared to Syria, Libya is overall in better shape.
1
These were attacks carried out in Europe and Turkey. If there is an issue about whether they could have been prevented, and state policies regarding the fight against ISIS, perhaps it should be with the governments of the places where they occurred. Yet the pundits on the right keep arguing that President Obama is somehow responsible for it all. Enough, already!
2
Mr. Friedman,
Have you learned nothing from your support of our disastrous invasion of Iraq? That world-historical event destabilized a fragile order in the middle east, which will take years if not decades to repair. The situation now is like a three-dimensional game of Go. If we help the Kurds, we will upset Turkey. If we help the Tunisians, we may further destabilize Libya and even Egypt.
Liberal interventionists, such as you, Roger Cohen, Robert Kagan, Anne-Marie Slaughter, have had their day. American leaders should take advice from Andrew Bacevich, adopt a modest realism, and above all: Do No Harm.
Have you learned nothing from your support of our disastrous invasion of Iraq? That world-historical event destabilized a fragile order in the middle east, which will take years if not decades to repair. The situation now is like a three-dimensional game of Go. If we help the Kurds, we will upset Turkey. If we help the Tunisians, we may further destabilize Libya and even Egypt.
Liberal interventionists, such as you, Roger Cohen, Robert Kagan, Anne-Marie Slaughter, have had their day. American leaders should take advice from Andrew Bacevich, adopt a modest realism, and above all: Do No Harm.
4
"But today the millions of refugees driven out of Syria — plus the economic migrants now flooding out of Africa through Libya after the utterly botched Obama-NATO operation there — is destabilizing the European Union."
The destabilization of the the EU is due in large part to Germany's handling of the Syrian refugees. It was well and good of Chancellor Merkel to welcome Syrian refugees to Germany, but she did this without making arrangements with fellow EU countries as to how they would get to Germany. The influx of refugees increased ten-fold after the German welcome mat was laid down. Now Germany has shut its doors to refugees.
A memorable part of President Obama's legacy will be his doctrine of restraint in the Middle East. I hope succeeding administrations will be as wise.
The destabilization of the the EU is due in large part to Germany's handling of the Syrian refugees. It was well and good of Chancellor Merkel to welcome Syrian refugees to Germany, but she did this without making arrangements with fellow EU countries as to how they would get to Germany. The influx of refugees increased ten-fold after the German welcome mat was laid down. Now Germany has shut its doors to refugees.
A memorable part of President Obama's legacy will be his doctrine of restraint in the Middle East. I hope succeeding administrations will be as wise.
2
Drones are not doves, are they?
I read the whole article yesterday. I stand with the president.
I read the whole article yesterday. I stand with the president.
1
Friedman was pro-Iraq War, lets he forget. Obama gave the victory away in 2011, and it is all of these one-dimensional so-called intellectuals like Friedman blindly following dear leader Obama that got us into this mess. I can't re-litigate Bush, it takes too much space, but bottom line - the US needed to plant the flag in Iraq and stay there like we did in Korea, Japan and Germany. None of this ISIS stuff would have happened. This is on Obama. The world has collapsed, and you media types and low-information voters gave us his Presidency, so it's on you too.
No more golf with Obama for you, Tom
The whole world is still paying for the mistakes done by president Jimmy Carter with respect to the Iranian revolution. The world would pay much more for the mistakes done by president Barak Hussein Obama with respect to the rise of radical Islam in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. In fact, Egypt was the only country to withstand an islamic take-over supported by the Obama administration.
1
Open with a provocative and ridiculous statement. Makes you sound like Donald Trump. Sad, Mr. Friedman, you are becoming more and more an hegemonist if not outright warmonger.
Very likely history will judge Obama got most of it right.
Very likely history will judge Obama got most of it right.
1
"But today the millions of refugees driven out of Syria...is destabilizing the European Union".
So eager to tackle Obama (with your pal Roger Cohen) after the Brussels attack that we forgot to edit, Thomas?
Of course we should support the Kurds. No one disputes that. But Turkey will do anything to prevent a Kurdish state, and we can't accelerate the Syrian conflict with our ham-handed military without Turkey's cooperation. You can't have it both ways, Thomas.
Perhaps our Harvard-educated, elected and reelected President - who has been at his current job for quite a while now - is smart enough to realize that a few children with suicide vests cannot and should not be countered with the American military. The US citizenry has no appetite for war, no desire to lose another trillion dollars and thousands of its soldiers over a small murderous cult.
When I hear (prominent and respected!) advocates for more war, there is no response more profound than "Remember Iraq and Afghanistan". There is no counter argument. None. Maybe the author doesn't remember the grief we brought on ourselves and the world since December of 2001. But I do.
Isis can and should be defeated, and new democracies should be protected and given a chance to flourish.
But why - WHY - is it wholly our job to do so?
So eager to tackle Obama (with your pal Roger Cohen) after the Brussels attack that we forgot to edit, Thomas?
Of course we should support the Kurds. No one disputes that. But Turkey will do anything to prevent a Kurdish state, and we can't accelerate the Syrian conflict with our ham-handed military without Turkey's cooperation. You can't have it both ways, Thomas.
Perhaps our Harvard-educated, elected and reelected President - who has been at his current job for quite a while now - is smart enough to realize that a few children with suicide vests cannot and should not be countered with the American military. The US citizenry has no appetite for war, no desire to lose another trillion dollars and thousands of its soldiers over a small murderous cult.
When I hear (prominent and respected!) advocates for more war, there is no response more profound than "Remember Iraq and Afghanistan". There is no counter argument. None. Maybe the author doesn't remember the grief we brought on ourselves and the world since December of 2001. But I do.
Isis can and should be defeated, and new democracies should be protected and given a chance to flourish.
But why - WHY - is it wholly our job to do so?
Friedman should read George Packer's article on Tunisia in this week's New Yorker. The U.S. is already providing aid to Tunisia, to curtail weapons smuggling across its border with Libya.
1
How easy to use the word "hate" and how much easier even to use it without a document of truth, but I suppose that is a measure of contemporary journalism, maybe just a common term among peoples even. I hate broccoli; I hate ...
I see the neo-cons are still alive and...well, they never were well.
Belgium is not the US. They have been very passive on taking on terrorists and this happens. There is a reason why the French bombers set up base in Belgium. The US Military is not the Republican Private Army. Sending troops over seas is what gave ISIS a foothold, it was Republican Adventurism. It would be one thing to take out a concentrated group or to finish off an enemy, but the reality is they are there because of the lack of will by the governments of the region to take appropriate action. If Friedman wants to go over there or send his kids, go for it.
Perhaps during WWI, Wilson should taken the same cautious and well reasoned approach to Germany. Same for WWII, as Roosevelt should have dealt with German and Japan with the same caution and reason.
1
Well, it looks like we don't have long to wait before we have a president who will take another stance, none of which (at least to the extent that we have the remotest idea of what that stance is likely to be) seems to be a measured response to the chaos that pulls our emotions in every possible direction.
Sometimes it seems to me as if President Obama is the only adult in the room...or maybe just on earth.
He will be sorely missed.
Sometimes it seems to me as if President Obama is the only adult in the room...or maybe just on earth.
He will be sorely missed.
1
Friedman. Cohen. Brooks. The Hearst newspapers of the late 19th century didn't advocate for war as much as these guys do.
Does Obama Have This Right?
Yes!
Yes!
1
Yes, we should support the Kurds -- money with strings, intelligence and air support when necessary to fight ISIS. However when it comes to Syria, as the Russians have demonstrated, without partners and military intervention, you don't have leverage. But if the US enlarges its involvement, others -- Europe and Arabs -- will continue to sit on the sidelines. The UAE and Saudis have more than enough firepower. Europe is attempting to deal with the symptoms but refuses to acknowledge the cause. The mediterranean is their backyard but their weakened military leaves them few options. Merkel has refused to spend money on German defense but is willing to accede to Turkish extortion. Given the isolationist drift among americans, having the US do the heavy lifting -- with little support from our 'allies' -- in an intractable situation is not advisable. Best we focus on Asia where we our geopolitical interest lie.
There is no entity known as Kurdistan and Friedman knows that perfectly well but continues to pursue his propaganda that a place called Kurdistan exists. There is a semi-automous province of Iraq officially known as the Kurdistan Region - it is part of Iraq. The genius Friedman who actively cheered for the Iraq War - our worst foreign policy act since Vietnam War - and has never repented for that support, who supported Obama's abandoning Syria and letting Assad slaughter 200,000 of his citizens - decisions in Iraq and Syria that directly created ISIS and the Syrian refugee crisis, who now loves the Kurds but actively suported Turkey when the Turks slaughtered their Kurds in the 1990's and early 2000's but were strong allies of Israel. The only common thread of supporting disasterous Iraq War, letting Syria collapse and Assad the butcher stay in power, support Kurdistan to destabilize Turkey now that Turkey is an enemy of Isreal and the Iraqi Kurds love Israel, is that Friedman's foreign policy prescriptions align with Isreal's interests and policies. Israel is our closest ally in the region, our policies sometimes align with Israel's but sometimes they do not. Obama is right to have disdain for all the leaders in the region - both our friends and our enemies.
If you botched up with your approval on Obama's strategic approach, why do you maintain a podium in the nytimes? In honor of the miserable millions affected, resign, before aading more harm.
1
"That all sounds great on paper, until a terrorist attack like the one Tuesday in Brussels comes to our shores. Does the president have this right?" Well, do the math, Tom. Are we in more danger or not? Lemme help. The answer is no. Fan yourself. There are ways of dealing with terror. But reflexively striking back is not one of them. Every year my crazy uncle wanted to have a picnic under an old pine tree where we knew there was a hornets' nest. If someone got stung my uncle would grab his cane and whack the nest. Lolol, my crazy old Uncle Sam! His answer to everything was to whack it with a stick.
1
Yeah...might be better for you to agree with the President rather than disagree....he has a lot more perspective and information than you.
The problem is not Obama's withdrawal from places that kill American service people...its all the stuff before Obama...the random invasion of countries, the random policy of desiring Middle East democracies and the going to war with an insufficient amount of anything and everything...thanks to Rumsfeld.
Vietnam was a huge catastrophe after we left and although no terrorism was exported from there...the lives and livings and minds of the South Vietnamese people were taken from them by the cruel, Communist dictators of North Vietnam for decades afterwards.
So...I think Obama has it right. But. its never too much or too late for you to write a column asking whether Bush & Company got anything right. Seems like people forget if they are not reminded weekly.
The problem is not Obama's withdrawal from places that kill American service people...its all the stuff before Obama...the random invasion of countries, the random policy of desiring Middle East democracies and the going to war with an insufficient amount of anything and everything...thanks to Rumsfeld.
Vietnam was a huge catastrophe after we left and although no terrorism was exported from there...the lives and livings and minds of the South Vietnamese people were taken from them by the cruel, Communist dictators of North Vietnam for decades afterwards.
So...I think Obama has it right. But. its never too much or too late for you to write a column asking whether Bush & Company got anything right. Seems like people forget if they are not reminded weekly.
1
President Obama could single-handedly find a cheap cure for all known cancers and this Republican Congress would find a way to oppose it. As a matter of their moral duty. How could he possibly get the backing of a group of politicos who denied all responsibility for rushing into war in the first place, and secondly, seem to have sworn a vow to destroy the country rather than co-operate with him in the smallest way, over the most common sense measures, to follow him into more military conflict?
1
Politicians have expressed that President Obama should have returned to the United States immediately after the Jihadi attack in Brussels. In my opinion, by not returning to the United States, the President was sending a strong message to Isis; he had no fear.
The Republicans, as usual, would make use of any opportunity to show the President as a failure. It shouldn’t be surprising when they have blocked all projects presented by Obama. Thus, they never let Obama govern.
We never hear the Republicans expressing that Bush and Chaney were responsible for the war in Iraq and its failure. They had no “clue” as to the Iraqi people’s culture and extreme religious beliefs as a Muslim nation. However, we do know that that the invasion of Iraq caused Isis to emerge, a detainee at U.S. Camp Bucca in Iraq who took this opportunity to turn sectarian groups into Jihadi militants. It’s a fact, that since 2003, Is’s jihadi militants have grown immensely causing violent attacks and acts of terrorism upon the United States as well as other European nations.
Well, my fellow Americans, President Obama is doing what he believes is right and he has become unstoppable.
The Republicans, as usual, would make use of any opportunity to show the President as a failure. It shouldn’t be surprising when they have blocked all projects presented by Obama. Thus, they never let Obama govern.
We never hear the Republicans expressing that Bush and Chaney were responsible for the war in Iraq and its failure. They had no “clue” as to the Iraqi people’s culture and extreme religious beliefs as a Muslim nation. However, we do know that that the invasion of Iraq caused Isis to emerge, a detainee at U.S. Camp Bucca in Iraq who took this opportunity to turn sectarian groups into Jihadi militants. It’s a fact, that since 2003, Is’s jihadi militants have grown immensely causing violent attacks and acts of terrorism upon the United States as well as other European nations.
Well, my fellow Americans, President Obama is doing what he believes is right and he has become unstoppable.
Apparently our illustrious Commander in Chief has been playing down the escalating violence where ISIS is concerned. He doesn't seem to be disturbed one iota. Too busy watching ball games with dictators and gallivanting around the globe to concern himself with.
2
It does seem that Obama is putting the Lame, in Lame Duck, its quite apparent that he is, as was said of another young educated politician, that he is "only good at talking".
2
Tom....Obama said many of our "allies" are free loaders. I think you read that too. The US is not the world's do it all, alone. If the rest of the planet see no reason to get their people involved, then please, we should not be everyone's fool.
1
You darn right Obama has the right not to get the U.S. involved in more futile wars in the Middle East.
This article is not about Obama's "right" or rights. The title of the article is deliberately misleading. It is calculated, a provocative title that cynically hides the true subject matter, all in order to generate reader clicks.
Lots of cheap web articles are given false titles for the purpose of producing extra clicks. Many sites thrive on such manipulations. A title should be clear enough as to what the article is about.
I expect better of the Times. I should have been able to expect better from Friedman, but instead his article title has reinforced my disagreement with the premise and conclusion of the piece and lowered my view of him even further.
Lots of cheap web articles are given false titles for the purpose of producing extra clicks. Many sites thrive on such manipulations. A title should be clear enough as to what the article is about.
I expect better of the Times. I should have been able to expect better from Friedman, but instead his article title has reinforced my disagreement with the premise and conclusion of the piece and lowered my view of him even further.
Mr. Friedman, whereas your capitalist candor is admirable, you seem confused as to the responsibilities of the United States ('power' is not exclusively militaristic) and a little too eager to enslave President Obama in the service of maintaining an aggressively active schedule for your 'army men'. Let's hope he continues to ignore your suggestion of a play date.
1
Obama has it right, and Friedman has it wrong.
1
Sorry that Obama's foreign policy is too complex for the pundits to wrap their tiny brains around.
He's too droney!
He's too passive!
He lets Netanyahu push him around!
He doesn't give Netanyahu the time of day!
How about this. When landing crafts full of ISIS soldiers enter San Francisco bay, or a nuke is detonated somewhere, we can talk about starting WW3, and until that time, terrorism is an intelligence and policing issue.
I see no evidence of Obama mishandling this - in fact, it's high time that America took a couple of steps back and let the rest of the civilized world get their acts together.
He's too droney!
He's too passive!
He lets Netanyahu push him around!
He doesn't give Netanyahu the time of day!
How about this. When landing crafts full of ISIS soldiers enter San Francisco bay, or a nuke is detonated somewhere, we can talk about starting WW3, and until that time, terrorism is an intelligence and policing issue.
I see no evidence of Obama mishandling this - in fact, it's high time that America took a couple of steps back and let the rest of the civilized world get their acts together.
2
I see lots of pundits on all sides saying Obama should do something, but none of them suggest what to do.
1
To paraphrase- Secretary Clinton and President Obama: "No such thing as Islamic Terrorism- do not profile." Good luck with that.
2
Since what we are seeing now with ISIS is an aftershock of a decade+ of 'boots on the ground' active bumbling involvement in the middle in the guise of spreading freedom, more of the same will naturally make the problem go away right?
Daniel Byman's column in today's paper asserts that ISIS is lashing out in Europe precisely because it is losing ground in Syria and Iraq. So if we send in ground troops, will that decrease or increase terrorism? If we don't know the answer, then the prudent thing is not to spend trillions of dollars and thousands of lives to find out.
I strongly urge Obama to offer Europe strong moral support. What France and Belgium, and Germany ought to do is mobilize the million or so young, fit men among the refugees, train them, and send them back to fight for their homeland.
Ditto, the arsonists in European cities. If they can torch cars on the streets of Paris, Ditto the people praying fervently in all European nations on the streets because their hate-preaching mosques are overflowing with the believers, eager to listen to the voices of hate and intolerance. Many of them have been going already, now they should go in uniform. I think they can be mobilized to save their religion (which is after all, a religion of peace).
These European Muslim men, totally disaffected in their adopted homeland, can choose to represent any of the proud Islamic nations such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Brunei, Emirates (who must contribute armies). Saudi should finance this operation; because their kingdom has the most to lose.
We should be the moral and intellectual leader in this operation; provide good advise, maybe share intelligence. I am all for us selling them arms and munition in this holy jihad they must wage against these radical Islamic types. American interference leads these countries to either become theocracies (such as Iran), or dwindle into anarchy (Iraq). We have learned our lesson, and so we should stay out.
Godspeed.
Ditto, the arsonists in European cities. If they can torch cars on the streets of Paris, Ditto the people praying fervently in all European nations on the streets because their hate-preaching mosques are overflowing with the believers, eager to listen to the voices of hate and intolerance. Many of them have been going already, now they should go in uniform. I think they can be mobilized to save their religion (which is after all, a religion of peace).
These European Muslim men, totally disaffected in their adopted homeland, can choose to represent any of the proud Islamic nations such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Brunei, Emirates (who must contribute armies). Saudi should finance this operation; because their kingdom has the most to lose.
We should be the moral and intellectual leader in this operation; provide good advise, maybe share intelligence. I am all for us selling them arms and munition in this holy jihad they must wage against these radical Islamic types. American interference leads these countries to either become theocracies (such as Iran), or dwindle into anarchy (Iraq). We have learned our lesson, and so we should stay out.
Godspeed.
"Kurdistan and Tunisia are just what we dreamed of: self-generated democracies."
Who is this "we" who dream of what the Middle East should be? It's not the American people. WE are sick of dreamers who dream of what the Middle East should be. Such dreams are lethal. ISIS dreams of what the Middle East should be. Mr. Friedman should beware the company he keeps in his sleep.
Who is this "we" who dream of what the Middle East should be? It's not the American people. WE are sick of dreamers who dream of what the Middle East should be. Such dreams are lethal. ISIS dreams of what the Middle East should be. Mr. Friedman should beware the company he keeps in his sleep.
1
By the way, speaking of Democracies we should be engaged with, if we should be all over any country it should be our NATO ally Turkey, which has its own troubled relationship with the Kurds and long borders with Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
I am moved to provide a rhetorical answer to your rhetorical question:
Yes, he has it right.
Yes, he has it right.
Regarding the Iraqi Kurds, I hope we are not too late. During the Iraq war in the mid 2000's Kurdish areas were stable while the rest of Iraq was afire. While the Iraqi army was running away from ISIS, the Kurds stood and fought, winning most of their land back.
However we made a big mistake not directly supporting the Kurds. Instead we gave the Iraqi government military and economic support hoping that some of it would flow through to the Kurds. Unfortunately it did not happen.
I do not advocate boots on the grounds, but we need to support Tunisia and the Kurds economically and military, with weapons and support personnel, so they can stabilize. These two "victories" need to be consolidated and supported or all hope will be lost for that area.
And Kurdish support must go directly to them, and not through the corrupt Iraqi government.
I am also afraid that Obama has checked out.
However we made a big mistake not directly supporting the Kurds. Instead we gave the Iraqi government military and economic support hoping that some of it would flow through to the Kurds. Unfortunately it did not happen.
I do not advocate boots on the grounds, but we need to support Tunisia and the Kurds economically and military, with weapons and support personnel, so they can stabilize. These two "victories" need to be consolidated and supported or all hope will be lost for that area.
And Kurdish support must go directly to them, and not through the corrupt Iraqi government.
I am also afraid that Obama has checked out.
As one of the biggest cheerleaders of the Iraq war, Tom, I've got to say that you have some gall.
Fool me once, Tom....
Fool me once, Tom....
Obama's hand's-off approach to Syria did not lead lead to the masses of refugees destabilizing Europe--Angela Merkel's reckless policies did.
And where, may I ask, are our putative allies? Shouldn't France take the lead in Tunisia? If Kurdistan is so critical to the European Union, will the EU be "all over" it? As Obama implied in his interview in The Atlantic, we don't have any true allies, merely freeloaders.
wow - after reading a sampling of the comments its clear that the American public - or at least the readers of this column - have it completely right and Mr. Friedman is completely wrong. Please, lets not give in to the panic that is sure to follow if and when there is a similar attack in the US. Invading another country in the Middle East will not prevent attacks like the ones in Paris or Brussels.
'Does Obama Have This Right?' seems like a poorly worded essay question on a college-level current events course. And, it implies that there is a correct answer (aka, 'right'). Pretty foolish and simplistic. No doubt, Obama has made some mistakes in the Middle East but he has taken some action with good effect, and, he has made fewer serious mistakes than the previous Administration.
Somethings I’ve always wanted to ask of our chest-beating hawks:
What do you want us to do? Put our own boots on grounds where
our temporary “friends” become our enemies next week? Where
warlike clans pick scabs off clandestine wounds that go back to
the 12th century and beyond? And in lands where every man
wears the same black beard, how do our guys tell who to shoot at?
What do you want us to do? Put our own boots on grounds where
our temporary “friends” become our enemies next week? Where
warlike clans pick scabs off clandestine wounds that go back to
the 12th century and beyond? And in lands where every man
wears the same black beard, how do our guys tell who to shoot at?
1
Tom,
To answer your question, yes, I believe he has it right.
To answer your question, yes, I believe he has it right.
OK, Tom. Thank you for your service. Oh, I forgot. You urge violence from the sidelines only.
On Nov. 4, 2012, President Barack Obama said, "I said I would end the war in Iraq. I ended it." Well, he didn't. He just abandoned Iraq at a time that it made no sense to do so. Soon after the US left Iraq, ISIS, formerly a JV team, entered Iraq, grabbed nearly a billion dollars in cash, access to oil wells, and vast munitions, and morphed into a global menace killer.
4,000 US soldiers lost their lives to free places like Mosul from an insane dictator and Obama gave it to ISIS by abandoning post when he did. What would happen if we left Iraq was not only predictable it was predicted.
It is almost impossible to calculate the number of people who have died due to the fiasco of that US pullout, but it's a very large number and there is currently no end in sight. Now this global menace killer is driving millions of refugees into Europe, which is threatening at minimum a Brexit and at maximum the end of the European Union.
The stability the US was returning to Iraq and thereby the Middle East has been destroyed, and the ramifications will reverberate for generations in the form of human and economic disaster in the Middle East, the EU, and in the US. Like it or not, at this point that is Obama's foreign policy legacy.
4,000 US soldiers lost their lives to free places like Mosul from an insane dictator and Obama gave it to ISIS by abandoning post when he did. What would happen if we left Iraq was not only predictable it was predicted.
It is almost impossible to calculate the number of people who have died due to the fiasco of that US pullout, but it's a very large number and there is currently no end in sight. Now this global menace killer is driving millions of refugees into Europe, which is threatening at minimum a Brexit and at maximum the end of the European Union.
The stability the US was returning to Iraq and thereby the Middle East has been destroyed, and the ramifications will reverberate for generations in the form of human and economic disaster in the Middle East, the EU, and in the US. Like it or not, at this point that is Obama's foreign policy legacy.
Interesting take Tom, since your advocacy of invading the Middle East is a large part of the cause of the rise of ISIS.
Perhaps we should have stayed out and let the region resolve their issues by themselves..
Perhaps we in the west need to do more to drive the price of a barrel of oil to 10 cents PERMANENTLY so the Saudis and gulf states can no longer fund ISIS and other related groups.
Perhaps we need to stop listening to pundits like you who are adept at encouraging US adventures with no effective exit strategy.
Perhaps we should have stayed out and let the region resolve their issues by themselves..
Perhaps we in the west need to do more to drive the price of a barrel of oil to 10 cents PERMANENTLY so the Saudis and gulf states can no longer fund ISIS and other related groups.
Perhaps we need to stop listening to pundits like you who are adept at encouraging US adventures with no effective exit strategy.
1
The UN, not the U.S. has to step in and define borders for a state of Kurdistan so it can function as a real state, something the winners of WWI neglected to do when they carved up the region into states. Same holds true for Palestine. And, the UN should ignore the facts on the ground created by Israel after 1948 when Israel was sliced out of Palestine. The theft of Palestinian land should not be rewarded by allowing the thieves to keep stolen property. Obama should continue his cautious approach to intervention in the IS chaos, as today's friend can easily become tomorrow's enemy. U.S. military intervention wins us no goodwill in that chaotic, dysfunctional, and corrupt region of the world. The president's job is to keep Americans safe. Military intervention has only made us a target of hate, as does our knee jerk support of Israel.
Forget it Tom (and David), we're not propping up the settlements.
Maybe Obama is smarter than you think. By letting the mid-east find it's own solutions rather than have them imposed on them by us. Oh, and I do not think you get this, the republicans have broke our government. If we do not have money to take care of people here in American what makes you think it is right to spend billions on war in the middle east?
1
Or maybe the last 7.5 years have proven that Obama isn't smart.
1
"That all sounds great on paper, until a terrorist attack like the one Tuesday in Brussels comes to our shores."
Thomas, you have a very short memory. Have you forgotten about The Boston Marathon Bombing and the mass killing in San Bernardino just this past December?
Thomas, you have a very short memory. Have you forgotten about The Boston Marathon Bombing and the mass killing in San Bernardino just this past December?
1
What a shallow, pandering, simplistic, whining excuse for an editorial. Mr. Friedman where was your interest in Iraqi Kurdistan when you were carrying water for the Bush administration? A highly successful experiment in free market democracy existed in Kurdistan right under Hussein's nose and under the protection of the US no-fly zone. It was undermining the Baathists steadily. Now that the US, by way of a disastrous military adventure supported by lies, has left Iraq in the hands of corrupt Iranian puppets, you claim that President Obama is "afraid" to use troops?
President Obama is absolutely correct in his cautious, measured approach. The Middle East is in chaos because his predecessor did exactly the opposite.
President Obama is absolutely correct in his cautious, measured approach. The Middle East is in chaos because his predecessor did exactly the opposite.
5
OK, Tom. We invade. Then what? Stay there (please specify where, Tom) until another 50000 Americans are killed or worse?
3
I'll point out what I said in Roger Cohen's post calling for another ground invasion of the Middle East.
We had hundreds of thousands of troops occupying Iraq and Afghanistan when the Madrid and London terror attacks happened. Those attacks occurred largely because we had those troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Terrorism does not require a foreign base of operations or a caliphate "inspiring" terrorists. All it needs is angry young people and easily available homemade explosives and/or guns. That's it.
We had hundreds of thousands of troops occupying Iraq and Afghanistan when the Madrid and London terror attacks happened. Those attacks occurred largely because we had those troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Terrorism does not require a foreign base of operations or a caliphate "inspiring" terrorists. All it needs is angry young people and easily available homemade explosives and/or guns. That's it.
4
Obama has shown real courage in refusing to act foolishly egged on by the passions of the moment. "Just say no" is a fine approach to the middle east.
5
Maybe it's time for us to protect Belgium by invading Syria when Belgium invades Syria. The most cogent point in Friedman's article is the comment: "whose fates do not impact us as much as they once did." When a coalition of neighbors and victims asks for our help and antes up troops, funds and ground support, then I agree, we should go in.
2
Everyone seems to want to see Obama set his hair on fire. But before we falsely equate this with some kind of "My Pet Goat" moment, a couple of points to consider:
Offering sympathy and assistance is the appropriate first step. We ought to be invited, rather than demanding, to assist in the response to an attack in a foreign country.
Based on his past performance, I suspect that Obama is doing more than has been reported.
Offering sympathy and assistance is the appropriate first step. We ought to be invited, rather than demanding, to assist in the response to an attack in a foreign country.
Based on his past performance, I suspect that Obama is doing more than has been reported.
2
I am stunned by this "invasion" mentality. Have we not learned anything from Iraq and Afghanistan? Now we have the repubs banging the war drums.
The Mid-East has always been a source of war and death for any USA involvement! These are NOT nations--these random lines on a map. and there is nothing to "stabalize." Short of a full-scale invasion WW 2 style--and TOTAL war--and TOTAL occupation--there is nothing we can do but make it WORSE!! we are not welcome there. Obama got my vote by vowing to keep out of this region--and was elected TWICE mainly because of this. Bush 2 poured a few trillion$$$$$ into this pit. and now this from Friedman? gimme a break!
The Mid-East has always been a source of war and death for any USA involvement! These are NOT nations--these random lines on a map. and there is nothing to "stabalize." Short of a full-scale invasion WW 2 style--and TOTAL war--and TOTAL occupation--there is nothing we can do but make it WORSE!! we are not welcome there. Obama got my vote by vowing to keep out of this region--and was elected TWICE mainly because of this. Bush 2 poured a few trillion$$$$$ into this pit. and now this from Friedman? gimme a break!
1
I think Mr. Friedman is missing the point and the goal of the Obama administration. You see, the World wants America to be the World Cop, and they want that Cop on every corner. Yet they do not wish, or even made the offer to pay for that service. It is a very nice system, America does all the fighting, American boys do all the dying, America sends all kinds of economic aide, funded by American tax-payers, and the rest of the world, gets along just fine. With America patrolling the skies, and the seas, and always on stand-by to face any emerging crises, the rest of the world has plenty of money to use on their socialized life-styles, after all America has become the Military arm of Europe, and since Europe, Japan, Canada, Mexico-just to name a few do not need big armies, and big Tanks, and Billion dollar Aircraft Carriers, they do just fine.
Obama is kind of saying, enough is enough, it is time for France to send young French men into battle, Germany and the rest as well, American blood is expensive, as is the blood of all young men, but that blood is an investment in freedom, it's time for the rest of the world to got to the bank.
Obama is kind of saying, enough is enough, it is time for France to send young French men into battle, Germany and the rest as well, American blood is expensive, as is the blood of all young men, but that blood is an investment in freedom, it's time for the rest of the world to got to the bank.
The moronic view that military involvement in the middle east will make us safer flies in the face of ALL history, recent and in the further past. It may be that there are things to do, and we could agree that economic development might be worth a try, but to go in with guns blazing again, given ALL the failures (please show us a success), seems, and is, mad.
2
I suppose "carpet bombing" them will fix everything.
1
So this criticism from the same guy who said in May 2003:
ROSE: Now that the war is over, and there's some difficulty with the peace, was it worth doing?
FRIEDMAN: I think it was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie. I think that, looking back, I now certainly feel I understand more what the war was about.
What we needed to do was go over to that part of the world, I'm afraid, and burst that bubble. We needed to go over there basically, and take out a very big stick, right in the heart of that world, and burst that bubble. And there was only one way to do it.
And what they needed to see was American boys and girls going from house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, 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 going to let it grow?
Well, suck on this. OK? That, Charlie, was what this war was about.
We could have hit Saudi Arabia. It was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. That's the real truth. [PBS, The Charlie Rose Show, 5/30/03, via Media Matters; Eschaton, 4/17/12]
ROSE: Now that the war is over, and there's some difficulty with the peace, was it worth doing?
FRIEDMAN: I think it was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie. I think that, looking back, I now certainly feel I understand more what the war was about.
What we needed to do was go over to that part of the world, I'm afraid, and burst that bubble. We needed to go over there basically, and take out a very big stick, right in the heart of that world, and burst that bubble. And there was only one way to do it.
And what they needed to see was American boys and girls going from house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, 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 going to let it grow?
Well, suck on this. OK? That, Charlie, was what this war was about.
We could have hit Saudi Arabia. It was part of that bubble. Could have hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. That's the real truth. [PBS, The Charlie Rose Show, 5/30/03, via Media Matters; Eschaton, 4/17/12]
1
Some things in life cannot, unfortunately, be resolved peacefully. As the good book says, "All things have their seasons." Waiting for a nail filled bomb to explode on a subway in a large American city is unnecessary -- and irresponsible -- for a nation that has developed the most devastating weapons of war in history and holds decisive military superiority over every nation on earth.
President Obama should make the following announcement today: "Enough is enough! The next terrorist attack in which even a single innocent civilian is killed and for which killing ISIS claims responsibility, or is proven to have responsibility, will be responded to by the United States with the complete and absolute destruction of the ISIS Capital, Raqqa. Nothing will be left alive and no building, shack or shed will be left standing. Nothing will grow in Raqqa for a quarter-century. Any and all subsequent attacks will be met with the total destruction of a place inhabited and controlled by ISIS. And the same fate awaits any nation who provides support of any kind for ISIS, including funding, facilitating or educating terrorists.
President Obama should make the following announcement today: "Enough is enough! The next terrorist attack in which even a single innocent civilian is killed and for which killing ISIS claims responsibility, or is proven to have responsibility, will be responded to by the United States with the complete and absolute destruction of the ISIS Capital, Raqqa. Nothing will be left alive and no building, shack or shed will be left standing. Nothing will grow in Raqqa for a quarter-century. Any and all subsequent attacks will be met with the total destruction of a place inhabited and controlled by ISIS. And the same fate awaits any nation who provides support of any kind for ISIS, including funding, facilitating or educating terrorists.
1
How many American troops should he sacrifice to satisfy you?
How about this: Define victory.
Here's a secret about reducing terrorists: STOP CREATING THEM.
When the nation's recruiting offices are overrun with members from the Young College Republicans and the 1 percent is calling for a special "War Tax" then I'll believe the nation is serious about going to war. Otherwise it's just more profiteering and throwing good money (and lives) after bad.
How about this: Define victory.
Here's a secret about reducing terrorists: STOP CREATING THEM.
When the nation's recruiting offices are overrun with members from the Young College Republicans and the 1 percent is calling for a special "War Tax" then I'll believe the nation is serious about going to war. Otherwise it's just more profiteering and throwing good money (and lives) after bad.
3
Every day I am grateful that Obama doesn't take the advice of violence addicts such as yourself.
3
So what exactly is Mr. Friedman advocating? That we should support and work with countries like Tunisia, and aid Kurdish aspirations for a homeland? But how would that solve the Syrian and Iraqi conflicts or stem the flow of refugees? I think the unrestricted and unchecked inflow of refugees has led to the terror attacks in Europe. Of course the regional power play in the middle East as reflected in the Syrian, Libyan and Iraqi conflicts has led to that crisis. And what should have been Obama’s hands-on approach in this multi-dimensional conflict? To work with Saudis to topple Assad? To work with Assad to defeat Isis? To work with Iran to topple Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey? None sounds easy. I guess going forward, we should clearly side with secular countries: Democracies or not, and work with their leaders to secure our interests while ensuring stability in the region. I know that sounds ridiculous, but to assume the role of a moral torch bearer to take sides, unintentionally aiding groups that themselves are religious zealots, doesn’t sound like a good plan either. When we start assuming moral high ground, and portray leaders and powers as “Good” or “Bad”, we dig a ditch for ourselves in finding practical and workable solutions. Honestly, the world needs stability and progress more than it needs democracy. After all, only after achieving the first two, will the countries be truly ready for a natural evolution of democracy as happened in Europe and here.
1
I wish Mr. Friedman would amplify his thoughts some, to wit: Invade where, at what anticipated cost in lives and treasure, to achieve what end, and with what prospect of achieving a positive outcome? We have seen up close the disaster that results when we invade without asking these questions.
2
“Military assistance” always sounds like a reasonable way to intervene. Let proxies do the fighting and just send arms and money. Maybe provide a little air support or a handful of special operators on the ground.
Well, how did that work out in Iraq? We armed them and ‘trained’ them. Yet, for whatever reason, we did not instill in them a willingness to fight for their country and they folded in front of ISIS. The result? ISIS is now driving around in Humvees and killing people with weapons paid for courtesy of the US taxpayer.
Well, how did that work out in Iraq? We armed them and ‘trained’ them. Yet, for whatever reason, we did not instill in them a willingness to fight for their country and they folded in front of ISIS. The result? ISIS is now driving around in Humvees and killing people with weapons paid for courtesy of the US taxpayer.
Would U.S. Assistance to Tunisia really help? Or would it delegitimize the Tunisian government, turning them into American stooges in the eyes of the Tunisian people.
Maybe, instead of funding and pouring arms into Syria to the supposed "moderate" rebels, we should have provided help to Assad's government and used our assistance as leverage on him to improve human rights in his country.
Why are we so quick to kick out these dictators when an ounce of reflection should tell us what comes after will be worse.
Maybe, instead of funding and pouring arms into Syria to the supposed "moderate" rebels, we should have provided help to Assad's government and used our assistance as leverage on him to improve human rights in his country.
Why are we so quick to kick out these dictators when an ounce of reflection should tell us what comes after will be worse.
1
Just because we are a rich country with a big military does not mean we should be invading everywhere there are wrongs to be righted. There are rich countries in Europe, and I don't see them assembling their forces. We should all be thanking Obama for sparing us another well-meaning, ill-conceived endless military adventure.
2
Maybe. But how any times have we sent money and lives into situations, and all we have done is lost money and lives. We have given so much with a mixture of good intentions and self interest, only to find in the end that our goals weren't just not attained, but were in the end unattainable.
Sometimes its our fault, sometimes its their fault, sometimes we just are not even close to the same page, but it gets very old suffering huge losses and having nothing to show for it, for them or for us. Maybe it just time for a new approach, one that does not solely depend on the US making the major decisions and the major sacrifices.
I have, and still do, support Obama's foreign policy. The old ways have so little to sow for our efforts. Maybe he will force a new and better way.
Sometimes its our fault, sometimes its their fault, sometimes we just are not even close to the same page, but it gets very old suffering huge losses and having nothing to show for it, for them or for us. Maybe it just time for a new approach, one that does not solely depend on the US making the major decisions and the major sacrifices.
I have, and still do, support Obama's foreign policy. The old ways have so little to sow for our efforts. Maybe he will force a new and better way.
Friedman, still a hawk after he got Iraq so utterly wrong.
3
"We pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor". The men who then signed the Declaration of Independence had much to lose indeed, but their EXPERIENCE in over 100 years of learning a new definition of repreentative gov't. and their experience in making the democratic governments of the colonies work was the foundation of their willingness to fight and sacrifice as they pledged against the tyranny of Great Britain.
These aspects of the peoples and societies of the Middle East are non-existent, made more volatile and vulnerable by the unending supply of weaponry. We've seen it over and over again, we try to find 'moderates' who believe in democracy and are willing to lay down their lives and fortunes and honor to achieve it. We keep trying to put a square peg through the proverbial round hole and end up in never-ending quagmires.
There are no answers easily available. And Thomas Friedman knows that even 800 intelligent words are not going to provide the solution. It's simply too easy a target to blame Pres. Obama, especially after he inherited the Iraq debacle and Afgjanistan, where Empires go to die, or at least be badly wounded.
These aspects of the peoples and societies of the Middle East are non-existent, made more volatile and vulnerable by the unending supply of weaponry. We've seen it over and over again, we try to find 'moderates' who believe in democracy and are willing to lay down their lives and fortunes and honor to achieve it. We keep trying to put a square peg through the proverbial round hole and end up in never-ending quagmires.
There are no answers easily available. And Thomas Friedman knows that even 800 intelligent words are not going to provide the solution. It's simply too easy a target to blame Pres. Obama, especially after he inherited the Iraq debacle and Afgjanistan, where Empires go to die, or at least be badly wounded.
1
Obama's avoiding a major U.S. deployment in the Middle East is infuriating to both ISIS and Israel. In not caving in to emotion, he is saving US treasure for better purposes. Very patriotic.
Our next president is unlikely to be so cold-blooded and shrewd.
Our next president is unlikely to be so cold-blooded and shrewd.
2
For the record, this is the same insightful Thomas L. Friedman who applauded the invasion of Iraq by Team Bush. Only later did he admit that he made a "mistake." While he is lauded as a deeply thoughtful observer of international affairs, please be advised that he is feted by world leaders, given special briefings and access to insiders in nearly all foreign countries because of his column in the Times. This latest column is simply not useful, doesn't add to the conversation, provides no new insight, and again, takes a swipe at Obama for getting it wrong in the Mid East. From his lofty seat in NYC, and occasional feted forays into the "wild" of foreign countries, I'm sure he'll be one of the first people on Team Clinton's foreign policy groups. At that point, he can lead us again into another stupid mistake in the Mid East. Then he'll be able to step down, write another book about his experiences, and generally play big-shot. He's a cardboard cut-out observer and it's the last time I read his guff.
Mr. Obama will leave an acknowledged, horrifying and wretched legacy that will only be openly discussed after his celebrity as the first Black President wanes.
1
President Obama will go down in history as not being worse than George Bush. But being better than W is not a grand achievement. Unfortunately, that's where Obama's legacy will end.
Yes, Obama has this right. Thanks for asking. Many of us know this today, and historians will concur in the long run.
2
Bravo Mr F.
You must have read my letter to the President!
He wanted to be a transformational leader. Aware of historical reputation he dines with noted historians, but "history will not be kind" despite domestic achievements.
You must have read my letter to the President!
He wanted to be a transformational leader. Aware of historical reputation he dines with noted historians, but "history will not be kind" despite domestic achievements.
When you talk of tilting the region 'our way', do you mean impacting events in the Middle East to extend American interests or do you mean doing Israel's and Saudi Arabia's dirty work for them? The distinction is important because now that the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein has been toppled, American interests are no longer always aligned with those of its partners in the Middle East. For instance, Syria has very little oil. How would American interests be served by an invasion of Syria when such an invasion would almost certainly invite a wider conflagration with Iran and Russia?
The challenge to those who advocate war in the Middle East is for them to spell out how America's national interests would be served by fighting such a war. The well worn narrative of how Captain America will remake the world in its own image and spread freedom and democracy everywhere is frankly tiresome and increasingly irrelevant especially when concrete goals are absent.
This fixation with the Middle East is unhealthy. Contrary to what some might want to believe, world affairs do not revolve around Israel's security concerns or Saudi Arabia's caliphate dreams. There are many other no less important priorities that America must confront head on. By focusing so much on the Middle East, America risks missing some very important turns in history to the detriment of future generations of Americans.
The challenge to those who advocate war in the Middle East is for them to spell out how America's national interests would be served by fighting such a war. The well worn narrative of how Captain America will remake the world in its own image and spread freedom and democracy everywhere is frankly tiresome and increasingly irrelevant especially when concrete goals are absent.
This fixation with the Middle East is unhealthy. Contrary to what some might want to believe, world affairs do not revolve around Israel's security concerns or Saudi Arabia's caliphate dreams. There are many other no less important priorities that America must confront head on. By focusing so much on the Middle East, America risks missing some very important turns in history to the detriment of future generations of Americans.
regarding your headline: the same could have been said about your early Iraq columns, so please, back it off with the second-guessing.
1
Wow - between Cohen and Friedman you can only imagine the NYTimes is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Halliburton, Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Can Cheney be far behind? Makes the Sanders supporter's case about Clinton being a hawk, given your endorsement and your stances here with your mouthpieces lining up like soldiers. Rather disturbing.
3
Aside from a more robust form of unspecified aid to Tunisia and Kurdistan, Mr. Friedman - who was a cheerleader for the neocon's Operation Iraqi Freedom - has little to offer in this piece.
The Middle East is a cesspool of corruption, tribalism and religious craziness. Western armies could spend the next 1000 years there and not change things an iota. Containment of the craziness is the best we can do. It's frustrating but those are the facts. No American boots on the ground!
1
Go to war against the Libyan militias and ally ourselves in war against our Turkish allies? What right does anyone have to do that?
Background: Mr. Friedman advocated for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Our invasion created a civil war, destroyed a region, magnified many times the instability of the Middle East, and fostered a training ground for al-Qaeda and then ISIS. Given the horrific errors and terrible results starting in 2003, I'll take the President Obama approach over the Thomas Friedman-George W. Bush approach.
2
You are blaming Obama for what rightly needs to be dealt with by the Middle Eastern leaders themselves. Obama is correct. US citizens don't want to be policing the world.
Who needs FOX news?...........when we have Mr. Friedman, who deftly draws the following conclusion: since Obama is pursuing a policy of caution and is aware of the negative outcomes of "nation-building/spreading democracy" (aka controlling as much of the world's oil supply as possible), terrorists attacked Brussels. He now has "blood on his hands".
This analysis is so bereft of any relation to reality, that calling it wrong would be generous. The converse of this theory is the notion that bombing the bejeezus out of Iraq or any other country requiring our "corrective measures" will result in sending the evil forces of terrorism scurrying, fearful of their lives.
Returning to reality for a moment, it is very clear that the Iraqi invasion, rather than striking fear into Al Queda hearts had the exact opposite effect--exactly the response Bin Laden hoped for. Yet--here we have Friedman, criticizing Obama for not doubling down, refusing to follow one of the greatest missteps in American history with more of the same.
This analysis is so bereft of any relation to reality, that calling it wrong would be generous. The converse of this theory is the notion that bombing the bejeezus out of Iraq or any other country requiring our "corrective measures" will result in sending the evil forces of terrorism scurrying, fearful of their lives.
Returning to reality for a moment, it is very clear that the Iraqi invasion, rather than striking fear into Al Queda hearts had the exact opposite effect--exactly the response Bin Laden hoped for. Yet--here we have Friedman, criticizing Obama for not doubling down, refusing to follow one of the greatest missteps in American history with more of the same.
1
You have made the same arguments about the last two Gulf Wars. Think about the disasters they have been!
1
Be so careful what you wish for, Thomas L. Friedman.
Tom Friedman, the go go guy on Iraq. Mr. foreign policy expert. I'd listen to him on Obama just the way I'd listen to Trump or Cruz on Obama.
3
And this from the guy who backed the invasion of Iraq. Wisdom from the spigot of aggression runs empty.
4
1. Our next President will need to mount a sustained effort to defeat ISIS, demanding the support and direct involvement of all countries in the Middle East and Europe who profess to call themselves allies of the U.S.
2. It’s odd isn’t it that President Obama is still nursing his furious grudge against Mr. Netanyahu months after securing a famous victory over him. Makes you wonder whether President Obama might be thinking now that his famous victory has turned out not to be so famous after all.
3. It must be a hard pill to swallow when you know in your heart, as President Obama
does, that the Iran deal is already moribund; and (b) had their situations been reversed, he would have opposed the Iran deal just as Mr. Netanyahu did.
2. It’s odd isn’t it that President Obama is still nursing his furious grudge against Mr. Netanyahu months after securing a famous victory over him. Makes you wonder whether President Obama might be thinking now that his famous victory has turned out not to be so famous after all.
3. It must be a hard pill to swallow when you know in your heart, as President Obama
does, that the Iran deal is already moribund; and (b) had their situations been reversed, he would have opposed the Iran deal just as Mr. Netanyahu did.
1
You're assuming that Barack Obama has a conscience and is a decent human being which by all intents and purposes are fallacies.
I am a Black attorney in Washington DC, and I met Barack Obama in 2004 when I worked as a volunteer at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. I was there when the cameras were off and there were no fake folksy sayings, no grins, no charm. The man is human sleaze. Thin skinned, ego driven, effeminate sleaze.
There's a second NYT column detailing how Obama hates other world leaders. We know he refuses to work with Congress and has alienated lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Barack Obama is still that weird, loner teenager with floppy ears that nobody trusted or spent time around. You can't work in the same place for 7.5 years and have nobody who actually gets along with or likes you unless they're being paid to. But that's what we have in the WH at the moment.
I am a Black attorney in Washington DC, and I met Barack Obama in 2004 when I worked as a volunteer at the Democratic National Convention in Boston. I was there when the cameras were off and there were no fake folksy sayings, no grins, no charm. The man is human sleaze. Thin skinned, ego driven, effeminate sleaze.
There's a second NYT column detailing how Obama hates other world leaders. We know he refuses to work with Congress and has alienated lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Barack Obama is still that weird, loner teenager with floppy ears that nobody trusted or spent time around. You can't work in the same place for 7.5 years and have nobody who actually gets along with or likes you unless they're being paid to. But that's what we have in the WH at the moment.
Presidents don't go to war, Mr. Friedman, nations do. The only ones clamoring for war over this are columnists. and the day after President Obama ordered ground troops to one or all of the places where ISIS is holed up, you'd be writing a piece on how he should have first asked Congress for a declaration of war; which, of course would be impossible.
1
Mr. Friedman, the U.S. has been meddling in the Middle East for 63 years. How many more years, how many more lives, and how many more billions of our tax dollars do you think we need to spend in the Middle East to get it settled in a fashion you approve? Maybe we should try leaving it alone for a while and see if that works.
As for leaders in the Middle East, I don't see much evidence for why we should trust many of them especially Netenyahu.
As for leaders in the Middle East, I don't see much evidence for why we should trust many of them especially Netenyahu.
1
I don't disagree, but his point on the potential collapse of the European Union is something the US needs to address. It's a valid point, I would like to hear what Obama's policy would then be.
What if an Israeli oligarchy could become a true democracy?
1
The disastrous intervention in Libya is mentioned twice by Friedman without attributing a large share of the responsibility to its loudest proponent, Hillary Clinton. She talks a good game but once again exhibited terrible judgement.
4
And now she wants to be President.
I wonder what role Israel plays in trying to influence President Obama to step up U.S. involvement in the Middle East?
Mr. Friedman's headline would have had to read, "Of Course, Obama Has This Right" for him to have found a receptive audience here.
I respect Mr. Friedman but take issue with his argument. Why is Obama to be judged on the EU's intemperate and profligate refugee policies-- which they themselves are now trying to reverse? Also-- granted, bad outcomes are mushrooming in the Middle East that we could have stopped or tempered with American blood and treasure, but why would we not expect this? When you have treated as many veterans as I have from American experiments in intervention gone bad (Viet Nam, Iraq), Obama's studied isolationism seems prudent. We have spent a lot of money in the middle east supporting such disparate partners as Israel and the Saudis. Where are their ground troops in all this? Why do the boots on the ground have to be American?
84
Thank you so much for saying this. A close friend of mine has a son who did four tours in Iraq. His son will never be the same. How can pundits keep advocating U.S. intervention when what they are talking about is sending our young people into this disaster time and time again? As they advocate for U.S. intervention they need to advocate for a draft so that the elite pay a price along with regular Americans.
Let's see now. Whether or not I agree with his current views, by his own standards and in his own words, Mr. Friedman has oft confessed in these pages that he initially supported the President Bush's Iraq War but eventually decided, Gilda like, "Never mind!" Today, by his own standards and in his own words, he confesses in these pages that he initially supported President Obama's "hands off" sort-of-mini-war in Syria, but now again declares, "Never mind!"
Conclusion: Whatever is Mr. Fridman's initial opinion on the next proposed fight, disregard it and keep thinking, because, dear Readers, maybe YOU"LL get it right the first time on your own.
Conclusion: Whatever is Mr. Fridman's initial opinion on the next proposed fight, disregard it and keep thinking, because, dear Readers, maybe YOU"LL get it right the first time on your own.
Obama's opinion of Middle East leaders is correct because the levers of power are weak in nations that are a loose union of tribes and where loyalty is to your clan not your nation. A criticism of the President would be that he is muddling along trying to keep these regimes on life support rather than determining who is helping to pacify the region and supporting them with all our effort and abandon those who are not. Iraqi Kurds are working well and the rest of Iraq isn't. Abandon trying to unify Iraq and devote all our resources devoted to Iraq to Kurdistan exclusively. Make a similar analysis with every player in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is especially poor at leading to a pacifying result and needs to be abandoned as an ally, Egypt as well, and their arms aid and sales cut off. Turkey's fight against the Kurds and declaring them a terrorist group makes the authoritarian regime in the making there part of the problem not the solution so that it should be ignored when determining Syrian partition of Kobani to the Kurds.
In 20 years the history books will all show that this particular Middle East crisis began with W's invasion of Iraq, which Friedman supported.
3
If Thomas Friedman is counseling increasing developmental and humanitarian assistance to Tunisia, Kurdistan, and Syria, I'm all for it. But the real question is how many Republicans in congress could be brought on board. Probably somewhere between zero and none. They're more likely to support carpet bombing and/or additional drone strikes as the solution to whatever ails the Islamic world. Obama may not have "it" exactly right, but he's miles ahead of the Republicans.
Why is the U.S. funding NATO, which is supposed to be a "One for all, All for one" outfit, if all those folks do is sit back and watch each other get attacked?
NATO has many dogs in this fight and needs to shoulder its responsibility, right in its own neighborhood. It's their fight, not ours.
Or is NATO toothless after all these years? Tom?
NATO has many dogs in this fight and needs to shoulder its responsibility, right in its own neighborhood. It's their fight, not ours.
Or is NATO toothless after all these years? Tom?
1
Mr. Friedman, how old are your children? Are they of military age? If so, let's send them first. I for one don't want either of my teenage boys to face danger in the Middle East for any side of that conflict-ridden wasteland. I am not a passivist and I would be proud to offer my sons or myself up in the defense of this country, but I want carpet bombing first - i.e., I want my sons to walk through massive destruction, not Black Hawk Down. In essence, I prefer nation destruction and then occupation, not nation building, remember Berlin 1945? If Iraq is any indication, nation building in the middle east is impossible. The best you can get is a pro-US dictatorship.
In sum, I prefer Obama's hand's off approach - let them work it out [or not]. If something hits our soil, we take the intelligence data and unleash 10 percent of our arsenal on the targets and let Allah sort it out. It if continues, raise taxes and build more bombs. For the next 9-11 catastrophe, the perpetrators' countries of origin (assuming their involvement) becomes US territory. Put up or shut up. I don't mind Obama's shut up, especially given my idea of put up - it's kind of messy. Half measures don't work in the Middle East.
In sum, I prefer Obama's hand's off approach - let them work it out [or not]. If something hits our soil, we take the intelligence data and unleash 10 percent of our arsenal on the targets and let Allah sort it out. It if continues, raise taxes and build more bombs. For the next 9-11 catastrophe, the perpetrators' countries of origin (assuming their involvement) becomes US territory. Put up or shut up. I don't mind Obama's shut up, especially given my idea of put up - it's kind of messy. Half measures don't work in the Middle East.
Since the Kurds are shedding their own blood in the current struggle and are demonstrably trying to establish a progressive society -- and into the bargain, they actually like Americans -- maybe we could give them the billions of dollars destined for the Israelis, who are so brazen in their contempt of our President and the millions of Americans who support him.
1
Israelis are in no way contempt of the US, but rather of Obama's reckless foreign policy. This view is shared by the mainstream in the US, including sharp criticsm sounded by Clinton and former CIA chiefs and most of Congress.
This is typical Friedman: terrorists do something in the West, so we should invade, bomb, or DO SOMETHING in the Middle East. Please note the absurdity: the known bombers were Belgians!!! Yes, European citizens do include terrorists. So, maybe MR. Friedman, we should invade, bomb or do something in Europe?
1
Can't help wondering if it's not you who doesn't have this right. Firstly, let's assume that the President and his administration likely have much more information than you about what's going on in Kurdistan, for example. And, you appear to believe that the U.S. isn't lending assistance. Do you know that as a fact? You have noted some of its issues, but then you propose sending more money into a corrupt regime. Why wouldn't the same thing happen with U.S. dollars there as it did in Iraq?
My point here is that it's easy to take verbal shots at U.S. foreign policy, but readers would appreciate a more thorough and fact-based investigation behind your opinions.
My point here is that it's easy to take verbal shots at U.S. foreign policy, but readers would appreciate a more thorough and fact-based investigation behind your opinions.
The way forward is time. Whether the collection of clans ( not really a collection of nations ) decide to do this in 20 years, 80 years, or never is up to them. The Obama doctrine of curbing bad actors, with a small footprint and from 1500 plus feet is not sexy, but is effective. In addition, you want to drag us back Godfather III style into the maelstrom and spend money on the Kurds and Tunisia? Fix Flint, Detroit and the White quintile with rising death rates, first.
1
Yes he does have this right; and suggesting otherwise proves his point about the Washington orthodoxy, of which Mr. Friedman is a card carrying member. Asking America to pick winners in sectarian and political conflicts to tilt the balance of power in the direction that fits our ideological objectives often puts us at odds with our strategic objectives and vice versa. Soon we will be pulled into a quagmire with no way out.
Perhaps the Times should look around for a few columnists who are more difficult to terrify than Mr. Friedman (or Mr. Cohen). It is, of course, a tragedy when scores of innocents get killed and maimed by Jihadi terrorists in Brussels, Paris, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, London, New York, etc. It is also a tragedy when thousands of innocents get killed by Assad, or when our own forces cause unavoidable collateral damage that ends up killing scores of innocents. This is the world we live in. We don't have the power to shut down the atavistic killers all over the planet and, in trying to do so, we would be perceived by a good part of the global population as joining those killers in our atavistic reflexive response. On the bright side, the Muslim world was a lot more atavistic and aggressive 1000 years ago. (And so was Christian western Europe.) Messrs. Friedman and Cohen remind me of people who send emails (or tweets) out in the middle of the night after drinking too much. We know you're scared. Sleep it off and spare us your panic attacks.
Back to the kind of non-thinking, Mr. Friedman, that made you advocate the disastrous war against Iraq on the basis of neocon, phony reports of "Weapons of Mass Destruction?” What countries do you want Obama to put American “boots on the ground.” The Kurdish attack on Ankara a week or so ago was even bloodier than the ISIS attack in Brussels and used the exact same suicide bombing methods. Shall we attack Kurd territories, or Turkey, or invade and occupy large parts of Iraq and Syria indefinitely, or remove and kill Assad as the Wahhabi Sunni and ISIS wish? Why not learn from Obama's wisdom which dwarfs the panicky, ill-thought-out, short-sighted dogmas of the Trumps, Cruzs, Cheneys, Wolfowitzs, W Bushs, Hilary Clintons, Brennans and all the other advocates touting the efficacy of violent militarism, regime-change posturing, and de facto neo-colonialist occupation of the Mideast that's had so much to do with creating the debacles of the 21st century. "When will they (we) ever learn?"
1
It is absolutely pathetic how Obama acts on any crisis. He impassively states how bad we feel, and that "something has to be done" and "we will defend liberties" and then walks away to either play golf or go to a baseball game.
He should take a strong lesson from George HW Bush in the Kuwait crisis. He put together a coalition, got in there and rapidly won the war, and got out. He did not stay to be mired in trying to overthrow Hussein, he simply went for the objective of liberating Kuwait.
Whether we like it or not, we are the ones looked to for leadership and Obama's lack of concern and dedication to not getting involved has led to a vacuum where these neo-nazis go right in. If he was anything other than someone simply worried about his legacy, he would take his also brain-less Secretary of State, get a true coalition of Middle East countries, and with a force of 250,000 from all countries go in an destroy the barbarians once and for all - do it overwhelmingly, do it quick and get out. In short, lead and not sit passively by while these animals run amok all over the world killing people.
Do we want Obama term 3 with the 'chosen one' who also has no clue, no leadership plans, nothing, or do we maybe want a Trump in there who will get the job done?
Thank goodness we only have a few more months with Obama, before hopefully someone gets elected who will do what has to be done.
He should take a strong lesson from George HW Bush in the Kuwait crisis. He put together a coalition, got in there and rapidly won the war, and got out. He did not stay to be mired in trying to overthrow Hussein, he simply went for the objective of liberating Kuwait.
Whether we like it or not, we are the ones looked to for leadership and Obama's lack of concern and dedication to not getting involved has led to a vacuum where these neo-nazis go right in. If he was anything other than someone simply worried about his legacy, he would take his also brain-less Secretary of State, get a true coalition of Middle East countries, and with a force of 250,000 from all countries go in an destroy the barbarians once and for all - do it overwhelmingly, do it quick and get out. In short, lead and not sit passively by while these animals run amok all over the world killing people.
Do we want Obama term 3 with the 'chosen one' who also has no clue, no leadership plans, nothing, or do we maybe want a Trump in there who will get the job done?
Thank goodness we only have a few more months with Obama, before hopefully someone gets elected who will do what has to be done.
It's painful to read your second-guessing, Tom, and your honest admission--that at first you thought the Administration's approach to Syria was right, and now you're not so sure. And your column asks a rhetorical question: does the President "have it right?". Years ago, you thought Powell, Rice, and Bush "had it right" on WMD and the Iraq decision. You've been reporting on the Middle East just about as long as anyone, and you're still struggling to "get right"--isn't that right?
Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that the world--especially this part of the world--sometimes presents dilemmas that just don't have clear right or wrong clues, except after the fact. Then we can look back and, with the wisdom of hindsight, suggest that our leaders have again failed to "get it right."
Perhaps it's time to acknowledge that the world--especially this part of the world--sometimes presents dilemmas that just don't have clear right or wrong clues, except after the fact. Then we can look back and, with the wisdom of hindsight, suggest that our leaders have again failed to "get it right."
After WWII the U.S. became the world's police, so there is a certain knee-jerk reaction by pundits that we "have to do something" about every regime and extremist group in every country on the planet. It is this "Send the Marines mentality and we will right all wrongs" that is uniquely and arrogantly American.
This is cheered on by other countries who do not wish to spend 54% of their operating budget on their armed forces. Thus, America has been left to fight proxy wars. Where are the Saudis? Where is Jordan, Turkey? Not to mention the fact that the last time we went into the mideast we did such a bang-up job that we now have terrorism all over the planet. Obviously we are not the sole answer. We should be a part of the solution, but enough!
This is cheered on by other countries who do not wish to spend 54% of their operating budget on their armed forces. Thus, America has been left to fight proxy wars. Where are the Saudis? Where is Jordan, Turkey? Not to mention the fact that the last time we went into the mideast we did such a bang-up job that we now have terrorism all over the planet. Obviously we are not the sole answer. We should be a part of the solution, but enough!
Great points on Kurdistan and Tunisia. "Self-generated" democracies are the only kind there are. Iraq and Lybia stand in striking contrast and as a blight on the West.
Mr Friedman, perhaps you too are in the wrong line of work. I suggested Mr. Cohen might be better suited to some trade, so nonsensical was his column today, but I realize now those fellows would likely find him out the first day: You cannot fake plumb and square. Ditto for you. You both need to hide out in academia, and while there see if you can't figure out realistic parameters for egalitarianism.
The older and flabbier the pundit, the tireder and flabbier his columns. As for Brooks, so for Friedman.
Kind of perverse that the urge - for others - to "DO something!" gets harder to resist the more firmly one's decaying posterior is ensconced in one's easy chair.
Kind of perverse that the urge - for others - to "DO something!" gets harder to resist the more firmly one's decaying posterior is ensconced in one's easy chair.
2
Another writer that just doesn't get it. I don't understand the thinking of this writer and others that believe this stuff. What did meddling and interfering ever get us? Well, today it gave us ISIS...courtesy of the Bush administration - the gift that keeps on giving (please note sarcasm). Back in the 1960's men like this writer and our government were called "imperialist pigs." It was appropriate then and it's appropriate now.
1
My right-leaning neighbors said yesterday that because Obama (and former Secy of State Clinton) were weak, Belgium was attacked by ISIS. They believe, like Friedman (who banged the drums loudly for the Iraq fiasco), that we have to respond tit-for-tat for every act of terrorism. "They are killing innocents and getting away with it!" they cried.
When I pointed out that we killed over 100,000 civilians, of them 33,000 children, which far surpassed 31 in Brussels or 130 in Paris or even 3,000 on 9/11, both calmly replied, "Well, that's because they used them as human shields."
There is no question that ISIS and radical Islam of other forms commits unspeakable, evil acts of violence but the belligerent and the bellicose on both sides de-humanize the other to excuse their brutality.
I don't have an answer and I'm scared too, but, in my opinion, our country is almost-equally depraved: First, for killing children and making others orphans in an illegal and unjustified invasion; and secondly, for never even acknowledging, much less grieving for those innocents who died at our hand.
When I pointed out that we killed over 100,000 civilians, of them 33,000 children, which far surpassed 31 in Brussels or 130 in Paris or even 3,000 on 9/11, both calmly replied, "Well, that's because they used them as human shields."
There is no question that ISIS and radical Islam of other forms commits unspeakable, evil acts of violence but the belligerent and the bellicose on both sides de-humanize the other to excuse their brutality.
I don't have an answer and I'm scared too, but, in my opinion, our country is almost-equally depraved: First, for killing children and making others orphans in an illegal and unjustified invasion; and secondly, for never even acknowledging, much less grieving for those innocents who died at our hand.
3
"and watching Iraqi leaders squabble and point fingers at one another did not leave me wanting to buy a lot of stocks on the ISX, the Iraq Stock Exchange."
Tom, you've seen the US Congress. How do you feel about NASDAQ?
As to the rest, Mr. Obama has taken from the lesson that our relative ignorance of Middle Eastern tribal and sectarian fault lines is a good reason not to try to learn more, not to try to influence events, and not support those nations struggling to break away from the 10th century backwardness into which the region descended in the last few hundred years.
I'm sorry everyone but Mr. Obama has been a huge disappointment. He strikes me as a petulant child who, not getting his way after voters presented him with a Congress controlled by the other party, made little effort to bridge the divide and famously botched the effort he did make. He mishandled recovery from the Great Recession such that the lion's share of the recovery went to the top decile while moving his lips obligingly but doing squat little for the working and middle classes. My question to 80 percent of America: are you better off today than you were when, say, Bush I was president? Feeling pretty good that Hillary Milhouse Clinton is going to turn that around for you?
And Mr. Obama, who ran on 'restoring America's prestige' has alienated essentially every leader in the Middle East, and nearly every leader in Europe.
I'd go on but my 1500 characters are used.
Tom, you've seen the US Congress. How do you feel about NASDAQ?
As to the rest, Mr. Obama has taken from the lesson that our relative ignorance of Middle Eastern tribal and sectarian fault lines is a good reason not to try to learn more, not to try to influence events, and not support those nations struggling to break away from the 10th century backwardness into which the region descended in the last few hundred years.
I'm sorry everyone but Mr. Obama has been a huge disappointment. He strikes me as a petulant child who, not getting his way after voters presented him with a Congress controlled by the other party, made little effort to bridge the divide and famously botched the effort he did make. He mishandled recovery from the Great Recession such that the lion's share of the recovery went to the top decile while moving his lips obligingly but doing squat little for the working and middle classes. My question to 80 percent of America: are you better off today than you were when, say, Bush I was president? Feeling pretty good that Hillary Milhouse Clinton is going to turn that around for you?
And Mr. Obama, who ran on 'restoring America's prestige' has alienated essentially every leader in the Middle East, and nearly every leader in Europe.
I'd go on but my 1500 characters are used.
Friedman, the unapologetic "let's go to Iraq" Bush cheerleader is at it again. Like many warmongers, he did not serve his country in uniform.
2
You DO mis W., don't you, Thomas?
The neos—both con and lib—do love the involve this country in wars.
The results have been pretty uniformly bad—lots of lives lost, countries torn up, no real advantages when/if they end.
I didn't vote for Obama either time and don't think he's been much of a president, but I agree with him on this based on recent-past history.
The neos—both con and lib—do love the involve this country in wars.
The results have been pretty uniformly bad—lots of lives lost, countries torn up, no real advantages when/if they end.
I didn't vote for Obama either time and don't think he's been much of a president, but I agree with him on this based on recent-past history.
First President Bush is too agressive and ignorant and now President Obama is too weak and thoughtful.
Tom for President (or philosopher king) since only he sees the clear path in the rear view mirror..
Ed B
Williamsburg, VA
Tom for President (or philosopher king) since only he sees the clear path in the rear view mirror..
Ed B
Williamsburg, VA
1
Friedman did not learn his lesson with Iraq.
Now he wants to compound his error and Bush's Big Blunder by beating the drum for new war.
Bloviating will not suffice for our roving Expert on All Things Flat Earth.
He wants to see some nice new big explosions. (From a distance, that is.)
Now he wants to compound his error and Bush's Big Blunder by beating the drum for new war.
Bloviating will not suffice for our roving Expert on All Things Flat Earth.
He wants to see some nice new big explosions. (From a distance, that is.)
1
Well, Obama has it more right in the Middle East than Friedman has because Friedman supported the Iraq invasion (which eventually birthed Isis) and that was a fantastic mistake.
1
Just what is Friedman suggesting? That we invade Syria and engage ISIS?
Perhaps he thinks that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, now that we've created the basis for Al-Queda and its ISIS offshoot where there was none. Somehow this astute observer of the Middle East fails to consider that the situation has drastically changed since last summer when ISIS was on the march. Russian president Vladimir Putin's Syria initiative has reversed the direction of Mideast affairs, toward negotiated peace and stability for the first time since George W. Bush's disastrous war on Iraq. The US military role need not go beyond joining with Russian air power to finish off ISIS and Al-Nusra while the Syrian Arab army, the Kurdish militia, the Iranian volunteers and its allies do the mop up on the ground. Then we can turn to the task of rebuilding the infrastructure of the region, perhaps in conjunction with the current Egyptian government, which has been destroyed by 13 years of war - war for which we are primarily responsible.
Perhaps he thinks that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, now that we've created the basis for Al-Queda and its ISIS offshoot where there was none. Somehow this astute observer of the Middle East fails to consider that the situation has drastically changed since last summer when ISIS was on the march. Russian president Vladimir Putin's Syria initiative has reversed the direction of Mideast affairs, toward negotiated peace and stability for the first time since George W. Bush's disastrous war on Iraq. The US military role need not go beyond joining with Russian air power to finish off ISIS and Al-Nusra while the Syrian Arab army, the Kurdish militia, the Iranian volunteers and its allies do the mop up on the ground. Then we can turn to the task of rebuilding the infrastructure of the region, perhaps in conjunction with the current Egyptian government, which has been destroyed by 13 years of war - war for which we are primarily responsible.
34
Obama only tolerates leaders who think and act like himself. Obama is very selfish, a socialist and a man who enjoys stirring the race pot and interpreting the constitution according to Obama. Most world leaders cannot compete with his distorted image.
How is it possible that Thomas Friedman still has a job? He has been wrong about literally everything he's written about the Middle East - the term 'Friedman units' was coined to parody the length of time Friedman kept predicting we needed to 'stay the course' in Iraq in order for things to 'turn around.' He and his neo-conservative fellow travels still haven't admitted they completely got it wrong on the invasion, and here he is again, over a decade into our latest disastrous folly arguing for more intervention.
Just stop.
Just stop.
1
Syria and Libya will be to the legacies of President Obama and Hillary Clinton what Iraq is to Bush. Iraq was a disaster for that country and the U.S. Syria and Libya are nightmares for those countries and the EU.
Been there. Done that. Didn't work. No reason to believe it would work now.
1
Didn't Thomas Friedman lose SOME of his credibility and his right to second guess our leadership, when he carried water for Bush and Rumsfeld and Chaney and fully sided with those fools when they were conning us into invading Iraq?
Isn't there an argument that Friedman's folly contriubuted to the devastation then, and to the state of the Middle East and our threat level today?
Isn't there an argument that Friedman's folly contriubuted to the devastation then, and to the state of the Middle East and our threat level today?
3
These are attacks in Belgium and France and Turkey are attacks on NATO members. As 9/11 resulted in NATO supporting the U.S. response in Afghanistan, why isn't Europe invoking a collective response to the attacks on its member countries.
Instead each country develops its individual response to varying degrees of success.
Europe should not require America at the front to form a coherent and comprehensive response. These countries have military power that far exceeds anything that ISIS has.
Furthermore the EU is a model of how to create a prosperous community which respects human rights and individual freedom. Other parts of the world could learn from this model. It is not perfect but it is far superior to the regional organizations in South America, Africa and the mid and far East where tyrants, corruption and genocide are the norm.
Let Europe Lead!
Instead each country develops its individual response to varying degrees of success.
Europe should not require America at the front to form a coherent and comprehensive response. These countries have military power that far exceeds anything that ISIS has.
Furthermore the EU is a model of how to create a prosperous community which respects human rights and individual freedom. Other parts of the world could learn from this model. It is not perfect but it is far superior to the regional organizations in South America, Africa and the mid and far East where tyrants, corruption and genocide are the norm.
Let Europe Lead!
"That all sounds great on paper...." Et tu, Thomas.
The meeting at the forum at the American University of Iraq reminded me of the scene in Lean's Lawrence of Arabia, in which Peter O'Toole tries to bring the warring tribes to order.
The movie was made over 50 years ago, and described events that took place over 90 years ago. Enough.
The meeting at the forum at the American University of Iraq reminded me of the scene in Lean's Lawrence of Arabia, in which Peter O'Toole tries to bring the warring tribes to order.
The movie was made over 50 years ago, and described events that took place over 90 years ago. Enough.
Yes, the President does have this right. We can engage the Kurds, but are we prepared to defend them from Turkey? Does Mr. Friedman forget that that Turkey bombed the Kurds last July? His assessment that no invasion is necessary is at best naive.
“America needs to constructively engage the Kurds, offer them conditional help and make them the partner that America deserves. Here, everyone listens to and likes America. [The Kurdish] people want America to protect them from Iran and Turkey.”
And how do you, Mr. Friedman, suggest that America does that? Troops on the ground? That was suggested regarding Iraq, and we know how that ended.
Today's NYT runs a fascinating profile, penned by David Sanger, of Meir Dagan, a one-time Israeli director of Mossad, whose resume consisted of such feats as killing of an Iranian nuclear scientists on their way to work.
Mr. Dagan consistently argued against Israeli bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities (favored by Netanyahu), and his approach was vindicated. Sanger writes, "And in the past two months, as Mr. Dagan lay dying, some Israeli leaders began to concede that Mr. Obama’s approach bought them more time than any military strike ever could."
Obama's systematic and measured approach to solve complex problems works.The dramatically complex political scene in the Middle East requires a steady, as opposed to trigger happy, hand.
And how do you, Mr. Friedman, suggest that America does that? Troops on the ground? That was suggested regarding Iraq, and we know how that ended.
Today's NYT runs a fascinating profile, penned by David Sanger, of Meir Dagan, a one-time Israeli director of Mossad, whose resume consisted of such feats as killing of an Iranian nuclear scientists on their way to work.
Mr. Dagan consistently argued against Israeli bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities (favored by Netanyahu), and his approach was vindicated. Sanger writes, "And in the past two months, as Mr. Dagan lay dying, some Israeli leaders began to concede that Mr. Obama’s approach bought them more time than any military strike ever could."
Obama's systematic and measured approach to solve complex problems works.The dramatically complex political scene in the Middle East requires a steady, as opposed to trigger happy, hand.
1
Typical Friedman -- take both sides or neither side and end up both right and wrong or neither, but off the hook.
Friedman states that we "recklessly uncorked," terrorists coming from Libya. If that's true, then it is largely Hillary Clintons doing and he should be strongly discouraging through his editorials any support for her. If her judgement is that poor then why would he or any right thinking democrat want to support her for President.
Tunisia, a Georgia sized country of 11 million people, with no religious fault lines ( 99% Sunni) and the possibility of a lucrative tourist economy has huge potential. Would extensive U.S. aid serve as a terrorist magnet for Jihadi's from the chaos and anarchy of neighboring Libya? They have already suffered one debilitating terrorist attack which severely damaged the tourist industry.Is there a tipping point when it comes to U.S.aid? The lack of any Sunni- Shia fault lines wold seem to be a huge advantage, but all it takes is a single terrorist attack to destroy tourism. In addition. they reportedly have a large number of unemployed college graduates, an ominous sign in a Muslim country.
29
With the possible exception of Jordan, which, along with Lebanon, has taken in a disproportionate share of refugees, the President pretty much has it right.
1
So 13 years after the USA invaded Iraq and overthrew its government with the support of people like Friedman, he has the nerve to ask if Obama is doing the right thing by not having American armed forces invade the region again? What on earth makes this man think that the USA can in any way HELP rather than HURT any democratization efforts underway in Tunisia and Kurdistan? Remember, in the weeks leading up to ordering the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, George W. Bush--a graduate of Yale and Harvard--was apparently unable to explain and/or understand the differences between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims. I don't care that he was affirmative action beneficiary (of the child-of-privilege and not racial kind). To have not known such basic things after 6 years of schooling at America's top two universities is appalling.
I think one of the biggest mental obstacles facing people like Friedman is the reality that everything the USA touches in the Middle East turns to unalloyed s**t, simply because members of the credentialed ruling class in America are ignorant of the region and uninterested in really learning anything of substance before ordering the sons and daughters of other people to go into battle.
Carlos Slim, the Mexican billionaire whose money keeps the NY Times afloat, is an astute businessman. I sincerely hope it is the case that Friedman pays Slim to publish articles here and not vice versa. Friedman will never, ever live down his support of invading Iraq in 2003.
I think one of the biggest mental obstacles facing people like Friedman is the reality that everything the USA touches in the Middle East turns to unalloyed s**t, simply because members of the credentialed ruling class in America are ignorant of the region and uninterested in really learning anything of substance before ordering the sons and daughters of other people to go into battle.
Carlos Slim, the Mexican billionaire whose money keeps the NY Times afloat, is an astute businessman. I sincerely hope it is the case that Friedman pays Slim to publish articles here and not vice versa. Friedman will never, ever live down his support of invading Iraq in 2003.
12
Godd ole revisionist hisory, I love it! Yup, W should have known the terrorists were targetting the twin towers. FDR should have foreseen pearl Harbor. You, of course, were the only person alive who knew the intel from ALL western intelligence agencies pointed to one thing. You were the only oine to realize that ALL western intel agencies were lying to Booooooooooosh to get him to invade Iraq. Good ole revisionist history.
"The future is certain, it is the past that keeps changing!"
"The future is certain, it is the past that keeps changing!"
1
And if he didn't find out about the difference between Sunni and Shia from the Ivy leagues, one would have thought he would at least have the intellectual curiosity as President to find out. Maybe President Gore wouldn't have missed 9/11. One has to wonder.
What a tangled web we weaved. Apologies for the typos.
2
Thomas Friedman proposes a more activist foreign policy because he thinks, essentially, that these countries and Europe just can't do it on their own. Well guess what, I think I want to know which Republicans who also knock the President want to raise taxes to fund these activities Mr. Friedman proposes? Or should we borrow the money to do it? Interested minds who live here in the U.S. who drive in NJ in deeply cratered potholes, mass transit that is marginal at best, lead in our communities drinking water would like to know. I am so tired of hearing what the selfish, stupid leaders of the Middle East can't do between themselves that I think we should just the, kill each other. After giving Israel what a trillion dollars over the last 60 years is it asking to much they come to some agreement with the Palestinians? Is it really too much to ask the Saudis to stop funding global Islamic terrorism and an extreme form of Islam? Maybe we could tell the Russians to just give up on Assad and we can give you some consideration on other things they might like? So Mr. Friedman, who is lining up first to propose the higher taxes to pay for your ideal world? You perhaps? Maybe Obama isn't the one wrong here, maybe he has it just right. Maybe we should let them grow up and we can fix our infrastructure which isn't isolationist, it's just the right thing to do when faced with juveniles who don't listen or heed our advice anyway.
9
I know this is Thomas Friedman but ... surely even Friedman should be able to see that the operative word in our Middle East relationship going all the way back to Mohammed Mossadeq is "blowback". The more we throw our weight around there the worse it gets for everyone, most especially those living there. The exceptions are the terrorists, who thrive on this kind of thing. There are no good solutions at this point, but the first thing to do when you're in a hole is to stop digging. We've done the experiment often enough to know what will happen if we do it again.
8
"Working with Western and Iraqi partners, American forces have pushed back the Islamic State. The group has lost an estimated 40 percent of its territory in Iraq and 20 percent in Syria from its peak in the summer of 2014. Major cities like Ramadi have been reclaimed, and Mosul, the Islamic State’s de facto capital in Iraq, may be next. American military officials say that the group has lost more than ten thousand fighters."
The above is from another op-ed piece by Danial Byman in this morning's Times. Yet Mr. Friedman says, "Obama’s primary goal seems to be to get out of office being able to say that he had shrunk America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, prevented our involvement on the ground in Syria and Libya."
Well, which is it to be? Or maybe Times' readers are being subjected to Middle East reporting overload.
The above is from another op-ed piece by Danial Byman in this morning's Times. Yet Mr. Friedman says, "Obama’s primary goal seems to be to get out of office being able to say that he had shrunk America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, prevented our involvement on the ground in Syria and Libya."
Well, which is it to be? Or maybe Times' readers are being subjected to Middle East reporting overload.
4
What a tangled we we weaved, right Friedman? It all began with your cheerleading for the neocons in 2002. But due to the nature of any war, the page cannot simply be turned by the victor and you presume to rest in assurance that your work is done. There are always consequences and unexpected surprises that float to the surface at the end of a war.
So, what do you and Roger Cihen really want? Craving more all out wars was never to anyone's long-term benefit. The EU was enthusiastically on board with the air bombing if everything that moved in Syria. To be surprised and in shock now is simply disingenuous. They all wanted a slice of that natural gas pipeline that was supposed to isolate Russia. You do know that was the main reason for destroying Syria, don't you? Don't tell me we were "Arab Spring" fans for the sake of of the Arab street freedom.
So, what do you and Roger Cihen really want? Craving more all out wars was never to anyone's long-term benefit. The EU was enthusiastically on board with the air bombing if everything that moved in Syria. To be surprised and in shock now is simply disingenuous. They all wanted a slice of that natural gas pipeline that was supposed to isolate Russia. You do know that was the main reason for destroying Syria, don't you? Don't tell me we were "Arab Spring" fans for the sake of of the Arab street freedom.
8
You are quite welcome to send your own children. I prefer to keep mine out of mindless and futile danger.
13
So you home school your children to keep them out of existential danger of "gun free zones," where all mass killings have occurred, and the futile and mindless effort of trying top get them educated in the Public cesspool system?
Good for you!
Good for you!
The American people want their borders secured, the invasion stopped, the manufacturing plants brought back and an end to the conscription of our best and bravest to fight wars dreamed up in the tax-exempt think tanks of neoconservatives and liberals like Friedman. People like Friedman are responsible for ISIS.
3
Obama has blown opportunity after opportunity along with HRC and JK to prevent what is happening now. To Mr. Friedman's point he is running from this problem. Obviously going to Cuba is more important than leading in the Middle East. Interesting that Mr. Friedman would promote safe zones in Syria and Iraq. Isn't that what Mr. Trump has been saying for the past 9 months?
1
If only the EU had their own military then they wouldn't have to rely on America to protect them.
It really bugs me when some doughy Op-Ed writer talks tough about sending other people's kids to one of those Middle Eastern cesspools to fight.
It smacks of the same hayseed bravado that Reagan and the Bush boys were so practiced at.
Nope.
I'll take the lucid rational leadership of President Obama every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
But, nobody's gonna' stop you if you want to go fight Tommy so put down your laptop and pick up a weapon.
It really bugs me when some doughy Op-Ed writer talks tough about sending other people's kids to one of those Middle Eastern cesspools to fight.
It smacks of the same hayseed bravado that Reagan and the Bush boys were so practiced at.
Nope.
I'll take the lucid rational leadership of President Obama every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
But, nobody's gonna' stop you if you want to go fight Tommy so put down your laptop and pick up a weapon.
13
Odd how you left out Clinton and Obama's overseas adventures. Onset of dementia?
"...the cost of his passivity"? What passivity? From Daniel Byman's OpEd today: "Working with Western and Iraqi partners, American forces have pushed back the Islamic State. The group has lost an estimated 40 percent of its territory in Iraq and 20 percent in Syria from its peak in the summer of 2014. Major cities like Ramadi have been reclaimed..." Check your narrative, it's out of date.
7
"But today the millions of refugees driven out of Syria — plus the economic migrants now flooding out of Africa through Libya after the utterly botched Obama-NATO operation there — is destabilizing the European Union." Then let the EU deal with it. It has enough money and armed forces. Why should American money and blood be spent?
3
After championing all the other foolish invasions, Mr Friedman should be put in the penalty box and remain there indefinitely.
7
I remember growing up in the fifties and practicing the duck and cover drills at school in Hawaii. At that time we were in a nuclear stand-off with the Russians and that was a real existential threat to life on earth. These terrorist attacks -- awful for the victims - are not existential threats to the world or to the United States. But if we act as if these were serious threats, not only would we be doing what the terrorists want, but we will squander our opportunities to do good things.
Obama said that there is no way to prevent all terrorist activities, and he is right, short of blowing up the planet.
Too many of our leaders and all of the Republicans (and almost all of the media) are acting in a totally irresponsible way to make use of these attacks to further their own interests.
Obama said that there is no way to prevent all terrorist activities, and he is right, short of blowing up the planet.
Too many of our leaders and all of the Republicans (and almost all of the media) are acting in a totally irresponsible way to make use of these attacks to further their own interests.
3
Don't the Europeans and Turks have armies? It is time for them to get off the sidelines. Next year everyone in NATO better hit their 2% defense spending mandate.
P.s. Falling oil prices have done more to rebalance world power than military adventurism.
P.s. Falling oil prices have done more to rebalance world power than military adventurism.
3
US money would be better spent on struggling Detroit, Flint and Saginaw Michigan. Tunisia is struggling, but I don't have to look 30 miles to see the effects of extreme poverty and neglect. The destablilization in the Mideast comes from our misguided 2.5 trillion dollar misfire in Iraq. Obama's vision is correct, and I worry what will happen after November. 'the sand will be glowing'.
4
Whether President Obama has this right or not he has a way of putting it into perspective that is necessary to understand the committments required to fight wars.
I remember Thomas Friedman's Iraq journey into the abyss why doesnt he?
I remember Thomas Friedman's Iraq journey into the abyss why doesnt he?
6
Rarely do I agree with Tom Friedman but this column makes sense. Help the Tunisians and the Kurds now, with whatever they need. After all, we send billions to Egypt and it's totally corrupt leaders, why not send some of that instead to the Kurds and Tunisians to give them a chance to prove democracy, when home grown, can work.
34
Hand-wringers such as Mr. Friedman feel there must be something that can be done to solve the quagmire in the middle east.
However, as any mathematician can tell you, sometimes the only solution to a problem is the empty set, meaning the answer is that there is no solution.
Obama's legacy is that he understands the concept of an empty set.
However, as any mathematician can tell you, sometimes the only solution to a problem is the empty set, meaning the answer is that there is no solution.
Obama's legacy is that he understands the concept of an empty set.
3
I'm with President Obama all the way on this one. The Middle East is an absolute quagmire. Our entrance into the quagmire, whichever side we choose to take and however noble our intentions, would only serve to destabilize the region even further, at a great cost to American lives and to our economy.
With all due respect, Mr. Friedman, you of all people, a strong advocate of the disastrous Iraq War, should be aware of all the unintended consequences that occur when we meddle in the Middle East.
Exhibit A, of course, is ISIS, which was a total byproduct of the Iraq War, the place where all of Saddam's old Baathists ended up.
Stay the calm and steady course, President Obama.
With all due respect, Mr. Friedman, you of all people, a strong advocate of the disastrous Iraq War, should be aware of all the unintended consequences that occur when we meddle in the Middle East.
Exhibit A, of course, is ISIS, which was a total byproduct of the Iraq War, the place where all of Saddam's old Baathists ended up.
Stay the calm and steady course, President Obama.
5
The US has no interest in the Middle East. It is a strategic trap that prevents the US from addressing important security concerns in the Pacific. Let the neighbors of the ME, including Europe, Russia and China (more so than the the US) find a solution.
1
Here is what Obama has right: It's centuries old regional, tribal and family conflict that isn't going to change regardless of what he does. All that he is going to get out of involvement is blame for whatever sorry state of affairs exists in the present moment. And if he doesn't act, he will get the same blame, but at least at a lower cost.
1
Friedman has a good point. Tunisia and the Kurds warrant more support. If these places wither on the vine, they do so at our peril and contrary to our interests. But I keep asking myself why, particularly regarding Libya and Tunisia, does the EU not do more. These folks need to step up or there will be more refugees and more instability.
2
Mr. Friedman, you and your family and your wife's family never served in our military. Who are you really working for? What is your real agenda and whom does it benefit. Certainly not the American people.
2
It's nice to see an Obama loyal defender finally question his disastrous foreign policy, but it's alittle too late, isn't it? Mr. Obama's policy of non-action has turned out to carry an enormous price tag, but, like the Bourbons, he learns nothing and forgets nothing. He is incapable of growth or change. What's more, I doubt he cares. I honestly think he cares more about his March Madness bracket than he does about the future of the Middle East or Europe.
1
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the spectacular rise of IS a direct result of our creating a vacuum in what may not have been a friendly state but before our ham-fisted invasion was at the very least a stable state in the region? Of course, the solution to this problem MUST be our stomping back into the region like an angry toddler (and likely with the same level of forethought) and making an even bigger mess of things. Does anyone really think that permanently occupying that corner of the world is going to make the world safer? Does conventional warfare EVER eliminate terrorism? I would like someone to point out the historical facts that support this theory.
5
Friedman's right! We need more soldiers over there, all of them, and with his great ideas this will all be over in a few months. First, kill all the bad guys. Next, uhh, rebuild their countries. This will be the easy part since they all love each other so deeply and have celebrated their outwardly minor differences for thousands of years. Pass out cigars, applause applause, and our men and women in uniform come home victorious with a whole new skill set of Nation Building which lands them all highly paid jobs and they re-integrate as fully functioning members of society with no weird war stress stuff because we won!
Also we should tell Europe to sit this one out, as well as every other nation. They have zero stake in the outcomes so we got this!
It's not like any of this is unrealistic or kinda insane...
Also we should tell Europe to sit this one out, as well as every other nation. They have zero stake in the outcomes so we got this!
It's not like any of this is unrealistic or kinda insane...
7
We can’t stabilize Iraq or Syria if their leaders won’t share power and stop looting....
[ We however were the country that destabilized Iraq to begin with and therein reside our problems now. ]
[ We however were the country that destabilized Iraq to begin with and therein reside our problems now. ]
1
There we go again with mindless advocacy for invasion.
Mr. Friedman how well did it work the last time you recommended invasion? Was the Iraq invasion not big enough catastrophe for you?
Mr. Friedman how well did it work the last time you recommended invasion? Was the Iraq invasion not big enough catastrophe for you?
14
Yep we need another war since the others have done so well. The definition of stupidity is to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
11
I think your suggestions for appropriate engagement in the Middle East are good ones.
I don't agree, however with how you teed his up... Americans' perception of risk, like most humans, is distorted. It's valid to fight that distortion in establishing policy. The examples you give - e.g., more people die hitting deer than from terrorism - is trivial. 500,000 people die each year from heart disease, a condition that is almost entirely avoidable. What if we invest the trillion dollars we spent in Iraq preventing heart disease through proper nutrition? That's a valid policy consideration!
Also, it's just inaccurate to solely characterize the administration's policy via a via ISIS as "Hands-off" and "passive."
I don't agree, however with how you teed his up... Americans' perception of risk, like most humans, is distorted. It's valid to fight that distortion in establishing policy. The examples you give - e.g., more people die hitting deer than from terrorism - is trivial. 500,000 people die each year from heart disease, a condition that is almost entirely avoidable. What if we invest the trillion dollars we spent in Iraq preventing heart disease through proper nutrition? That's a valid policy consideration!
Also, it's just inaccurate to solely characterize the administration's policy via a via ISIS as "Hands-off" and "passive."
1
Mr. Friedman the vast majority of Americans are against spending anymore of OUR national and personal treasure and lives to defend democracy in other parts of the world as OUR democracy decays from within from greed, avarice and social neglect. You say, "Two fledgling democracies have emerged in the Middle East — on their own." Yes, on their own. Countries who want democracy must be able to defend their desire on their own. The United States can help through NATO and the United Nations but it is NOT our responsibility to always try to be the super heroes. America is just people like every other country. It is time for us to clean up our own house and restore democracy after the treasure-job-resource stealing "globalization" we have endured for 40+ years.
12
Your columnist has learned Zippo from his Iraq support.
12
Another war Tom?
Really?
How about some of these leaders take care of their own back yard so they have a STAKE in the outcome
Really?
How about some of these leaders take care of their own back yard so they have a STAKE in the outcome
9
To answer your question, "yes." He has it right. Bombing ISIS to smithereens won't stop European radicals. Stopping terrorists attacks in Europe requires action in Europe not the Middle East.
6
The Mideast issues are strictly a European problem. We have been gradually withdrawing and that movement should continue. Period.
3
Based on his track record, you would have to be the dumbest person on Earth to take advice on this matter from Mr. Friedman.
12
Military adventures in the Middle East are:
A. Doomed to failure
B. Irrelevant to homeland security
C. Massively costly in blood and money
D. A source of content for pundits, Foggy Bottom analysts, and doctoral dissertations
E. All of the above.
A. Doomed to failure
B. Irrelevant to homeland security
C. Massively costly in blood and money
D. A source of content for pundits, Foggy Bottom analysts, and doctoral dissertations
E. All of the above.
8
Finally we have a president who is not intent on sending young Americans to die ti support repressive dictatorial governments.
Today's problems can be traced back to the Dulles brothers and Eisenhower, when he helped oust the president of Iran. Then to continue things we had Korea, Viet Nam, and the Iraq disaster. We have been funding European military operations since 1945 it is time hey began paying for them.
Mr. Obama has been cautious while a the same time attacking those terrorist groups that have killed Americans. He doe not dash into these conflict a some would do, he makes decisions carefully and is doing what we elected him to do.
All this criticism of him tries to say he is doing all these things on his own. He is doing what the public elected him for, So criticize him, you criticize us, and I for one do not like it.
Today's problems can be traced back to the Dulles brothers and Eisenhower, when he helped oust the president of Iran. Then to continue things we had Korea, Viet Nam, and the Iraq disaster. We have been funding European military operations since 1945 it is time hey began paying for them.
Mr. Obama has been cautious while a the same time attacking those terrorist groups that have killed Americans. He doe not dash into these conflict a some would do, he makes decisions carefully and is doing what we elected him to do.
All this criticism of him tries to say he is doing all these things on his own. He is doing what the public elected him for, So criticize him, you criticize us, and I for one do not like it.
8
"[The Kurdish] people want America to protect them from Iran.."
Yeah, uh, about that. See, the thing is...
Yeah, uh, about that. See, the thing is...
4
Neocon nonsense typical of Mr. Friedman. The Middle East is a crazy neighborhood with oil wells and silly old religions. But it isn't our neighborhood. Except for some fundamentalist writing on end of days by King James' scholars, our religions aren't involved. And world markets don't care which zealots and thieves are pumping the oil this month. The only sensible policy is to avoid having enemies or friends there.
7
Mr. Friedman, you have as much credibility on this topic as Dick Cheney … which is to say: None. Do you think your readers are fools with no memory of the things that you wrote about going to war in Iraq in 2002 and 2003? Think again.
I clearly remember the time when you and the New York Times were whipping up the need for a war against the evil Saddam Hussein. And the New York Times printed the lies about Iraq and their “weapons of mass destruction” on the front page, but buried the factual articles in center pages.
What you wrote then was disgraceful and in the light of what we know from history, outrageous and destructive. The one thing you should have come to understand about the fiasco of the war in Iraq is that the US as a terrible track record when it comes to intervening in the affairs of other countries militarily. Post-Korean War (I say that based on the success of South Korea) the US has moved into places, cultures, situations and conflicts militarily it does not understand with bravado and bluster and has managed time after time to make bad situations worse.
I think President Obama in his last year of his Presidency more clearly understands not only the limits but the real and substantial harm massive US military action can have on a region. On the other hand, Mr. Obama and Sec. Kerry have demonstrated the real and substantial positive power of US diplomacy.
So lets rely more on our diplomacy than our military power. The outcomes are clearly better.
I clearly remember the time when you and the New York Times were whipping up the need for a war against the evil Saddam Hussein. And the New York Times printed the lies about Iraq and their “weapons of mass destruction” on the front page, but buried the factual articles in center pages.
What you wrote then was disgraceful and in the light of what we know from history, outrageous and destructive. The one thing you should have come to understand about the fiasco of the war in Iraq is that the US as a terrible track record when it comes to intervening in the affairs of other countries militarily. Post-Korean War (I say that based on the success of South Korea) the US has moved into places, cultures, situations and conflicts militarily it does not understand with bravado and bluster and has managed time after time to make bad situations worse.
I think President Obama in his last year of his Presidency more clearly understands not only the limits but the real and substantial harm massive US military action can have on a region. On the other hand, Mr. Obama and Sec. Kerry have demonstrated the real and substantial positive power of US diplomacy.
So lets rely more on our diplomacy than our military power. The outcomes are clearly better.
21
TF, your representation of Goldbergs piece in The Atlantic is cherry picked, skewed and an example of what happens when a journalist abuses the privilege of the platform. I was not expecting TF to join in the devolution of political discourse. "Obama hates" in the first sentence? Readers might want to read the Atlantic story themselves .
6
Mr. Friedman didn't just cherry pick that article in The Atlantic, he transmogrified it. He must have been either on something or reading it through magic spectacles to produce the ridiculous interpretations he voices in this opinion piece. In the article, President Obama comes across as extremely well informed, fully aware of the stakes and forces involved, and prudent. In other words he remains the adult in the room and I came away from that article full of more respect for the man than ever.
It seems that what many thoughtless people want is another lovely war somewhere else.
Maybe what the World needs more is something less destructive for egotistical boys to do than to have fun blowing everything to smithereens?
Maybe what the World needs more is something less destructive for egotistical boys to do than to have fun blowing everything to smithereens?
6
There are a lot of people and places that need help all over the world -- including in the United States. Our public schools, highways and bridges are crumbling. Does anyone seriously think that if President Obama came up with a program to spend billions of dollars in emerging democracies, the Republican Congress would support it? Listen to Speaker Ryan: He wants to dismantle our own social safety net. There is zero likelihood he or any his Republican colleagues would get on board any kind of global development initiatives.
5
Obama is right; we should stay as far out of the middle east as possible and terrorist attacks do not change that. However, I agree that we should also support Tunisia and the Kurds. The middle east will only have democracy when they choose it themselves. No number of bombs or dollars or peace keeping soldiers can give them democracy and lasting peace. The solution must come from within the region its self. The most we and the EU can do is stay well out of it and support democratic groups when they do arise.
1
Getting involved in conflicts we don't understand could apply to the unrest in Belgium as well as the Middle East and I would agree with President Obama (and Bernie Sanders) on this strategy. We have been to interested in policing the world far too long, and it should not come as a surprise to anyone that the more frustrated, humiliated elements of any culture would strike back at their oppressors. That this would include extremist Muslims in Syria, Libya or Belgium also should be no surprise.
And what happens if we take a more inclusive approach? Most people what to engage in the benefits of the world economy, peacefully at that.
Hearing politicians promote exclusionary tactics, or worse, police state neighborhood patrolling, only adds flames to the fire, which, of course, is their demented approach to gathering support from an ignorant minority of Americans.
Obama does have this right and the sooner the rest of this country's leaders get with the program, the sooner more Tunisias and Iraqi Kurdistans will emerge, and the more likely Brussels and Paris will return to the peaceful cities we have known.
And what happens if we take a more inclusive approach? Most people what to engage in the benefits of the world economy, peacefully at that.
Hearing politicians promote exclusionary tactics, or worse, police state neighborhood patrolling, only adds flames to the fire, which, of course, is their demented approach to gathering support from an ignorant minority of Americans.
Obama does have this right and the sooner the rest of this country's leaders get with the program, the sooner more Tunisias and Iraqi Kurdistans will emerge, and the more likely Brussels and Paris will return to the peaceful cities we have known.
2
It seems like the people of the Middle East have always been driven mad by tribalism and religion. Enlightenment does not seem to be attainable by them, so how does one intervene in battles between lunatics? Let them fight it out until finally they have suffered enough to see reason.
5
It clearly would help his argument if Mr. Friedman could point to one successful US nation-building initiative.
I will provide a counter-perspective with its immense costs in lives, funds, and prestige: Vietnam; the dictatorships of S. and C. America through the 60s-70s-80s; Afghanistan; Iraq.
I will provide a counter-perspective with its immense costs in lives, funds, and prestige: Vietnam; the dictatorships of S. and C. America through the 60s-70s-80s; Afghanistan; Iraq.
5
"...so we need to stop wanting to invade the Middle East in response to every threat. That all sounds great on paper, until a terrorist attack like the one Tuesday in Brussels comes to our shores. Does the president have this right?"
Friedman neglects to explain just how "a terrorist attack like this one" changes the foreign policy calculus in the Middle East. How should the violent spasm of a small group of individuals redirect U.S. policy? Should we now direct our treasure and blood some place in the Middle East we have not done so before?
If so, exactly what is the connection between an incident in Europe and a policy of greater engagement, whether in Tunis or Kurdistan or Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Lebanon, ad nauseum. And given our history in the Middle East since 1990, what is the precise rationale for engaging in such a high cost enterprise again? It may be that the U.S. stands in need of a policy recalibration in the Middle East, but I am very leery of basing it on what happened in Brussels, however much we abhor what took place there.
Friedman neglects to explain just how "a terrorist attack like this one" changes the foreign policy calculus in the Middle East. How should the violent spasm of a small group of individuals redirect U.S. policy? Should we now direct our treasure and blood some place in the Middle East we have not done so before?
If so, exactly what is the connection between an incident in Europe and a policy of greater engagement, whether in Tunis or Kurdistan or Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Lebanon, ad nauseum. And given our history in the Middle East since 1990, what is the precise rationale for engaging in such a high cost enterprise again? It may be that the U.S. stands in need of a policy recalibration in the Middle East, but I am very leery of basing it on what happened in Brussels, however much we abhor what took place there.
5
Yes, it appears that there are costs that flow from Obama's policies regarding the Middle East - tragic and heartbreaking human and other costs - but there would also be costs (possibly quite significant costs) that would flow from greater US engagement and the likely consequences of that, including stronger anti-US activities by others, additional US and non-US deaths and casualties, additional US expenditures, difficulties with allies and friends (and others). And it doesn't seem clear that more US engagement would accelerate the process that the Middle East needs to go through as it works to address its various issues, or whether more US engagement would simply make that process more deadly, expensive, complicated, and more lengthy. It might well be that that process can't be completed - or move forward much at all - as long as the US stays engaged beyond a certain level. In leading our country on all these issues and pros/cons, Obama has the tough job of balancing all these and other clear and not-so-clear considerations ... and it's by no means obvious that he's making poor decisions.
3
One needs to be careful reading Friedman. Over all the column appears mild in his attitude toward Obama's policies. Except for the opening paragraph: "he (Obama) pretty much "hates" all Middle East's leaders". And so we have it without a reference to a direct quote from Obama that he does hate Friedman has caught us in his trap of believing Obama makes decision from a perspective of hate. And by doing so, Friedman condemns the entire Obama Presidency of gross incompetence and judgement. Friedman is sly, he knows what he is doing. Unless Friedman in a subsequent column produces a Obama quote that he "hates" I will not believe that the humanist Obama is "hates' anyone let alone decides policy issues based on hate. Friedman is way out of bounds here.
9
Maybe Friedman is feeling neglected and on the sidelines as of late. Maybe by penning something ill thought out and outrageous he feels he can get the attention he thinks he deserves.
Someone get me a one-handed "Middle East expert," fast! (My apologies to President Truman.) President Obama is doing the right thing with his minimalist approach, and an overwhelming majority of Americans agree with that approach. This column was no doubt written before the Times came out with a story that quoted a "senior American intelligence official" who flat-out stated that Belgian officials were warned THIS PAST WEEKEND about an imminent threat, that they admit they have no capacity to even track bad actors in their country and, in general, when American personnel are sent over to train Belgian security types they are "like children," simply not capable in any regard. Are we supposed to manage Belgium too? What was most clear in the article is that we had better get used to bloody terrorist incidence coming out of Belgium because it will a long time before that country can manage the security of their own country.
And now Mr. Friedman opines that Tunisia and the Kurds must become priorities ASAP. Sure. Why not?
Colin Powell told Bush and Cheney "You break it, you bought it." Well, we broke it all right, but the American people ain't buyin' it. Stay the course, President Obama.
And now Mr. Friedman opines that Tunisia and the Kurds must become priorities ASAP. Sure. Why not?
Colin Powell told Bush and Cheney "You break it, you bought it." Well, we broke it all right, but the American people ain't buyin' it. Stay the course, President Obama.
4
This is silly. Tom hangs around in probably the only room in Iraq that anyone not carrying weaponry would want to be in and claims more support for the Kurds and Tunisua is the answer. Even nuttier than thinking a democratic Iraq would spread democracy throughout a region that has no interest in the topic. This ivory tower hubris to the extreme.
2
I agree Thomas; perhaps it is about time we give military intervention some consideration?
I used to think NeoCons were always really wanting another WWII; a total war of righteous cause, making heroes of us all. I've changed course and now believe what they are perpetually chasing is another Spanish American War. That was the best war America every fought, from a cost benefit perspective. Deploy a small expeditionary force over summer break, suffer a few hundred dead, a few thousand wounded, and we get the Philippines, Puerto Rice, Hispaniola, and CUBA!
Of course, never mind that we couldn't hold Cuba, and suffered tens of thousands of casualties bringing the Philippines to heel. Why? Because we could annihilate the other nation state's military, but we couldn't pacify the local insurgency. Sound familiar? We've been playing the same song since 1898!
The truth is, it takes the kind of WWII effort to really get WWII results. So, if the neocons want to raise taxes on everyone, partially nationalize our economy, re-institute the draft, and send a million troops into the Middle East for a five year commitment, maybe I'll believe we can accomplish their goals.
If you want to do it 'cheap', then we can send 50,000 into Syria and take out ISIS any time we want, as Obama has said. The problem is, what then? Oh, don't worry about it.
That's the cost. I don't understand how neocons don't understand. Maybe, they just don't care.
I used to think NeoCons were always really wanting another WWII; a total war of righteous cause, making heroes of us all. I've changed course and now believe what they are perpetually chasing is another Spanish American War. That was the best war America every fought, from a cost benefit perspective. Deploy a small expeditionary force over summer break, suffer a few hundred dead, a few thousand wounded, and we get the Philippines, Puerto Rice, Hispaniola, and CUBA!
Of course, never mind that we couldn't hold Cuba, and suffered tens of thousands of casualties bringing the Philippines to heel. Why? Because we could annihilate the other nation state's military, but we couldn't pacify the local insurgency. Sound familiar? We've been playing the same song since 1898!
The truth is, it takes the kind of WWII effort to really get WWII results. So, if the neocons want to raise taxes on everyone, partially nationalize our economy, re-institute the draft, and send a million troops into the Middle East for a five year commitment, maybe I'll believe we can accomplish their goals.
If you want to do it 'cheap', then we can send 50,000 into Syria and take out ISIS any time we want, as Obama has said. The problem is, what then? Oh, don't worry about it.
That's the cost. I don't understand how neocons don't understand. Maybe, they just don't care.
163
They don't care. It's not their kids being drafted. It is their clients in the military industrial complex that reap and plunder the treasure and use it to fund the Neo-Con "think tanks" that ought to be called WarMongers Promotional Services.
What a sad and pathetic tune that has been sung indeed. 100+ years and counting.
What a sad and pathetic tune that has been sung indeed. 100+ years and counting.
I hate all the leaders of the Middle East too.
The most dysfunctional family of humans on earth.
Tribal Muslim Arabs who are at each others throats for 20,000 years.
Hey, Donald, please build a wall around the Middle East from Tunisia to Iran.
Make it yuuuuuuge!!!
The most dysfunctional family of humans on earth.
Tribal Muslim Arabs who are at each others throats for 20,000 years.
Hey, Donald, please build a wall around the Middle East from Tunisia to Iran.
Make it yuuuuuuge!!!
2
I had to recheck the author of this piece to make sure it was Tom Friedman... because it sounds like Paul Wolfowitz.
So thanks, Tom, but no. Far too many American lives wasted in the Middle East. And every U.S. dollar stolen and diverted over there was a dollar that should have gone into projects and services here at home. Does Obama have this right? Yep.
So thanks, Tom, but no. Far too many American lives wasted in the Middle East. And every U.S. dollar stolen and diverted over there was a dollar that should have gone into projects and services here at home. Does Obama have this right? Yep.
8
I was prepared to disagree with you, because I thought you were going to call for military intervention. I think Obama has been exactly right about that, Syria is the tragedy it is because of outside "help" from Iran, Russia, etc. American involvement can only make things worse. But I do agree with economic and maybe even military aid to PROMISING entities. That might truly help.
Focused on "not being George W. Bush in the Middle East"? That's admirable. That's what got him elected! So, THANK YOU Obama is what's left out.
Friedman's a professional second guesser! When "we recklessly uncorked" Libya, Friedman was ALL FOR IT but he reserves the right to like the policy...until he doesn't. All criticism and no answers...just "dreams". Dreams that Tunisia and Kurdistan actually have "self-generated" democracies (as long as we prop them up??).
Monday morning quarterbacking from your Easy Chair in NY (or Bethesda!) is easy.....and apparently pays very well to boot. What a racket!
Friedman's a professional second guesser! When "we recklessly uncorked" Libya, Friedman was ALL FOR IT but he reserves the right to like the policy...until he doesn't. All criticism and no answers...just "dreams". Dreams that Tunisia and Kurdistan actually have "self-generated" democracies (as long as we prop them up??).
Monday morning quarterbacking from your Easy Chair in NY (or Bethesda!) is easy.....and apparently pays very well to boot. What a racket!
2
There is no Kurdistan. There is an area controlled by the Kurds-a big difference. I seem to remember that most of the world supported our action in Libya. I guess we were supposed to put a half million troops there permanently to keep people from fighting each other. You and others find it easy to criticize but offer no alternative solutions. Easy job you have. Not so much when one is President.
3
Friedman demands that the President, "DO SOMETHING !!"
What, precisely would Friedman have the President do?
He points to Tunisia and Kurdistan as obvious places to help. Tunisia I do not know much about, and cannot reasonably conclude what, if anything, would help and not be seen as outside interference by the locals. (And remember, the locals even here in the U.S. don't necessarily support our "intervention" to secure our own territory, such as the Malheur Refuge.)
Supporting the creation of a functioning, de jure Kurdistan may well be a good idea, but anyone who supports it better come up with how to deal with the vehement and sometimes violent opposition from Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran.
Even if we "cleaned" up those two areas, it would not solve the ISIS problem. It has no need for every piece of turf, just a couple safe havens and influence it can project elsewhere.
Again, I would ask Friedman, "Just what would you have the President do?" Yes, I agree we must do something, but flailing one's arms cannot successfully replace strategy, especially when the enemy is fighting an international guerilla campaign. America should have learned that during "Shock and Awe", if not long before during the Viet Nam War, when our massive bombing of three countries did little to accomplish our government's goals.
What, precisely would Friedman have the President do?
He points to Tunisia and Kurdistan as obvious places to help. Tunisia I do not know much about, and cannot reasonably conclude what, if anything, would help and not be seen as outside interference by the locals. (And remember, the locals even here in the U.S. don't necessarily support our "intervention" to secure our own territory, such as the Malheur Refuge.)
Supporting the creation of a functioning, de jure Kurdistan may well be a good idea, but anyone who supports it better come up with how to deal with the vehement and sometimes violent opposition from Turkey, Iraq, Syria, and Iran.
Even if we "cleaned" up those two areas, it would not solve the ISIS problem. It has no need for every piece of turf, just a couple safe havens and influence it can project elsewhere.
Again, I would ask Friedman, "Just what would you have the President do?" Yes, I agree we must do something, but flailing one's arms cannot successfully replace strategy, especially when the enemy is fighting an international guerilla campaign. America should have learned that during "Shock and Awe", if not long before during the Viet Nam War, when our massive bombing of three countries did little to accomplish our government's goals.
1
" As one could see from President Obama’s recent interview in The Atlantic, he pretty much hates all the Middle East’s leaders including those of Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Iran and the Palestinians."
.................
And they in turn likely hate us--and with good reason. The thing we love about the Mid East is the OIL. Please, let's be honest and maybe then we can resolve our problems. The tribal warfare has been going on for at least a millennium and is not likely to stop.
Bush pere & fils got us into this mess with lies, videotapes and probably some sex along the way. Unless and until we start telling the truth, we will be captured by our own stupidity. Time to pull out, let the Muslims deal with their own squabbles, and perhaps in the long run, "make the world safe for democracy" once again.
..............
.................
And they in turn likely hate us--and with good reason. The thing we love about the Mid East is the OIL. Please, let's be honest and maybe then we can resolve our problems. The tribal warfare has been going on for at least a millennium and is not likely to stop.
Bush pere & fils got us into this mess with lies, videotapes and probably some sex along the way. Unless and until we start telling the truth, we will be captured by our own stupidity. Time to pull out, let the Muslims deal with their own squabbles, and perhaps in the long run, "make the world safe for democracy" once again.
..............
1
Dickens created a character, Mrs. Jellyby, who is described as a telescopic philanthropist. Neglecting her family in pursuit of good works in far away places. Mr. Friedman, you are just dead wrong and an apologist for the military-industrial complex. While we should not turn our heads at disaster and calamity, we need to take care of our country first. We have a history of being compassionate and charitable. But at the moment we have our own hungry and neglected. Instead of helping people we have a monstrous prison system. Thanks to President Obama for focusing attention where we can do something good and ignoring the political flak.
2
There is something rotten in Denmark. Friedman leaves out that Merkel refused to help Obama with the chemicals in Syria, the Brits Parliament refused permission to act. Now that Germany has the migrants, Merkel needs to take full responsibility for this happening to her own country.
Another unsettling occurrence at the moment is our military leaders say we are un prepared to have a war with counties like Russia and they need more money. There are a number of articles out there stating we need to make our military stronger.
At the moment the military budget is 142 billion and we are spending half of our discretionary spending on the military, another 600 billion.
The Navy wants three new destroyers, one nearing completion, each 4.4 trillion dollars. They wanted 32 until the cost finally reached 4.4 trillion, now they settle for three that can be blown out of the water with missiles. The F35 costing a trillion won't be totally functional until 2022 due to computer problems.
Obama states that his decisions to use diplomacy on the chemicals in Syria despite his redline statement, instead of the Washington military strikes went around the Washington Play Book to always use the military strike first. So the government has a play book that can lead to war by not using diplomacy. We live in a nation that should be focused on military defense with the military aiding with sanctions. No, they want to use the War Machine first.
Obama is right, EU needs to start defending too.
Another unsettling occurrence at the moment is our military leaders say we are un prepared to have a war with counties like Russia and they need more money. There are a number of articles out there stating we need to make our military stronger.
At the moment the military budget is 142 billion and we are spending half of our discretionary spending on the military, another 600 billion.
The Navy wants three new destroyers, one nearing completion, each 4.4 trillion dollars. They wanted 32 until the cost finally reached 4.4 trillion, now they settle for three that can be blown out of the water with missiles. The F35 costing a trillion won't be totally functional until 2022 due to computer problems.
Obama states that his decisions to use diplomacy on the chemicals in Syria despite his redline statement, instead of the Washington military strikes went around the Washington Play Book to always use the military strike first. So the government has a play book that can lead to war by not using diplomacy. We live in a nation that should be focused on military defense with the military aiding with sanctions. No, they want to use the War Machine first.
Obama is right, EU needs to start defending too.
1
Someday Friedman may look back at this piece and regret it. Why should we be any less reluctant to commit ground troops after yesterday's bombings in Belgium? How committing ground troops abroad - and necessarily sacrificing American lives - make it easier to identify and capture French and Belgian citizens with murderous intent? Our middle east adventures so far have not brought democracy or stability to the region, and have stoked the passions that strengthen our enemies. Our work is at home first. Coordinate efforts with our allies and among our agencies, identify threats, break up cells, arrest terrorist criminals, all the while preserving our way of life. That's our challenge.
1
Friedman seems to have developed a sudden case of amnesia. How quickly he has forgotten his feverish cheer leading for the invasion of Iraq. How he was so sure that our military intervention in that country would turn Iraq into a "cradle" of democracy in the Middle East. How well did that war turn out? No, Mr. Friedman, you have been wrong too many times, yet you never admitted to being wrong, but the president or anybody with common sense should pay no attention to your advice.
4
The Middle East issue can't be solved by throwing still more money at it.
The French and English are more directly culpable of having created failed-states-in-waiting in the aftermath of the first World War. Obama should be addressing the issues in the US that need urgent resolution and the Europeans should sort out the post-colonial mess they made, including their inability to integrate their under-educated, under-employed Muslim populations.
The leaders of most of the world's states can't seem to share power or stop looting either, even if it's done in a (slightly) more subtle way.
The French and English are more directly culpable of having created failed-states-in-waiting in the aftermath of the first World War. Obama should be addressing the issues in the US that need urgent resolution and the Europeans should sort out the post-colonial mess they made, including their inability to integrate their under-educated, under-employed Muslim populations.
The leaders of most of the world's states can't seem to share power or stop looting either, even if it's done in a (slightly) more subtle way.
Finally, a reasoned criticism of the President, based on some actual knowledge of reality, a sense of what's actually important, and an intelligent awareness of what's possible.
I'm doubtful things are quite this easy, but yeah--at this point it'd likely help for Obama to clearly explain what he's up to, and lay out a clear plan for action. In other words, explain how all the stuff we ARE doing fits together, and explain what the plan is, going forward.
Note to the right-wing shriekers: try it sometime.
I'm doubtful things are quite this easy, but yeah--at this point it'd likely help for Obama to clearly explain what he's up to, and lay out a clear plan for action. In other words, explain how all the stuff we ARE doing fits together, and explain what the plan is, going forward.
Note to the right-wing shriekers: try it sometime.
President Obama has taken the right approach, which is to gradually corner and eliminate ISIS in Iraq and Syria. I only wish that Obama had worked closely with Russia in Syria, and that could still be a path taken if we were to dismiss the idea of Syrian regime change which is self-defeating in any case.
3
Maybe what Mr. Obama understands and is sick of is this kind of armchair "strategic" analysis like this one by elites whose have no children who will come back in boxes, and with arms and legs and minds missing. Maybe Mr. Obama really understands that regular American who do put their children at risk are fed up putting their lives on the lines for a bunch of corrupt thieves who have a mindset that is stuck in religious bigotry.
13
It seems to me that Obama's passivity is a deliberate attempt to motivate Europe and countries in the Middle East to do their fair share of the work. Which is laudable, in my opinion.
4
Read some Howard Zinn, and you will quickly realize the dirty little secret about the history of U.S. foreign relations is that the U.S. has only gotten involved in foreign entanglements in which it has something to gain economically. Even according to this corrupt real-politik approach, what exactly does the U.S have to gain by propping up Tunisia and Iraqi Kurdistan? Are we going to sell them goods from our non-existent manufacturing sector, or open up some corrupt Wall Street subsidiaries over there? Until I hear a plan from a politician about how a new foreign entanglement will help both the U.S. and the local people there, I won't support it. This quick heuristic should apply in all scenarios.
3
It is fortunate that the oil glut and our too-slow turn toward renewable energy will eventually return the Middle East to its traditional position of backwardness and irrelevance.
1
Congrats to Tom for always going to the Lions den, Kurdistan this time, trying to find a pony somewhere in the dung pile that is the Middle East.
He obsesses with Obama's desire to skip yet another perfectly good invasion in the region.
That panty waist Obama! Planning for peace without killing?
Coincidentally, it was the Kurdish general Saladin almost 1,000 years ago who said, "Spilt blood never sleeps" on the killing fields of the 3rd Crusade.
He obsesses with Obama's desire to skip yet another perfectly good invasion in the region.
That panty waist Obama! Planning for peace without killing?
Coincidentally, it was the Kurdish general Saladin almost 1,000 years ago who said, "Spilt blood never sleeps" on the killing fields of the 3rd Crusade.
3
President Obama engages Cuba because it costs nothing to do so... this is his idea of foreign policy. Meanwhile, he essentially refuses to engage Russia, Syria, ISIS, Iraq, Turkey or even Israel. His only serious attempt at the Middle East was to wash his hands of Iranian sanctions and call in the UN. This hands-off policy makes for clean American hands but an increasingly messy world. That, sadly, may be his legacy.
Whatever the correct path forward here--and I don't pretend to know what that is--I think the world has had quite enough of Mr. Friedman's beating of the war drums with regard to the Middle East.
5
I know questioning Obama sells papers and gets page views, but the beef of this piece is the idea that we should be supporting Kurdistan and Tunisia. This is a great way for the U.S. to stay involved in the region with RESOURCES on the ground instead of "boots". I fully support Obama's hands-off approach and think that supporting K/T actually fits the approach the President alluded to in The Atlantic.
1
It's said that you reveal more of yourself when you attribute motives to other people, and the idea that President Obama has shaped his policies towards the Middle East by not doing as George Bush did is ridiculous, and says something about Mr Friedman, not Pres. Obama. If the President "hates" certain Middle East leaders, it's because they have inflicted so much suffering on their own people by waging wars on those who differ from their brand of Islam.
The terrorist attack in Brussels was a terrible act, but the responses of Republican presidential candidates is jingoistic and useless--shoot, then ask questions later. In practical terms, what could the President do right now that would have an effect on the cadre of jihadists living in Belgium?
Have the leaders of Kurdistan and Tunisia asked for help, or does Mr. Friedman suggest that we just rush in--where angels fear to tread?
The terrorist attack in Brussels was a terrible act, but the responses of Republican presidential candidates is jingoistic and useless--shoot, then ask questions later. In practical terms, what could the President do right now that would have an effect on the cadre of jihadists living in Belgium?
Have the leaders of Kurdistan and Tunisia asked for help, or does Mr. Friedman suggest that we just rush in--where angels fear to tread?
3
Beware of faux tough guys, particularly those who were all in with the Bush Administration and the neocon liars promoting the invasion and occupation of Iraq. You broke it, Mr. Friedman. In response to your colleague, Mr. Cohen:
The Administration response to the criminal activities in the Middle East is not ponderous but measured and appropriate under the circumstances. The risk posed by those activities to this country are not enormous but slight. Get a grip!
The Administration response to the criminal activities in the Middle East is not ponderous but measured and appropriate under the circumstances. The risk posed by those activities to this country are not enormous but slight. Get a grip!
2
Fine, but no mention that Mr. Friedman strongly backed the Iraq invasion?
4
Huh. So. What exactly in this incoherent essay is Friedman implying President Obama should do? Invade Syria (against or in support of the Assad regime?)? After all, this may only lead to direct military, shall we say, interaction with the Assad regime's Russian sponsors. Provide supply and material to the multiplicity of Syrian rebel groups? (That sure worked out well with what became that ISIS rebel group. Don't think they didn't have at least some access to what we had been doing there over the last number of years, since we've been oh, so good at identifying the "good guys".) Re-invade Iraq in violation of the treaties we have with them, in support of a "facts on the ground" Kurdistan state which technically doesn't exist, but because of our previous invasion of Iraq came into being? Maybe, we could just drop a whole lot of military personnel at bases in Turkey, without their permission, of course. I mean, this is what Friedman (and the whole cadre' of Republican candidates/former candidates/future candidates) seem to be implying.
As for helping places such as Tunisia or the facts-on-the-ground Kurdistan economically, socially, politically, I say great, but how? Buy their goods? Bolster their economies? Work to get them grants? Loans? Gifts? Include them in Peace Corps programs?
Or, should we...? In the last decade and a half, we've tried variations on all these ideas. Invasion, engagement, investment, and we have a bigger mess than before.
As for helping places such as Tunisia or the facts-on-the-ground Kurdistan economically, socially, politically, I say great, but how? Buy their goods? Bolster their economies? Work to get them grants? Loans? Gifts? Include them in Peace Corps programs?
Or, should we...? In the last decade and a half, we've tried variations on all these ideas. Invasion, engagement, investment, and we have a bigger mess than before.
1
Kurdistan and Tunisia: The last great stand of the Obama Mid East Doctrine?
What's wrong with this picture? The withdrawal of all American influence and leaving it in the hands of Iran and Russia that's what.
Wake up Mr. President find ways to influence Turkey to our thinking on the kurds and nurture the growing possibility of a Turkey-Israel rapprochement.
Find ways to influence the Palestinians and the Europeans and in fact the U.S. State Dept. from pushing a settlement on Israel it can't swallow. mend the rift with Netanyahu instead of fanning the flames.
Try to find ways before it becomes necessary to go back in and win for once.
What's wrong with this picture? The withdrawal of all American influence and leaving it in the hands of Iran and Russia that's what.
Wake up Mr. President find ways to influence Turkey to our thinking on the kurds and nurture the growing possibility of a Turkey-Israel rapprochement.
Find ways to influence the Palestinians and the Europeans and in fact the U.S. State Dept. from pushing a settlement on Israel it can't swallow. mend the rift with Netanyahu instead of fanning the flames.
Try to find ways before it becomes necessary to go back in and win for once.
So I take it we should have allied and armed Saddam, Qadafi and Assad? If the EU, Russia, Turkey, and Israel want to start a coalition then we can assist them. Until then I agree with my president. We are always on the brink of war and inevitably extinction. Maybe it's just programmed in our DNA not to evolve to a higher peaceful state of sustainable coexistence.
1
Well, here we go again...Friedman advocating another foray into the middle east. Seems that he has learned no lessons from the Iraq invasion debacle of GWB which he endorsed and I believe later retracted.
Does he not realize that the ISIS inspired terrorism in Belgium & France can be directly linked to the leader of that org. whose manifesto was developed in Iraqi jails during that invasion?
Even our punditry seems incapable of rational thought these days.
Does he not realize that the ISIS inspired terrorism in Belgium & France can be directly linked to the leader of that org. whose manifesto was developed in Iraqi jails during that invasion?
Even our punditry seems incapable of rational thought these days.
1
So this is not really an argument for boots on the ground, as I had thought. It's an argument for more aid to Tunisia and Kurdistan. Hard to argue against that, but easy to argue against the proposition that the President does not have the right to avoid wasting our troops' lives. The title and summary of the editorial are deceptive.
1
Thank you for providing this extensive insight into the state of Middle East politics, wars, terrorism, and U.S. involvement or lack thereof. People like Mr. Friedman and Richard Engel of NBC should be Obama's close advisers on Middle East policy. Obama's approach to dealing with ISIS and the disastrous state of the Middle East is the one area of his presidency that I view as a failure.
1
Of course the President has this right (to reduce the US involvement in the Middle East). That is precisely what the American people elected him in 2008 and again in 2012 to accomplish for us. A clearer electoral mandate has never been given to a US President.
1
Yes! The last time we invaded the Middle East wreaked havoc all over the region. What on earth would be accomplished by doing it again?
Also, how does another American war help end extremism among European citizens? Would they all of a sudden become moderate, secular people at the sight of more bombs falling, more people torn asunder?
Also, how does another American war help end extremism among European citizens? Would they all of a sudden become moderate, secular people at the sight of more bombs falling, more people torn asunder?
129
“America needs to constructively engage the Kurds, offer them conditional help and make them the partner that America deserves. Here, everyone listens to and likes America. [The Kurdish] people want America to protect them from Iran and Turkey.”
And how it is to be done? Troops on the ground had been tried already in 2003, and Mr. Friedman subsequently issued mea culpa regarding his support for Iraq's invasion
And while history repeats itself, so does Tom Friedman. One would only hope that this time around he suggests novel solution to the Middle East quagmire.
And how it is to be done? Troops on the ground had been tried already in 2003, and Mr. Friedman subsequently issued mea culpa regarding his support for Iraq's invasion
And while history repeats itself, so does Tom Friedman. One would only hope that this time around he suggests novel solution to the Middle East quagmire.
1
When someone can show me how our intervention in this area has helped in the past, then I would be willing to suggest the President adopt this strategy going forward. As it is, military intervention in this area has proved costly in American lives, in economic terms, and in terms of how we are viewed in the world with no positive result. There is little popular support for it. And for good reason.
188
FINALLY Mr. Friedman gets something right. I can see a faint light! Is that the end of the tunnel?
Unfortunately, the tunnel is slanting downward. Where we usually end up.....
I find it curious that Mr. Friedman takes the view that the U.S. has a responsibility to stabilize the EU. Don't Germany, France, the UK, Italy and all the other members have their own militaries? Isn't it in their interest to take action in the Middle East, which after all is at their doorstep and not ours. I understand that the EU is a strategic and commercial partner to the US. But if European leadership is so inept that it can't formulate a strategy and then execute it, should we send our children to die because of it?
206
Yes, the Europeans must take care of their affairs. But don't forget which action triggered the mess on Europe's doorstep. It was one heck of inept leadership, born out of a short-sighted American 'can-do' attitude, that created the mess that more 'passive' politicians must now contain rather than pouring fresh oil into the flames.
On Nov. 4, 2012, President Barack Obama said, "I said I would end the war in Iraq. I ended it." Well... he didn't. He just abandoned Iraq at a time that it made no sense to do so. Soon after the US left Iraq, ISIS, formerly a JV team, entered Iraq, grabbed nearly a billion dollars in cash, access to oil wells, and vast munitions, and morphed into a global menace killer.
4,000 US soldiers lost their lives to free places like Mosul from an insane dictator and Obama gave it to ISIS by abandoning post when he did. What would happen if we left Iraq was not only predictable it was predicted.
It is almost impossible to calculate the number of people who have died due to the fiasco of that US pullout, but it's a very large number and there is currently no end in sight. Now this global menace killer is driving millions of refugees into Europe, which is threatening at minimum a Brexit and at maximum the end of the European Union.
The stability the US was returning to Iraq and thereby the Middle East has been destroyed, and the ramifications will reverberate for generations in the form of human and economic disaster in the Middle East, the EU, and in the US. Like it or not, at this point that is Obama's foreign policy legacy.
4,000 US soldiers lost their lives to free places like Mosul from an insane dictator and Obama gave it to ISIS by abandoning post when he did. What would happen if we left Iraq was not only predictable it was predicted.
It is almost impossible to calculate the number of people who have died due to the fiasco of that US pullout, but it's a very large number and there is currently no end in sight. Now this global menace killer is driving millions of refugees into Europe, which is threatening at minimum a Brexit and at maximum the end of the European Union.
The stability the US was returning to Iraq and thereby the Middle East has been destroyed, and the ramifications will reverberate for generations in the form of human and economic disaster in the Middle East, the EU, and in the US. Like it or not, at this point that is Obama's foreign policy legacy.
1
"We can’t stabilize Iraq or Syria if their leaders won’t share power and stop looting." You could have said the Middle East instead of Iraq or Syria.
Just exactly how is President Obama supposed to do anything else over there without the support of the republican congress?
How can the U.S. give aid to Kurdistan or Turkey when McConnell and Ryan stand with folded arms and pouting lips saying No NO NOOO!?
Had we followed our invasion of Afghanistan with infrastructure building and systems building we could have left an image of America the builder instead of America the destroyer.
It is time for our national security teams to begin to think outside the box.
Just exactly how is President Obama supposed to do anything else over there without the support of the republican congress?
How can the U.S. give aid to Kurdistan or Turkey when McConnell and Ryan stand with folded arms and pouting lips saying No NO NOOO!?
Had we followed our invasion of Afghanistan with infrastructure building and systems building we could have left an image of America the builder instead of America the destroyer.
It is time for our national security teams to begin to think outside the box.
"....how to leave a unique legacy and secure a foothold for democracy … without invading."
Spoken like a true elitist. I don't care about Obama's unique legacy. And a foothold for democracy? You mean like the current faltering toehold of democracy in the US?
There is misery and death if the US intervenes (again, again, again, again) there is misery and death if it doesn't. The difference is that American soldiers don't die and American taxpayers don't waste yet more billions on the Middle East.
You say, 'That all sounds great on paper, until a terrorist attack like the one Tuesday in Brussels comes to our shores. Does the president have this right?'
How is thirty dead in Brussels somehow worth invasion, but twenty six dead in Sandy Hook merits a yawn? An-duh, a hundred seventy school shootings since Sandy Hook. You want to fight terrorism, start in your own backyard.
Spoken like a true elitist. I don't care about Obama's unique legacy. And a foothold for democracy? You mean like the current faltering toehold of democracy in the US?
There is misery and death if the US intervenes (again, again, again, again) there is misery and death if it doesn't. The difference is that American soldiers don't die and American taxpayers don't waste yet more billions on the Middle East.
You say, 'That all sounds great on paper, until a terrorist attack like the one Tuesday in Brussels comes to our shores. Does the president have this right?'
How is thirty dead in Brussels somehow worth invasion, but twenty six dead in Sandy Hook merits a yawn? An-duh, a hundred seventy school shootings since Sandy Hook. You want to fight terrorism, start in your own backyard.
2
One way to unify so many competing factions in the middle east is for the US to send a large occupying force there.
1
Throw some money at it, and Presto! Sounds like a shill who wants to funnel more money to "defense" contractors for "nation-building."
Friedman's solution to everything is sending it overseas: jobs, bombs, money, national sovereignty.
The best thing we can do as a people is take our country back from the hands of corporate oligarchy. Only then can we make the changes the world needs.
Friedman's solution to everything is sending it overseas: jobs, bombs, money, national sovereignty.
The best thing we can do as a people is take our country back from the hands of corporate oligarchy. Only then can we make the changes the world needs.
1
Where are our European allies in all of this? Europe is targeted and it is the United States that needs to put its troops on the line (again)? If sending troops into Syria is a good idea, how about Europe sends its troops in and we provide air cover and logistics?
There we go again. Soon we will read a column from Mr. Friedman telling us he was wrong. Too bad it will come long after other peoples children have lost their lives. Collateral damage? It is what it is and not of our kind. In a different context, Nancy Regan's admonition, used in a different context, had it right: Just say no! Unlike the likes of Clinton, Trump and Cruz, Obama has it right - he seems to lack the missionary zeal of telling people how to live.
1
President Obama is the first President since Carter with the courage to stand up to the neo cons, right wing Likud Party and way to influential A.I.P.A.C. He inherited not only the nightmare created by these people and those, including Friedman and Hillary Clinton, who encouraged and voted for the war of choice now destroying Europe but the Wall Street mess primarily attributable to the same forces. The American people should pray that we get Bernie as our next President because if the last few days have been any indication as we witness the groveling at the feet of A.I.P.A.C. by all the other candidates we are in big trouble as a nation.
3
On the basis of a comparatively peaceful seven years -- compared to the previous seven, which involved feckless interventions -- I trust President Obama and Secretary Kerry to make reasonable choices in bad situations. Not choices that will be certain successes, but reasonable choices. If President Obama is "not entirely wrong" now, have your judgments always been correct?
1
One of your best analysis of a complex situation. Agree with your points on Tunisia and the Kurds but do not think that Obama is wrong on the rest. If he would tweek his policy towards these two countries, I would be quite pleased but to call him out for speaking truth about Saudi, Iraq, Afgan, etc., etc., and so forth, is just plain wrong. The more complex issue will be exactly how we, WITH our European allies tackle the terror issue. We need Europe to do more and we need to add to that what the US as the super power can do. Obama has been correct that the minute the US takes unilateral action and puts boots on the ground, we do more harm than good. Between the Arab states that are our so-called allies and our real allies in Europe a plan of action should be taken with the US as well. If the Middle East countries won't or don't get on board, then we and Europe will have to go it alone.
Doesn't seem to me that our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan resulted in improvements in those countries. Meanwhile, our own countries problems suffer from neglect... white working people are dying faster, there is a scourge of Oxycontin-related drug abuse in the countryside, many of our urban areas still have lead-tainted water. The trillions we spent on Iraq & Afghanistan would have been better spent at home.
Syria and Libya teach me that the US cannot go it alone. Only a very united, pan-European/Asian commitment for 20 to 50 years can do anything.
Otherwise we just destroy our own country to pay for failure in our invasions.
Syria and Libya teach me that the US cannot go it alone. Only a very united, pan-European/Asian commitment for 20 to 50 years can do anything.
Otherwise we just destroy our own country to pay for failure in our invasions.
Mr. Friedman makes a point, but I don't think it's the one he intended.
Almost the entire article paints in vivid colors just how complex and indecipherable the politics - yes, politics - of the Mideast and SW Asia are. In Iraq, we toppled a brutal dictator and in exchange got a political structure rife with corruption, tribalism and sectarianism. In Libya, a repeat performance, but with tribal militias calling the shots. Afghanistan? Who knows, ultimately, but the outlook is heavily weighted in favor of a return of the Taliban. In Egypt, a military dictatorship.
In Syria, we began by supporting purported anti-Assad rebels, but soon learned that you can't tell the players without a scorecard, and there is no scorecard. Enter ISIS, and we find ourselves in the awkward position of having a similar goal - toppling Assad - but savaging each other in the process as a macabre sideshow: a "deces a trois".
Support for the Kurds would put us at loggerheads with Turkey and Iraq, both uncertain allies anyway. Support for Tunisia? In what form? How? Unclear.
President Obama has been exactly the right President at the right time, making a spirited effort to sort out the kaleidoscope of Mideast politics without committing thousands more in American lives and billions more in treasure in pursuit of a chimera.
Since the spirit of cooperation is almost as messy as the problem itself, Europe will have to deal with its terrorism problems, and we'll have to deal with ours.
Almost the entire article paints in vivid colors just how complex and indecipherable the politics - yes, politics - of the Mideast and SW Asia are. In Iraq, we toppled a brutal dictator and in exchange got a political structure rife with corruption, tribalism and sectarianism. In Libya, a repeat performance, but with tribal militias calling the shots. Afghanistan? Who knows, ultimately, but the outlook is heavily weighted in favor of a return of the Taliban. In Egypt, a military dictatorship.
In Syria, we began by supporting purported anti-Assad rebels, but soon learned that you can't tell the players without a scorecard, and there is no scorecard. Enter ISIS, and we find ourselves in the awkward position of having a similar goal - toppling Assad - but savaging each other in the process as a macabre sideshow: a "deces a trois".
Support for the Kurds would put us at loggerheads with Turkey and Iraq, both uncertain allies anyway. Support for Tunisia? In what form? How? Unclear.
President Obama has been exactly the right President at the right time, making a spirited effort to sort out the kaleidoscope of Mideast politics without committing thousands more in American lives and billions more in treasure in pursuit of a chimera.
Since the spirit of cooperation is almost as messy as the problem itself, Europe will have to deal with its terrorism problems, and we'll have to deal with ours.
1
I'll take Obama's approach over starting two foolish wars with trillions spent and millions dead, Mr. Friedman. Thats what we elected him for, let the Europeans and the rest fix their own problems, we've noticed our 'solutions' don't work. It's called wisdom over arrogance.
2
Mr. Friedman illustrates the wrongheadedness of his critique with the examples of the only two viable democratic societies in the Middle East, who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps - on their own. They need to sort themselves out, after which only can our assistance be of effective use.
We can't be thoughtlessly rushing into every situation there, and I fail to see how to have done so would have prevented the horrors in Brussels.
We can't be thoughtlessly rushing into every situation there, and I fail to see how to have done so would have prevented the horrors in Brussels.
3
Tom, thanks for this thought-provoking article. Your points convinced me otherwise, that Obama is on the right path. Since when do we need our military strength to do this job?
After all, how effective was the military in evolving democracy in Korea? For decades the South ran under brutal military dictatorships with the tacit backing of western military might!
Have military interventions in Iraq and Kuwait done any good for democracy? None whatsoever!
On the contrary if Tunisia and Kurdistan are to evolve as model of peaceful democracies in a hostile environment, they will have to do so with their own ideas, governance systems, and defence capabilities, but most importantly without external military involvement.
After all, how effective was the military in evolving democracy in Korea? For decades the South ran under brutal military dictatorships with the tacit backing of western military might!
Have military interventions in Iraq and Kuwait done any good for democracy? None whatsoever!
On the contrary if Tunisia and Kurdistan are to evolve as model of peaceful democracies in a hostile environment, they will have to do so with their own ideas, governance systems, and defence capabilities, but most importantly without external military involvement.
1
President Obama has it right, so the answer is yes. Your observation that Tunisia and Iraqi Kurdistan now have fledgling democracies that they themselves have started to develop is the whole point. They are doing it. We are not involved, nor should we be, because surely we will mess everything up, as we have so badly done in the Middle East.
Obama is not an apologist for George W. Bush, he is just quietly trying to extricate this country from the horror visited on the Middle East by that ex-President.
Democracies can not be imposed, they are desired, fought for, and hopefully eventually won by the people who hunger for them. it is arrogant to think we can impose democracy in the Middle East, whether or not it is desired by the people who live there. I think the Middle East has had quite enough of our "intervention" to spread and secure democracy there.
Obama is not an apologist for George W. Bush, he is just quietly trying to extricate this country from the horror visited on the Middle East by that ex-President.
Democracies can not be imposed, they are desired, fought for, and hopefully eventually won by the people who hunger for them. it is arrogant to think we can impose democracy in the Middle East, whether or not it is desired by the people who live there. I think the Middle East has had quite enough of our "intervention" to spread and secure democracy there.
1
Mr. Friedman, you ought to be ashamed! You are the very same person who advocated George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, which topped Saddam Hussein, disbanded the Iraqi Army, empowered Iran, unleashed Shiite reprisals on the Iraqi Sunni majority, and led directly to the rise of ISIL/ISIS and the debacle we're witnessing today. You always advocate neoconservative intervention and look what it gets us--DISASTER! When will pundits like you learn that we cannot keep invading countries, bombing people to smithereens, and leaving messes in our wake, and then expect that we won't see horrible outcomes? I abhor Islamicism and the terrorists, but I also find it appalling that pundits like you, from your lofty perch, constantly advocate for ever more war without apparently ever thinking ahead to what the results might be.
4
War is not the answer to these problems. As serious as these attacks are, they are much less lethal than what Europe saw during WWII. Sending the military in with a vague mission to search and destroy is likely to deplete and degrade our resources much more than it is likely to stem the tide of refugees or stop jihad attacks. Sending the military in in the name of doing something is likely to be futile. We are doing a lot. I'm not sure what will work; we may need to to do something new to infiltrate these networks. Was it not the Gauls who sacked Rome?
2
It is becoming increasingly clear that the MidEastern mess can only be cleaned up by the Arab world. Any Western invasion only stokes more terrorists. So, how does Saudi Arabia do it? They clearly do not want to -- prefer leaving that to the U.S. and the West. Can we force them to take action, perhaps with credible threats that if they fail to do so, we will go in but in ways they cannot accept.
1
We should remember, Obama was initially elected with the commitment to acknowledge, that Americans were war weary. Our track record of influencing much less winning wars we start is no stellar. The carnage in Paris and Brussels is indeed horrible. Everyone with a heart feels for these innocent victims and their families. With that said, does anyone really believe we can prevent these type events. If with all our military power, if we elect not to destroy our enemies, why bother. And yes we have all the oil we need. I give Obama credit for understanding Israel will never be at peace. I can find no rationalization for US flag draped caskets to again be coming home.
2
Supporting emerging democracies benefits the US in the long run, as a world of democracies would be a more peaceful place. Democracies once seeded need time to flourish with internal institutions to cement the democracy. The US is losing a present opportunity to help Tunisia and Iraq Kurdistan flourish, and provide a model that could spread throughout the region.
War could be a long term solution to the region, but the US would have to maintain a strong presence for many decades, as the US did in Germany & Japan after the Second World War. At this point in time, with the US commitment by President Bush to this policy and the opposite by President Obama, this policy is not a long term solution. Also, given the size of the region, this strategy would drain – if not bankrupt -- the US before reaching conclusion.
Encouraging and supporting democracies throughout the world, and not just the middle east, is the ideal the US should live up to in the world.
War could be a long term solution to the region, but the US would have to maintain a strong presence for many decades, as the US did in Germany & Japan after the Second World War. At this point in time, with the US commitment by President Bush to this policy and the opposite by President Obama, this policy is not a long term solution. Also, given the size of the region, this strategy would drain – if not bankrupt -- the US before reaching conclusion.
Encouraging and supporting democracies throughout the world, and not just the middle east, is the ideal the US should live up to in the world.
1
One does not have to be a neocon to state Obama has gotten very little right whatsoever. Historians will likely find Obama's cavalier indifference and hasty withdrawal from Iraq will be responsible for more bloodshed than Bush's questionable decision to go in in the first place.
The Iran deal is an example of the evil that can be done by naifs and incompetents. $150 billion more for Iran to finance the blowing of limbs off of children -- this is not some abstract figure, as the MSM constantly mentions it in passing. Real human suffering will occur because of this nonsense. What was the raison d'etre of the Iran deal? The false choice that another neocon war was the only other option. Whereas in fact Obama has helped legitimize and strengthen the hardliners leading Iran -- even as he went studiously silent when all those brave young people marched in 2009 in the Iranian streets.
Obama is incapable of genuine gut-level outrage at any un-PC atrocity. Hence the Paris massacre was the merest "setback", clearly paining him to condemn, whereas he has spilt copious more words denigrating the nation's police.
The Iran deal is an example of the evil that can be done by naifs and incompetents. $150 billion more for Iran to finance the blowing of limbs off of children -- this is not some abstract figure, as the MSM constantly mentions it in passing. Real human suffering will occur because of this nonsense. What was the raison d'etre of the Iran deal? The false choice that another neocon war was the only other option. Whereas in fact Obama has helped legitimize and strengthen the hardliners leading Iran -- even as he went studiously silent when all those brave young people marched in 2009 in the Iranian streets.
Obama is incapable of genuine gut-level outrage at any un-PC atrocity. Hence the Paris massacre was the merest "setback", clearly paining him to condemn, whereas he has spilt copious more words denigrating the nation's police.
1
Iran has nothing to do with Isis and the bombings in Europe. Obamas policy on Iran is the correct one.
2
If this is a European problem - then let countries of Europe pay for it and sort it out. Our treasury has been bled dry by this insane military adventurism.
Tom Friedman - World Cop at your service.
And by the way, if this was the action of two crazy individuals then exactly what is the business plan for the invasion? Kill a lot of people who had nothing to do with this to "teach those muzzies a lesson?"
What next? Are we going to invade Oregon and Colorado because they have terrorists who engage in mass murder too?
We certainly aren't going to pass responsible gun laws - noooo - that would ruin everything.
Your column is sad, pathetic and utterly misguided.
Tom Friedman - World Cop at your service.
And by the way, if this was the action of two crazy individuals then exactly what is the business plan for the invasion? Kill a lot of people who had nothing to do with this to "teach those muzzies a lesson?"
What next? Are we going to invade Oregon and Colorado because they have terrorists who engage in mass murder too?
We certainly aren't going to pass responsible gun laws - noooo - that would ruin everything.
Your column is sad, pathetic and utterly misguided.
5
We have spent trillions trying to (de)stabilize the Middle East and have lost and maimed tens of thousands of our soldiers. How much has the EU spent? How far in dept have they gone? Maybe it is time for the EU do deal with these problems themselves instead of expecting Uncle Sugar to solve the worlds problems.
4
The reason that there is a favorable environment for terrorism in Europe is the almost complete failure of these countries to integrate their Muslim immigrants into society. It has very little to do with the ME. Multiculturalism has failed. This failure may be due to the feckless Euro governments, the racism of its people or the intractable nature of the immigrants but, whatever the cause, the US has no responsibility for this failure, much less Obama. These countries have to take responsibility for their own failures and find their own solutions.
5
Given that bin Laden wanted endless ground wars in the Mideast, and that the goal of these terrorists is to draw us deeper into the quagmire, the short answer is, "Yes, he has it right." Why are our foreign policy wonks always eager to do exactly what terrorists want us to do? There is zero reason to believe any military action we take can have anything other than a short-term occupation of territory.
5
Its amusing watching the incredibly talented NYT columnists try to contort and dance around the 800lb gorilla in the room; namely obama's failure to enforce his red lines in syria, which showed iran, russia and assad that obama was all talk/smoke and no substance - giving them a free hand to carpet bomb the syrian population, 85% of which is sunni oppressed by the assad ruling minority, into oblivion.
By not inserting a NATO-protected safe haven in northern syria as he was recommended by most of his more intelligent staff, he created the massive wave of arab muslim migrants to leave syria as they were left with a choice of staying and eating russian bombs or alawite militia bayonnets. Once in Turkey, they figured, "well, there's lots of freebies in n. europe so let's go there." Had the red lines speech been enforced, and assad liquidated or pushed into a corner, it would not have created the opening for russia to step in and helping slaughter the syrian population driving them out of the country.
But unlike Tom and the rest of the NYT I am not a shill/PR flack for the national democratic party and obama, so I do not have to couch my comments in soothing pablum nonsense and oblique statements.
By not inserting a NATO-protected safe haven in northern syria as he was recommended by most of his more intelligent staff, he created the massive wave of arab muslim migrants to leave syria as they were left with a choice of staying and eating russian bombs or alawite militia bayonnets. Once in Turkey, they figured, "well, there's lots of freebies in n. europe so let's go there." Had the red lines speech been enforced, and assad liquidated or pushed into a corner, it would not have created the opening for russia to step in and helping slaughter the syrian population driving them out of the country.
But unlike Tom and the rest of the NYT I am not a shill/PR flack for the national democratic party and obama, so I do not have to couch my comments in soothing pablum nonsense and oblique statements.
Question for Obama supporters:
Obama is a two term president. He has no election in 2016 to campaign for. Obama hasn't endorsed either Democratic candidate and we are weeks from the GOP convention.
Why hasn't Obama gone on national television in 2016 to say what the 2008 Obama said repeatedly? The Middle East is a mess, Bush ruined everything, the US military can't fix this so we are bringing our troops home and ending America's role as world police? If its so intractable, impossible to win the war against ISIS militarily, why not say so and prove it, instead of sending 50 combat troops here, ordering airstrikes there, and continuing the US neocon footprint in a region that we cannot save?
Why can't Obama be honest with the American people?
You realize he's playing both sides against the middle--deploying US combat troops on neocon nation building escapades Obama ridiculed in 2007-2008 as a candidate, while using the media's refusal to tell us anything about Obama's covert war games, drone strikes and neocon doings until they're leaked from the Pentagon by people fed up with Obama's act.
Why can't Obama come clean with the public, tell us why he's still sending combat troops, fighting proxy wars and bogging America down in the Middle East? It's not making us safer, it's not in our national security interests, and most importantly its only costing us lives.
Obama is a worthless con artist.
Obama is a two term president. He has no election in 2016 to campaign for. Obama hasn't endorsed either Democratic candidate and we are weeks from the GOP convention.
Why hasn't Obama gone on national television in 2016 to say what the 2008 Obama said repeatedly? The Middle East is a mess, Bush ruined everything, the US military can't fix this so we are bringing our troops home and ending America's role as world police? If its so intractable, impossible to win the war against ISIS militarily, why not say so and prove it, instead of sending 50 combat troops here, ordering airstrikes there, and continuing the US neocon footprint in a region that we cannot save?
Why can't Obama be honest with the American people?
You realize he's playing both sides against the middle--deploying US combat troops on neocon nation building escapades Obama ridiculed in 2007-2008 as a candidate, while using the media's refusal to tell us anything about Obama's covert war games, drone strikes and neocon doings until they're leaked from the Pentagon by people fed up with Obama's act.
Why can't Obama come clean with the public, tell us why he's still sending combat troops, fighting proxy wars and bogging America down in the Middle East? It's not making us safer, it's not in our national security interests, and most importantly its only costing us lives.
Obama is a worthless con artist.
4
The problem is that if we intervene militarily, it is the fact of that intervention that becomes the primary issue among residents of the region -- whatever it was that occasioned our entry becomes irrelevant. And let's face it, our track record, e.g., in Iran (the toppling of Mossadegh), Vietnam and Iraq, has not exactly been stellar. Bulls should stay away from China shops.
4
To me, the cascade of comments defending Obama and criticizing Friedman are as bad on the left as is the Republican echo chamber on the right. If we Democrats, Obama supporters, are not willing to look within ourselves and within our party, our leaders, and at least consider that something isn't working, we simply perpetuate the problem in the same way as we see our opposition on the right doing. At least, we have to be willing to consider that just letting go of the wheel and letting all hell break loose may not be the most intelligent, nor the most compassionate policy that this country could embark on at this time. For heaven's sake, at least think about it.
1
We did more than think about it. US bombs killed 40 militants today, wounded 25 yesterday in South East Yemen at terrorist training camps. I really am astonished at the attempt to portray this administration as inactive in directing military action against camps and facilities run by Al-Q. In addition to the annual exercise which brings training in military air-drops and security and humanitarian/medical aid, continued surveillance and action occurs. Daily.
Friedman is certainly right that Europe is vital to the security interests of the U.S. Since this is so, and the migrant crisis is threatening the security of Europe, as well as its economic and cultural stability, why isn't Nato more seriously involved in stemming the flow of migrants? Instead of a dubious attempt to bribe Turkey to do this, Nato should be putting pressure on Turkey, a Nato member, to stop the flow. This should be part of Turkey's obligation, as a Nato member, to protect the security of the European Nato countries, starting with Greece but also,obviously, including Germany. This is not happening because the U.S. is not pushing for it. Obama needs to get actively involved in this. The Europeans under Merkel are deluded about the migrant crisis, and they are floundering. It is past time for the U.S. to assert its leadership.
2
"After all, the president indicated, more Americans are killed each year slipping in bathtubs or running into deer with their cars than by any terrorists, so we need to stop wanting to invade the Middle East in response to every threat. That all sounds great on paper, until a terrorist attack like the one Tuesday in Brussels comes to our shores."
Q: Does the president have this right?
A: Absolutely! When/if we are terrorized, it is exactly at that time when our leaders, e.g. President Obama, need to reassure us that rational, fact-based decisions will carry the day. That steady progress will be made in our security, but that security will be reasonable and balanced, and can be pursued while many other much more important and relevant priorities are simultaneously pursued.
The analysis re. Iraq and Tunisia and Kurdistan is interesting and useful. But fundamentally I wanted to express my own answer to Friedman's general question, and thank President Obama for resisting the trap that so many other politicians (e.g. the entire GOP) fall headlong into-- fighting terrorists on their terms, dragging us into endless and circular "war".
Q: Does the president have this right?
A: Absolutely! When/if we are terrorized, it is exactly at that time when our leaders, e.g. President Obama, need to reassure us that rational, fact-based decisions will carry the day. That steady progress will be made in our security, but that security will be reasonable and balanced, and can be pursued while many other much more important and relevant priorities are simultaneously pursued.
The analysis re. Iraq and Tunisia and Kurdistan is interesting and useful. But fundamentally I wanted to express my own answer to Friedman's general question, and thank President Obama for resisting the trap that so many other politicians (e.g. the entire GOP) fall headlong into-- fighting terrorists on their terms, dragging us into endless and circular "war".
9
The leaders of the region, Europe and the world condem Isis but are collectively willing to allow thirty to forty thousand low tech fighters to hold their territory as a base from which to terrorize the world. No one feels threatened enough to act decisively. The chief spokesman for this position is our president. The problem with his thinking is that bath tub deaths do not have the potential to distabelize whole regions and alter our lives. What's missing is leadership-his leadership.
Somebody around here has been trumpeting Kurdish independence for a long time. Im glad to see some folks get on the bandwagon, even if they dont come out and directly say so. Trudy Rubin of the Phila Inquirer is also becoming aware that the Kurds can be an even more viable self sustaining, economically and militarily, entity, that deserves western support.
2
Wrong. The US is where it is because of stupid foreign interventions. Barzani is not going to give up any of his power short of a revolution. Which as you say could happen. Another middle east strongman killing his own people to stay in power. Where have we heard that before? Libya, Iraq and Syria are all examples of wrong headed ignorant interventions. Where does it all end. My guess when Freidman gets his real wish, regime change in Moscow. ISIS is not going to go away even if the US invades Syria. Just the other day there was a hue and cry the US should attack Assad. Innocents are suffering and bullies are running rampage because well meaning pundits were calling for an intervention. The problem in Belgium is because interventions caused jihadists to rush to Syria. They have a local history that goes along with their terrorist activities.
3
You quoted: "'What happened to this $700 billion? We are asking this from the heart.'"
That really is the heart of the matter, isn't it? Where's the money?
We, the People cannot afford to continually pick up the tab for the Arab/Muslims states who can well afford to be giving economic, technical, and yes, even military aid to the emerging nations. When there is a functioning coalition of governments actually supporting these places and vetting the use of the funds, there is no reason why We, the People should be propping up baksheesh.
And yes, We, the People, should be supporting the emergence of Tunisia, but not alone. Yes, help them establish their economy. Yes, provide aid and assistance for infrastructure that will benefit ALL Tunisians. But that aid should be doubled or tripled with funds from the so-called allies.
President Obama may be the only one who actually understands this is not free money. And that funding has to come from someplace. We, the People, elected No-Drama Obama for exactly this reason. We needed a cooler head than the one we had.
The world needs help and the US will always be an integral part of that structure, but we are not a one-country show. And Sheikh Abdullah Humedi Ajeel al-Yawar said it most eloquently. Maybe we should listen more closely to the answer he did or did not get.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
That really is the heart of the matter, isn't it? Where's the money?
We, the People cannot afford to continually pick up the tab for the Arab/Muslims states who can well afford to be giving economic, technical, and yes, even military aid to the emerging nations. When there is a functioning coalition of governments actually supporting these places and vetting the use of the funds, there is no reason why We, the People should be propping up baksheesh.
And yes, We, the People, should be supporting the emergence of Tunisia, but not alone. Yes, help them establish their economy. Yes, provide aid and assistance for infrastructure that will benefit ALL Tunisians. But that aid should be doubled or tripled with funds from the so-called allies.
President Obama may be the only one who actually understands this is not free money. And that funding has to come from someplace. We, the People, elected No-Drama Obama for exactly this reason. We needed a cooler head than the one we had.
The world needs help and the US will always be an integral part of that structure, but we are not a one-country show. And Sheikh Abdullah Humedi Ajeel al-Yawar said it most eloquently. Maybe we should listen more closely to the answer he did or did not get.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
181
I think Mr. Friedman's second paragraph is pretty accurate:
"Obama’s primary goal seems to be to get out of office being able to say that he had shrunk America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, prevented our involvement on the ground in Syria and Libya, and taught Americans the limits of our ability to fix things we don’t understand, in countries whose leaders we don’t trust, whose fates do not impact us as much as they once did."
Except unlike Mr. Friedman and Mr. Cohen, I think these are worthy goals that should not change despite the horror of these horrible European attacks"
If Europe and the moderate elements of Arab societies want to be the driver on land wars in the Middle East to drive out ISIL, I do believe we should join them vigorously, but we simply should not be the drivers of these policies and their chief architect. The financial cost is enormous and it seems clear that our role of being the great satan increased the intensity of these terrorist actions.
The 20th century should have taught us that the idea of a war to end all wars is one of humankind greatest delusions. War just c re a true s more war. WE cannot point to horrific terrorists actions as a reason to abandon reason. Horrific actions will always exist as long as human beings are as confused as they seem to be.
We are one people living on one vulnerable planet. When we get it, we should act with greater concern for each other. Until then... there is horror in one form or another.
"Obama’s primary goal seems to be to get out of office being able to say that he had shrunk America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, prevented our involvement on the ground in Syria and Libya, and taught Americans the limits of our ability to fix things we don’t understand, in countries whose leaders we don’t trust, whose fates do not impact us as much as they once did."
Except unlike Mr. Friedman and Mr. Cohen, I think these are worthy goals that should not change despite the horror of these horrible European attacks"
If Europe and the moderate elements of Arab societies want to be the driver on land wars in the Middle East to drive out ISIL, I do believe we should join them vigorously, but we simply should not be the drivers of these policies and their chief architect. The financial cost is enormous and it seems clear that our role of being the great satan increased the intensity of these terrorist actions.
The 20th century should have taught us that the idea of a war to end all wars is one of humankind greatest delusions. War just c re a true s more war. WE cannot point to horrific terrorists actions as a reason to abandon reason. Horrific actions will always exist as long as human beings are as confused as they seem to be.
We are one people living on one vulnerable planet. When we get it, we should act with greater concern for each other. Until then... there is horror in one form or another.
I seem to recall that the European countries have armies and warplanes and soldiers and are relatively closely proximate the Middle East. So is Russia. Shouldn't they would be running in to quell the tempest? Or how about that EU wannabe Turkey? The Turkish armed forces seem to be staying for the most part on their side of the border with Syria in spite of their own spate of terrorist attacks. They are right there and can't seem to figure out who their most serious enemy is.
I personally don't think it's worth American lives or treasure to tamp warring tribes down unless it can done effectively and remotely. And if that's not completely effective, then work harder on the mechanism. After all, if you really think about it, it's all about anger management. And that's a chemical problem.
I personally don't think it's worth American lives or treasure to tamp warring tribes down unless it can done effectively and remotely. And if that's not completely effective, then work harder on the mechanism. After all, if you really think about it, it's all about anger management. And that's a chemical problem.
The Kurds have always had a penchant for blood feuds and the inability to understand compromise in their dealings with each other.
I am completely with President Obama.
If we invaded and occupied Syria then what and for how long?
Syria is just another fight in the centuries old fight between Sunni and Shia.
Europe is very rich and able to provide its citizens with a sagety net that we cannot afford because we protect them and they refuse to undertake the harsh measures necessary in surveilance and sentencing.
They can afford to absorb the refugees but lack the political will..
I am completely with President Obama.
If we invaded and occupied Syria then what and for how long?
Syria is just another fight in the centuries old fight between Sunni and Shia.
Europe is very rich and able to provide its citizens with a sagety net that we cannot afford because we protect them and they refuse to undertake the harsh measures necessary in surveilance and sentencing.
They can afford to absorb the refugees but lack the political will..
1
To answer the main question, yes, President Obama has the right. I find it disappointing that Mr. Friedman, a supporter of the Bush-Cheney debacle in Iraq, an act for which the world continues to pay a price, even asks the question. He sounds like a member of the Republican Party.
Obama has done great and important things, and he would have done more great things if his administration hadn't been compelled to govern in a vacuum. The do-nothing GOP harms us more every day than any terrorist. No terrorist group will ever be able to seize the United States.
The U.S. military is assisting in the Middle East at the level that it should be. Re-entering that desert snake pit with a full-scale invasion would be lunacy.
The point of terrorism is to sow fear. It seems that Mr. Friedman is the one who's afraid.
Obama has done great and important things, and he would have done more great things if his administration hadn't been compelled to govern in a vacuum. The do-nothing GOP harms us more every day than any terrorist. No terrorist group will ever be able to seize the United States.
The U.S. military is assisting in the Middle East at the level that it should be. Re-entering that desert snake pit with a full-scale invasion would be lunacy.
The point of terrorism is to sow fear. It seems that Mr. Friedman is the one who's afraid.
1
Would troops in Syria have prevented the Middle East migration? No the Iraq war started that and the refugees also include this fleeing Afghanistan. The crisis started long before President Obama came to office. The ISIS terrorists in Belgium lived there for years - they are not refugee transplants. We have the technology to detect explosives and guns - we just need to use it in transportation centers. Let us not forget N Ireland - another seat of religious conflict. Yes the Middle East needs to get its house in order. Oh yes - Mr. Trump loves Dubai and its opulence - built by cheap foreign labor. And a source of contention for the poor of the Middle East. The Presidential candidates need a history lesson - And The Cruz family has a long time interest in oil - the reason his parents were in Canada - not poor immigrants but both well educated. So oil and profits unite the Republicans yet again.
Our country has fanned the flames of the conflagrations that are at the heart refugee and terrorist crises we now face, if not actually starting the fires in the first place, for 30 years or more, precisely by invading foreign countries. Do you truly believe that more invasions will fix those things?
We've mettled in the affairs of of others far too much. I'd rather see us convert a large part our war machine to a solar power component building machine, finish beefing up the electrical grid to handle it, and wave to the Arabs from afar.
We've mettled in the affairs of of others far too much. I'd rather see us convert a large part our war machine to a solar power component building machine, finish beefing up the electrical grid to handle it, and wave to the Arabs from afar.
1
I love reading Thomas Friedman, however occasionally, he get lost in his own doubts.
One of the virtues we most admire in a human being is consistency, especially when it comes to leading a country, we can agree with the position of President Obama in the middle east or not, what we can not denied, is the coherence he has shown during his administration.
One of the virtues we most admire in a human being is consistency, especially when it comes to leading a country, we can agree with the position of President Obama in the middle east or not, what we can not denied, is the coherence he has shown during his administration.
2
Tom, with all sympathies to victims everywhere, the US is not the guarantor of the world's safety, especially in countries where they have done too little to defend themselves.
You IDd the rise of 'super-empowered individuals' in Lexus and the Olive Tree, and they will remain a durable, global scourge for the foreseeable future. Obama has done the blood-and-treasure calculations in advance, and I think he's right -- I don't see that arithmetic in your column (or Roger Cohen's). What's it worth -- how many, Tom -- and how much?
Moreover, it's worth considering that these suicide attacks are a weekly occurrence in the middle east itself, with similarly tragic results. Do we reserve our empathies only for ourselves and northern Europeans?
You IDd the rise of 'super-empowered individuals' in Lexus and the Olive Tree, and they will remain a durable, global scourge for the foreseeable future. Obama has done the blood-and-treasure calculations in advance, and I think he's right -- I don't see that arithmetic in your column (or Roger Cohen's). What's it worth -- how many, Tom -- and how much?
Moreover, it's worth considering that these suicide attacks are a weekly occurrence in the middle east itself, with similarly tragic results. Do we reserve our empathies only for ourselves and northern Europeans?
1
What you are seeing throughout the Middle East is end result of corruption in the name of religion. In this case Islam.
Why should we think it would be any better in the United States, should the likes of Ted Cruz have their way and insinuate religion even further into every crevice of the Constitution. While we might not see public executions by decapitation, hanging, and mass drownings...oh, wait, I'm describing events in what is now New England before the Constitution came into being. When "freedom of religion" had only the meaning that you were free to embrace only my religion.
Surely Mr. Cruz wouldn't countenance such actions merely because an otherwise upstanding and productive citizen refuses to profess belief in the invisible omnipotence in the sky, or attend services twice on Sunday and at least once during the week. Not at the start.
Perhaps President Obama is afflicted with realistic thinking instead of the magical thinking so pervasive across America today.
Why should we think it would be any better in the United States, should the likes of Ted Cruz have their way and insinuate religion even further into every crevice of the Constitution. While we might not see public executions by decapitation, hanging, and mass drownings...oh, wait, I'm describing events in what is now New England before the Constitution came into being. When "freedom of religion" had only the meaning that you were free to embrace only my religion.
Surely Mr. Cruz wouldn't countenance such actions merely because an otherwise upstanding and productive citizen refuses to profess belief in the invisible omnipotence in the sky, or attend services twice on Sunday and at least once during the week. Not at the start.
Perhaps President Obama is afflicted with realistic thinking instead of the magical thinking so pervasive across America today.
3
This article is unusual for Mr. Friedman because of its lack of logic. He simply did not think it through. On the one hand, he says that the U. S. should establish some kind of "safe" zone in Syria (even though he complains we cannot establish some kind of safe zone even in Europe). Then he says we can do much good without an invasion. How in the world could a safe zone be established in Syria without an invasion?
2
Every time these columnists travel abroad, Friedman, Cohen and Kristof, something happens to their brains. They project to the countries they are visiting that America is the solver of all their problems. Having committed to their hosts that angle, they turn towards Obama and dump all their anxieties, complaints, whinings on him and him alone. waa waa they cry from abroad. They project America's self image and then they want Obama to fix it.
1
It seems reasonable to invest more in Tunisia and Kurdistan, but Friedman shouldn't second guess himself about Syria. It's a quagmire without clear US interests and Obama was right not to get overly involved. Have patience, the Islamic state is untenable and it's losing more and more ground every day.
Furthermore, the immigration/terrorism crisis is not an existential threat to the individual nations of Europe (though it's obviously destabilizing and depressing). The huge majority of European Muslims and refugees aren't terrorists and have no inclination towards terrorism... and the one's that do, well the crackdown has already begun...
The European economic union may dissolve, and the countries may revert back to policing their own borders, but it's far from clear that that isn't a preferable outcome to Europe's current interdependent economic malaise and over reliance on US military power. In fact, it is far more likely that post Paris/Brussels Europe may very well play a more active role in global security and will almost certainly increase their moribund defense/intelligence capabilities. That's not to take anything away from the tragedy these countries have endured... but this kind of trauma tends to focus the mind towards the will to fight...
Furthermore, the immigration/terrorism crisis is not an existential threat to the individual nations of Europe (though it's obviously destabilizing and depressing). The huge majority of European Muslims and refugees aren't terrorists and have no inclination towards terrorism... and the one's that do, well the crackdown has already begun...
The European economic union may dissolve, and the countries may revert back to policing their own borders, but it's far from clear that that isn't a preferable outcome to Europe's current interdependent economic malaise and over reliance on US military power. In fact, it is far more likely that post Paris/Brussels Europe may very well play a more active role in global security and will almost certainly increase their moribund defense/intelligence capabilities. That's not to take anything away from the tragedy these countries have endured... but this kind of trauma tends to focus the mind towards the will to fight...
1
A helpful start would be to ban any discussion of a president's legacy until 20 years after office. Obama is clearly afraid to take an action that he believes will damage history's view.
He has badly miscalculated. "Leading from behind" is an obvious failure that directly led to refugees inundating Europe. Coupled with tone deaf Merkel our European "partners" are in real trouble.
10 more months.
He has badly miscalculated. "Leading from behind" is an obvious failure that directly led to refugees inundating Europe. Coupled with tone deaf Merkel our European "partners" are in real trouble.
10 more months.
Terrorists are in Africa, Asia, Europe and widely throughout the Middle East, an unfixable region. This is not going away in my lifetime and, unfortunately, most likely not my granddaughters'. Yes, we need different strategies. All the Republican candidates say: "I'll go in with enough force to get the job done, then get out." What country would they like to start in, what's enough force, with whose sons and daughters (thousands already dead, tens of thousands damaged) and just when and how do they think they'll "get out"?
A new strategies require redefining the problem. Radical Islam and u democratic regimes are not going away. Let's do trade and commerce through as many opportunities as we can create (and, yes, that includes Iran and Russia).
We're good at that kind of business, not at running other countries, or even propping them up. Thomas L. Friedman is not advocating invasion. Can anyone tell me, in practical actions, he is recommending here?
A new strategies require redefining the problem. Radical Islam and u democratic regimes are not going away. Let's do trade and commerce through as many opportunities as we can create (and, yes, that includes Iran and Russia).
We're good at that kind of business, not at running other countries, or even propping them up. Thomas L. Friedman is not advocating invasion. Can anyone tell me, in practical actions, he is recommending here?
We cannot go invading every country with internal problems - even when the internal problems are as large and varied as Syria's.
You write, "The E.U. is America’s most important economic and strategic partner and the other great center of democratic capitalism." Let Europe expend its blood & treasure to work with other countries in the Middle East on solving the problems in Syria and neighboring countries. Of course, we can provide lots of support to those efforts but we need to push them to take the lead.
You write, "The E.U. is America’s most important economic and strategic partner and the other great center of democratic capitalism." Let Europe expend its blood & treasure to work with other countries in the Middle East on solving the problems in Syria and neighboring countries. Of course, we can provide lots of support to those efforts but we need to push them to take the lead.
The devil is in the details. Once again Tom wants the US to "invade" to save a fledgling democracy. Yet there is not a word of what we could or should do to help or build on these fledgling democracies to make them "blooming" (or boom-ing) democracies like the one Tom encouraged W to build in 2003. How easily we forget. If there is one thing which is certain it looks like some (maybe most) people are looking for a dictator even here in the US. Maybe we should work to save our own democracy.
1
I'm sorry but this is utter non-sense - your proposal is basically "sort of in" "sort of out and hope that it works. Obama chose to stay out - which was what the majority of Americans demanded.
These are corrupt cultures that are disintegrating. To help these cultures requires a great deal of money, time, and death. The biggest failure has been that we allowed the despots of the middle east to take the single resource that can help them (Oil) and use it against us. We should have controlled this resource and rebuilt the country or recouped our loses with this money.
Despite his craziness Trump is correct. We left the Middle East with NOTHING. We do not have security, we do not have allies, we do not have control of the oil. We have terrorism, instability, and resentment.
Kurdistan and Tunisia need help. Particularly the Kurds. I would argue that if both of these countries were 100% stable and democratic is would not make one bit of difference to the problems in the region . These are two irrelevant countries compared to the power brokers that are causing this chaos.
These are corrupt cultures that are disintegrating. To help these cultures requires a great deal of money, time, and death. The biggest failure has been that we allowed the despots of the middle east to take the single resource that can help them (Oil) and use it against us. We should have controlled this resource and rebuilt the country or recouped our loses with this money.
Despite his craziness Trump is correct. We left the Middle East with NOTHING. We do not have security, we do not have allies, we do not have control of the oil. We have terrorism, instability, and resentment.
Kurdistan and Tunisia need help. Particularly the Kurds. I would argue that if both of these countries were 100% stable and democratic is would not make one bit of difference to the problems in the region . These are two irrelevant countries compared to the power brokers that are causing this chaos.
1
Does the President have this right? In a word----Yes. Mr. Friedman is ready to cheer for another invasion in the middle east, but has nothing more than a question mark justifying more death, destruction, and mayhem generated on the American taxpayer's dime. Despite Friedman's enthusiasm for the past two wars in the middle east, no real benefits to our nation or its security were gained. However, I can think of a lot of losses (personal and financial) that will never be undone. Mr. Obama is sufficiently patient and wise to understand that any new troops on the ground or bombs from our Air Force in the middle east will generate just as much good (i.e. none) as those prior two wars generated---and would almost certainly give birth to even more terrorists such as those who attacked Belgium this week. Mr. Friedman should take a nap----which would be far better for our nation than writing this kind of misguided commentary.
7
I am shocked at how little you seem to understand of what Obama is doing or actually accomplished. Your simple minded analysis seems more fit for a Rightwing politician then anything resembling thoughtful insight.
Fifty years, or more correctly a century, of policy that have turned the Middle east from bad to progressively worse. Instead of what Jimmy Carter proposed as the "moral equivalent of war on energy" in the aftermath of the Arab oil embargo we got the Reagan/Bush/Bush policies of getting us deeper and deeper associated with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states that have been the breeding grounds for extremism. Propping up tyrants for the sake of cheap oil has been a dismal failure.
Obama's policy is simple, make the middle east take control over its own future. American boots on the ground have proven an horrific failure in Iraq and only took a horrible situation and made it worse. Unless and until the Middle East stands up for its own future there is little hope that we can impose it on them.
for the sake [independence" in the aftermath of the
Fifty years, or more correctly a century, of policy that have turned the Middle east from bad to progressively worse. Instead of what Jimmy Carter proposed as the "moral equivalent of war on energy" in the aftermath of the Arab oil embargo we got the Reagan/Bush/Bush policies of getting us deeper and deeper associated with Saudi Arabia and other Arab states that have been the breeding grounds for extremism. Propping up tyrants for the sake of cheap oil has been a dismal failure.
Obama's policy is simple, make the middle east take control over its own future. American boots on the ground have proven an horrific failure in Iraq and only took a horrible situation and made it worse. Unless and until the Middle East stands up for its own future there is little hope that we can impose it on them.
for the sake [independence" in the aftermath of the
9
As usual President Obama is the only grown up in the room: His logic that "more Americans are killed each year slipping in bathtubs or running into deer with their cars than by any terrorists" is sound. A single attack in Paris, or another in Belgium, and even ten or twenty more do not change the equation at all.
Terrorism is not an existential threat, it does not have the capacity to disrupt lives in the western world significantly. No major foreign or domestic policy decisions should be made in response to terrorist attacks. The just don't matter enough. Let's address slippery bathtubs first, instead of giving in to the irrational fear caused by terrorists.
With that said the current policy of strong security measures for likely targets such as airplanes and major public events, coupled with some involvement in the middle east seems perfectly appropriate.
Terrorism is not an existential threat, it does not have the capacity to disrupt lives in the western world significantly. No major foreign or domestic policy decisions should be made in response to terrorist attacks. The just don't matter enough. Let's address slippery bathtubs first, instead of giving in to the irrational fear caused by terrorists.
With that said the current policy of strong security measures for likely targets such as airplanes and major public events, coupled with some involvement in the middle east seems perfectly appropriate.
10
That Obama has it right is obvious to anyone who is honest and discerning. But another extraordinarily important way that Obama has it right is that the ME has us continually distracted and focusing on the wrong thing: Mexico is a terrorist-laden, corruption-heavy, nearly-failed state with whom we share one of the longest borders in the world.
I'm far more worried about propping up a reliable democracy with a functioning security apparatus in Mexico than in the ME. A random terror attack might kill a handful of people, but we face an existential threat to our country (its border, social fabric, educational system and public health at the very least) from the drug trade and gang-proliferation that has changed the nature of every city in our country.
Trump is a buffoon but he's tapped into an accurate calculus that the threat posed by the cartels in Mexico is our own version of Syria.
We are having the wrong conversation.
I'm far more worried about propping up a reliable democracy with a functioning security apparatus in Mexico than in the ME. A random terror attack might kill a handful of people, but we face an existential threat to our country (its border, social fabric, educational system and public health at the very least) from the drug trade and gang-proliferation that has changed the nature of every city in our country.
Trump is a buffoon but he's tapped into an accurate calculus that the threat posed by the cartels in Mexico is our own version of Syria.
We are having the wrong conversation.
3
Heck People: We may not have had a successful War of Independence without the French and others:
France played a key role in the American Revolutionary War (American War of Independence; 1775–1783). After the Americans captured a British army, "France recognized and allied itself with them in 1778, declared war on Britain, provided money and matériel to arm the new republic, and sent an army to the United States. French intervention made a decisive contribution to the U.S. victory in the war. Motivated by a long-term rivalry with Britain and by revenge for its territorial losses during the French and Indian War, France began secretly sending supplies in 1775. Spain and the Netherlands joined France, making it a global war in which the British had no major allies." Wikepedia
We can't sit on our hands all the time.
France played a key role in the American Revolutionary War (American War of Independence; 1775–1783). After the Americans captured a British army, "France recognized and allied itself with them in 1778, declared war on Britain, provided money and matériel to arm the new republic, and sent an army to the United States. French intervention made a decisive contribution to the U.S. victory in the war. Motivated by a long-term rivalry with Britain and by revenge for its territorial losses during the French and Indian War, France began secretly sending supplies in 1775. Spain and the Netherlands joined France, making it a global war in which the British had no major allies." Wikepedia
We can't sit on our hands all the time.
1
“Initially, I thought Obama made the right call on Syria.”
Well, Mr. Friedman, hindsight is 20-20. If President Obama had gotten more involved with Syria, there is no guarantee that the situation in the region would be better or worse than it is today. Too little involvement as in Libya and too much involvement in Iraq have resulted in more or less the same undesirable outcomes.
In fact, you admit that the greatest success (so far) of the Arab spring nations has been Tunisia, where we stayed out. The great moral lesson of the past fifteen years is that we cannot impose our democratic values and political systems on the nations that are built on the shaky sands of the Middle East.
Well, Mr. Friedman, hindsight is 20-20. If President Obama had gotten more involved with Syria, there is no guarantee that the situation in the region would be better or worse than it is today. Too little involvement as in Libya and too much involvement in Iraq have resulted in more or less the same undesirable outcomes.
In fact, you admit that the greatest success (so far) of the Arab spring nations has been Tunisia, where we stayed out. The great moral lesson of the past fifteen years is that we cannot impose our democratic values and political systems on the nations that are built on the shaky sands of the Middle East.
8
Fair question. But, I don't see how support for democracy in the middle east is enhanced by an invasion! What is it about invading other countries that makes Mr. Friedman and others think that it would help install democracy? And at the end of the day, why must American lives be lost and American money be spent on this? There is no evidence that it would reduce terrorism. With the ideology spreading via the internet (which has no boundaries) and via demagogues protected by free speech, it is not clear how having an American force in the middle east will solve anything.
141
And we should keep in mind that since 1945 we have not been in a conflict that we left with a positive result. We often win the wars and lose the peace
To answer the main question, yes, President Obama has the right. I find it disappointing that Mr. Friedman, a supporter of the Bush-Cheney debacle in Iraq, an act for which the world continues to pay a price, even asks the question. He sounds like a member of the Republican Party.
Obama has done great things, and he would have done even greater things if his administration hadn't been compelled to govern in a vacuum. The do-nothing GOP harms us more each day than any terrorist. No terrorist group will ever be able to seize the United States.
The U.S. military is assisting in the Middle East at the level it should be. Entering that desert snake pit with a full-scale invasion would be lunacy.
The point of terrorist acts is to sow fear. It seems that Mr. Friedman is the one who's afraid.
Obama has done great things, and he would have done even greater things if his administration hadn't been compelled to govern in a vacuum. The do-nothing GOP harms us more each day than any terrorist. No terrorist group will ever be able to seize the United States.
The U.S. military is assisting in the Middle East at the level it should be. Entering that desert snake pit with a full-scale invasion would be lunacy.
The point of terrorist acts is to sow fear. It seems that Mr. Friedman is the one who's afraid.
1
Mr. Friedman is a thoughtful analyst but in this case fails to delve deeply enough into the topic. The Middle East's current political situation resembles HBO's Game of Thrones more than any modern model of international conflict.
The presence of ISIS which does not act like, or aspire to be a post Westphalian nation state, the factionalism within Islam, and the overlay of tribal/familial allegiances raise the thorny questions of where and who one would invade.
As we have seen over the past 14 years, simply vanquishing dictators does not guarantee regional security or national stability. Nation building as a strategy does not have a strong record of success in the post World War II era.
When the power structure of an adversary is decentralized and underground in a region where are cultural and linguistic understanding is extremely limited, it is maddeningly difficult to attain or even define what victory looks like.
Sadly, we may, as Mr. Obama seems to have realized have to be content with protecting the homeland and the sovereignty of our allies until the larger population of the Islamic world realizes that the tenets of radical Islam are not in their best interests or tolerable within their midst. Only at that point will the Islamists deeply flawed ideas be relegated to the scrap heap of history.
The presence of ISIS which does not act like, or aspire to be a post Westphalian nation state, the factionalism within Islam, and the overlay of tribal/familial allegiances raise the thorny questions of where and who one would invade.
As we have seen over the past 14 years, simply vanquishing dictators does not guarantee regional security or national stability. Nation building as a strategy does not have a strong record of success in the post World War II era.
When the power structure of an adversary is decentralized and underground in a region where are cultural and linguistic understanding is extremely limited, it is maddeningly difficult to attain or even define what victory looks like.
Sadly, we may, as Mr. Obama seems to have realized have to be content with protecting the homeland and the sovereignty of our allies until the larger population of the Islamic world realizes that the tenets of radical Islam are not in their best interests or tolerable within their midst. Only at that point will the Islamists deeply flawed ideas be relegated to the scrap heap of history.
1