Here’s an amusing look at New York Times columnist and Iraq war booster Tom Friedman’s Iraq predictions, which frame a series of six- to nine-month time periods, each of which supposedly will prove “decisive.”
The administration and pro-Iraq war pundits have trafficked heavily in these Friedman Units of time and key “turning points,” and they’re losing their reassuring effect.
If we hear in September, “We’ll know in the next six months whether we’ve turned the corner,” don’t buy it.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Phantom on Open thread 11/24
- sursum on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
29 Comments
I am almost through with “State of Denial” for the most part this book has many of the same predictions in their minds and gives a feeling that is all the Administration has. They have been clueless as to how to make them come about. They have been searching for a “Middle East” expert to counsel them but so far every one of them has given answers that the Administration does not like. The only advisers that they except their answers from are from the heritage foundation and Henry Kessenger. But so far nothing they has suggested has worked out. They are the ones that suggested the invasion in the first place and said it would be easy.
Kessenger is even saying we should totally cut the Iraqis out of the process and doing every thing our selves. Governing Iraq and providing all the security too. The problem is that there are many in the administration that say they know what to do, but nothing is done to follow through on any directions.Basically Bush is acting like Boss Hog on Dukes of Hazard, saying handle it to everyone but not wanting to be bogged down with the details. He see his role as the morale officer on the ship.
Any TV weather forecaster with a record of failed predictions like the Bush administration has on this war would be out hunting a job in another profession inside a week, and his predictions didn’t cost lives! Bush’s crystal ball is obviously on the fritz, so leave off prognosticating until the Geek Squad has had a long go at it and it’s fixed for sure!
A war is not a drive thru like McDonald’s. It takes to prosecute a war and more time to recover from it and establish order.
No wonder there are so many divorces in the U.S. with these kinds of attitudes. The ability of the Left to point out every fault or what they perceive as faults is the staple of their acid breath diet.
The Democratic Plan thus far for the Iraq War has been
- Yes Saddam Hussein has WMD, we must stop him.
- Al Qaeda is in Iraq and there is a Civil war.
- There were no WMD in Iraq, President Bush lied (aka advice from George Tenant, a Clinton appointee.)
- It’s sectarian violence, not a Civil War.
- No wait, it’s Arabs from Syria and Saudi Arabia causing the problem, along with Iranian support.
- Er Wait, the Iranians have sent diplomats that are being detained, we should talk to them.
- The Democrats should stop funding the War because we don’t have any other plan.
- We can’t stop the War Funding because it was vetoed and now we don’t have any other plan.
- How about we, the Democrats just wait until 2009 when we have the office of the President.
- We can’t wait until 2009 because we the Democratic Congress told the American people we have a plan to end the War in Iraq.
- What was our plan? Anyone? Anyone?
They should tell the truth and point out that this is going to be a very long, costly and hard mission that could last decades. But none the less it is a mission we have to complete.
Perhaps Friedman could form a panel with Joe Lieberman and the two of them can go on C-Span for a presentation on the next six months. Occasionally, they can sip from a glass of water and explain how trying war can be. Lieberman might even be able to mix in a little bit of whining about the noise of the discourse in America. Or maybe Friedman can think up another war for us all to fight in when our jobs take a hike in his global village. Maybe they can outsource Friedman, send him over to Rupert Murdoch who apparently has an itch to make a purchase. Wait: they could always put Rupert on the panel. Then the three of them, Lieberman, Friedman and Murdoch, can figure out the whole world together. Friedman can write a series of sizzling columns and recycle them in a humdrum book. Just remember to hold the noise level down, though, because Lieberman wants people to get along. He’s a uniter, not a divider. And Friedman has thoughts about the war. Friedman’s wise. He’s a thoroughgoing sage of the modern era. Tom’s reasons were not George’s reasons. Tom had other, valid reasons.
Hey, Friedman: who the hell is Tom?
What was our plan? Anyone? Anyone?Posted by: Republican | May 03, 2007 at 05:11 AM
I think that’s a pretty damned good question.
Four years of this war, with the Republicans in control of the entire government, and we have yet to know what the “real” plan, the “real” reason, the “real” goals have been.
Bush has given the American public a shifting target of “Mission Accomplished,” and then claims that we’re “making progress.” First it was get control of Iraqi WMD’s. No WMD’s, so we’re done, right?
Nope.
Next it was “Get rid of Saddam.” Saddam captured, his sons killed, his henchmen scattered. “Mission Accomplished?”
Nope.
Next it was “A democratic Iraq with a government elected in free and fair elections.” I think there have been three “free and fair” elections so far. “Mission Accomplished?”
Still nope.
Now we’re to believe that the “Mission” is to quell the insurgency. The one that’s in its “last throes.” First of all, we can’t put down an insurgency like this without flattening the country. Second, it’s gone beyond insurgency and into civil war.
What’s the mission?
How many more American kids are going to get killed?
How many more of my daughter’s friends are coming home in coffins?
Republican asked “What’s the plan?” Yes, Republican. It’s your president’s war. What’s the plan?
Bomb Baghdad with neo-cons like Friedman. Let them practice their gunboat diplomacy on the ground, where it counts most.
bjbrownsblog.blogspot.com
Kev,”They should tell the truth and point out that this is going to be a very long, costly and hard mission that could last decades. But none the less it is a mission we have to complete.”Okay, I’ll bite, what is this mission, and how do we accomplish it? End the sectarian fighting? I’m afraid, as an occupying infidel force, the best we can do is to temporarily unite the various factions to drive us out. Then it’s back to business against each other.
Listen to JM . . . uh, I mean Republican, spin this into the Democrat’s fault.
How many more Friedman Units do we have to go through before we see failed policy for what it is–failed policy.
The Democratic plan is very simple: stop doing what isn’t working.
schofield is absolutely unreal in this little blog bit.
Tom Friedman is no friend of this Iraq war, but he is a friend of showing force in the middle east. he has written many books on how to remake the middle east and why terrorism has come from that area. most of it being a sense of frustration and insult.
schofield blasting friedman is one of the most humourous things I’ve seen in a long time.
if scholfield has an ounce of talent that friedman has he wouldn’t be hacking it up at the eagle.
Great graphic. So, the war is over; it has either been won or it has been lost. Either way – why do we still have troops there?
Save lives, cut-off the money now and stop disrespecting our troops. Their lives and Iraqi lives are too valuable to throw away for the Jews, neocons, Zionists, Cheney or the rest of the that crazy bunch in the White House.
You don’t give money to crazy people or so AIPAC can corrupt congress.
Sooner or later we’re going to take our country back, the only question is: what shape will it be in when all those greedy bastards get through with it?
We have a chance to cut-off the money now and the troops won’t go hungry. They’ll survive just fine on home cooking.
Maybe someone should create a similar chart of Schofield’s predictions. :D
Hmm, I wonder who that should be. :)
Hi Ed!
“Sooner or later we’re going to take our country back, the only question is: what shape will it be in when all those greedy bastards get through with it?”]
On that, you and I can agree!
I always wondered why the GOP used an elephant as their parties mascot. Now I know….they are the only ones that can’t recognize the elephant standing in the room. It all makes perfect sense. Its a reminder to the rest of us. We see the elephant that is invisible to them.
Meanwhile, our puppet government plans to take the summer off:
http://www.kansas.com/519/story/59658.html
WASHINGTON – Lawmakers divided over whether to keep U.S. troops in Iraq are finding common ground on at least one topic: They are furious that Iraqi politicians are considering a lengthy break this summer.
“If they go off on vacation for two months while our troops fight – that would be the outrage of outrages,” said Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn.
The mere fact that they are considering taking a two month recess is a show of disrespect to our troops. This further shows the lack of respect the Iraq government has for our committment. And until we prove to them otherwise they will not make progress. Anther solid reason why we must put more pressure on them with a timetable or a policy that requires them to work together and make progress.
“Stay the course” while the Iraqis take vacation? Absolutely disgusting!
We don’t need to murder any more Iraqis or let our troops die.
We have the means to cut-off the money and all we need are the balls to do it.
The FBI needs to raid AIPAC and get their list of “paid-for” { bribed } congressmen.
AIPAC thinks this is their country. Well is it?
Kev,
You said that the war in Iraq is a “mission we have to complete”.
You could be right. But you have to articulate better.
What do you mean?
Do you mean that the British-concocted geographic entity of Iraq, that had no basis in prior Middle Eastern history must be maintained, which is to say getting different-minded and different-ethnicity people to put down their weapons, and all get along? Do you think America can get them to all sing “Kumbayah”?
Do you mean that Iraqi oil must be subjected to Anglo-American oil businesses’ control, which requires disparate ethnic groups to agree to not sabotage oil refineries and pipelines to gain control for themselves?
Do you mean that civil war in Iraq can’t be countenanced, because the American Civil War was clearly a total disaster, that must not ever be repeated?
Do you mean that England should have done whatever it took to quash the American colonials’ rebellion, and that its failure to do so created an untenable independent republic? England failed to defeat the terrorists, the guys who engaged in assymetrical warfare and didn’t “fight fair” when they shot from the trees in guerilla fashion, and didn’t properly line up on European-agreed-to battlefields.
Do you think that England should have done whatever it took to quash India’s rebellion, and that failure to do so is a root of all present evils?
Do you mean that Iraq should be like Canada, accepting overseas control, and do you believe that Canada is a better country than the United States, because it was obedient to the Mother Country?
Do you mean that even though claims made in the 60’s regarding Vietnam, that if we didn’t stop the Communists there, they’d attack our the West Coast, and then crossover into the Rockies, and even that proposition didn’t actually turn out to be correct–the Communists won in Vietnam–it is going to turn out to be true with respect to the Islamists?
And what happened to the Soviet Union that was going to deliver a thermonuclear weapon to your back yard?
I think what you’re saying is, we have to win in Iraq, because even though Cheney-Bush committed us to a false-premise war, we have to save face. Since this can’t come true, but only weaken America, this means you are a traitor to America.
When Thomas Jefferson launched the Barbary War, he protected American ships in the Mediterranean so that they would be able to sail and trade without Muslim destruction and capture, with sale of crews into slavery. He didn’t try to impose American “democracy” on North Africa.
Jefferson’s administration negotiated the Louisiana Purchase. He himself didn’t propose the annihilation of terrorist Native Americans in this purchased land, but his successors did.
Perhaps you think that genocide is good policy. But is it possible you are wrong? Have you considered that possibility?
Suppose that Iraqis take over their own oil resources. Suppose they trade with China and leave America in the cold. With Iran. Suppose this forces America to develop alternative energy, which we have in humongous capacity.
Suppose this takes greater intelligence than you can grasp. But suppose that even though you can’t understand it, the intelligence is there. There’s still a role for you, as a salesman. It’s like drug and med-tech reps I used to meet. They didn’t know how to design MRI, PET and CT scanners or new drugs. But they found a comfortable niche selling these products. It’s the same with energy. You don’t have to know how to design a solar-panel array, or a wind-generator, or a nuclear power plant to broker energy contracts.
So let Iraq go. Cheney and Bush and their friends made gazillions of dollars by invading Iraq, including its effect in raising international conflict-triggered oil prices. They got what they wanted, just like the railroad barons of the post-Civil War era. This doesn’t mean this lasts forever. The railroad transportation-dominance lasted almost a decade. But then post WWII air transport and the interstate highway system completely changed things. It’s no different for energy.
Correction: “almost a decade” almost a century
“Okay, I’ll bite, what is this mission, and how do we accomplish it? End the sectarian fighting? I’m afraid, as an occupying infidel force, the best we can do is to temporarily unite the various factions to drive us out. Then it’s back to business against each other.”
There is no easy solution here. It is still my view that we never should have made this mess to begin with. But we did and we have to clean it up as best we can and that will probably mean standing between the warring factions until they grow tired of warring and subvert to the government that they themselves elected. And this may take a long time and it will be costly. But leaving is not an option.
I honestly think that we will be in Iraq 20 years from now. And the politicians of both parties need to be honest and say so. If we were going to leave, we would not be pouring billions into building 4 permanent bases there.
“How many more American kids are going to get killed?”
Sadly probably many. By the time this is over, the count will probably be in the 5 figure range. But war requires sacrifice and some people have to make the ultimate sacrifice. The least we can do is support them morally and financially. The troops are waiting for their funds and we have to get the money to them.
“Do you mean that the British-concocted geographic entity of Iraq, that had no basis in prior Middle Eastern history must be maintained, which is to say getting different-minded and different-ethnicity people to put down their weapons, and all get along? Do you think America can get them to all sing “Kumbayah”? ”
There may come a day that we have to divide Iraq into 3 countries. That will be hard to do without upsetting Turkey and making Iran even stronger than it is today but we must do whet we have to do to ensure stability in that area of the world. It is too important to not do so.
“Do you mean that Iraqi oil must be subjected to Anglo-American oil businesses’ control, which requires disparate ethnic groups to agree to not sabotage oil refineries and pipelines to gain control for themselves?”
No but we do have to ensure a steady supply of reasonably priced crude from that area. It used to be that, if we lost production from one country, Saudi Arabia would pump more and make up for the shortfall. With demand for oil increasing from developing nations like China, the Saudis cannot do that now. If we lose any source of oil, you will see gasoline prices of $5 or more a gallon which will not only wreck our economy but western economies all over the world. For just a few weeks in the 70s we lost oil from there and we had gas lines blocks long and it damaged the US economy so badly that it took almost a decade to recover- which is why we built the Strageic Oil Reserve.
Kev,Leaving may not be an option, but staying isn’t an option either, not if it destroys our economy, our military, a generation of our youth, the Iraqi people, our confidence in our government and our credibility with the rest of the world.Our so-called leaders lied to us, played on our emotions following 911 and engaged in a propaganda campaign in order to carry out their own agenda, and started a war that may very well end the great experiment our nation’s founders began over 230 years ago. They played a high-risk game with our future and lost! Our only hope now is to cut our losses, admit failure and go. And make sure we never find ourselves in this kind of hole again!
“Our so-called leaders lied to us, played on our emotions following 911 and engaged in a propaganda campaign in order to carry out their own agenda, and started a war that may very well end the great experiment our nation’s founders began over 230 years ago. They played a high-risk game with our future and lost! Our only hope now is to cut our losses, admit failure and go. And make sure we never find ourselves in this kind of hole again! ”
I do not disagree with that at all. I said even before this happened that we should not have done it. My feeling was to allow the UN Inspectors to finish their work which they were doing unfettered. Saddam’s military capability had been destroyed and he was well contained. His military could not even fly in his own airspace! That is the policy we should have continued. But it wasn’t just our “leaders”. I might remind folks that huge majorities of the American people favoured attacking Iraq. It was very popular just as Veitnam was when it started. The question is, OK we are there so what do we do with it now? And it is like Colon Powell said in his warning- “you break it, you buy it”.
Kev,Well, we broke it, and now we can’t fix it and we can’t afford to pay the damages. Yes, many, if not most Americans believed the lies our leaders told us. Maybe the press should have been more skeptical, maybe the people less gullible, but it was this administration who lied to and manipulated both. When all this is overwith, we may owe a staggering reparations debt, but the criminals who instigated it should be turned over to an international court to face justice. They held the power, and they made it happen. They don’t go back to their bank accounts scot-free!