“The Burdon Is On Iraqis”

June 15, 2005

Flat Earth Friedman says Let’s Talk About Iraq. He finally points out, who is to blame for the disaster in Iraq.

Ever since Iraq’s remarkable election, the country has been descending deeper and deeper into violence.
…
So far the Iraqi political class has been a disappointment. .. No Shiite Hamid Karzai has emerged.
…

"We have no galvanizing figure right now," observed Kanan Makiya, the Iraqi historian who heads the Iraq Memory Foundation. ".. Certainly, the Americans made many mistakes, but at this stage less and less can be blamed on them. The burden is on Iraqis. The burden is on Iraqis. And we still have not risen to the magnitude of the opportunity before us."

Some time ago, Friedman’s chief witness for blaming the Iraqis, Kanan Makiya, has been more optimistic:

(QUESTIONER): Vice President Cheney yesterday said that he expects that American forces will be greeted as liberators and I wonder if you could tell us if you agree with that and how you think they’ll be greeted ..?

KANAN MAKIYA: I most certainly do agree with that. As I told the President on January 10th, I think they will be greeted with sweets and flowers in the first months and simply have very, very little doubts that that is the case.

Not a "galvanizing figure" I guess, but one Friedman trusts as a venerable Iraqi historian.

Friedman’s solution for Iraq:

Double the American boots on the ground and redouble the diplomatic effort to bring in those Sunnis who want to be part of the process and fight to the death those who don’t.

Orly Diane Friedman was born on July 28, 1985, Natalie Harold Friedman on April 20, 1988. Orly is in Yale and Natalie must have finished High School by now too.

When did he ask his daughters to fight to the death those who don´t want to follow his processes? What were their answers?

Posted by b on June 15, 2005 at 07:53 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Let’s see Iran invade Iraq ala Syria into Lebanon to quell the upcoming civil war.

Posted by: Friendly Fire | Jun 15 2005 8:07 utc | 1

“Ever since Iraq’s remarkable election, the country has been descending deeper and deeper into violence.”
First of all… what in the holy hell was so remarkable about these damned “elections” the Right keeps crowing about? “Democracy in Iraq” was NEVER a stated goal for any of this until sensible people had poked enough holes in the WMD and “Hussein is an imminent threat to the US” series of lies that they collapsed under their own deflated weight. So the US stages a show “election” (something we’re getting a lot of practice doing, incidentally) and we act like that was the plan all along? And what in the holy hell does Friedman mean by implying that violence has only been an issue “ever since” then?
“So far the Iraqi political class has been a disappointment. .. No Shiite Hamid Karzai has emerged.”
Damned shame Ahmed Chalabi didn’t turn out to be the George Washington he sold himself as being. Of course, taking in career liars with your own series of lies gives one some major chutzpah points. So… no Iraqi version of Karzai, eh? Have they tried putting out a want ad for “Dead Man Walking”?
” Certainly, the Americans made many mistakes, but at this stage less and less can be blamed on them. The burden is on Iraqis.”
This is where we’re at. Blame the Iraqis for losing this thing. Blame the American liberals for losing this thing. At least the neocons can no longer declare “Mission Accomplished!” and pretend we are winning anymore. I guess scapegoating is some progress.

Posted by: Monolycus | Jun 15 2005 8:20 utc | 2

“Double the American boots on the ground…”
These Likudnikons are cold-blooded killers.
They’d stay in Iraq ’til the last American life is lost and the last American dollar spent.
Wake up America and just say no the “alignment” of the oil lobby the armaments lobby and the Likud lobby.
This isn’t just continuing larcency these people are murdering yours and your neighbors children.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | Jun 15 2005 8:57 utc | 3

Friedman is a closet neo-con For all his romantic musings on behalf of the Iraqi people ( and the palastinians) and what they want, the bottom line is always in support of the guiding light of American hegemony. The fact that he still sees wisdom in the undertaking, as opposed to the fact he’s been right about absolutly nothing ( for three fucking years), and not taken stock in these failings — is testament enough for his writings to take their rightful place in the bottom of some kids hamster cage far away in Kansas.

Posted by: anna missed | Jun 15 2005 9:11 utc | 4

I guess Makyia doesn’t live in Iraq and isn’t ready to go there. He wouldn’t last long.
“No Shiite Hamid Karzai has emerged”
What? They don’t have a mayor in Baghdad? Or does he stupidly imply Karzai has more power than that in Afghanistan? In which case 15 mio Afghans would beg to differ.

Posted by: CluelessJoe | Jun 15 2005 9:41 utc | 5

b
So the burden of proof was on Saddam to get rid of weapons he did not possess. Now the burden is on Iraqis to shape up or ship out?
Frankly, as you imply, the burden of proof is ON THE FRIEDMAN FAMILY.
I suppose it would be more accurate to state
“No Shiite Hamid Karzai has survived”
(plus – have I missed a pun on the word “burdon”?”

Posted by: John | Jun 15 2005 10:08 utc | 6

Oh well I’m always in a fouler the day of the week I have to poison myself but this Friedman bloke is talking just like the political class in the US/UK/AUS whatever, want the media to. Blame the Iraqis. Even better blame the sunnis cause that way you can insinuate they just want Saddam back. Or has everyone forgotten that for about a week there before the Iraqis had their faces ground into it even the Sunnis didn’t seem that peturbed about the Ba’ath party’s demise?
None of us can know for sure cause we’re a long way from it but the few people that have been trustworthy in the past about these things eg Fisk or Cockburn have been at pains to point out that foreign fighters and sunni nationalists are not the only resistance. The MSM is belatedly conceeding that the foreign fighter issue is minor. Chiefly because when one is found they trumpet it from the rooftops and they haven’t been able to do too much trumpeting lately.
Friedman finds the Kurds reliable eh? What sort of racist s..t is that anyway? Apart from which there are Kurds fighting against the invasion and you can be sure that will grow once the Kurdish people work out how badly they’ve been sold a dummy. The politicians in the US/UK have no intention to let some huge pan-Kurdish state develop. They will have no friends amongst any of the other groups in the ME. So these lowlifes being what they are will not deliver jacks..t.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Jun 15 2005 11:18 utc | 7

He’s a “company man” first, a “family man” second, an “American Firster” third, and a “Likudite” fourth. He’d force his daughters to serve in Iraq if the NYTimes insisted on it; otherwise he’d “resist”.

Posted by: alabama | Jun 15 2005 12:33 utc | 8

Shorter Friedman: It’s always somebody else’s fault. Because, hey, the world is flat.

Posted by: Billmon | Jun 15 2005 14:04 utc | 9

Friedman also has this to say in his first graph:
“Liberals don’t want to talk about Iraq because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down don’t want the Bush team to succeed.”
He’s always willing to blame liberals first for BushCo’s clusterfucks.

Posted by: Max | Jun 15 2005 14:42 utc | 10

Friedman:
“Liberals don’t want to talk about Iraq”(…)
Geeeeezzzzussss, that raises my blood pressure. Where has this idiot been hiding? Where to begin w/such tripe….
“because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong”(…)
no shit…
“and deep down don’t want the Bush team to succeed.”
I had a lot of “talks about Iraq” with winger aquaintances throughout the buildup to W’s big adventure… and they were all the same. Exactly, precisely the same. One of ’em was with my best tennis buddy at the time: a short summary:
me: There’s no evidence of WMD.
friend: Fuck you.
me: There’s no evidence of ties to Al Quada.
friend: Fuck you.
me: We’re invading to get control of their oil. We did it before in Iran.
friend: Fuck you.
me: Bush’s CPA contracts are outright theft… from US taxpayers and Iraqi’s. $200b down the sinkhole.
friend: Fuck you.
me: We are (have) created 10’s of 1000’s new OBL’s. We are (have) locking up innocent civilians and throwing away the key. The world is surely not safer, rather more dangerous.
friend: Fuck you.
(…)
me: We (liberals) were right about everything.
friend: You hate America and just don’t want Bush to succeed.
…
I broke his nose. And to my surprise, I feel fairly good about the incident.
“You’re either with us or against us.”
Friedman IMO differentiates himself from the mainstream rw whore/propagandist crowd: he seems to actually believe his own disconnected, contrived illusions… eg., he’s nuts. And pathetic.
That this may be an intractable karmic outcome for that crowd: written in stone, pre-determined… gives immense hope.

Posted by: JDMcKay | Jun 15 2005 14:59 utc | 11

The Observer reported the decisions that had been and would be taken on Sunday, July 21, 2002:
‘President Bush has already made up his mind. This is going to happen. It is a given,’ said one Whitehall source. ‘What we are waiting for is to be told the details of how and when and where.’
Link
The frightening thing is that all Gvmts. and intelligence services and Int’l Organisations (as well as millions or even billions of people world-wide) knew that the Saddam-WMD or Saddam-AlQ/9/11 links were rubbish. Yet, the deception worked.
The UN did not denounce the war and the subsequent occupation as illegal.
Some people produced the lies but all those who counted pretended to believe them or forget them..
With a few exceptions that we all know about.
The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was illegal as well. A lot of made up stories about genocide were debunked but served their purpose. Kosovo is occupied or being peace-kept. C’est selon.

Posted by: Noisette | Jun 15 2005 15:02 utc | 12

Belaboring a point;
Normally a guy like this (Friedman, Brooks, Miller et al) shouldn’t take up so much of our energy, as they are demonstrably hired liars for the great cabal.
How about this “paper of record” on whose payroll they suck; isn’t it about time for intelligent folks to call it what it is, a dangerous rag with zero credibility?

Posted by: rapt | Jun 15 2005 15:06 utc | 13

The supporters of President Bush’s grand adventure in Iraq are all Liars. When they propose solutions they can’t even think through the consequences. The 500,000 American troops would have to be draftees. This number could just about quell the Sunni Arab rebellion of 5 million persons in Iraq but only by partition and ethnic cleansing. In this type of cultural war, sooner or later, 19 year old American boys will at gun point force Sunni Families into Palm Tree Groves and make them to dig their own graves, killing men, women and children.
Once the bloody work is done there is no guarantee of Peace. The Shiites could join with Iran and kick the blood soaked American troops out of the Middle East forever. Or, the Sunni which compose 80% of all Muslims will be America’s enemy for generations to come.
Before Thomas Freedman is done, millions of Americans will be complicit with the Torture and Murder of Muslims. Now, it is just thousands. The blowback will destroy American morally and physically.

Posted by: Jim S | Jun 15 2005 15:13 utc | 14

I can’t believe the mendacity of Friedman et al. Talk about blaming the victim. We invaded a country that had done nothing to us. WE INVADED! How can he blame the mess we created on the Iraqis.

Posted by: Iron Butterfly | Jun 15 2005 15:17 utc | 15

y’all probably read it, but Taibbi’s review of Friedman’s latest is pretty damn funny:

The usual ratio of Friedman criticism is 2:1, i.e., two human words to make sense of each single word of Friedmanese. Friedman is such a genius of literary incompetence that even his most innocent passages invite feature-length essays.

Posted by: slothrop | Jun 15 2005 15:25 utc | 16

The blowback will destroy American morally and physically.
Quite probably so … and if not, will certainly strengthen the position of the emerging China-Russia-Iran bloc …

Posted by: Outraged | Jun 15 2005 15:27 utc | 17

I sometimes ask myself: Who has MORE power?
The Bush Cabal or the Media? Then I think, perhaps one should not distinguish the two. And get somewhat confused, muddled, uncertain…
But part of my answer is: The media have and use more power than is generally supposed. Not just because they are so influential, shape opinion, etc. But because they themselves have a hand in creating and managing events. And I don’t mean creating in the sense of spin, slant, cherry-picking, omission or any of that.
Seeing the media as a whole as made up of useless servile paid-for lackeys is quite mistaken. Though no doubt many of the figures, such as Friedman – those on the front lines who speak or pen the stuff – and are regularly attacked by one or the other group – are exactly that.
Another part is: those who control the mirror, or the image, the facts that ‘get out’, what the public sees, hold the power in a ‘democracy’.
That doesn’t mean, of course, that they are not subject to forces that spring from elsewhere, are in effect under covert control, nor that they are not influenced by the public (consumers of their products who have constructed their world-view on the media’s past offerings..)
It does mean, though, that they hold a winning card up their sleeve. As they cannot be easily and quickly replaced, except by lock-down and some version of martial law..
Who could bring down Bush in a month? Without civil war or desperate outbreaks of violence?
The Democrats? The UN? The ex-Communists in the Ukraine? Chirac? The Sunnites in Iraq?
Huh? No way.
signed: Puzzled.

Posted by: Noisette | Jun 15 2005 16:08 utc | 18

Friedman is such a coward that he doesn’t even post his email address on the New York Times website like most of his op-ed confreres do. I’m sure he doesn’t want the deluge of letters telling him that his brain burned out long ago. Tough.
Tom, when do your daughters go to Iraq? Until then, your comments are hollow and not worth the ink wasted to print them.

Posted by: PrahaPartizan | Jun 15 2005 17:32 utc | 19

Noisette,
The media and the government are both working for the same inertia, more so now than ever. There’s really no other way to explain it.
And so the 64 thousand dollar question is who (how) takes the fall for Iraq when so many are complicit and who now look like the contemptous fools they are any time they try to rationalize it forward. Because so many in politics, and yes, most of ther Democrats too, the media, and the military/industrial infrastructure have taken all taken a hand in this endevour — How and what happens when, as it must happen, the tide in Iraq decidedly and ir-retrieve-idly goes south? How can so many, so used to their own self givin impunity – collectively act to fess up (and stop) such a profound massive and bloody clusterfuck they have so created? Is it at all possible, for so many interests to back out now, and admit to such an all encompassing failure — or does it roll on still, until it hits the wall of a complete and utter national breakdown — a metaphorical WWII Italian kind of ruination, which most certainly will come if disengaugement (now) is not undertaken. And considering that disengaugement carries with it it’s own lesser breakdown (in the admission of guilt) and calamity, its hard to see that choice being made. So whats next?

Posted by: anna missed | Jun 15 2005 18:51 utc | 20

Similar questions were asked about Vietnam A-missed, and we have seen the result: Most of the perps there not only remained scott free and unindicted but went on to gain more power. Publicly it is still not admitted thirty years on, that we “lost” the war.
It is true that Iraq is a much bigger mess than even Vietnam, but I suspect that the warriors are still assuming somehow that they can never be touched or harmed by these murderous war crimes, no matter the damage they have caused. Perhaps they are right.

Posted by: rapt | Jun 15 2005 19:26 utc | 21

Noisette,
The UN did not denounce the war and the subsequent occupation as illegal.
Kofi Annan came to London to state clearly that the war was illegal
Link
Give the guy some credit. He has been under the cosh ever since. At least he tries to do the right thing.
You might want to look at the “Sentence First, Verdict Afterwards” thread for some context.

Posted by: John | Jun 15 2005 19:29 utc | 22

friedman, yet another scribbler fascinated with power is swallowed by it. & what comes out of his pen is dribble; he dribbles his discourse & in the complete absence of information – it is called commentary
it is impoverished. it is so overwhelmed with its own sense of self that he believes he has the key to every door. the reality is the opposite
since beaverbrook – the press barons liked to employ tame ‘intellectuals” who would write & follow as instructed. scribblers who would not interrupt their narratives with facts. no, their opinions backed by power were better than facts & they could be reproduced over & over again in syndication
rupert murdoch – with his profound sense of farce – goes one further – he cites his own papers in other of his papers – as a guarantee of its authenticity. with fox tv – he has mutliplied that farce many times
writers & scholars can be bought & sold like so much chattel. the book ‘who paid the piper’ & others reveal for what price a writer or a scholr or a journalist can be bought. i imagine today their price is higher but i’d argue that their writing is even more impoverished than those written by the cold war ancestors – who sometimes had a flair with the pen – though they were betraying those who were losing blood & perhaps some of them knew a thing or two what they were fighting against
but this current crew is as dumb as they come & friedman is so transcendentally dumb i don’t know what he’d do face with a fact or a series of facts. it would most probably bring on some form of cardiac crisis like his pal the vice president
the big guns of commentary today – even on the ‘left’ are very small fish indeed. they are caricatures, they are shadows. they are emptiness, itself
the truly substantial writers like robert fisk & john pilger are a little crazy & exist outside the framework of other journalists though they are used by fellow journalists as their bad faith & bad conscience. & the history of these two writers is exceptional. they write knowing their duty & they understand maiakovskï’s “sense of the tocsin of words”. & for this they are demonised. john berger is another who has their sense of service. but they are truly rare
the friedmans of this world & other from this or that institute or this or that think tank dishonour prostitution in the way the sell themselves, their paltry ideas & their dull words
sadly, the reality is that the public hears only these words. these fals words. these incorrect ideas. this articulation of slavery
freidman, this pumped up pomposity who thinks he know the middle east inside out know it not at all – he has after all been lebanonisised. general sharon & he are the laurel & hardy of the middle east. between them they have bred so much bullshit about what the arab people think – i am almost certain they believe their own words – corrupt & incomplete as they are
i’m impressed by stan goff even though it is very muscular writing – it is fed by an informed heart & it is a difficult proposition to live outside the construct – that the eternal commentators create
i am neither shocked by their vanity – the erstwhile malcolm muggeridge though he was himself the ambassador of god, the podhoretzes & novaks are very crude pieces of machinery & both the piece & the machinery are getting cruder by the hour
but the terrible truth is at this time the fools like friedman control the streets as hitler/goebbels inisted was necessary for effecive propoganda & while we cry they maintain that control
already they have concealed the most basic facts of this criminal invasion – at every level & their treatment of the downing street memo is just a burly exaggeration of that
they lie about the number of americans who have died from their action in iraq – i feel as some doctors have sd in germany – that the real numbers are considerably higher – yet the control of those facts rarely changes
they lie about the murder & the number of murders of the iraqui people & it seems o meet public accord
it has been so consistently wrong abou the resistance – that it would be comic in any other context
it has dressed up a puppet administration in the same way they did in vietnam – that is – they have repulsed – the concreted desire of the people & masked it with short term careerists
they have lied so profoundly about money & who is spending & defrauding it that they hope we will be lost in the labrynthine lines of lies
& the real voices of america are silenced, are mocked, are isolated & in not so lonf-a-time – they no doubt will be imrisoned under provisions of a patriot act that the population has been deceived into accepting
as coppola has kurtz saying – friedman is just an errand boy – no more no less

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 15 2005 20:00 utc | 23

Friedman sees the reality of the situation. It is crumbling.
But a crumbling Iraq is not good for Isreal. It is a pointed Gun at Isreal’s mid section. So he wants to talk about Iraq. He wants to get Americans, thats me and you, to make a much bigger commitment to Iraq. I suppose this is understandable. But the reality is that its going to take a bigger commitment and frankly I don’t see it happening.
I agree with Bernhard. Tom needs to have a talk with those he can talk to – his children, about Iraq, what it means to the middle east and Isreal. Its like he wants to talk to us, like we are his children, to go and fight this war and make the world safer place for Isreal. But we aren’t his children – which is why he wants us to fight. Until he talks to his own kids, and until they are serving over there, he shouldn’t be talking to us about the same.
I still think the allies should have given East Prussia to the Jewish War refugees after WWII as compensation from the Germans for their war crimes. It could have been called Yidland – and Yiddish would still be with us. Maybe its not to late for some to move to what remains: the Kaliningrad Oblast between Poland, Lithuania and the Baltic Sea.
Until Tom and his children and all the chikenhawks march off to fight this war, further consideration from the rest of us is a non starter.

Posted by: Timka | Jun 15 2005 21:20 utc | 24

Maybe it is too late, but before we give up on Iraq, why not actually try to do it right? Double the American boots on the ground and redouble the diplomatic effort to bring in those Sunnis who want to be part of the process and fight to the death those who don’t.

Don’t look now, but I think Friedman just came out in favor of genocide. In favor of other people’s children committing genocide.

Posted by: citizen | Jun 15 2005 21:37 utc | 25

citizen
that is exactly what he is saying – that vile piece of shit

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Jun 15 2005 21:48 utc | 26

Where the hell is Joe Biden?
Where is Joe Lieberman?
Barak Obama?

Posted by: citizen | Jun 15 2005 21:55 utc | 27

Well, I tell you this much, we won’t have to wait for Friedman’s autopsy to confirm that he is blind and brain dead.

Posted by: stoy | Jun 16 2005 2:18 utc | 28

I don’t get this thread. When I realized Pundit McNuggets, as Woolcott dubbed him, just vomits gobbledygook onto the page, I stopped reading him. If his name disappears from people’s lips, he loses his job. Just consider the space he occupies on NYT blank. Seems appropriate, as God knows his mind is.
To Giap’s list of fine journos, I’d like to add the one from the Guardian, who was a good friend of Sontag’s, but was pulled in deference to US elite displeasure. Unfortunately, I can’t spell his name, so I hope you remember – it’s something like Ed Vulliamy. His take on America was very insightful. They replaced him w/the forgettable Clinton boy, Sid Blumenthal, who’s always very safe & shallow.

Posted by: jj | Jun 16 2005 4:16 utc | 29

I always thought that Friedman was a neocon as well. I am glad to see some other people have recognized this and I am not alone. I think that is what the love fest with India is all about. The Likud Party looking for a new sugar daddy when the USA falls apart.

Posted by: la | Jun 16 2005 18:33 utc | 30

Back to Main