It's Official: Friedman is clueless
Quote:
From a recent NYT editorial:
In this time of war, I find it helpful to step back a little. So I went last week to NATO headquarters in Brussels, and, I must say, the view from there was illuminating. What I think I saw were some huge tectonic plates of history moving. Here's how I would describe it: 9/11 was the start of World War III, Ã* la Pearl Harbor; the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was the initial response, Ã* la the North Africa campaign; the invasion of Iraq was akin to D-Day (I hope it ends as well); and now we are present at the creation of some kind of new global power structure.
From a recent NYT editorial:
In this time of war, I find it helpful to step back a little. So I went last week to NATO headquarters in Brussels, and, I must say, the view from there was illuminating. What I think I saw were some huge tectonic plates of history moving. Here's how I would describe it: 9/11 was the start of World War III, Ã* la Pearl Harbor; the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was the initial response, Ã* la the North Africa campaign; the invasion of Iraq was akin to D-Day (I hope it ends as well); and now we are present at the creation of some kind of new global power structure.
...and then of course, he posits nothing to back his ingenious theory up, and instead talks about the "forthcoming" NATO and peace-keeping missions in the Middle East and Balkans. Yep, international peace-keeping = WWIII I guess. What a blowhard. This is what happens when egomaniacal journalist start considering themselves historians and military strategists. Telling that he not once but twice says "no, I'm not crazy". Even he knows the article is a POS but can't admit to it...
I like the NYT in general, but when a internationally published writer starts talking about WWIII and then does nothing to explain why, it's pretty pathetic. Anything for an attention grabbing headline or opening paragraph. Gotta get those ad dollars rolling in! What an ass. The editor should be shot for running it, too. Devalues the publication as a whole.
Comments
Originally posted by Friedman
...and now we are present at the creation of some kind of new global power structure.
I think this is his point. It's pretty obvious it's the direction the conservations in the U.S. want things to go.
That unilateralist bastard!
[edit]
I love Thomas Friedman.
I don't have any problems with his observations about peace-keeping, but wtf does that have to do with stirring up notions of WWIII? It's bad journalism, period. Just because he's an editorialist doesn't make it a good idea to lead with crap like that. Really my gripe is probably more with the lack-luster editing than with Friedman himself but I have not been too impressed with the couple times I've seen him speak on CNN or with this article.
Really, what's the message of his piece? At least when I read Dowd's little rant this morning I knew what she was trying to say -- agree with her or not. Seems to me Friedman's stuff of late doesn't have much substance to it. When you write an editorial, you lead with your main contention and then back it up with examples, supporting quotes, etc. All he did in that piece was talk about future peace-keeping missions in a purely speculative way. What do we as the reading public gain from a piece like that?
Yes, there are examples more pitiful than that all over the press. And maybe that's the other point: that I didn't expect to see such hollow commentary from the NYT or Friedman, even though I'm not the fan Groverat is....
PS - I'm all for moderation when it comes to political "slant".
but we can see this 'battle of civilizations' best by watching any news program and the inevitable and tedious and sacchrine story about the soldier and his Bible, or the troops "keeping in touch with prayer" as I saw on CBS yesterday and the day before and before and before . . . oh yeah and today as well. . .
On the surface it appears as merely another human interest story about faith, but we get such a perspective EVERY NEWSCAST!! and it belies the unacknowledged idea the this is really a struggle of civilizations
think that this perspective is deeply conservative even though it has some measure of truth.
I think that to believe it and to want to maintain it as not just a condition but a struggle worthy of perpetuating by whatever means neccessary is dangerous . . .and I think that that is how the conservatives in the administration see it
I think that the alternative is to acknowledge difference and to strive to exchange (impossible with fundamentalists of any stripe) but not immpossible with the vast majority of people that are not the "West" . . . . And I think this needs to happen or else it will just be a long painful nightmare of mutually self-important (and therefore deceived) purveyors of 'Civilization'
The diffferrence twixt the two views is that the former believes that the West is Truth while the latter believes that dialogue can foster truths where what we have had hitherto has been perspectives
i think it is actually quite different--Dowd rarely has any content other than angry ranting, and Friedman in the this article possibly tried to overreach in its ambitions to describe the new state of US foreign policy.
Originally posted by mrmister
...and Friedman in the this article possibly tried to overreach in its ambitions to describe the new state of US foreign policy.
I think I'm just used to Friedman's polemical simplifications. He seems aware of them, their limitations but chooses to get his point across in the 700 words or whatever he has even if it is often simplistic at a glance. I posted to another Friedman editorial not too long ago, and I had to make the point that he's simplifying things in a kind of academic way. If you watch him joust (though they're not necessarily opposed) with Tim Russert, I think you get a better sense of this from him. I think I've been reading him long enough to sort of understand that implicitly.
[added] Reading his books, which are just a collection of such essays, helps to fill in the gaps as well. His editorials have something of an arc plot if you will. The longer you read them, the more they connect and fill in the messy details.