We are told that the administration is to “tweak” its message on Afghanistan. But it sounds more like it is throwing in the towel on the most wrongheaded aspect of its Afghanistan policy:
In a move away from President Obama’s deadline of July 2011 for the start of an American drawdown from Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all cited 2014 this week as the key date for handing over the defense of Afghanistan to the Afghans themselves. Implicit in their message, delivered at a security and diplomatic conference in Australia, was that the United States would be fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan for at least four more years.
That’s no tweak; it’s an acknowledgment that a deadline devised by political hacks for partisan purposes (i.e., to keep the base from freaking out) is being discarded. About time. As always, no Obama maneuver can forgo dissembling: “There’s not really any change, but what we’re trying to do is to get past that July 2011 obsession so that people can see what the president’s strategy really entails,’ a senior administration official said Wednesday.” That obsession was the president’s, who last emphasized it from the Oval Office in a prime-time speech.
One of those aforementioned hacks is running for mayor of Chicago, and the other is about to depart for the 2012 campaign. More important, the liberal base has already absorbed the midterm losses and won’t have another chance to wreak havoc on Obama until 2012. So now the White House can do it right:
The message shift is effectively a victory for the military, which has long said that the July 2011 deadline undermined its mission by making Afghans reluctant to work with troops perceived to be leaving shortly. “They say you’ll leave in 2011 and the Taliban will chop their heads off,” Cpl. Lisa Gardner, a Marine based in Helmand Province, told a reporter this past spring. This summer Gen. James T. Conway, then the Marine Corps’s commandant, went so far as to say that the deadline “was probably giving our enemy sustenance.”
Last year the White House insisted on the July deadline to inject a sense of urgency into the Afghans to get their security in order — military officials acknowledge that it has partly worked — but also to quiet critics in the Democratic Party upset about Mr. Obama’s escalation of the war and his decision to order 30,000 more troops to the country.
Don’t get me wrong. The decision is the correct one. But this is pathetic. Obama didn’t have the political courage to do what was plainly in our strategic interests, with men on the field of battle, when he feared electoral consequences. Only when the coast is clear can he do the right thing. How completely not-Bush.
No doubt, he is one of the great stylists of our time. A true man of letters.
Sure, because Friedman’s track record is just great on the Middle East. Might as well be Bill Kristol or Dick Cheney, or Commentary, for that matter.
Friedman loves lame similes and metaphors. He is as an ass.
In fact, half the time you are playing baseball, you take the field without the bat. And the reason you do so is make sure you get your turn at bat. The only sure way to lose the game is to never take the field. Then your opponent wins by default.
By not engaging, we are losing by default. That’s why we are on the verge of seeing a nuclear Iran with sway over a huge swath of the Middle East, much of which we pacified with our blood and treasure.
“not because I didn’t believe that it was the right strategy, but because I didn’t believe we had enough leverage to succeed.”
That leverage, of course, being a credible threat of force.
Diplomacy with the threat of force is like playing baseball without a baseball.
Diplomacy WITHOUT the threat of force. . .
Sheesh, it’s not even noon and I’m already drunk!
Gee, Tom, you think?
Sounds like another book in the making. “The World Is Leverage?”
I wonder if Tom Friedman and Bob Woodward have ever thought about collaborating on a book.
One thing that isn’t correlated with the price of oil is Tom Friedman’s ego. It just gets bigger and bigger, regardless of how much a barrel costs. Can you say “narcissist”?
Obama didn’t say he would negotiate with Iran (with leverage yet!). He said he would talk to Iran. As in “what can I do for you?”
I have read hundreds of opinions on Contentions,but i haven’t seen one that specifically says what to do to prevent Iran from going Nuke. Lots of attack opinions/but nothing that could work except pre-emption. Is that all we’ve got,pre-emption and Murphey’s Law?
Every time there’s a Contentions post about Friedman, a bunch of folks come out to say bad things about him without actually offering a substantive counterargument. Just what did he say that you disagree with, and why do you disagree with it? We all make mistakes, so I would hope the complaint is not that he got some prediction wrong, as that hardly seems a basis for such venom. He is under skins, and I confess, I don’t get what the anger is about.
So RCAR, now that you have read hundreds of opinions at this blog about the Iran problem and presumably found them wanting, what do you suggest?
Tom Friedman, in his analysis of how falling commodity prices is affecting Iran’s foreign policy agenda and comparing it to the Soviet Union, forgets to mention a couple of things: 1) The Soviet Union did not have an abundance of oil to prop up the rest of its economy and 2) Iran still has oil in the ground and the world will buy it at any price.
I used to think the guy was cogent, but I’m beginning to think he just like reading his own work.
The only way to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons is to get the Russians, Chinese and Europeans to coordinate and adhere to harsh economic sanctions.
Fat chance of that happening.
It is pretty clear that while the world doesn’t want Iran to get nuclear weapons the key players didn’t have the spine to keep it from happening. And now it’s too late.
A containment policy is all we have left and the hope that we can stop the inevitable terrorist plot to destroy a US city or all of Israel.
Who knows how history will view things but perhaps the mistake in 2002 was going after Iraq instead of Iran who was obviously much closer to getting the bomb. We could have had much greater support from other countries for really tough sanctions at that time.
11
Gord Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:13 PM
So RCAR, now that you have read hundreds of opinions at this blog about the Iran problem and presumably found them wanting, what do you suggest?
Take a look at #13/that is typical. The reason I read so much on this Issue was to learn the best tactics/strategy from the very smart people contributing here. It’s a chess game that is way over my head. All I know is that this has the potential to escalate into the WW3 that refused to happen previously. That is also to inform NPOD that WW3 hasn’t happened yet so stop yakking about WW4.
In response to RCAR’s question in #9 — I think so, yes.
RCAR: At least you admit to your limitations. Read N. Podhoretz’s book before you pompously mouth off. Then at least you will understand why he calls our confrontation with militant Islam WWIV.
I asked you how you would approach the problem. You said nothing. That nicely summarizes your position and that of many others: do nothing, allow Iran to weaponize their nuclear material and then “manage” the problem. As it happens, I think that is unfortunately going to be what happens, unless the Israelis rediscover their martial virtues and do what so obviously needs to be done. If not, we will get to see what kind of world your solution to the problem will leave us with.
Friedman, intentionally or not, attempts to rewrite history; it’s true that the collapse in oil prices was a major factor in the implosion of the Soviet Union BUT it was NOT the PRIMARY factor. It WAS the proverbial straw that broke the camels back but entirely inadequate in describing the historical dynamics that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Friedman attempts to make it the sole reason for the Soviets collapse. At least subconsciously, he does this because to tell the WHOLE truth is to undermine his rationale for why he thinks Obama can succeed.
Reagan’s arms build-up AND the Soviet’s perspective that he wasn’t bluffing or a hollow threat were the primary factors. From the Soviets point of view, they unquestionably had to keep up in the arms race because they believed that if the west under Reagan gained a decisive advantage it would attack. They believed this simply because that’s what they would have done… it’s human nature to assume that what is true of us is true of others.
When oil prices declined to the point of unsustainable support, the Soviets arms build-up collapsed AND Reagan’s geopolitical ‘game’ became point, set, match…game over.
Had Reagan not instituted his arms build up and had he not been a credible leader who had restored America’s sense of confidence in itself the Soviets could have easily weathered an economic downturn. Were Carter the President there would have been more negotiation and the Soviet Union would most certainly be with us today.
Reagan’s approach to the Soviets however is particularly illustrative as to why Obama’s approach won’t work. Iran’s Mullahs know Obama won’t fight and without the willingness to fight, negotiation is simply hollow words. And hollow impotence will not dissuade Iranian fanaticism.
Iran’s government can weather economic downturns and it’s pursuit of nukes is not the economic drain upon Iran that the arms build-up was upon the Soviets. As for public unrest, there is no organized opposition in Iran and its mullahs are quite capable of applying the requisite ruthlessness needed to quell any dissent.
Friedman is talking out his ass and telling the American people that Iranian piss is ‘rain’.
That’s the first time I recall the fall of the Soviet Union attributed to low oil prices. Yet, for years, it has been widely written that overspending in support of its defense, particularly facing the prospect of competing against Reagan’s proposed “Star Wars” missile defense was the “tipping point” that led to its demise. Additionally, I recall extensive reporting after the fall of the Soviet Union on the decrepit state of its oil and gas production system. Would it surprise me to find Thomas Friedman rewriting history in this manner?
Friedman seems to also overlook the ease in which Iran could blockade (or even threaten to blockade) the Gulf of Hormuz and bring oil prices back to levels favorable to it.
Perhaps Friedman spends most of his games at the hot dog stand.
Gord Says:
October 29th, 2008 at 12:40 PM
RCAR: At least you admit to your limitations. Read N. Podhoretz’s book before you pompously mouth off. Then at least you will understand why he calls our confrontation with militant Islam WWIV.
I asked you how you would approach the problem. You said nothing.
I will say something/ Let’s Roll the Dice with a joint Israeli-USA attack on their nuclear facilities/we’ll let geniuses like you try to assess the various resulting scenarios//and I understand why NPOD uses the “term”WW4//It’s just a stupid idea/Let’s do our wars in chronological order/rather than metaphorical order.
No. 10, here’s what struck me as pathetic about the Friedman column. He feels it necessary to say, “not that I didn’t believe it was the right strategy….” and then goes to explain exactly why it IS the wrong strategy — because we have no leverage on the basis of which to negotiate with Iran. It’s so nauseating to see the little Bush-hating jabs Friedman always feels obliged to stick into all his leads even when the rest of the column goes on to implicitly back various things that Bush has done. I think it’s because otherwise his wife will throw him out of the house; a plugged-in friend says it’s because he’s got a great gig at the Times and he doesn’t want to lose it.
All this skepticism is depressing. Don’t all of you know that this is all a big misunderstanding, and that if we would only make the effort to talk to the Iranians all will be forgiven and peace will be at hand?
RCAR — I’m pretty sure you’ve read my discussions of the issue (how to keep Iran un-nuked) in the past. The conclusion is always that the only thing that will work is a comprehensively disabling attack on Iran — not a ground invasion, but a comprehensive air assault that leaves Iran unable to retaliate by conventional military means, and unable to defend herself if she tries to retaliate through terrorism.
Nothing else will work. If we try anything more than what we have already done (negotiations and sanctions), it will be some of the other things that won’t work. Those things that won’t work include the “harsh sanctions” favored by others. The reason those won’t work is that they would leave Iran able to retaliate with terrorism all over the Middle East, starting with the Gulf nations that allow US forces to operate from their territory.
That’s where we stand. You can’t say you haven’t read it now.
The present US-International path WILL lead to the Iranian mullah’s gaining the bomb.
As Jay from TX points out, the International cooperation necessary for tough economic sanctions to work are entirely lacking.
An Israeli attack must cross Iraqi air space and therefore would require American permission.
They also could only launch a single attack. Conventional weapons would be inadequate to dissuade the Iranians and there would be economic repercussions with the Iranians plausibly responding with the closing of the straight of Hormuz.
If Obama is elected, futile, impotent diplomatic attempts by the US at accommodation will be our sole focus and Iran will gain the bomb. The historical result of that will be the eventual deaths of millions and liberal’s willful blindness will make them culpable in those deaths.
If McCain is elected the Mullah’s will KNOW that he will fight and will not doubt his resolve.
Iran’s mullahs will believe McCain when he tells them that they have say, 2 weeks to end their pursuit of nukes or we will stop them with military force. That the US will not allow the proliferation of nuclear weapons beyond its present distribution.
If the Iranians comply, fine. If not, military force will be necessary. As is so often the case, a strong, unequivocal response is preferable, as it counter-intuitively, limits the long term damage.
That responce needs a psychological component and preferably embodies an ominous threat of far greater damage to come if Irans mullahs do not abandon their pursuit of nukes.
The first strike against Iran needs to be major with hard hits against its air defenses. Immediately followed up by an attack against its ‘deepest’ nuclear facility. That attack should consist of the appropriate special forces taking temporary command of the targeted Iranian nuclear facility and placing a nuclear bomb in its deepest level, followed by full evacuation and timed detonation of the device.
The goal being the minimal disruption to the environment and the maximum psychological blow to the mullah’s with the elimination of ANY doubt as to our future intentions, should the Iranians maintain their pursuit of nukes.
Yes, the proposed path is fraught with danger and uncertainty but the alternative is a world of greatly expanded proliferation of WMD and the eventual certainty of millions of deaths…
22
J.E. Dyer Says/ “The conclusion is always that the only thing that will work is a comprehensively disabling attack on Iran — not a ground invasion, but a comprehensive air assault that leaves Iran unable to retaliate by conventional military means, and unable to defend herself if she tries to retaliate through terrorism.”
OK there it is/JD can we have an opinion on the the best/worst case scenarios that result from this plan???? The worst is WW3,Strangelove style? Right?
My thanks to those who responded to #10. I now see why some people disagree with Friedman. I disagree with much of that disagreement, but that’s ok. Which is my point, I guess. Why am I not inclined to say that those of you who disagree with Friedman (and me) are “talking out of your ass” or “spending most of the time at the game at the hot dog stand,” or trying to save your marriage or your cushy job?
My experience with liberals is that they, more than conservatives, tend to be angry at the people they disagree with, and I understand their anger because deep down inside they know they are wrong and so feel threatened by, and angry at, those who pose the threat. But on this board I have encountered the same sort of insecure anger from the right, and I just don’t get the lack of manners.
I don’t see any charge that Friedman is lying – i.e., saying things he doesn’t believe – or apologizing for cronies, or oppressing the masses. He is, at worst, wrong about how the world works. I think he’s right, but I’m fascinated by the response he provokes among people who I would hope have enough in their barrels not to have to make so much noise.
Sure.
An attack upon Iran, properly implemented will NOT result in WW3. The Russians and Chinese are NOT going to go to war with us over Iran.
Should only Israel attack Iran with conventional weapons, it will be inadequate in the long run and merely delay the inevitable. If Israel attacks Iran with nuclear weapons it WILL engender an equivalent, ‘eye for an eye’ response from the Muslim world. The most likely scenario being that rogue Pakistani military elements will pass off to Hezbollah or Hamas a nuclear weapon for a terrorist attack upon Israel, specifically Tel Aviv.
A successful detonation of a nuke in Tel Aviv would end Israel but it might not dissuade Israeli nuclear retaliation.
The KEY to an EFFECTIVE American attack upon Iran is an unequivocal psychological component. Iran’s mullahs MUST be CONVINCED that certain and ultimately futile destruction awaits them upon the path they have chosen. That, counter-intuitively, pursuit of nukes will result in the derailment of Iran’s rise to preeminence within the Muslim world.
That is WHY a nuclear attack is necessary because nothing LESS will be adequate to persuasion of Iran’s fanatical mullahs. Just as nothing less than the destruction of Hiroshima & Nagasaki was sufficient to convince the Japanese military leaders that the war was lost and further resistance was futile.
But a nuclear attack upon Iran by the US carries great negative connotations for the US in the court of public opinion and that is WHY I suggest an underground attack. Damage outside the nuclear facility is minimized and yet the psychological threat is maximal because its a nuclear attack. No mullah, even the most fanatical, wants to see a nuclear cloud over Tehran if it will accomplish nothing.
There IS a difference between fanatical and insane.
26
Geoffrey Britain Says:
An(Nuclear) attack upon Iran, properly implemented will NOT result in WW3. The Russians and Chinese are NOT going to go to war with us over Iran.
Murphy’s law is all over this statement. I understand your logic,but you need to understand the logic of the law of unintended consequences. This is the problem with pre-emption,that it can create the very nightmare that you are trying to pre-empt. Bismark said that some people are so terrified of death that they committ suicide.
LK,
It is Friedman’s intellectual dishonesty wherein the repulsion arises. He has been consistent in his addressing only part of the truth and only the part that supports his argument.
Friedman has long been on the scene and is a commentator, one who has presumably thought long and hard about the issues. Yet he mentions the primary, relevant factors not at all. And he does that for the most transparent of reasons; it would greatly undermine both Obama’s rationale for dealing with foreign adversaries and his own support for Obama.
As these are national security issues, Friedman KNOWS the consequences of NOT “ending politics at the shore” yet he seeks to further the agenda he supports through disingenuous means; the rewriting of history.
THAT and in his respected position as a ‘pundit’ of literally telling the American people that, “Iranian pissing upon their heads is really rain”….merits a derisive appellation like ‘talking out his ass’.
” I understand your logic,but you need to understand the logic of the law of unintended consequences. This is the problem with pre-emption,that it can create the very nightmare that you are trying to pre-empt.” RCAR
Ah, the law of unintended consequences. Yes it DOES consistently rear its head, does it not?
That is WHY I said, “Yes, the proposed path is fraught with danger and uncertainty”
The REASON why unintended consequences is not a determinate factor is because our present courses results are CERTAIN… “the alternative is a world of greatly expanded proliferation of WMD and the eventual certainty of millions of deaths…”
The reason I suggest a careful, pre-planned nuclear attack is “because nothing LESS will be adequate to persuasion of Iran’s fanatical mullahs.”
I greatly wish it were not so but experience has decisively and unequivocally demonstrated that when dealing with fanatics ONLY extreme measures are sufficient.
They’re FANATICS therefore by definition not reasonable nor open to ordinary persuasion through logic and reason.
The REASON why unintended consequences is not a determinate factor is because our present courses results are CERTAIN… “the alternative is a world of greatly expanded proliferation of WMD and the eventual certainty of millions of deaths…”
The results of this “plan” are certain also, greatly expanded proliferation of hatred for the West for centuries to come,and the certainity of millions of deaths due directly to that hatred.
To finish:
We are entering a time of crises brought on by Iranian fanaticism.
In a crises the CHOICES are NEVER good.
It is ALWAYS a case of very bad or even worse CHOICES , that is WHY it is a CRISES.
Long historical experience has demonstrated that in a crises the short-term ‘solution’ invariably yields the worst long term result. And conversely, that the most objectionable action in the short term yields the most desirable long term result.
Our choice is simple; attack Iran with a carefully planned nuclear attack SOON or accept the alternative: “a world of greatly expanded proliferation of WMD and the eventual CERTAINTY of millions of UNNECESSARY deaths…”
Is #22 saying the same thing??????
RCAR — I disagree with Geoffrey Britain on this particular point (the necessity of a nuclear component in a comprehensive takedown of Iran). Otherwise I find his analysis largely sound. In many previous posts on this topic, I have made the same point that Israel doesn’t have the capability to execute an attack to the level required. It’s not enough to attack a handful of nuclear sites; Iran’s entire military and command and control must be destroyed. Some points:
1. A nuclear attack is not necessary to either achieve this comprehensive result, or convince Iran’s leadership that there is no recourse, or alternative to complying with US demands. Even the underground facilities can be damaged adequately using penetrating conventional warheads properly — IF this damage is part of an overall plan of attack that destroys Iran’s entire war-making apparatus. Virtually all of that apparatus is still stored above-ground.
2. If the force were built up to execute such an air attack, the build-up, and focused diplomacy to warn and present clear demands, would have a strong likelihood of persuading Iran to give up her nuclear weapons program — at least for now — without the attack having to be conducted. I would certainly prefer that outcome, and have discussed it at length. Real sanctions, with a naval blockade, could even figure into such an effort, as a phase of increased intensity before a full-scale attack. But the key to making this kind of process effective is the threat ultimately being real, and the process accelerating quickly and relentlessly.
3. I agree with Geoffrey Britain, and have also made this point repeatedly: there is no possibility whatsoever of Russia or China going to war with us over Iran. That is not to the advantage of either of them. Their patronage of Iran is a method of relying on Iran as a proxy to squeeze US influence out of the Middle East FOR them. They have no desire to get into a pitched conflict with America over Iran, but rather to benefit from Iran’s strategy.
Their continuing and predatory interest in the region does mean that if we break Iran, we have bought Iran. Our task after disabling her comprehensively would be to shoulder off influence from Russia and China through infiltrated operatives. Iran would need time to recover, and reorganize politically, WITHOUT influences from Russia and China, if a comprehensively disabling attack were actually undertaken as a last resort.
Iran is not Iraq, however, and the internal rifts of Iraq should not be projected onto Iran. Iran has a very long history as a coherent, culturally unified Persian nation — from many centuries prior to the rise of Islam — and will have many advantages over Iraq in any project of political reconstitution. In my opinion, we should not fear the outcome Iranians would produce by organizing themselves, rather than having their choices dictated to them by a clerical council. (Unfortunately, our State Department is congenitally averse to the uncertainty of democratic outcomes, which was a serious problem in the immediate post-war period in Iraq, in May 2003.)
Again, I think if a serious threat of US action is presented, Iran will shelve her nuclear weapons plan for the time being, without having to be attacked. The mullahs would regard it as the most prudent course, to make a concession in the short term and retain their power. There is no doubt that such a political defeat would rechannel their efforts into terrorism, but they are ALREADY making a huge terrorism effort. Increasing its size further would not have the watershed effect people reflexively assume it would.
The US would also have to continue increasing our engagement in the region; we could not declare victory and go have a barbecue. As long as the present clerical council rules Iran, Iran will remain a potential path for Russia and China to hegemony of the Middle East, and the Asian powers will not stop competing for Iran’s allegiance. Blunting the effectiveness of their respective efforts, with oblique moves in Iran’s neighborhood, is a slow and laborious process, as is trying to encourage Iranians themselves to repudiate the revolutionary Islamic council and choose another path. I would prefer this slow and laborious route over a major attack on Iran — but the primary thing that matters is keeping Iran without nuclear weapons. If we let Iran nuke up, everything changes for the worse.
Friedman’s suggestion, to reduce the reward on OBL to one penny, is nice. I only wish we would do likewise with Afghanistan, a country without strategic importance to us. But Friedman’s argument about Iran is wrong.
Deals with that fanatic regime, for the sake of short term concessions, that will help them survive, are a mistake. Let Tehran’s economic woes disqualify that govt in the eyes of Iranians and cause the people to close down that theocracy. Only a new, secular regime without nuclear and hegemonic ambitions can give the region real peace.
As to the Soviet Union’s fate, yes, the real story of its crack up does indeed remain unexplained. However, that the collapse of the oil price, was what broke the camel’s back is unlikely. It wasn’t a sudden economic breakdown but a mental breakdown that settled her hash. The leadership lost its nerve and the reason was not the loss of oil revenues.
nacl,
The mental breakdown was ‘set-up’ by Reagan’s arms build-up, the economic collapse of the oil revenue necessary to continue the arms race precipitated the mental breakdown.
That is why it was the ‘straw’ that broke the camels back.
No Reagan, no arms build-up. No greatly ratcheting up of the arms race, no psychological pressure upon the Soviet leadership. It’s all of a piece, including Reagan’s economic reforms resulting in the greatest economic growth in history.
to #25: In my case it’s not fear that I may be wrong that provokes the deep anger that exploded in my response to the Friedman column. Rather, it’s years of being harangued with illogical, uninformed vitriol by my party-line-spouting friends on the left (virtually ALL my friends, since I’m a New-York-area Jew). Even at Yom Kippur services this year, during the informal conversation that the Rabbi led between morning and afternoon prayers, I felt I was at a Democratic party rally rather than a religious service. And the vitriol hurled at me when I tried to pipe up from the minority viewpoint exacerbated my anger.
J.E,
Excellent analysis, as always.
Tactically and logistically you are far more knowledgeable than I.
Any acumen I possess is in geopolitical analysis and the resultant strategies. I’m a big picture and a bottom-line, basic principles guy.
On that note, I must disagree with your assertion that a nuclear attack is unnecessary.
Not for any military reason to which I defer in your judgment, but for political reasons.
My perception is that even under a McCain administration, the American public’s support for any military campaign against Iran is insufficient for successful implementation of such.
The MSM would be all over this, portraying it as outright warmongering, calls for impeachment would IMMEDIATELY ensue and we would see mass protests and riots in American cities.
Of course, none of this will happen under an Obama administration. But under McCain, liberal rage at once again being ‘cheated’ out of an election would be palpable, just awaiting a spark to set it off.
Thus, I propose what is essentially a fait accompli. Perhaps an initial EMP attack but certainly a two day air campaign against Iran’s air defenses followed by a quick strike against ONE nuclear facility with an underground nuclear detonation, sending a powerful psychological message and shock to the Iranian leadership.
Easier said than done I know but lack of political support is the problem I see in any conventional military strategy.
However accomplished, the message of cease and desist or suffer the ominous and undeniable consequences must be sent in a way that cannot be misunderstood.
GB:
Thank you for the reply. Your argument seems to me self-defeating. If Friedman really believed that the things he doesn’t mention really mattered, why would he support Obama?
Friedman’s “agenda” is to demonstrate that what he thinks matters does matter. How is that dishonest? I can understand your believing that anyone who studies this stuff closely MUST recognize the importance of the causes you cite, but there are lots of pundits, and lots of opinions, which suggests that careful study does not produce unanimity, so cannot be presumed to lead someone to know that what you say matters actually does matter.
Geoffrey Britain, re post 35.
The USSR’s collapse is a more complicated story. Le Carre’s image of the red knight who bled to death inside his armor is a nice metaphor. Reagan notwithstanding, it was precisely in the military sphere where the USSR was able to keep up. But inside that terrific armor, everything was rotting. The country was polluted, life expectancy was declining. Many hospitals outside the big cities did not have hot running water. And China, a tacit US ally, was coming up like gangbusters. China, with whom Russia has a long and contested border, was the ever larger specter in the USSR’s rear view mirror that panicked the Kremlin.
It is my contention that it is precisely because Friedman knows that what he isn’t mentioning is highly relevant that he omits it.
His support for Obama simply exceeds his allegiance to intellectual honesty because his agenda requires that he accept that the means are justified by the ends. The exclusion of so much relevant & historically common knowledge allows for no other interpretation.
Everyone has an opinion, but all opinions are not of equal worth. Or, as Sen. Moynahan so brilliantly put it, “Everyone has a a right to their opinion but NO one has a right to their own set of facts.”
The ancient Greeks with some contributions from the Romans developed logic. The value of logic is self-evident in revealing flaws in ones thinking. If empirical evidence emerges that contradicts our rationale it is incumbent upon us to amend our thinking, if not we are guilty of intellectual dishonesty for we are then “knowingly telling an untruth”.
All of us have an agenda, its simply a matter of whether your agenda is more important to you than internal consistency in your rationale. Clearly for Friedman, logical consistency is willingly sacrificed in favor of the promotion of his favored agenda.
Not at all uncommon with the current staff of the NYT.
nacl,
“The USSR’s collapse is a more complicated story. inside… everything was rotting.”
Yes, that’s true but I believe you give it too much weight but a factor yes. Just not a primary factor.
“The country was polluted, life expectancy was declining. Many hospitals outside the big cities did not have hot running water.”
Pollution did not contribute significantly to the USSR’s dissolution, nor did a declining birth rate nor cold showers.
“China… was the ever larger specter in the USSR’s rear view mirror that panicked the Kremlin.”
China is as xenophobic as Russia, it has NEVER sought dominance outside its borders.
“Reagan notwithstanding, it was precisely in the military sphere where the USSR was able to keep up.”
Not so, they could not match us technologically, nor economically, nor in the projection of power beyond their borders. Militarily, they KNEW we were their superiors. Just in our superior Nuclear submarine capacity alone they were outgunned and had no effective defense against it. But the Soviets believed we were weak willed and so would not launch a first strike.
THEN the crazy ‘cowboy’ was elected President and everything began to change.
When Reagan announced his ‘Star Wars’ initiative, unlike the Democratic parties doubters, the Soviets believed we were capable of doing it. After all, we had gone to the moon, multiple times and they couldn’t do it even once. The psychological import of that is not to be lightly dismissed, which is why today’s Chinese leadership have announced their intention to do it as well.
Regan’s Star Wars program of missile defense was a ‘game changer’ and the Soviets KNEW it. When the price of oil dropped so precipitously, it not only reduced the needed revenue necessary for the Soviets to stay in the arms race but it acted as a shot in the arm for the American economy. The ‘Russkies’ were faced with the circumstance of an accelerating American economy and a declining Soviet economy.
Their enemy was getting richer and they were getting poorer…and their only option was capitulation. Regan had them in ‘checkmate’ in but a few more moves… the Russians are very good chess players, easily good enough to recognize the inescapable trap they were in and THAT is WHY they suffered their mental breakdown.
GB -
I’m sorry, but I don’t see Friedman claiming that the drop in oil prices was the sole reason for the collapse of the USSR, just that it’s the only contributing factor relevant to the current situation in which a similar decline threatens the Ayatollahs (and, one hopes, Sr. Chavez, too). I don’t believe the other contributing factors are relevant to the decisions our leaders now need to make, and so I don’t make anything of Friedman’s not mentioning them in the current context.
I’m not saying that Friedman gives Reagan enough credit for having put the Soviets where expensive oil was essential to their survival. I’m just saying that whether or not one credits Reagan and the arms race, as you do, or domestic bread and circuses and foreign adventurism, as Friedman does, you seem to agree with Friedman that the oil price was the coup de grace. Likewise, Friedman argues, Iran is in a pickle and needs oil to stay high. How Iran got in that position is no more important than how the USSR got into its predicament. Your focus on that aspect of the discussion seems to me driven by YOUR agenda, which is to discredit Friedman, even when you seem to agree with him on the role of oil in the Soviets’ collapse.
Are you saying that Iran is not pressured by falling oil revenues? Or that if Iran is pressured by falling oil prices, that does not present an opportunity for us to trade sanctions for nukes?
I have to agree with the original post that this article was dialed in. Was Friedman too busy to actually think through his own logic?
1) What happens when oil prices go back up? Although there has been a recent price collapse, has anything in the world changed to such an extent that anyone believes prices cannot go back up? Does China (a low efficiency oil user) not have more economic growth to do? Are the high efficiency oil users (Japan, America, Europe) going to make rapid shifts away from petroleum at these prices?
2) The Shah faltered because he wouldn’t use force against his own people with Jimmy Carter tut-tutting him. Does anyone think the mullahs of Iran have that much concern for their own people? I seem to recall an Iran-Iraq War that they lost a million people in, many of them children who were given the duty of running barefoot across Iraqi minefields… a task made more pleasant by the plastic key each was given by the mullahs to open the gates of heaven with.
3) Is Osama Bin Ladin really worth only a penny? And does lowering the price to that give anyone any belief that the price might not go back up? My mother taught me that in selling Real Estate people will not buy as long as interest rates keep falling, but let them rise just once and people try to lock in the house at that rate. To play that game in the bazaars of Asia, you cut the price on OBL’s head in half “based on his diminished role in running Al Qaeda” and announce that “an inter-agency review is being conducted to see if the bounty shouldn’t be cut further. Their report will be made public later this year.” No one will give him up if there is hope that he will be worth more tomorrow than he is today… but what about if he may become worth less at the end of the year than he is today? One penny just encourages them to hold him and let him lash out again with even a low-level campaign of terror.
4) The Arabs who were polled at the end… did they not list Iran as a tourist destination because of the general living conditions there or because they know that Sunni Arabs may not be treated with mutual admiration and respect by the Iranian security apparatus?
5) The list goes on but I am tired…