Even Friedman can't be wrong all the time. What he says in his column about the Iraq "surge" is about as right as you can get, at least in this respect:
"I'll surge on the condition that you once and for all enlist the entire American people in this war effort, and stop putting it all on the shoulders of 130,000 military families, and now 20,000 more.
Is Friedman calling for a draft? No. Is he demanding a repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy? No.
But he is calling out George W. Bush for what he said in his surge speech about "America's commitment", about the need for the "the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives", and his demand for "more patience, sacrifice, and resolve".
As a proponent of the war, it's Friedman's responsibility to question the "sacrifice" Bush is willing to demand of the country. And he's right to do so. The only problem is, he doesn't go far enough. He merely adds a "deadline" and a "floor on the price of oil" to the proposed troop surge.
Is that sacrifice enough for a country spilling blood and squandering treasure in a war that's lasted longer than WWII, a war in which citizens made real sacrifices to support the military effort?
I think not.
Don't think I've gone soft on Friedman. He was wrong to support the invasion in the first place. And he continues to be wrong in spouting his neoliberal theories of globalization. His support of free trade agreements reminds me of what he told Tim Russert:
"We got this free market, and I admit, I was speaking out in Minnesota–my hometown, in fact, and guy stood up in the audience, said, `Mr. Friedman, is there any free trade agreement you’d oppose?’ I said, `No, absolutely not.’ I said, `You know what, sir? I wrote a column supporting the CAFTA, the Caribbean Free Trade initiative. I didn’t even know what was in it. I just knew two words: free trade.”
Nor did he apparently know that CAFTA is the Central America Free Trade Agreement.
Comments