Friedman: ‘Staying the Course Is Pointless,’ ‘Disengage’ From Iraq

[Rose Siding]

For two-and-a-half years, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman has been arguing that that we need to give the Bush administration’s “stay the course” approach six more months....
Now, Friedman has finally run out of patience. In today’s New York Times, Friedman writes “It is now obvious that we are not midwifing democracy in Iraq. We are baby-sitting a civil war” and it’s time to “disengage.” An excerpt:

hree years of efforts to democratize Iraq are not working. That means “staying the course” is pointless, and it’s time to start thinking about Plan B — how we might disengage with the least damage possible.

…But the administration now has to admit what anyone — including myself — who believed in the importance of getting Iraq right has to admit: Whether for Bush reasons or Arab reasons, it is not happening, and we can’t throw more good lives after good lives.

Finally, the war in Iraq has so divided us at home and abroad that leaving, while bringing other problems, might also make it easier to build coalitions to deal with post-U.S. Iraq, Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. All these problems are connected. We need to deal with Iran and Syria, but from a position of strength — and that requires a broad coalition.

The longer we maintain a unilateral failing strategy in Iraq, the harder it will be to build such a coalition, and the stronger the enemies of freedom will become.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/04/friedman-iraq/

[Erika]

1. We have to stop the loss of lives

Know when to fold your hand.

[Oversea Visitor]

2. Enemies of freedom

:rofl:
Give Iraqies their freedom

So who is the enemies :rofl: of freedom.

[Me.]

3. Ah Friedman

He with the billionaire in-laws who has spent as much of his time trying to com vince us that the world is flat and that we should ship our jobs overseas so his family can make another billion, as he has on Iraq. I wonder when he's going to realize he was and is wrong about everything? And I am always amazed how guys like him, who were jonesing for war for years, think a mild "I was one of them" mea culpa should suffice and is enough to exonerate them.

*shadow government*

[physioex]

5. I can't stand him either....

Pseudo-Intellectual Knit Wit.........

[ixion]

6. yeah, Friedman was a cheerleader for the illegal invasion

initially. He's the kind of 'soft' pseudo-intellectual that gives intellectuals a bad name. :grr:

[last1standing]

4. I'm glad he's finally come around.

Its just a shame he and so many other pundits refused to see what most of us here did back in 2003, this was started for the profits of multinational corporations. There was no other real reason.

Anyway, welcome to the fold Friedman. Maybe next time you'll believe us.

[jbfam4]

7. There was no other real reason?

War presidents are ALWAYS re elected

[last1standing]

8. Even that was about making money for multinationals.

Every move this administration has made ties back to one overriding idea - to make more money for multinational conglomerations. Re-election was just their way of keeping the gravy train running. I can promise that if the real decision makers ever think bush* is no longer an asset, he'll be dropped immediately and a new puppet will be installed in his place.

[wellst0nev0ter]

9. Only Took Him Six and a half Friedmans

explanation here

And we all know whose side he'll be on when civil war becomes obvious to all but the most inveterate bushtard:

Maybe the cynical Europeans were right. Maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. That will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the Sunnis in Iraq intend to be. If they come around, a decent outcome in Iraq is still possible, and we should stay to help build it. If they won't, then we are wasting our time. We should arm the Shiites and Kurds and leave the Sunnis of Iraq to reap the wind. We must not throw more good American lives after good American lives for people who hate others more than they love their own children.