New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman’s journalistic mission is to lead the massed ranks of the uninitiated toward appreciation of the diktats of the powers that be. He once exulted, “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”

Such selflessness rarely goes unrewarded. In addition to his three Pulitzer Prizes, he has been showered with prestigious speaking engagements, dinners with important government officials, and invitations to international soirees with the rich and powerful. What makes Friedman so appealing to them is his obsessive longing to see U.S. armed force deployed massively and brutally against some hapless country combined with a vociferous espousal of humanitarianism. He has never come across a country that he didn’t want B-52s to knock some sense into. During the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia, he raged with bloodlust, “It should be lights out in Belgrade: Every power grid, water pipe, bridge, road and war-related factory has to be targeted. Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation … and the stakes have to be very clear: Every week you ravage Kosovo is another decade we will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too.”

Friedman is one of those imperial apologists who prefers to see the empire administered by Clintonites rather than Bushies. Republicans generate far greater opposition among European liberals than Democrats. Thus the prestige of the U.S. empire falls under Republican administrations. On a recent trip to Germany, Friedman had the delicate task of instructing his listeners to direct their anger at the U.S. toward the administration of George W. Bush. The Germans had just re-elected Social Democratic leader Gerhard Schroeder, who, during the campaign, had explicitly ruled out taking part in an attack on Iraq under any conditions. “What is most shocking about the German election,” Friedman wrote, “is not how the Chancellor ran against America, it’s how popular that theme was here. Two things are feeding this. One is the new anti-Americanism, a blend of jealousy and resentment of America’s overwhelming economic and military power….The other is the new anti-Bushism—resentment of the often contemptuous, unilateralist, anti-green instincts of the Bush team.” Friedman is distinguishing here between good and bad anti-Americanism. “Anti-Bushism” is OK, but “jealousy and resentment of America’s overwhelming economic and military power” is out of the question. However, he admonished the Germans, “some things are true even if a Texas cowboy believes them. I’m still not sure what the right way is to handle Iraq, but I am sure that ruling out war there, under any conditions…is wrong.”

Friedman’s hesitation is a little surprising. He had never before expressed doubts about Iraq. On Feb. 6, 1998, he urged, “bombing Iraq, over and over and over again, until either Saddam says uncle, and agrees to let the United Nations back in on U.S. terms, or the Iraqi people eliminate him.” Two weeks later he asserted, “[T]he U.S. has to make clear to Iraq and U.S. allies that if there is any violation America will use force, without negotiation, hesitation or U.N. approval.” On Jan. 19, 1999, he fumed, “Take steps to have Saddam declared a war criminal by the United Nations. Blow up a different power station in Iraq every week, so no one knows when the lights will go off. Use every provocation by Saddam to blow up another Iraqi general’s home.” A destroyed power station means no incubators for babies and no refrigerators to store blood or food. Who cares? It’s all Saddam’s fault anyway.

So Friedman knows exactly what to do with Iraq. It is just that he wants Clinton, or someone like him, to do it. In a follow-up column he raved, “Clinton … was swarmed as Germans clamored to see, hear or shake hands with him. Elvis was in the house … . Bill Clinton is viewed by the world as the epitome of American optimism … . And the Bush team…strike the world as cynical pessimists who believe only in power politics….[O]ptimism about human nature and its commitment to the rule of law, not just power, is the engine of the modern West. It is also a huge source of U.S. strength and appeal.”

Friedman’s explanations are, to say the least, fanciful. While he was president, Clinton was not exactly a German pin-up boy. Germans did not enjoy being bullied into bombing Yugoslavia, not to mention irritants like the idea of the 30-meter cordon around the U.S. embassy in Berlin, disrupting the city’s traffic and complicating access to the Brandenburg Gate, or Clinton’s veto of Germany’s nominee to head the IMF.

While Friedman pontificates happily about nebulous issues like “optimism” or “pessimism,” he scrupulously avoids one very sore point in European-American relations: America’s unconditional support for Israeli policies in the occupied territories. He revealed his real feelings about the Europeans in a May 15 column this year: “Yes, yes, many Europeans really do just want an end to the Israeli occupation, but the anti-Semitism coming out of Europe today suggests that deep down some Europeans want a lot more: They want Mr. Sharon to commit a massacre against Palestinians… so that the Europeans can finally get the guilt of the Holocaust off their backs and be able to shout: ‘Look at these Jews, they’re worse than we were!’” Though Friedman identifies himself with the ruling global elites, when it comes to Israel he doesn’t seem to care that it’s causing a bitter rift among them. __________________________________________

George Szamuely is a writer in New York City.

The American Conservative welcomes letters to the editor.
Send letters to: letters@amconmag.com