Thomas Friedman, Pan-Islamist
Digg 
Stumble Upon 
Newsvine 
Slashdot 
Mixx 
Diigo 
Delicious 
Reddit 
Facebook
Yes, after two decades in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny— in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan — a narrative that says America is dedicated to keeping Muslims down is thriving. ~Thomas Friedman
I would say that this is blinkered, but we’re talking about Thomas Friedman, so that would be redundant. One of the most irritating things I have noticed during the last decade has been the whining from American pundits about how ungrateful the world’s Muslims have been in response to our alleged beneficence on their behalf. The grimly amusing part of this is that the whining pundits accept the assumptions of pan-Islamists, but put them to different, limited use: Muslims everywhere must feel gratitude for any assistance we have ever rendered to a Muslim population. Of course, if our policies have ever adversely affected a Muslim population, Muslims everywhere should not think that they have any particular interest in this, but should instead resist the siren song of pan-Islamism. I have made this observation before:
In other words, Americanists want Muslims to think like Pan-Islamists when it serves Washington’s purposes (i.e., when it is supposed to make Muslims favorably disposed to us), but Muslims must never think like Pan-Islamists when it doesn’t.
U.S. foreign policy has not been “largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny.” U.S. foreign policy has worked to support the causes of certain Muslim groups, provided they had the “right” enemies (i.e., states that we already opposed or disliked), and to undermine the causes of other Muslim groups that had the “wrong” enemies. The same people who could not rush to the aid of Bosniaks and Albanian Muslims fast enough are perfectly content to see thousands and tens of thousands of Arabs killed by U.S. and U.S.-backed forces. The people who pretend to weep for Chechnya do not even blink at the displacement of entire provinces in Pakistan. The would-be champions of democracy in the Islamic world have happily embraced anti-jihadi dictators in Uzkbekistan and Pakistan as necessary. My point here is not that Washington was right or wrong in backing one group and opposing another, which is an argument for another day, but simply that it would not be hard for Muslims around the world to notice the far more devastating effects of U.S. and U.S.-allied hostility to certain Muslim causes more than they notice the relatively more obscure cases in which Washington backed Muslim causes.
We wrongfully and unjustly bombed Serbia on behalf of Albanian Muslims, and now the Friedmans of the world want Muslims elsewhere to give us credit for taking the “Muslim side” in a conflict that means nothing to them while conveniently ignoring the far more obvious and ongoing support for governments that mistreat or oppress Muslim populations in several countries. When the counter-Narrative is so transparently silly (America is the friend of Muslims!), it is not too surprising that “the Narrative” gains ground. So long as our political and pundit class genuinely believes that we have been almost entirely good to Muslims, we will never understand why so many Muslims distrust and resent U.S. policies and U.S. influence and we will not be able to correct the impressions that our policies have spawned.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
23 Responses to “Thomas Friedman, Pan-Islamist”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Friedman is a first class idiot.
Assemble the NYT opinion cabal of Friedman, Herbert, Dowd, Collins and you think that being a nitwit is in the job description.
BTW, delicious little morsels of Friedman’s inanity can be found here:
http://mustacheofunderstanding.blogspot.com/
The thing about Friedman is that he doesn’t actually think about the subjects he’s writing about. He gets ideas, hooks, little “things that kind of make sense”, and rather than actually engage in the process of sifting evidence, considering different angles or approaches to the problem at hand, doing research, etc., he just writes down the first thing he thought up. The process of making this thought-up thing jibe with other little thought-up things he also wants to say is, again, just a matter of thinking of yet more plausible-sounding thought-up things. He never gets above (or below) the level of utter superficiality. So, yeah, I agree with SteveM – he’s an idiot.
Here’s Benjamin Schwarz, literary and national editor of The Atlantic, reviewing Longitudes and Attitudes: Exploring the World After September 11 by Thomas Friedman in the magazine in October 2002:
The author, the foreign-affairs columnist for The New York Times, occupies the same position in the cultural and political landscape as that once held by Walter Lippmann—which will confirm for any independent-minded person that our civilization has utterly collapsed. Friedman’s latest book, a collection of his columns, displays his peculiar propensity to be at once hokey and pretentious (a typical column takes the form of a memo to “The Arab Street”—a phrase signaling that the conventional wisdom is sure to follow—from “President Bill Clinton”). Friedman says in twelve words (“This book is the product of my own personal journey of exploration”) what a competent writer could say in—actually, wouldn’t say at all. What’s worst about this book’s publication, though, is the sickening display of mutual ingratiation on Charlie Rose that will, inevitably, kick off its promotional campaign.
Good blog, SteveM. You’ll be seeing me around there under my alias.
Friedman does have a talent for writing catchy, anecdotal stuff, which is probably why he became a prominent reporter for the NYT. The problem, of course, is that some bonehead decided that he ought to get a column to pontificate on whatever he wants to, with the result that we get to see what “Guest” described – Friedman’s general lack of depth or consistency of opinion on anything. The man’s seriously a weathervane, talking about whatever the “hot topic” is for the decade, be it globalization, “green jobs”, and so forth.
If I were teaching a course on ‘elite MSM as an agent of elite interests’, I’d put Friedman’s writings and position as prominent evidence in favor of MSM as propaganda.
Given his track record on all matters of foreign policy and the economy… such that literally nothing he has predicted has ever happened… it is amazing that Friedman is employed at all. His picture should be in Wikipedia to illustrate ‘epic fail’ and ‘pwned by reality.’ If he were any farther off base he’d be selling hot dogs in the bleachers. Come to think of it, that seems to be the best possible summary of his ouvre.
To clarify: the world is bumpy, and lumpy, and somewhat round. Tom Friedman… is flat.
It is amazing that the New York Times reporter who exposed the IDF’s collusion with the Phalangist militias in Beruit to ‘payback’ the residents of Sabra and Shatila and the same self satisfied mustache of understanding are one and the same. His book from Beruit to Jeruselum is pretty good too, but already you can see the corruption of the journalist into the pundit. Thomas Freidman was an excellent, fearless even, journalist. He always asked the next question and found some amazing things. His output from Beruit in the mid 80s was fantastic. But as soon as he figured out the he could get paid for simply having an answer, rather than knowing that he didn’t, well then he started delivering answers rather than news and it was all downhill from there. He’s not an idiot, but he knows that stupid answers are what he’s paid for so that is what he delivers.
The sad thing in this why don’t they likes us whine, is that it demonstrates once again that cultures can not be pandered to. In the 19th Century the British Empire tried to pander to muslims in order to control the middle east and ended up simply creating more formideable enemies while destoying allies in the region. The US should stop pandering to ‘muslim’ sensibilities, a thing that does not exist at all anyway, and start working with the various real tribal interests on the ground which actually run the region. Unless the US government wants to make Islam the national religion of America via constitutional amendment there is no action that will successfully pander to pan Islamist sensibilities.
It seems to me that you are guilty one-sidedness that you ascribe to Friedman. My take was that Friedman was looking for a more nuanced view from many in the Muslim world.
For example, you write: ” now the Friedman’s of the world want Muslims elsewhere to give us credit for taking the “Muslim side” in a conflict that means nothing to them while conveniently ignoring the far more obvious and ongoing support for governments that mistreat or oppress Muslim populations in several countries”
Where did Friedman say Muslims should “ignore” our support for shady and repressive governments? Again, my take is that Friedman is arguing the scale isn’t as tilted to the anti-Muslim side as many in the Muslim world think.
I have been reading this blog regularly for about six months now and I like the analysis. But I am not really getting the usual vibe this post.
Re: Northern Observer and marteenm
You are misreading Friedman entirely. He actually IS a first order nitwit. Really. Friedman is the Chauncey Gardner of journalism. He has to furrow his brow portentously when deciding if he wants his eggs hard or soft boiled
Friedman has written articles on immigration and globalization that demonstrate a second grader’s ability to analyze and draw inferences.
George Bush, with much luck but marginal ability was president for 8 sorry years. Thomas Friedman, through the same kind of serial kismet and ineptitude writes for the New York Times.
And we are all the worst for both of those clowns.
dbmack
Okay, I get it. You don’t like Friedman. But address what he wrote in the article that Mr. Larison commented on – otherwise it just seems like an ad hominem thing.
Look, I’m not saying Friedman is the leading authority on this or any other issue. But what he wrote in the article did not seem unreasonable at all. Actually, it was spot on in my opinion. Anti-American in the Muslim world is a unique strain and when compounded with American blunders makes anything that the US does do to the benefit of Muslims, either intentionally or unintentionally, seem invisible.
I’m also sbmack. Somehow logged on under the different name.
Re: marteenm
Friedman was spot on in the most obvious way. Troops playing Good Cop – Bad Cop does not work. Well duh? Assisting a native while in combat gear and carrying an M-16 is not the best way to engender trust.
Friedman bought into the illusion of Military Exceptionalism crafted by the warped Bush administration. I.e., the military is uniquely capable of doing everything and doing it well. Only the populations see the noble American liberators as merely guys with guns.
Friedman’s a numbskull because he drank the Kool Aid of Exceptionalism so does not understand that the Military does Death and Destruction. It’s someone else’s job to Nation Build.
He doesn’t get it – he’s an idiot.
I think a fascinating book can be written about the rise of Thomas Friedman and why people actually care what he says. Or is he such a staple of so-called conventional wisdom that everyone must pretend the emperor still has clothes on? I think only Bill Kristol has been more wrong on more things while somehow maintaining his standing within the establishment. It’s a very interesting phenomena.
I guess amongst the Serious crowd, it is more embarrassing to shun an embarrassment than it is to appease him with undeserved credibility and respectability. Super Serious!
Well, I tried. No one really addresses what he got wrong in the article. And no, simply stating that he thinks the military is capable of doing everything does not qualify.
Let’s look at the excerpt that Mr. Larison chose to exhibit:
“Yes, after two decades in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny— in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan — a narrative that says America is dedicated to keeping Muslims down is thriving”
??? Why is this a good example of Friedman being an idiot (JBraunstein’s words not Mr. Larison’s)? Okay, you can take issue with choice of “dedicated” when describing US foreign policy but it is indeed odd one seldom hears about these events mentions from critics of US foreign policy. Mr. Larison calls it whining. I see it as citing examples of the unbalanced view some have of US involvement in the affairs of Muslims. Of course the US can, and should, be criticized for things like the near unconditional support of Israel and a host other things. But it isn’t all bad and it is a sign of strong bias when someone never brings up what the US has done to save Muslims in places like Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan.
marteenm,
Friedman is not an idiot, and not everything he says is nonsense, but he has been misguided or just flat wrong, too often, on issues of supreme importance, that it’s no longer possible for me (and many others) to take him seriously. Pointed out, his forte’ is making obvious points about obvious things, in which case his contribution is irrelevant, or being astoundingly wrong about complicated things, in which case one should not look to him for cogent analysis of anything complicated.
JBraunstein wrote:
“Friedman is not an idiot, and not everything he says is nonsense, but he has been misguided or just flat wrong”
Fair enough.
Re: JBraunstein – Friedman is not an idiot…
Well he sure walks and quacks like an idiot based on your (accurate) description of his writing. If not full fledged, he’s at least a fellow traveler of the Nitwit Society.
Re: “not everything he says is nonsense”
And a broken watch is right twice a day.
We’re simpatico about Friedman generally. I just want to clarify my points regarding the Great Mustache of Flatness.
P.S. Nitwit misery loves company:
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/friedman-reassure-americans/2009/11/25/
Sorry marteenm, this is rich…
marteenm, “Well, I tried. No one really addresses what he got wrong in the article. And no, simply stating that he thinks the military is capable of doing everything does not qualify.
Let’s look at the excerpt that Mr. Larison chose to exhibit:”
(Larison: “Yes, after two decades in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny— in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan — a narrative that says America is dedicated to keeping Muslims down is thriving”)
“??? Why is this a good example of Friedman being an idiot ”
Because the USA also spent those years supporting every nasty ‘Our SOB’ in the area, if it looked like we could do business with them. A whole boatload of Muslims were dead with US bullets or shrapnel in them, and several boatloads probably noticed that the electrodes attached to their genitals said ‘Made with Pride in the USA!”, and their torturers wore ‘US School of the Americas Alumni’ t-shirts.
For the specific examples, US actions in Sudan and Dafur were more along the lines of ‘we’ll do anything which won’t cost a cent’ to help. In Somalia, the US intervened incompetantly in 1992, and then backed an invading force in the 2000’s. In Lebanon, the US has provided lavish ‘aid’ to Israel, which has happily dropped that ‘aid’ on people there.
In Iraq, the US didn’t liberate the country, but brought it hell, and a ‘government’ which, if things go very, very well, might resemble Saddam in a good mood.
Talk about irony.
In the same post BarryD mocks the invasion of Iraq and calls it “no liberation” and then mocks the US for doing next to nothing in Sudan.
Hell was brought to those countries long before the US had any involvement. In Iraq you had Saddam’s hell pre-2003. But Saddam kept the lid on the sectarian Shia v. Sunni hell that erupted after the incompetent US invasion. The US unleashed the sectarian hell but it did not cause the Iraqi-on-Iraqi mass murder. Liberating anyone from decades of totalitarianism brings about a new kind of hell (like in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Russia, Indonesia, etc.). One could make the case that the price paid for ending totalitarian hell is too great (and I would have not invaded Iraq and the US did cause a lot of pain and suffering). So, you do basically nothing.
Ah, then if you do basically nothing, like in Sudan, you are to be criticized, right? The US should have done exactly what in Sudan? Take on the Janjaweed like we took on the Taliban or rebel Baathists? Sanctions (see Iran and N. Korea for effectiveness)?
This is all pointless. I bring up that there is valid point in Friedman’s article that there is a lack of relativism and balance in viewing the US role in the world (and in the Muslim world in particular) and I see posts that basically say the US is incompetent at best and nefarious at worst.
Case in point: BarryD writes: “Because the USA also spent those years supporting every nasty ‘Our SOB’ in the area, if it looked like we could do business with them.”
Yeah, that’s a balanced account of the US in that region (a point Friedman was trying to make). The US is either the grand puppet master or the incompetent fool that can do nothing right. Look, I am not trying to spew disrespect to anyone on this site. But no nuance equals no value. I see no difference between the quote above and GWB’s “You are either with us or against us.” Now that is irony.
Re: marteenm (again)
I think most everyone gets the nuance. (You too I hope.) America is neither all good or all bad. And it’s not all-incompetent. Sure an American presence can effect positive change.
The stupidity of American leadership emanates from the hubris and conceit of American Exceptionalism generally and Military Exceptionalism specificically. That conceit drives the belief system that we can shape far away nations with military power alone. Not NGO’s, not coaltions. Alone, using the military. In their minds, American power is unbounded.
Even with Obama’s Afghan decision, NATO contributions are an after thought. If they don’t play, the United States is still going to send 34,000 more troops who will waste more blood and treasure for 18 months and then come home with an ambiguous closure to that fiasco.
As for Friedman, I’m confident that he’s usually not even aware of what point he’s trying to make.
friedman has a history of making his observations in the same manner as busn’s katrina observations. he flies over the area, glances at a bit of ‘conventional, blinkered’ wisdom, and then postulates some aimless drivel to satisfy his column-inch requirements.
marteenm, on December 2nd, 2009 at 9:55 am Said:
Talk about irony.
“In the same post BarryD mocks the invasion of Iraq and calls it “no liberation” and then mocks the US for doing next to nothing in Sudan.”
The whole point, for those who lack context, was that the invasion was not about helping Muslims, but about oil. Sudan didn’t have enough to be worth it.
As for Saddam Hussein, he was ‘Our SOB’ from his start, and again during the 1980’s. When he was nerve-gassing people, it was perceived in DC as being a PR problem and a marketing problem (‘why is he using UK and European nerve gas; what’s wrong with DuPont nerve gas!’).
“The US unleashed the sectarian hell but it did not cause the Iraqi-on-Iraqi mass murder. ”
Smashed the existing system, and kept things smashed, while not being able to run things itself. That causes a lot of deaths.
“Liberating anyone from decades of totalitarianism brings about a new kind of hell (like in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Russia, Indonesia, etc.). ”
Gee – I don’t remember any war supporters saying that beforehand; it was only afterwards that such things were deemed inevitable.
There’s much more to Friedman’s article than the line about America working to the benefit of the Arab world. What stood out to me most was this point: “…why is it that a million Muslims will pour into the streets to protest Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, but not one will take to the streets to protest Muslim suicide bombers who blow up other Muslims, real people, created in the image of God?” Now I know there’s going to be some smarty-pants who says “well, how can he say not one Muslim protests? I’m sure there’s many that do.” Obviously it’s hyperbole, but it just as obviously gets at an undeniable truth.
And SteveM, the reason NATO’s involvement is an afterthought in the Afghan situation is because if you rely on consensus and ACTION there, you’re going to spend all your time talking and none of your time doing.