BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

Columnist and shadow policymaker

9 comments on Columnist and shadow policymaker

Columnist and shadow policymaker
: I’m savoring Tom Friedman’s five-column series that sets out to tell us how to win World War III:

We cannot change other societies and cultures on our own. But we also can’t just do nothing in the face of this mounting threat. What we can do is partner with the forces of moderation within these societies to help them fight the war of ideas. Because ultimately this is a struggle within the Arab-Muslim world, and we have to help our allies there, just as we did in World Wars I and II.

Read the first two column before they leap over The Times’ pay wall.

Today’s column tells us to support Turkey as a model of a moderate Islamic nation.

Friedman is a model of what an editorial columnist should be, for he reports as well as he he educates as effectively as he advocates. He is a shadow policymaker, giving us ways to take action. He doesn’t just show off his prose (see Roger Simon, below) or grouse.

9 responses to “Columnist and shadow policymaker”

  1. Dave Schuler Avatar
    Dave Schuler

    I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Friedman’s series so far. The Muslim world in general and the Arab world in particular is faced with a real “The Lady or the Tiger” decision. Which will they choose? Can they tell the difference?

  2. mary hodder Avatar
    mary hodder

    Here are the permanent links to those two columns:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/opinion/08FRIE.html?ex=1388898000&en=0fa8ecb3ddb713f8&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
    and
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/11/opinion/11FRIE.html?ex=1389157200&en=24eb2905c794ef10&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

  3. Swopa Avatar
    Swopa

    I’d find Friedman more convincing if he didn’t perform so many complete flip-flops in his positions … or at least, if when he did he would acknowledge having previously been wrong.
    For example, he writes today, “What is clear is that Osama bin Laden achieved his aim: 9/11 sparked real tensions between the Judeo-Christian West and the Muslim East,” adding that we need “to help moderates win the war of ideas within the Muslim world.”
    Well, Tom, maybe you should have thought about that before expressing this attitude: “The ‘real reason’ for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. . . . Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine.” Not exactly interested in helping moderates or easing tensions there, is he?
    He’s done a similar backflip on the wisdom of transferring sovereignty quickly in Iraq.

  4. Mithras Avatar
    Mithras

    Jarvis-
    You can subscribe to the Times RSS feed (which has true permalinks) here. Alternatively, you can turn a regular link into a permalink using this.

  5. Tom Grey Avatar
    Tom Grey

    These pieces by Tom F. are excellent — since I agree with them. Some of his earlier stuff is not so good, which I disagreed with then.
    Hm, but I don’t (try to) judge him only on whether he agreess with me! I don’t think…
    But this IS a war for the soul of Islam, and the Soviets could be deterred because they were NOT willing to die in order to kill. Too many Islamofascists ARE willing to. Because they see no Arab alternatives. Neither Turkey, nor Malaysia, is Arab.
    Where is the Arab free speech state? Why are Arab Muslims afraid of words? This will change significantly, and quickly (in 10s of months instead of decades), as Iraq blooms. Prolly starting this coming Spring!

  6. EB Avatar
    EB

    Did anyone see Richard Perle and David Frum on C-Span 2 Book TV? If it repeats it is well worth a view, they discuss their new book and answer questions… I found both of them to be lucid and non-raving and having just skimmed the Friedman articles (I’ll read them in full later) I thought I would mention the c-span show to anyone who is interested in this topic. The name of their book is: “An end to evil: How to win the war on terror.” I haven’t read it, but they touch on some of the topics Friedman is writing about.

  7. a.t.o. Avatar
    a.t.o.

    As any seasoned subverter, grand vizir or Jeeves will tell you, the best way to get someone to do something without their resenting you is to have them believe it was their idea. The same applies, in a less sinister manner, when trying to effect political change. Let factions within the target nation do the work, with external support. People accept revolution/reform a lot better than they do regime change by invasion. It’s a matter of pride. This was my only problem with Bush’s “Axis of Evil” remark, it left moderates in Iran out to dry, plus it serves as paint for the fundamentalists’ picture of america as an enemy of the iranian people.
    As for supporting Turkey as a model of a moderate islamic nation, it’s a good idea, but with limited effectiveness. Due to information control in dictatorships, this support will only be perceived by the elites, who are already firmly on one side or the other. THey do not require information, what they require is the means with which to “fight the war of ideas”.

  8. a.t.o. Avatar
    a.t.o.

    Mr. Grey, while I hope you are corrrect about Iraq, I am convinced you are not. The problem, like you pointed out, is the lack of free speech, of free exchange of ideas. In a few years’ time, when Iraq is beginning to reap the rewards of democracy and free speech, the average fellow in Iran won’t know a thing about it. Why? because his is not a country high on free speech. Examples are only marginally effective in such places. In my homeland (Nigeria), during the dictatorships of the 80s and 90s, people were convinced that you couldn’t find better in most other countries, and that the lack of freedom and the poverty were simply the natural order. Senegal’s example did not percolate into the common consciousness, nor did Uganda’s, nor those of any other free market democracy (African or no).

  9. Doctor Slack Avatar
    Doctor Slack

    I’d find Friedman more convincing if he didn’t perform so many complete flip-flops in his positions … or at least, if when he did he would acknowledge having previously been wrong.
    I agree. OTOH one does have to give credit to Friedman for changing his positions at all, instead of clinging to every detail out of sheer bloody-mindedness as has obviously happened with some commentators.
    In a few years’ time, when Iraq is beginning to reap the rewards of democracy and free speech, the average fellow in Iran won’t know a thing about it.
    Though it’s not directly relevant to a.t.o.’s point, something worth noting: free speech as we know it is of course a phenomenon of a society governed by laws. Iraq currently is not a society with free speech in this sense, but with a more open polemical environment beset by factional violence instead of state violence (which now arises from the security concerns of the occupiers rather than their desire to suppress speech). The distinction is important; those who aren’t aware of it are likely setting themselves up for disappointment in the progress of Iraqi democracy.
    As for something more directly relevant to a.t.o.’s post: the dynamics of democratic influence are complicated. Dictators often find themselves fighting a difficult battle to keep the democratic ideal from looking more attractive to their populaces than they do. (The parallel problem is that would-be democrats then coming to power often find dictatorship more attractive thah they’d previously thought…) So it’s not implausible that the West could exert considerable influence on the “war of ideas” in the Middle East.
    Discontent with the existing order of things is rife in the Arab world, just as it is in Iran. Hirabists (extremists) arguably have the current upper hand in the “war of ideas,” but that’s at least partly because they’re able to portray foreign actors and Western society as a whole as being actively hostile to Islam. What needs to be undermined is the tendency, among hirabists and Islamophobes alike, to portray Islam as a cultural monolith in confrontation with the Western world.