Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
08/16/2007
Thomas L. Friedman
A conversation with Thomas L. Friedman
Keywords:
A conversation with "The New York Times" columnist Thomas Friedman.
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Thanks Charlie for having Thomas Friedman on your show often. He is one of our nationâ??s scarcest commodities â?? a great thought leader. Iâ??ve listened to him for years and have read his books with great interest. With his help and yours Charlie, I think the right ideas are getting to our leadership; whether they listen or not is a different matter. I watch your show regularly and believe with Mr. Friedmanâ??s help the following things are becoming clear about this world we live in now: 1. An influential and sizable minority of Arab Muslims are gripped by a powerful racism. The only thing they hate worse than Jews are infidels on their land, currently us. This was part of Osama Bin Ladenâ??s initial list of grievances against us and frankly, he has a point. We wouldnâ??t want future soldiers of the â??Great Muslim Caliphateâ?? in New York, either, if things stay as they are! Our support for corrupt regimes does not make us "Ambassadors of Goodwill" in these countries! 2. The Iraqi government cannot function to a large degree because it is labeled an apostate â?? one who assists the infidel. Those who assist the government know it is a death sentence in many places. Further, the government is less legitimate to them than their local militia, which provides security in their neighborhood. Therefore, we must set a timetable and begin an orderly withdrawal to allow the Iraqi government to have any credibility or chance to function. Al-Maliki is doing exactly what any sane man would in his positionâ?¦build his Shiite power base and try to distance himself from the U.S. Government. That is clearly the best strategy for him and his tribe. 3. Our presence on Arab soil is the best recruiting tool Al Qaeda could possibly have, as it gives millions of angry, uneducated, unemployed young men a purpose in lifeâ??to fight the infidels and apostates, among the most honorable professions in that part of the world. This is another great reason to leave. Debate all you want using our 20th century mentality; at the gut level that is how many of these 7th century folks think. 4. Unfortunately, the aged 15-40 generation of Arab men is probably a 25% loss to radical Islam and ignorance. They are a cancer on humanity now. The promise of a radical Islamic caliphate gives them a chance at power and control in a world where they have neither. They would be happy to turn back the clock a thousand-plus years and kill each other as their forefathers did over tribe or territory, turning women into property. Why live a world that is stacked against you, they believe, when you can remake it in a manner that enables you to succeed and be manly? That logic is easy to understand. They truly have few better prospects and are easily turned to radical Islam. We only make that problem worse by giving them a cause through our presence. 5. The ability of these states to self-sustain themselves on oil revenue is the great enabler of the above maladies. Without oil revenue, these countries and their people would have to learn marketable skills and globalize. Oil allows them to remain insulated and believe in another way. We need more nuclear power and electric cars, to help us reduce our dependence on oil. That is probably the most important policy decision the next President can make. Without petroleum dollars, the Middle East countries will have to teach their people marketable skills other than terrorism. 6. The â??War on Terrorâ?? is a Bush-inspired and media-friendly tag line that is doing incredible damage to this country. We lost 3,000 people on 9/11. To put that sad day in perspective, we lose about 40,000 people per year to auto accidents, with many times that many seriously injured. Since 9/11, that is nearly three million people, or 1,000 times the loss of life from 9/11! Spending the money weâ??re spending in Iraq on auto safety and seat belt awareness (as mundane as that is) would probably have saved more American lives and weâ??d be more respected in the world. But that doesnâ??t make headlines. Our media is culpable in this regard. Could we someday face a nuclear terror attack? Perhaps, but the odds are greater if we continue to antagonize these people by being on their territory and bleed our resources dry. 7. Speaking of resources, we are nearing another amazing milestone â?? $9 trillion in debt, or about $30,000 for every man, woman and child. Al Qaeda boasts that it brought the Soviet Union down through bankruptcy. Regardless of the merits of the war on terror, we simply cannot afford it. China and Saudi Arabia can bring us to our knees by simply refusing to buy our Treasury bills. To paraphrase former President Bill Clinton, itâ??s hard to apply leverage to your bankers! We need to balance the budget, a key step in re-establishing our credibility as a nation. 8. We should focus our energy on solving the Palestinian-Israeli crisis. If necessary, our troops should be used to clear the Israeli settlements and create the Palestinian state as quickly as possible. Maybe they could do this as part of their exit strategy from Iraq, as a goodwill gesture to the Arab peoples for the harm we have caused. Israel will be fine without those settlements, which are like a needle in the side of the Arab nations. Americans are always amazed at how this issue drives the Arab peoples to distraction. Even a small needle stuck in your arm gets your complete attention, doesnâ??t it? Imagine if that were there all the time; you might take violent action to remove it, wouldnâ??t you? Why is it so difficult for us to understand these motivations? They seem pretty clear. 9. Iran isnâ??t that big a deal. President Bush keeps trying to make it into one to keep defense spending up. Let them have their way in Iraq; itâ??s their neighborhood! They fought a ten-year war some time ago and will probably do so again. Or they might just help by stabilizing it. They will act in their best interest, which strangely enough, will then coincide with ours. 10. Letâ??s face it. The Iraq adventure has been lost. We tried with the noblest of purposes to free a country from a dictator. But they didnâ??t have the infrastructure to provide basic services and security, which were in place in Japan and Germany in World War 2. Further, they are not a unified people, as Japan and Germany were. To paraphrase the classic line in the movie Lawrence of Arabia â??As long as the Arabs kill each other and pit tribe against tribe, they will always be a little people.â?? The greatest danger to us is unifying them with our presence and influence. Leave them alone! Teach them the skills to compete in the modern world so they don't fight to get back to the one where they last succeeded. Iâ??ll keep watching your show and learning Charlieâ?¦keep bringing Mr. Friedman on as often as you can!
Friedman's oversimplified, one-sided sales pitch of "free" trade gets very tiresome. I would like to see his job get outsourced to someone in India. I highly recommend the documentary "Life and Debt" which shows how Jamaica was affected by "free" trade. It would be great to have some guests who would refute Friedman, but then again, I see Charlie Rose is sponsored by Coca Cola, so maybe he has to be careful.
Interesting. Yes, Charlie fawned all over him which was annoying. I have been a pretty big Friedman fan but I am seeing him a little differently. He sure did gloss over his support for what is the gross debacle of Iraq. Yes, it was much, much hardere than anyone thought. The whole point was that war itself--and the effective annexing of a country of 40 m illion people as the virtual 51st state, is outrageously risky. So, you had better have total *legitimacy* (rememebr that?), a real coalition of the world, a plan that errs way, way, way over to the side of cautious. Here, Friedman did make a great, simple point: "Rumsfeld never even had a military monopoly"!!! Incredible. Would you ever expect anything less than that from the U.S.? I also like the "no new entitlements" line. To me that really highlights the flat-out cowardice of the democrats. (Along the same line: "The separation of church and state is to protect religion, as well as the state" (see: John Locke, and others)--but no one ever presents it that way.)
hahaha,....I'm an iranian and we always say if we didn't have oil what we could be?? we might even surpassed Germany!!! but if history has thought us anything we are such a lazy nation that we would find something else to dig and sell so we don't have to work hard!! Japanese, Korean, Germans and other nations that developed or are developing like China and India developed by committment to HARD WORK. this notion is foreign in our culture, we do anything to avoid hard work. In fact the word "Amaleh=worker" is a curse word. when we want to degrade somebody we call him/her an amaleh which in fact means a worker who works hard from dawn to dusk!! this has notion has been observed by foreignes who visited iran as far back as 12th century to the recent visitors..we don't want to get into religous fanatisim and lack of a culutre of studying that exist which mainly stems again from our just plain laziness. these desk journalists should spend more time in the field so they can get their facts right..
Prior to Mr. Friedman's position in favor of the war with Iraq and extremely naive and ill-fated call for remaking the Middle East in the image of the west, I had a lot of respect for this journalist/columnist, who has won the Pulitzer prize three times. What right does any nation have to impose its values/political system on other sovereign nations via war? Where are the weapons of mass destruction, which was yet another completely eroneous causus belli? It is incredible to hear Mr. Friedman praise "François Mitterand" for his role in restructing the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War when he so unjustly joined the chorus of anti-French sentiment during the outbreak of the Iraqi war. . If only we had listened to the French and Jacques Chirac, we would not be in midst of this second Vietnam. If only we had listened to the French, we would have gone in and out of Iraq with great speed, but not become occupiers. They were our true allies and friends for they had fought and lost their own war in Algeria. Sometimes a friend tells you the hard news which you do not want hear. It is incredibly ironic for Mr. Friedman to point the finger at the current administration when he was such a hawk just four years ago. There is a lot that Mr. Friedman should take back; unfortunately, there is no excuse for his incredible "naiveté", which has cost so many American and Iraqi lives. How is it possible that he does not want to take back any of his words-this is simply unforgivable and Mr. Friedman needs to do some serious introspection and to take responsibilty for the extremely poor, ill-informed and inexcusable advice he provided in the past. When the US withdraws from Iraq, the regional war will begin just like it began in South East Asia after our withdrawal from Vietnam. The notion that the Iraqis will unite and rise up against Iran is pure fiction and folly-the same sort of naive fiction and folly Mr. Friedman spun four years ago. The Saudis will support the Sunnis and the Iranians will support the Shia and the two groups will engage in a horrendous civil war much like the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980's. How is Mr. Friedman's American imperialism working today in Lebanon? Mr. Friedman stated just four years ago that democratically electric extremists in Islamic countries will be short lived and quickly overthrown by the people. What about the Gaza Strip and Hamas Mr. Friedman? What about Hezbollah and Lebanon Mr. Friedman? Your complete naiveté and miscalculations on this and so many other subjects are extremely dangerous. Perhaps you should stick to analyzing free trade and globalization.
THE Comment by bib (on Wednesday, Aug 22 at 07:36 PM) uses the words Jew and Jewish nine times as an epithet of derision in the short comment. IF THAT isn't "abuse" then what sort of "abuse" is it that you want "reported"?! CHARLIE Rose producers please let us know!
Great! I believe that something that really touched me is when he says "Muslims kill Muslims and nobody says anything!". I'm Muslim myself and always been stunned about the silence in Muslim world about all these atrocities committed in the name of Islam by Muslims. I believe that it's great time that we Muslims wake up and take responsibility for what happens in our land. Stop blaming others for our problems. Great analysis Mr Friedman.
ASAP, Tom says that the Dems want to build walls. I hear a few people from both sides suggesting walls from time to time. Didn't the trade with China and Mexico expand dramatically during the Clinton years? I believe it did. It will continue to expand with countries that are cheaper than us, doesn't matter who's in office. That's a simple fact of business.
We can get out only after another dictator takes over what is referred to as Iraq. The religious reality in the muslim world does not lend itself to democracies. We should get the hell out and let Moqtada al Sadr have a go at it.
FORGIVE MY LANGUAGE, BUT TOM FRIEDMAN IS A RAGING ASSHOLE TOM FRIEDMAN - WHO IS THE CRAZIEST COLUMNIST ON THE PLANET? (Are you f-cking shitting me? "We hit Iraq because we could." How f-cking sick is that, Mr. "Rich Ass" Friedman (Do you know how many innocent lives were lost in Iraq because of our arrogance and stupidity)?! AND THIS IS FROM 2003! So this crazy, rich, racist (he says he speaks Arabic, he just doesn't understand Arabs) columnist for the New York Times says we should forget all of our ethics and morals and attack a country that never, in reality, threatened us? And the NY Times blithely printed his crazy, rich, racist shit?! (from 2003, at least 8 "Friedman Units" ago. When will this total "liberal neocon" dipshit (and the Times) acknowledge his (and their) complete and utter idiocy and bloodthirsty responsibility for the debacle in Iraq? And now Charlie Rose gives this moustached moombah more credibility? https://select.nytimes.com/commerce/jsp/signin.jsp?url=https://select.nytimes.com/commerce/jsp/register.jsp "Reading Europe's press, it is really reassuring to see how warmly Europeans have embraced President Bush's formulation that an ''axis of evil'' threatens world peace. There's only one small problem. President Bush thinks the axis of evil is Iran, Iraq and North Korea, and the Europeans think it's Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Condi Rice. I'm not kidding. Chris Patten, the European Union's foreign policy czar, told The Guardian that the Bush axis-of-evil idea was dangerously ''absolutist and simplistic,'' not ''thought through'' and ''unhelpful,'' and that the Europeans needed to stop Washington before it went into ''unilateralist overdrive.'' So what do I think? I think these critics are right that the countries Mr. Bush identified as an axis of evil are not really an ''axis,'' and we shouldn't drive them together. And the critics are right that each of these countries poses a different kind of threat and requires a different, nuanced response. And the critics are right that America can't fight everywhere alone. And the critics are right that America needs to launch a serious effort to end Israeli-Palestinian violence, because it's undermining any hope of U.S.-Arab cooperation. The critics are right on all these counts -- but I'm still glad President Bush said what he said. Because the critics are missing the larger point, which is this: Sept. 11 happened because America had lost its deterrent capability. We lost it because for 20 years we never retaliated against, or brought to justice, those who murdered Americans. From the first suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April 1983, to the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut airport a few months later, to the T.W.A. hijacking, to the attack on U.S. troops at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, to the suicide bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa, to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, innocent Americans were killed and we did nothing. So our enemies took us less and less seriously and became more and more emboldened. Indeed, they became so emboldened that a group of individuals -- think about that for a second: not a state but a group of individuals -- attacked America in its own backyard. Why not? The terrorists and the states that harbor them thought we were soft, and they were right. They thought that they could always ''out-crazy'' us, and they were right. They thought we would always listen to the Europeans and opt for ''constructive engagement'' with rogues, not a fist in the face, and they were right. America's enemies smelled weakness all over us, and we paid a huge price for that. There is an old bedouin legend that goes like this: An elderly Bedouin leader thought that by eating turkey he could restore his virility. So he bought a turkey, kept it by his tent and stuffed it with food every day. One day someone stole his turkey. The Bedouin elder called his sons together and told them: ''Boys, we are in great danger. Someone has stolen my turkey.'' ''Father,'' the sons answered, ''what do you need a turkey for?'' ''Never mind,'' he answered, ''just get me back my turkey.'' But the sons ignored him and a month later someone stole the old man's camel. ''What should we do?'' the sons asked. ''Find my turkey,'' said the father. But the sons did nothing, and a few weeks later the man's daughter was raped. The father said to his sons: ''It is all because of the turkey. When they saw that they could take my turkey, we lost everything.'' America is that Bedouin elder, and for 20 years people have been taking our turkey. The Europeans don't favor any military action against Iraq, Iran or North Korea. Neither do I. But what is their alternative? To wait until Saddam Hussein's son, Uday, who's even a bigger psychopath than his father, has bio-weapons and missiles that can hit Paris? No, the axis-of-evil idea isn't thought through -- but that's what I like about it. It says to these countries and their terrorist pals: ''We know what you're cooking in your bathtubs. We don't know exactly what we're going to do about it, but if you think we are going to just sit back and take another dose from you, you're wrong. Meet Don Rumsfeld -- he's even crazier than you are.'' "There is a lot about the Bush team's foreign policy I don't like, but their willingness to restore our deterrence, and to be as crazy as some of our enemies, is one thing they have right. It is the only way we're going to get our turkey back." I'm sure he (Friedman) is very nice to people he knows and I'm sure he's a great friend and all that. But he called for this country's leadership to be "crazy" and he cheered the idea that we should invade a country, any country --- necessarily killing vast numbers of innocent people as wars always do and behaving like invading Mongol hordes -- to show that we can't be trifled with. What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, "Which part of this sentence don't you understand?" You don't think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we're just gonna to let it grow? Well, Suck. On. This. Okay. That Charlie was what this war was about. We could've hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. We couldn't hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. (Are you f-cking shitting me? "We hit Iraq because we could." How f-cking sick is that, Mr. "Rich Ass" Friedman? Do you know how many innocent lives were lost in Iraq because of our arrogance and stupidity?!) (So this crazy, rich, racist columnist for the New York Times says we should forget all of our ethics and morals and attack a country that never threatened us? And the Times blithely printed his crazy, rich, racist shit?!) In addition to the lying crap from Judy Miller and Michael Gordon? Would you say that the NY Times (and Charlie Rose) helped foster the "war fever" for Iraq? Any honest person would agree. And the Times (and Charlie Rose) should be ashamed for their wretched, lame-assed reporting. That attitude showed bad judgment all right. The whole thing screams facile neoconservative cant that makes even Norman Podhoretz's ravings about WWIV look tame. But it showed something more ---- a sick kind of bloodlust that I think really calls Friedman's morals into question. This was the kind of hysterical crap you would expect dittoheads to spout, not hugely influential liberal intellectuals. It was bizarre and freakish and it lent crediblity to the kind of cowboy hero-worship that gave Bush the support he needed to make the greatest strategic blunder in American history. He was a 9/11 junkie, addled by war porn and sentimental nationalism: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/08/tripping-on-crazy-by-digby-atrios-has.html Basically, Tom Friedman is a raging asshole, no two ways about it. (Whether Charlie Rose or Pinch Sulzberger will ever admit it is another question. But there can be no doubt about this ultimate truth -- Tom Friedman is a rich, lying, war-mongering, raging asshole.) And you know it.
It was nice to hear Mr. Friedman speaking about the chaos in Iraq, it was also important to hear him aknowledge his past mis-read. But lets be honest here, his reading was accurate but excution of the war was not properly handled. However, Iran is more dangerous today than Iraq was; its important to make sure Iran does not have the Nuke, NO MATTER WHAT IRAN MUST BE DEALT SEVERELY SHOULD IT CONTINUE ITS DESIRE TO ATTAIN NUKE.
Wow, This person sold us the war based on "hopes" as he said, and as Carl Rove (whom he criticized in the interview) is walking away, and now writes about what? Globalization? China? and India? My God, he could not even answer the question that he SHOULD be sorry for selling a war crime. My god how many Iraqis have we killed? injured? or made a refugee or homeless. For what? Although Mr. Freedman is not one of the Newcons, he is their best decibels, no question about it. Charlie, you were easy on him. When are you ganna start asking hard questions, especially to cowards like this. Make god take revenge on those cowards who lead us into this war crime. My God!!!! I wonder how many wars this irrisponsible person ganna lead us into. What is next. Iran????? or may be Lebanon??
Often wrong but never in doubt. The last one to recognize the obvious, the inevitable. Very clever, but not terribly smart.
Isreal
What a Mustache!
John Daz: I'm sure Charlie would agree with you extremely intelligent comment.
Dear Mr. Friedman: Thanks for a comprehensive presentation. However, we would like to add a few points. First, US was much more intelligent FIFTY years ago than now! US used to remove dangerous regimes without HURTING the NATIONS in the process. Second, diplomacy does NOT work when US deals with regimes which know NO rules but the rules of Jungles. Third, there is the So-called Islamic Regime of MULLAHS ruling IRAN, along with its MARKETING establishment at home, and particularly abroad, with vast Petro-dollar revenue, which it spends where, how, for whom it pleases. And, there is the NATION of IRAN which lives in POVERTY and tries hard to endure the IMPOSED ECONOMICS SANCTIONS, has no energy left, BUT STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE. You can see IRAN in this VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2ZvMKcR5C4 OR THIS VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_2n_tgBzVk OR THIS VIDEO http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7aA_V1X1YM
Maybe Reverend Graham was right when he was talking to Nixon. You get the point....
speaking of predictions... oil apparently makes our flat earth slippery with us on its slope... mr. friedman has both global insight and the gift of confabulation... what he never had was the ear of the current administration and possibly his own noggin... what i wanted charlie to explore was why mr. friedman's insights didn't lead him to quite different conclusions about iraq...namley... tom's flat earth technologies of computerization, miniaturization, digitization, satellites, fiber optics, the internet, and big-mac laden olive trees, didn't exist in iraq... so, you'd think we'd have an easy time defeating such an army -- check. but, those same java-jammin technologies and big-mac hanging olive trees that mr. friedman required for all his peaceful modern democracies would also not have existed in a post-war iraq -- mate.
HOW CAN WE TAKE THE ANALYSIS OF A MAN WHOSE PRIDICTION ON IRAQ HAS`ALL TURN OUT WRONG, HIS PRIDICTION ON KURDISTAN WILL ALSO END UP IN THE SAME TRASH CAN ,AFTER BAGDAD FALL IT WILL BE THE TURN OF KURDISTAN AND ALL THE MODERATE STATES HELPING US , THE TERRORIST IS DOING WHAT IS KNOWN AS 'MAKING THE COUNTRY UNGOVERNABLE' TO THENM IT SERVES TWO PURPOSE ,IF YOU DARE TO INVITE IN AMERICA THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO YOU AND YOUR COUNTRY, MR FRIEDMAN IS LEANING ON HIS OWN MISUNDERSTANDING AND HE HAS ALWAYS FALLEN.
To me our problem in Iraq is clearly two fold: one, we can't stay; two, we can't leave. Now I can rant about the thousand layer Iraqi social strata that has had thousand years to solidify, and that each of the layers has an agenda different from any other layer, and certainly different from ours. I'm not going to do that because it misses the point. Our problem in Iraq is geographic in nature. I can put my finger on it. It is not even in Iraq, it is right next door. It is the Straights of Hormuz. It is narrow, few miles across not much more. And, 60% of the world oil flow runs through it. What does that that have to do with you and me? Waste! Some 90% of your car gasoline is wasted (say you are a 200 pound guy with a 2000 pound car, 90% of the gasoline energy moves the car, 10% moves you). The same story with your house, some 70% of the burnt energy is wasted in trying to keep you warm, or cool, or lighted, or tied into the net. Worst yet, we subsidize the waste. You think gasoline costs some 3 bucks a gallon. Wrong! It costs more like ten or twelve, right now. It is just that you donâ??t pay the extra 7 or 9 bucks at the pump. You pay it out of the general revenue (income) taxes; for the wars, for the two aircraft carrier groups hugging the straights of Hormuz, the lives lost, the VA in/out patient bills, the homeland securities. Make no mistakes, we pay, or borrow to pay, as we speak. You want to blame someone for the mess in Iraq. Well, here is a candidate. Look in the mirror.
To me our problem in Iraq is clearly two fold: one, we can't stay; two, we can't leave. Now I can rant about the thousand layer Iraqi social strata that has had thousand years to solidify, and that each of the layers has an agenda different from any other layer, and certainly different from ours. I'm not going to do that because it misses the point. Our problem in Iraq is geographic in nature. I can put my finger on it. It is not even in Iraq, it is right next door. It is the Straights of Hormuz. It is narrow, few miles across, not much more. And 60% of the world oil flow runs through it. What does that that have to do with you and me. --Waste!-- Some 90% of your car gasoline is wasted (say you are a 200 pound guy with a 2000 pound car, 90% of the gasoline energy moves the car, 10% moves you). The same story with your house, some 70% of the burnt energy is wasted in trying to keep you warm, or cool, or lighted, or tied into the net. Worst yet, we subsidize the waste. You think gasoline costs some 3 bucks a gallon. Wrong! It costs more like ten or twelve, right now. It is just that you donâ??t pay the extra 7 or 9 bucks at the pump. You pay it out of the general revenue (income) taxes. For the wars, for the two aircraft carrier groups hugging the straights of Hormuz, the lives lost, the VA in/out patient bills, the homeland securities. Make no mistakes, we pay, or borrow to pay, as we speak. You want to blame someone for the mess in Iraq. Well, here is a candidate. Look in the mirror
Tom F. seems to fall under the same disillusion that has captivated everyone who voted for the war: "If it had only been done right...." We've been through this movie, right? Wasn't it called "Vietnam"? Yes, I believe it was. In this case, the Bush administration makes itself an easy alibi. "If only Rumsfeld had done 'x.'" Tom F. adds that he didn't realize before the war that the infrastructure of Iraq was in such poor shape. Apparently Tom F., like many pre-war enthusiasts, hadn't heard about the sanctions that had been imposed on Iraq since the end of Gulf War I. You don't have to be a genius, and clearly Tom F. isn't one, to realize that sanctions actually do hurt a nation. And once the lynch pin is pulled, the whole charade comes apart. That, in a nutshell, was Iraq. One has to wonder why Charlie continues to host the same posers who got the war wrong in 2003. It's as if he expects to find brilliance where there was none the first time. It's the definition of insanity. Charlie should consider new guests like Tony Karon from TIME.
THOMAS FRIEDMAN IS FLAT<br> I am surprised CR brought this guy back. He has zero credibility. He admitted he has more wishful thinking that knowledge and experience. <br> I guess the best part about the interview was he didn't say "in the next six months". <br> I watched the interview twice, and on the second time realized how at the end he contradicted himself and said Iraq will have a genocide worst than Darfur when earlier he said it's unknown what could happen if we pull out. <br> It's clear to me his agenda on Iraq is only to pull American forces out so they can start a new war in Iran. <br> This guy does not care for human life that will be lost from pulling out of Iraq or the lives we'll destroy if we get into a war from Iran. <br> S
Thomas Friedman paraphrased the old poker saw "Don't throw good money after bad!" when discussing the Iraq War. This saying is often misunderstood by those who think that "good" and "bad" describe the money when in fact "good" and "bad" describe the competence of those who bet that money. As Friedman paraphrased this maxim, I realized that a better metaphor for our Iraq dilemma is the stark but clear and simple decision parameters faced by the rescue managers in the Utah mine accident (and also by the rescuers and their families). As of Friday afternoon the rescue operation has suffered 3 deaths and 6 injuries in the ranks of the would-be rescue crew. The rescuers are trying to reach 6 trapped miners whose condition is unknown. If these miners are already dead then the rescue operation has increased the death toll by 50%. We are now approaching a time limit beyond which no trapped miner has ever been rescued alive. For the rescuers and their families it is now a matter of how many more lives are they willing to risk in order to demonstrate solidarity (and keep faith) with the trapped miners and their families. In short it is a very clear, but poignant cost/benefit equation. I believe the same is true for Iraq but the millions of details of the war blind us to the very simple cost/benefit analysis that is required. Iraqis are trapped in the rubble of their collapsed nation. We are now up against a time limit beyond which no nation has ever been rescued intact. What muddles the Iraq War cost/benefit analysis is that we won't have the wake-up call of a 50% increase in the death toll in a very short period of time. Like the proverbial frog in the slowly heating pot of water we haven't been shocked, as the miners' families were, into full awareness of how many more lives we could lose in an effort to keep faith with the heroes already wasted in the Iraq War.
Absolutely fantastic show! The best I can remember seeing. Hats off to Tom Friedman. He is brilliant, and very articulate. In spite of what many people have stated in their comments thus far, this guy is extremely knowledgable and insightful. His ideas came so fast on this program that it was hard to keep up, and I can see why some "commenters" here on this site are completely distorting what he said, and even missing the point completely in some cases. I'm definitely going to listen to it again. Thanks for providing that service, Charlie, and thanks for the great show you are producing and hosting. And while I'm at it, Charlie, Kudos to you, too! Friedman said one of the most important things we need to be concerned with in this age of rapid change is being learning to learn, and I see evidence that you are doing exactly that: learning. I blasted you a couple weeks ago, as many others have, over your interrupting your guests. However, you seem to be listening to (or reading) our comments, and taking them to heart, because you have done a terrific job the last week or so in letting your guests finish their thoughts. It makes a difference, and I'm sure others appreciate it too. I especially appreciated the recent show when you went back and asked one of the guests, "What were you going to say before I interrupted you?" And last night with Friedman, you did fantastic. He was like a runaway train, and you let him talk, got in a lot of really EXCELLENT questions, and covered all the main areas you wanted to. Your style has improved dramatically in a short period of time, and it makes a terrific program all that much better! Keep up the good work!
I think Friedman SHOULD apologize for supporting the idea of going to war in Iraq. He admits that every idea and execution was a disaster. He also admits it is far more difficult than even he expected. Certainly, he must realize that defines a bad idea through and through. Go ahead. Admit it. Many of us have.
As a retired educator, I have time to listen to a lot of bright people analyze the problems of the day. Tom Friedman is one of the very best as he can do whole-part-whole thinking! He does not have to bat 1000 to be great and I differ with him on his early support of Iraq but you still get more useful ideas per minute than most!
I found myself listening closely to Tom Friedman for the first time. Maybe I was in a mood to listen less critically than in the past but much of what he said resonated with me. The time for America to depart Iraq has I feel arrived. Will a â??bloodbathâ?? follow? Perhaps but there has been a blood bath occurring for several years now. I think it is time for America to ask the people of the Middle East to grow up and stop acting like children screaming me â?¦ Me â?¦ ME. Rick Johnson
First time poster. Friedman is right on, 100%. It's probably pretty lonely being Friedman when the left eviscerates you because you fail to go along with their trite explanations and the right despises you because you don't endorse their half-baked foreign policy. Keep on keeping on Mr. Friedman. May someone of influence on the country's affairs begin listening to you. Great interview Charlie.
i am very happy to see i am not the only who has by now written off this hack. i hope not too many people take his trite generalizations seriously any more. i vividly remember watching the older rose interview with friedman about "the world is flat". About half way through the interview it became clear to me that this guy was so full of himself and his latest catch phrase that reality really did not have much to do with what he was bloviating about. this interview was just more of the same.
What happened to Thomas Friedman? He used to be a "hands-in-the-dirt" pragmatist. Now he seems a distant, aloof pseudo-intellectual who's too obsessed with inventing his own terminology and rules to notice that his ideas are unoriginal, half-baked and sometimes completely disjointed.
Does anybody know if the speakers ever post comments on these videos in disguise? Maybe if they knew they could write something here, it could be more like a conversation. The guest could answer questions from the audience through this website.
. Great show!
I'm glad someone noticed how much Rose gushed during Friedman's imperialist rant. Was watching this thing while on the treadmill at the gym and got so angry I was running 11 mph at one point during what was supposed to be a leisurely jog. Friedman's basic assumptions are that these countries need to be dictated to and directed by the US. Allowing them to self-rule is not even up for consideration. If you assume that we shouldn't be allowed to invade and dictate under any circumstances then you fail the Friedman test and won't understand anything he says.
Good intentions backed by illogical, clumsy, and emotionally-composed plans are no better than the administration's fabrications. > If his intent was to liberate oppressed peoples (via war-induced democracy), then choosing Iraq was entirely inappropriate. Not only was opening a second front a strategically poor decision, but opening a new ideological conflict in an already tense region(occupying an Arab nation)was perhaps the most backwards move possible in the war on terror. > Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of U.S. servicemen and women are now dead because of Friedman and similarly-minded policy makers who had nothing but good intentions.
Great show. Firt time ever commenting to a show. Mr Friedman has A hardtime admiting his wrong doing in pushing the Iraq's/Oil war. But so do a lot of others. How do we protect America from this dependance and future wars?
I am not sure if Friedman has advocated nuclear power in the past or not, he did not during this interview. Any serious person who is thinking about global warming and oil dependence needs to use every opportunity available to drive home the importance of a carbon tax (A+ for Tom) and nuclear power. Nuclear power is not pretty or sexy. However, it the the immediate solution to a critical problem. Alternative energy should be researched to the hilt and carbon (gas coal etc) ought to be taxed to discourage its use and fund research into alternatives. However, alternative energy is not an immediate solution, it is a long term prospect. Massive amounts of power are required NOW and without the carbon emissions or political insecurities. Fission can do this. It is not a perfect solution or one that is aesthetically pure (I'm talking to you radical greens), but it is the least bad realistic solution. Herein lies the problem. People don't like least bad realistic solutions. People want blue sky (no pun intended) solutions that are without cost. Unfortunately these types of solutions are not usually possible. I don't want to see radioactive super sites and the possibility of new proliferation (and these are the real costs) but it is more important now to stop emitting carbon and to stop funding Iran, Russia, and all the other little beasties (I think as oil dies eventually they will become less bad as petroleum has a corrosive influence on those that sell it). Reason points to nuclear energy and carbon taxes while emotion, aesthetics, and special interests point away. We're a democracy and fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) you get to decide.
Thomas I Friedman is right, thank you Charlie for interviewing him. He was wonderful. Someone out their who is not afraid to tell the truth and who is intimately knowledgeabe about who is Iraq, it's history, it's tribalism. I could go on and on, but knowing as much as I do because my husband was a UN inspector under UNSCOM and UNMOVIC who has written a paper that he has spread all over Capital Hill about the truth, .... It is just nice to hear the truth from others. Thank you Charlie Rose. We are a huge fan of yours, we watch your program everyday because you put people on who have something to say and you bring out the best in them. Cheers, Sharon
well said by thomas, well ask by rose, to the point. it's time - determine and exit stradegy, make a plan and leave.
If Tom really wanted to solve the problems in the Middle East, he would demand that the United States quit funding the Zionist Terrorists, which many American Politicians refer to as their friend Israel. Why does the United States continue to provide Financial and Military aid to a state that is in violation of International Law, United Nations Resolutions, has unregulated non-conventional weapons, and treats the Palestine people inhumanly instead of allowing them to return to their land, their homes, and their livelihood. When the Nazis Terrorists continued to violate International Law after Land was taken from Czechoslovakia and given to them, they were forced to accept unconditional surrender. Nothing less must be accepted from the Zionist Terrorists. 100% Citizen of the United States of America www.CitizenAmendments.org
Are there not more credible people to interview on Iraq?
Thomas Friedman is a good man. Yet, I am disappointed, again and again, by his emotive thinking and his attempt, again and again, to hard sell weak cutting edge thinking. Thomas Friedman believes we are in a cold war with Iran, when in fact, we are in a cold war with China. China, the nation that hopes to proxy Iran, China the country whose arms are reaching the Taliban and Iraqi insurgents. Any discussion about Iran, Iraq, Afhganistan without discussion of China is foolish, wrong and confusing. Time to open up the board and see it in toto. Phillip Urso Russo
Tonight Charlie was too much a gushing admirer, who, like much of the American press has done, failed to challenge bad reasons for invading Iraq: here, incredible arrogance and assumed entitlement. Tom sees Iraq beneath his flat world, needing a positive slope to reach it, and this justifies preemptive invasion, shock and awe, death and destruction. In hindsight, losing hope, he calls his approach "reaching for rainbows." I disagree. The Iraq war now is about whether such American arrogance, vs. fatefully divided groups, has the right to control Iraq's future. Tom has a very good message for the developing world; he's just a mean, inconsiderate, and tragically impatient messenger in the case of Iraq.