Charlie Rose

Tyler  12/26/2008 02:14 PM Report

The President-Elect is right to be measured, circumspect and focused on getting things right, even if it means upsetting some of his supporters on the left. It is obvious that he is acutely aware of the significance of the moment for the nation and the world. If it takes a reverse Oreo cookie administration to right the ship of state then so be it. Mind you, while not yet apparent, America is rising and soaring like a phoenix now, from the oaken cinders of the disastrous policies of the outgoing administration. The President-Elect has to keep in mind that he personally only has one shot to do it right and confirm the wisdom of America's choice, before the nation's impressive capacity for self-correction and renewal kicks in for another change we can believe in. For success, stop stupid overreaching adventures abroad and attend to some needed repairs at home. Do not rush into Afghanistan and waste precious American blood and treasure on a strategy that creates more enemies than it kills. Unless you are prepared to do to them what was done to North American Indians or the Japanese at the end of WW II, there is no purely military solution to that region. The opposition has a pool of tens of millions from which to draw fighters. Just because westerners created borders that divided tribes does not mean that the kinship was extinguished. Only a fool would make innocent New Zealanders collateral damage and not expect Australians, Canadians, Americans, the Irish, English, Scots, Welsh, etc. not to sympathize and come to their defense. As much as the President-Elect wants to get them because they harbored people who killed Americans (and Kenyans), do not expand that swamp; drain it by expanding the problem and transferring its ownership to the locals in a tangible way. The opposition understands that it too can expand the problem to solve it from its perspective – e.g. by bombing Mumbai; counter it, but by a stronger non-western military component and an even insanely stronger diplomatic surge. Defend our allies in the region, but avoid the non-engagement short-sighted prescriptions of that fabled warrior lying in a coma in the Middle East. They are poison for long term American interests. Otherwise, Afghanistan will be the new administration’s Iraq.

PGold  12/15/2008 02:11 PM Report

China hasn't invaded any other countries? What about TIMBET! Come on Friedman, you're better than that.

tartufe  12/14/2008 06:36 PM Report

The pivotal question for the world, the US (and Obama) is an Iran with nukes. Is it inevitable? Detainable - but still inevitable? Spreadable? Detainable - but proliferation nonetheless still inevitable? A Pandora's box syndrome?

If the latter, the question then pivots around a different focal point. That becomes one of deferral - of the inevitable.

Then is belief that the inevitable is accelerated or deferred by what we do about Iran revert to be the pivotal conundrum? At this point perception becomes a large pivot that survival itself may spin upon.

Perceived arrogance (ours and Israel's) amongst the terrorist-oriented regimes around the globe could provide rationale for the finale-de-coup to our species(?)

Taking out Iran's nuclear capability militarily will be a validation of our unbridled arrogance and accelerate the inevitable - rather than defer it.

But cosmologically this is moot. Of the innumerable cycles the earth has experienced (from extinctions from asteroids to volcanoes etc), extinction by our own hand now or infinitesimally later (cosmologically) probably of little consequence, eh? Alas, we're too clever by fractions!

ShalomFreedman  12/14/2008 07:50 AM Report

On the one hand I learned a great deal from Tom Friedman's analyses of different situations and problems. For instance his remarks on what President- elect Obama should say on Inauguration Day make great sense. His idea of calling for a 'united we stand' effort of the American people to confront their problems seems right. Also in many of the other areas discussed such as relations with China and Russia , Friedman outlined an Administration approach which seems reasonable. His remarks on the transformative effect an Obama leadership can have on the world's perception of America also seem wise.

However on the 'Middle East' and Iran he seems to me off the mark. He did not mention that the Palestinians are not capable of making peace now, even if they wanted to. The Hamas- Fatah division is the major factor here. He did however wisely indicate that an Israeli- Palestinian agrement would by no means put an end to the myriad conflicts, and the whole atmosphere of conflict which pervades the Middle East. On Iran's nuclear-program he is seeing the world from Minnesota, which is not immediately endangered by a nuclear Iran. That will not be true once Iran develops, and it is working to develop, its intercontinental missiles. But as I see it from my home in Israel a nuclear Iran is an existensial threat. Friedman says there is 'deterrence'. I think he misses the mark here. A suicide- bomber society and people cannot be deterred by sane considerations especially when they have proxies through whom they can operate. President Bush repeatedly gave the committment that the U.S. would not allow Iran to go nuclear. President - elect Obama has also pledged himself to not allowing a nuclear- Iran to come into being. I think Tom Friedman absolutely mistaken when he says a nuclear Iran should be preferred to the consequences of preventing this. Preventing this could lead to the regime change in Tehran which would be the great turning point in the global war on Terror. Allowing Iran to go nuclear would be admitting the Terrorists were on their way to winning the war.

Christopher  12/14/2008 02:38 AM Report

I really like Tom as a person, but as far as political analysis goes, he really brings no new insight. He does however makes a great simplification of the China/Russia method of managing politics, ie his bargin example between the govt's and their elite classes (upper middle class). I think he does not get though that the Russian geopolitical strategy is based on high oil prices. That's it.

His read of how foreigners see the US was, I don't know, completely empty (George Bush did not have the naive optimism). It was the war in Iraq Tom... That is it.

His comments about the mass protests on the Danish cartoons/no protests to the deaths in the Indian terror attacks was dead on.

Christopher  12/14/2008 02:38 AM Report

I really like Tom as a person, but as far as political analysis goes, he really brings no new insight. He does however makes a great simplification of the China/Russia method of managing politics, ie his bargin example between the govt's and their elite classes (upper middle class). I think he does not get though that the Russian geopolitical strategy is based on high oil prices. That's it.

His read of how foreigners see the US was, I don't know, completely empty (George Bush did not have the naive optimism). It was the war in Iraq Tom... That is it.

His comments about the mass protests on the Danish cartoons/no protests to the deaths in the Indian terror attacks was dead on.

craigb  12/14/2008 12:00 AM Report

Besides overstating the obvious as if by only his devinity, I don't think there is anyone who gets more prominent exposure and is and has always been so consistently wrong. Along with his good friend Fareed Zakaria he believes the "Over reaching solution to the world's problems are to spread free market economy and democracy throughout the wold". Of course that is the American brand of Democracy.

From supporting the Iraq war to pushing new US global initiatives with such certitude that he doesn't mind using such supportive characters as Bush and Cheney he is a pompous talking head for the neocon right; albeit a smooth one.

All this being said, I enjoy his occasional appearances. He has a very nice delivery of making 22 points of very reasoned intellect (mostly common sense) and then concludes with 2 final points from 'his' agenda before moving on.

About the only mediation I heard from Tom was that he said that he 'could live' with a nuclear Iran; he wouldn't like it but could live with it. Thank you from all of us Tom!

tartufe  12/13/2008 12:44 AM Report

Tom's meshing his gears at a grinding rate. Agree with a lot he offered, but not all, namely that Iraq's legacy should be preserved and is preservable. Au contraire! Their tribalism, history, and religious enmity will unleash at our departure - whether tomorrow or thousands of them. The surge worked based on $300 monthly 'ransoms' for Sunni peace-hostage. This fatuous venture will end as badly as it started. Perhaps providence demands it.

As to our other fatuous (misad)venture in A-P (Afghanistan -Pakistan) he's got it right. To wit:

The US military via the air force and their missile firing drones are creating long term enemies that are now bringing predictions of non-nuclear mass destruction attacks in the foreseeable future. Our arrogance in our 30:1 proportion of civilians to bad guy kill will come home to roost. An aggregation of all Pakistan civilians killed will justify (rightly or wrongly) a terrorist attack - massive or otherwise.

The objective in Afghanistan and Pakistan is fanciful and doubtless illusive. What would victory be? Would we leave if Osama bin Laden were dead (whether by old age or missile fire)? Another will take his place. Then what? Do we stay until they vote us out a la Iraq?

Another 9/11 type attack is more likely the longer we stay than were we to leave tomorrow.

What goes around comes around. Technology is transferable - from nukes to missile firing drones.

How many civilian deaths would the arrogant jingos deem acceptable in Peoria?

Tom probably wouldn't have put it that way. But over-controlling, entitled oligarchs whether M-I complex or financial wise-guys embroil my gizzard.

Oligarchic capitalism cum involuntary socialism cum voluntary anarchy. (Chicago garage door co. employees a good start.)

bauhwa  12/12/2008 11:33 PM Report

How many times did Mr.Friedman say “I don’t know”? I like that. When he did know, he got intelligent points. And they are straight and simple.

I especially his ability to looking outside in, not just a typical “American”.

brake  12/12/2008 08:34 PM Report

I consider Mr. Friedman to be one of the most intelligent guests of the many intelligent guests that appear on Charlie Rose's facinating program. We all need this kind of discussion to exercise our minds. The thoughtless approaches of the past will not work in the next 20 years so we might as well get used to thinking in an entirely different way about the adversaries real or imagined.

apirani  12/12/2008 08:28 PM Report

Mr. Friedman sounds more like an angry old man. It seems his intellectual reasoning has been over shadowed by the anger deep inside him. Charlie Rose is a program that is synonymous with rational and intellectual depth. I hope we will see more cool headed people with intellectual curiosity rather than a display of anger from a so called intellectual. Tom Friedman looks more like a left wing version of Bill O Reilly.

charlizecourriers  12/12/2008 03:22 PM Report

If Barrack listens to Tom he will fail even faster that I expect. It is ludicrous to think that an American president should sidle up to the two worst dictatorships in the world,Russian and Han, so that 'solutions' can be imposed on the many little dictatorships scattered elsewhere. And Charlie, can't you say something to your kibbitzer friend about his ugly, hostile voice? I think your 'pal' is losing perpective-and going again to China won't help.

MPCalifornia  12/12/2008 02:40 PM Report

Friedman has become repetitive - he has flogged 'World is Flat' idea for too long now. His political views are either too idealistic or too simplistic. Not really sure if issues on the ground in Pakistan can be solved with what he has to recommend.

REMant  12/12/2008 02:39 PM Report

Is there a stupider man on the planet, flat, dusty, hot or otherwise?

1. The weakest power will be China, because it holds a ton of our IOU's and has no resources. The first person I would invite to the White House would not be the prime minister of Canada or GB, or the president of Mexico, but Hu Jintao.

2. What we need are not leaders dangling ephemeral carrots, certainly not making idle threats, or telling us that all we need is love, love. Obama has not only surrounded himself with ppl who will likely quarrel with each other, but worse, looks to be trying to build consensus where there will be none. He would be better off using this opportunity to cram solutions proved to work in other countries down our throats. But it really is something the ppl have to do themselves. Indeed it would be better IMHO if ppl never listened to another American official, certainly not a central banker, much less a newspaper columnist.

3. We can, however, achieve economic security and reduce population growth, climate change, etc, by separating bank deposit accts from savings accts, stopping banks from lending from the former and issuing credit beyond the latter. Money will flood into the country as a result, and stabilize the world economy as well. Population will diminish and pressure on the environment ease, and tech innovation will be encouraged instead of discouraged. By reducing the disparity in wealth it will make essential goods and services more affordable to the majority and diminish the cause of famine and war.

4. Why should Rushdie ever be welcome in a country whose moral basis he denounces? A morality, I might add, that seems far superior to ours. How open are we to socialists and communists, or Muslims for that matter?

5. Is anyone paying for this guy's appearances on this show?

DavLev  12/12/2008 01:37 PM Report

Regarding the Thomas Friedman interview, nothing really new here. I've heard it all before. Mr. Friedman is eloquent, seemingly pithy, and very flowerful and verbose. He has the poety and prose. But he is, and has been, dead wrong on so many issues of our times. For starters, let's take the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel offered the Palestinians a state, entity, autonomy of their own, after 48 and every subsequent war (started by the Arabs-wars that if lost, would have meant no Israel). The famous 3 nos really exist today, except there are meaningless negotiations..with the so-called right of return as a non-starter (see Camp David's and Clinton's failure). Israel has removed barriers (road blocks) with the usual results, more Palistinian initiated violence and murder. At border points, the Palestinians have repeatedly commited terrorist attacks, sometimes using women faking the need for medical treatment in Israel. The Palestinians constantly complain about Israel's "siege" of the Gaza Strip, yet never explain why (Arabs have attempted to smuggle arms and weapons materials). BTW, Egypt also has a border with the Strip. Get it. Two states for 2 people, is a pipe dream of the Bush administration and Israeli leftists., and Mr. Friedman knows it too well. Regarding Iran, let's be honest., it doesn't want any peace with it's neighbors, most especially Israel. It doesn't need to spend billions on nuke plants, when it is an oil exporter. It will manufacture atomic weapons, within 2 years according to experts (Friedman knows that). It will, as theatened, use surrogates (Hamas, Hezbollah, others) to explose 2-3 weapons over Tel Aviv. Any retaliation is meaningless. To expect the US to revenge any such attack is blatantly absurd. No Congress will authorize a massive retaliation..and if they do, so what? Israel's demise will, in fact, please the entire Muslim-Arab worlds and elsewhere. Good bye, and good luck, just more Holocaust museums to visit and crying. Our relationship with Russia, India, and China will stay steady, depending on what THEY do. Will Obama condemn in practical terms Russian's new embolden attitude in Cuba and Venezuela? If Russia sends troops into the Ukraine, will Obama counter with our own troops? I think not. Friedman said the obvious about Iraq and Afghanistan..both lost causes. We cannot defeat Islam in these countries. He should have proposed we get out, and now., and save ourselves more grief. He knows that we freed 50 million Muslims..and tried to bring democracy to that part of the Muslim world. We succeeded with the first goal. Let's now call it a success and leave ASAP which is what he shoudl advocate. Forget the Taliban. This is an internal Muslim problem. Mr. Friedman has the same old, obvious tired, remedies., which are wishful and cosmetic thinking. Examples are easy to prove: North Korea refuses to comply with US..AND Iran is still persuing WMD and longer range delivery systems. The world will NOT IMPOSE stricter sanctions, (price of oil affected) and he knows it. He is just huffing and puffing, and seems to have learned nothing

from all his travels (with Mr. Baker, of all people).