I was this close to ripping Friedman a new one, but I had to go brew up a pot of coffee. Damn you, bloglord, for your Early Bird ways!!

In part what Friedman says is true. But we all knew the Arab world was an amalgam of warring factions that have been at odds for centuries,right? Now, through our government's actions, they have added another faction to the "lets fight 'em" list, and it is us. Thank you George Bush. (both of 'em)

In part what Friedman says is true.

Only because he's being wilfully blind about a whole lot of other, relevant stuff--like the fact that people resist occupations.

When Christian Amanpour (the single most sexy woman on earth) tells you that we have not made a dent in the insurgents or their mission, I think you should believe it.

Regardless of what the government propaganda wing says, the Iraqis are starting to really hate us. They hate the insurgents, oh yes indeed, but America has crossed the line of decency so often in this "war" (Mission Accomplished!) in Iraq that we are taking on some real baggage when it comes to the Iraqi people.

Why even bother reading Friedman?

If you got to get your blood pressure up in the morning with poorly reasoned drivel, there are far better columns with which to flagellate one's self with. Cal Thomas & Tony Blankley are two that come to mind.

Prior to the Iraq invasion, corporate media pundits dismissed concerns about the “Arab Street” exploding. Now that there are blasts, they report that “Freedom is on the march in the Middle East”.

Why even bother reading Friedman?

I totally agree. Friedman suffers from the debilitating condition that can be described as the "ignorance and arrogance combination". Many U.S. citizens suffer from the same mental disorder. His arrogance prevents him from understanding his ignorance. The “terrorism” label is an attempt to dehumanize those that refuse to be colonized. There is no difference between what the U.S. does and what the so called terrorist are doing. I think both approaches are wrong. There is no need for war or colonialism; there is enough of everything here. What we see in Iraq is a refusal to bow to colonialism and recognition that colonialism can only exist when the oppressed collaborate with the oppressor. Fighting the oppressor alone won't prevent colonialism. The collaborators are as guilty as the oppressors. What many U.S. citizens failed to comprehend is that colonialism is “dead”. If people don't hesitate to die for what they believe, how does anyone in their right mind believe they can colonize these people? After spending $300 billion to colonized Iraq, what returns will the U.S. receive? Yet there is no cry to end this stupidity!!!!

I honestly don't think the war was necessary, but I do have to say that there has been some good to come out of it.

Why do we hear so little on the amount of Mass Graves uncovered throughout Iraq? At last count I do believe there has been more found in Iraq than in Kosovo. The fact that the Madman in Iraq can no longer kill the innocent of that country makes me happy. But the fact that innocent people continue to die at the hands of the insurgency makes me ill. Only time will tell which is worse.

God Bless the troops and keep them safe!

Bigdog, when you carpet bomb a city as big as Baghdad, you're liable to need some pretty big graves. When you overrun an army of several hundred thousand with the might of the US army, you are liable to need some big graves. Nobody denies Saddam killed lots of people, but the US has had two major wars there in the last 14 years, is it possible that we killed any of those in the graves?

bigdog,

Yes Saddam filled many mass graves. But most of them were filled years ago. There was no mass killing going on in Iraq in recent years. Saddam Hussein was a scumbag. He was a paper tiger. A two bit tyrant who's pinnacle of influence in the region was years behind him. I doubt that his idiot sons, had they lived to succeed him, would have had the brains, the motivation or the cooperation within Iraq to pose any kind of serious threat to the region or to the U.S. There biggest concern would have been keeping themselves from being killed by rivals. A great distraction from threatening your neighbors.

Just my opinion though. I wasn't there to see it all.

so by Friedman's(and many others) logic, when people die, insurgents are losing=we are winning. So when are we losing?? By that thinking, when people stop dying we are actually losing. Friedman's an ass. I wish people like him would wake up, see the reality and then maybe work together to actually help defeat the insurgents, rather than pretending we are.

I wish there were blogs when the Roman Empire was crumbling. I bet the rhetoric was similar.

I think you guys are completely misreading Friedman. I don't think he is addressing the existence or non-existence of an insurgency against the US invading force. He is discussing specifically the use of suicide bombings as a tool. And asking the question 'why are there so many suicide bombings throughout the Arab world.' Sure some aspect of the Iraqi insurgency is an expected response to being invaded by foreigners. But how does that explain suicide bombings in Saudi Arabia and Egypt?

It should be noted that Friedman has been speaking out against suicide bombings, and bashing arab leaders for not condemning them, for a number of years. He was doing this well before 9/11.

So, if Friedman were saying that the only motivating factor behind the Iraqi insurgency was anti-modernist forces in Islam I would agree with your responses. But he isn't even trying to classify the insurgency.

And, how does the presence of a foreign invading force explain attacking Iraqis unless they are collaborators? Usually when an insurgency is driven by an invasion one of the characteristics is people burying other differences to unite against the invader. This isn't happening in Iraq.

And, how does the presence of a foreign invading force explain attacking Iraqis unless they are collaborators?

Actually, Many of the attacks in Iraq are against those seen as collaborators. For instance, anyone associated with the Coalition Provisional Government, or anyone who participated in the US cooked up elections (remember how it took a week to recount, ala Florida) is seen as a collaborator.

Even if it isn't anti-occupational, the suicide bombing clearly was operating less efficiently when we had not yet invaded. I don't have any dates in front of me, but I don't remember hearing much about suicide bombings in Iraq before the invasion.

Matt, I don't question the premise that the reason that we are seeing violence in Iraq is that it is a response to the US invasion. I don't think that Friedman is questioning that either. The point is not the cause of the violence, it is the form that the violence takes. Shooting at US troops, or kidnapping and killing a bunch of people you think are collaborators is one thing. Blowing yourself up in the process is a completely different animal. When the Palestinians started using suicide bombing in earnest against the Israelis Friedman expressed concern that if this tactic was not universally condemned it would become an acceptable part of the arsenal of insurgency. He is now pointing out that the arab praise and support for the Palestinians blowing up Israelis is coming back to haunt them. They legitimized the tactic, and now they are the ones getting blown up. End of story.

It's not about motivation, it's about tactics.

Oaklander, I agree with you that many of the people being killed are people whom one could make a case are collaboraters. But not everyone. And again, the point is more about using suicide bombing than about who is getting bombed.

I don't see any contradiction in condemning the US invasion and condemning the use of suicide bombing against civilian non-combatants.

Friedman's thoughts are based on self righteousness. Killing is killing! There is no acceptable and unacceptable tactics for killing. If he doesn't condemn blowing-up kids with cruise missiles, he is a hypocrite. Who sets the rules? The term insurgency shows ignorance and hypocrisy. Who gave Friedman or anybody the right to set the rules in Southeast Asia? Another way to read what's happening is "If someone is willing to blow-up themselves there will be no colony".

Muckcat,

So do we simply excuse him from his past crimes against the people of Iraq? I sure as hell won't.

T2, Oh so you honestly believe those graves were made by members of the U.S. military? Comments like that really piss me the fuck off. Have you ever been in a situation of kill or be killed? It would be eaiser for me to stomach if you would say what you really mean...you want the every sodier killed overthere. At least you would be honest.

bigdog,

I said no such thing. Your rationalization for accepting a war you think was unnecessary was that we stopped him from filling mass graves. I pointed out that the mass graves had been filled long ago. When we intervened in Kosovo, your comparison, the mass killing was actively occuring. As you note, there is a lot of violent death going on in Iraq right now. Two years after Sadams fall. More than there was in the last few years of Saddam Hussein's reign I wager. If you take solice in the fact that someone other than Hussein is doing the killing so be it. The people are dead just the same.

And bigdog.

Are we going to excuse George Bush for his crimes against the people of Iraq?

I'm glad the Iraqis think things will work out for them.

However, Bush is running for President of the United States, not Iraq. All this stuff about helping Iraqis is besides the point. Since when do Republicans go in for foreign aid?

The problem with the Kerry campaign is that they're too politically correct to really make this an issue. They've taken an occasional swipe at Bush over this, but fundamentally, they're too "decent" to push the sort of xenophobic buttons that a Jesse Helms or Pat Buchanan would.