Dan,
Say what you will, but Friedman is right about this (wait, before you throw the chair, hear me out). What he said, is the perfect description of the neo-con vision for what going to Iraq was all about. The theory is similar to Tom Barnett's notion of giving the region its own Big Bang that would throw the whole region into chaos and allow for the creation of New Rule Sets and opportunities to address the problems in the region, from entrenched autocracies to stagnant economies. Their biggest mistake was that they believed that the after effect of the war could be controlled by the US. Hence, we see now that as far back as 1994 Dick Cheney understood the dangers of going into Iraq. However, post 9/11 they believed that Iraq was the perfect target because Hussein was weak and the society largely secular thanks to, ironically, the Baath.
Barnett sees the failure of the Bush administration in failing to use many of the opportunities that presented themselves early on. After all, once Baghdad fell, Iran (though not solely b/c of that) sought to negotiate and reestablish relations. Barnett argues that the US should have taken advantage of that, since the US and Iran had some of the same strategic interests in the region, from stemming the rise of Sunni fundamentalism to their cooperation on Afghanistan following 9/11. By waiting, and trying to run the war machine towards Iran almost as a carbon copy of the run up to Iraq, the administration (already losing in Iraq) reduced its capital to the point where Iran emerged the stronger player thereby reducing their incentive to cooperate with the US.
As he puts it:
You start the Big Bang.
You refuse to play the board? Guess what?
The board plays you.
The day always goes to the most resilient, all things being asymmetrical and connected.
Okay, you can throw the chair now... 
If Friedman--and I still hold out some hope for this--is describing what he believes to be the underlying rationale for the war among some segment of the Bush administration, then what he's saying may be sensible. If he's offering this as an argument *for* the war, then he's just nuts.
I appreciate what you're saying, but you should know that I'm not particularly down with Barnett and "rule sets" and all of that.
I think that in this video, Friedman is laying out the reasons for the war (as he saw them). In the run up to Iraq, he was a big proponent of the Big Bang theory.
Kligons, Vulcans, Ceasars or whatever they call themselves these days...they're all nuts. Slup.
That's actually the argument that Fuad Ajami made before the war in a debate with Fawaz Georges on Charly Rose. Basically that we have to either humiliate or pacify the "heart of Arab/Islamic radicalism". What it sounds like to me is revenge and irrationality, "seeing red". I mean, like going into some Arab country, tipping the balance of power towards an American enemy, and "going door to door" is not going to irritate Arabs (especially) and Muslims and make them even more happy to attack us (those that would; not all of them!)? Sigh.
ot but wanted to ad that friedman has my least favorite book TITLE "longtitudes and attitudes".
I just hate it for some reason. maybe it is good, but it seems like it is probably some middle mind bring neo liberalism to the oprah fied masses bs
What I believe is being lost in this debate is that the "Arab mind" and even the "Moslem mind" is only the result of external prodding. In other words, if left to its devices, the Jordanians could give a s*** about the Yemeni's, or the Egyptians for the Iraqi's for that matter. However, when prodded by a chest-beating hegemon, the mind set solidifies as a reaction, and all revert to common denominators (even loose ones) against an entirely alien force. The US with its senseless poking is what causes the formation of such blocks. And perhaps that is what this strategy is all about... creating a new Satan... After all, things were getting boring after Reagan brought down the Berlin wall.... 9/11 is not the start-point, it is only a crescendo in a strategy put in motion in 1989.
More to the point, Friedman is to social science what Dr. Phil is to psychology.... quack, quack, quack
dahlia- exactly. it's dumbed down neo liberalism for fun and profit.
This was strongly presented by administration partisans just after the war. The more intelligent version being that the Mid East is a series of interlocking problems and you can’t solve any of them without changing the other first. The usual sort of solution to that sort of problem is to kick it hard at a random point forcing the dynamics to change, thus giving leverage to solve some problems which will intern lead to opportunities to solve others.
When I heard it, I figured on the theory that 2% is twice as large as 1% it it had twice the chance of success of any other general mid-east peace plan, but more than double the risks. Not a good bet.
Dahlia,
Reagan (as you probably know) did not "bring down the Berlin Wall," certainly not single-handed. It would never have happened without Gorbachev -- and a very large number of other people, most of whose names will remain unknown to those who watched the events from afar.
About the only immediately obvious thing connecting 1989 and 9/11 is the dates -- Berlin Wall happened to fall on 9 November 1989 (9/11/89). I understand your point about the supposed U.S. need for a new adversary after 1989, although I'm not sure I agree with it, but in any case I think it's fair to say that not even the most hard-line of the neocons would have chosen the 9/11 attacks as a preferred way of setting off a new conflict. Yes, they took advantage of the attacks after they happened to further their program, but that's saying something different.
well, it didn't help that they were going on about saddam hussein when bin laden was the real problem prior to 9/11. they were th go to guys on middle east stuff, now we know they had no knowledge of the middle east at all, just israeli propaganda
LC
You obviously haven't read "The World is Flat." Otherwise you would know that neither Reagan nor Gorbachev (let alone Lech Walesa, Vaclav Havel, and other Eastern European dissidents) brought down the Berlin wall. Microsoft did.
Yeah, it says that! Well, it basically does - something about how the Russians envied us our computers. Two years after Microsoft reunited Germany, my family got an Apple 2GS, so we must have been pretty un-American.
LC - obviously Reagan didn't bring down the wall - that was a feeble attempt on my part at being facetious. As for 9/11, I never said nor meant to imply that the neo-cons or anyone had anything to do with it. I was saying that 9/11 was an action/reaction in a serious of actions and reactions...
Dahlia -- ok, I thought your Reagan remark might have been tongue-in-cheek, wasn't sure.
Zak -- you're right, I haven't read 'The World Is Flat,' and what you say doesn't elevate its place on my to-read list.
I'm going to bed, but I'll check it out in the morning. Note, though, that I haven't assigned Friedman either!
http://burkeanreflections.blogspot.com
Brilliant piece by Friedman. He is a great thinker -- able to explain abstract thoughts very well. (Also quite consistent -- I remember almost identical rhetoric for him at his address to UMTC).
Commenting by HaloScan.com
