Glory Be: NY Times and Washington Post Discover Democracy “Strategery”
Jackson Diehl posits that the naysayers were wrong about Iraq, especially since Lebanon is demonstrating for freedom. The Washington Post deserves some credit– it tried to carve out a middle ground between its kneejerk “Iraq’s a disaster” liberal tendencies and some recognition of the facts on the ground. The NY Times’ editorial page certainly went with the “it’s a disaster” crowd, and Tom Friedman earned himself no kudos. Friedman is now trying to write his way out of a corner — writing columns about Iraq’s “success.” They are very late in coming. (See this post relating some of what I saw in Iraq in July 2004. I’ll add this column from November 2003, which adds some context as well.)
Diehl compares the current Middle East situation to 1989. No, it’s not 1989– the war on terror is something very different, and we’re not in the endgame– but Diehl does recognize change is in the air:
If a Middle East transformation begins to gather momentum, it probably will be more messy, and the results more ambiguous, than those European revolutions. It also won’t be entirely Bush’s creation: The tinder for ignition has been gathering around the stagnant and corrupt autocracies of the Middle East for years. Still, less than two years after Saddam Hussein was deposed, the fact is that Arabs are marching for freedom and shouting slogans against tyrants in the streets of Beirut and Cairo — and regimes that have endured for decades are visibly tottering. Those who claimed that U.S. intervention could never produce such events have reason to reconsider.
Friedman wrote on Sunday about “tipping points”
The other night on ABC’s “Nightline,” the host, Ted Koppel, posed an intriguing question to Malcolm Gladwell, the social scientist who wrote the path-breaking book “The Tipping Point,” which is about how changes in behavior or perception can reach a critical mass and then suddenly create a whole new reality. Mr. Koppel asked: Can you know you are in the middle of a tipping point, or is it only something you can see in retrospect?
Mr. Gladwell responded that “the most important thing in trying to analyze whether something is at the verge of a tipping point, is whether it - an event - causes people to reframe an issue. …A dumb example is the Atkins’s diet, which reframes dieting from thinking about it in terms of avoiding calories and fat to thinking about it as avoiding carbohydrates, which really changes the way people perceive dieting.”
Mr. Koppel was raising the question because he wanted to explore whether the Iraqi elections marked a tipping point in history. I was on the same show, and in mulling over this question more I think that what’s so interesting about the Middle East today is that we’re actually witnessing three tipping points at once.
This is bandwagon column writing of the most blatant sort. Friedman adds the caveat “… I would feel a lot better about all three (”tipping points”) if I thought that they were irreversible - and couldn’t tip back the wrong way.”
Wouldn’t we all.
The Times certainly dismissed the possibility of ever reaching such “tipping points,” especially with Bush in charge– and when the possibility was occasionally raised (by Friedman) that something good was going on in Iraq, that success might be a teensy-weensy slender Vegas long-shot of a possibility, it was generally undercut with “appropriate” disdain for Bush and his policies. (This was especially true during the 2004 presidential campaign. Talk about politics as blindfolds to reality.) For the record, Friedman’s three tipping points: Iraqi election, Lebanese reaction to the Syrian-backed assasination, and the Israel-Palestine situation post-Arafat.
Read my column from December 2004, about the looming revolt in the Middle East. The opportunities for genuine change were no secret– they were obvious. Moreover, those doing the tipping saw the goals and paid the price. These opportunities were earned– with tough, visionary US leadership, smart diplomacy, and the sweat and blood of coalition troops and the Iraqi people. Here’s a bandwagon I’ll join: Give the Iraqi people the Nobel Peace Prize.
UPDATE: Commenters 5 and 10: Friedman balked. He backed Iraq (to a degree), then he balked. I note that in my original post (Friedman had occasional glimpses; he lacked “sustain.”) Where he truly balked was during the tough fight with the reactionaries. But–thanks for the good comments and strong opinion.
UPDATE 2: Comment 21 is a bit hyperbolic and the DLC accusation unfair, but it does traces the the sine wave of uncertainty Iraq’s “occasional supporters” followed– which is why a look back at the bandwagoneers is fair. It’s fair to look back at my columns and commentaries. You can’t be thin-skinned in this business– I’d be delighted if Diehl and Friedman added a comment. I’d like to see them jump on the “Nobel for Iraqis” bandwagon.
Comment21:
Friedman pushed for the Iraq invasion, then when it looked like the President was actually going to do something, he jumped onto the ?don?t act unlaterally? bandwagon. Now, his line is ?the invasion was a good idea, but the Bush Administration shouldn?t have acted unilaterally and they failed to adequately plan for after the invasion.? In short, Friedman?s position changes everytime the DLC?s propaganda line changes.
UPDATE 3: The NY Times editorial board weighs in.
Still, this has so far been a year of heartening surprises - each one remarkable in itself, and taken together truly astonishing. The Bush administration is entitled to claim a healthy share of the credit for many of these advances. It boldly proclaimed the cause of Middle East democracy at a time when few in the West thought it had any realistic chance.
Actually, many of us thought it had a chance. What the NY Times is saying that “few” of the folks with whom its editors sipped chablis and nipped brie thought democracy in the Middle East had a chance. This is another lesson in “big media” isolation. As I noted in my original post, we’re not in the end game– but we are witnessing a political breakthrough in the War on Terror. (Again, I prefer Millennium War for a number of reasons, but what the heck.)
UPDATE 4: Comment 23– superb comment, thanks for posting it and clarifying. You’re right– Friedman was one of many opinion-leaders who backed the “run up to Iraq”– at least within certain limits. Run-up is one thing, the run-through is something else. That’s why I think columnists and analysts with a military background have done a much better job of assessing events (war is the realm of friction, etc)– Ralph Peters, my Army buddy Jack Kelly, etcetera. I think the critical rationale, how ever, received short-shrift from a lot of very savvy people: that was ending the 12 year long “slow war” with Saddam. In early 1997 I talked with several USAF pilots who’d been flying missions over northern Iraq. (This was in April 1997 at a big air defense and space defense exercise at Ft Bliss.) They kept telling me “Sir, these are combat missions. And no one pays any attention. It’s like people don’t know we’re at war.” Hey– it was a tough, slow war, a big siege. Sieges require spine and stamina, and the international will to contain Saddam began to fade in 1996 The Bush Administration must accept a lion’s share of the blame for failing to emphasize the strategic need to “enforce Desert Storm. ” If the UN Resolutions of 1990 and 1991 meant anything, Saddam had to go. Looks like I’m hitting the StrategyPage on-line archive very hard, huh — here’s a column from March 2003 on that subject. StrategyPage is convenient and its links are relatively permanent. The links to some newspaper archives shift.
UPDATE 5: Roger L. Simon calls the NY Times shift an awakening. How awake are they and will they stay awake? Not even Bill Keller knows, folks. Roger suggests the legacy press is in for a meme-change– at least for a while.
Perhaps it’s time to organize some “Not In Your Name” rallys as a reminder that the events leading to more democracy in the Middle East were not only opposed by renounced by millions world wide.
Comment by rob — 2/28/2005 @ 6:50 pm
Isn’t it abundantly clear that by changing the leadership of the country with the world’s second largest know oil reserves, that instantly countries like France, Germany, and even Syria / Libya would quickly try to cozy up to the new leadership. That’s in part, why the elections were so important.
Comment by Dan Jenkins — 2/28/2005 @ 6:53 pm
The Syrians seem to have caught on more quickly than the Democratic Party. They demonstrated that by handing over most of the Baathist leadership that was directing the insurgency. The next domino to fall will probably be Iran. A year from now there is a 50% chance that the mullahs will be gone or on the way.
Comment by Mike K — 2/28/2005 @ 6:58 pm
1) I think the real value in the eastern Europe comparison is the fact that almost no one predicted the fall of the USSR, yet it did indeed happen, with shocking rapidity. The left continues to rely on hindsight as their guide to the future. 2) Friedman’s hope that the tipping points will not reverse themselves reveals that he will never be a “tipper”–only the people who take the real and necessary risks should get the credit.
Comment by Jeff — 2/28/2005 @ 7:19 pm
Check your history: Friedman was a huge booster of an invasion of Iraq, in hopes of lighting the fuse of democracy more than finding WMDs, going back almost to Sept. 2001. You need people to kick around, there are plenty of others to kick…most everyone else on the Times’ staff outside of Friedman and Safire. Give kicks where kicks are due, but give credit where credit is due.
Comment by David Foster — 2/28/2005 @ 7:41 pm
And while we’re at it, check your history on the WashPost…they have consistently taken pro-war stances in their editorials since before Colin Powell spoke at the United Nations. Again, let’s take our best swings at those who deserve it, don’t go knee-jerk after two biggies who don’t. Signed, a former Democrat who saw the light on 9-11.
Comment by David Foster — 2/28/2005 @ 7:52 pm
Defeat is an orphan, victory has a thousand fathers.
Comment by Jerry — 2/28/2005 @ 8:18 pm
In this case, the thousand fathers owe a lot of back child support.
Comment by TallDave — 2/28/2005 @ 8:20 pm
First t6ime at Austin Bay, but it sure will not be the last. Thank you for providing some alternative to the MSM.
Comment by Bill OB — 2/28/2005 @ 8:26 pm
If you do actually check history, you will find that Friedman was a proponent of the idea of democratizing Iraq — right up to the eve of the invasion. At that point, he got cold feet and backed off, when it was too late to back off. He blinked, balked, and bailed. I thought it was a despicable performance at the time, and I still do.
Comment by Byron — 2/28/2005 @ 8:33 pm
The problem with the whole ‘tipping point’ stuff is that it says “oh look, here’s change”. We need a better algorithm that says “oh look, here comes change” and also says “here’s the implications and reach of that change”. All the blather about tipping points is like someone telling you a bomb just went off next door. Well, yeah, we HEARD the bomb. How about next time tell us somethiing useful - the likelihood of a bomb in the near future, and how far away we ought to be. That would be useful. Telling us change (and explosions) happens fast - well, we knew that.
Comment by Mr. Snitch — 2/28/2005 @ 8:56 pm
I’m not surprised at all by the changing tenor of these people. Now that it looks as if things are going well, they are aiming to make it appear as if they knew things would go this way all along. But they haven’t completely made the leap, just in case they need to backtrack if things make an about face. If all remains good and successful, in a few years, they will all be crowing about how they were instrumental in cheering on the American effort to bring democracy to the middle east. They still haven’t wrapped their minds around the essence of the internet… their writings will always be out there somewhere and they will be held accountable for them.
Comment by Teresa — 2/28/2005 @ 9:04 pm
Hey Austin - How does it feel to be “Instalanched”?
Comment by Bill — 2/28/2005 @ 9:15 pm
I can’t think of a better way for the people of the Middle East to get the message that the whole world supports and applauds grass roots efforts to democritrize than the Nobel Peace Prize to the people of Iraq. They are a “face” culture, and what a way to turn around their notion of what kinds of behavior warrant honor.
Comment by John Boyle — 2/28/2005 @ 9:16 pm
Mr. Snitch, The people who can tell you about “tipping points” in advance generally can do so out of instinctive understanding of changing political conditions. That is they are the smarter, more insightful politicians. One who did predict in advance the collapse of the USSR was Ronald Reagan. We now see, perhaps, that Dubya is that sort of politician too. It is a real shame that we did not do in Iraq what we are now doing starting in 1991. I wanted and expected us to do so. When Bush 41 decided to stop short then, I thought to myself that his team had done a good job up till then, and they must have had some cunning plan to unseat Saddam without an invasion. Alas, their cunning plan was one devised by Baldrick. It was shameful that the US stood by while Saddam massacred Iraqis fighting for freedom. Had we begun this task in 1991 we would have had much more favorable diplomatic, political, and security environments to reform Iraq in. We probably would be done now, and the region, the world, and the USA much more peaceful and secure. This, and the troubles we are having with North Korea, have convinced me that Dugout Doug was absolutely correct: In war there is no substitute for victory. Every time we settle for less the decision comes back to bite us on the rear end.
Comment by Michael Lonie — 2/28/2005 @ 9:18 pm
Get the feeling we’re getting the Mongolians, Iraqis, Tajiks, Kazakhs, Turkmen, Georgians, etc. ready to step in when Russia collapses? When the republics and autonomous regions that make up Russia are out on their own and could use a little help? Prognosis: In 6 or 7 years Iraqis will be training Uzbek troops and could be patrolling the Russian/Chinese border alongside American and British forces.
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 2/28/2005 @ 9:57 pm
It’s 1989. Who in early ‘89 saw it coming? Who today sees it coming? I think we all do, but it seems too good to be true, and too impossible, given all we’ve been taught.
Comment by Just Some Guy — 2/28/2005 @ 10:44 pm
I agree with Michael Lonie’s comment (”The people who can tell you about “tipping points” in advance generally can do so out of instinctive understanding of changing political conditions,” but would take it further. Leaders such as Reagan and Bush have a deep conviction in simple truths about human nature. Based on those convictions they take huge risks, against great odds and boatloads of scorn, withe belief that given the opportunity to embrace freedom, people - any people - will choose it. They thereby make therefore do more than see and understand the tipping point; they make the the thing tip.
Comment by Russ Tibbitts — 3/1/2005 @ 1:01 am
Just Some Guy: “It’s 1989. Who in early ‘89 saw it coming?” Well, Reagan imagined it long before then, and took steps to make it happen. The CIA, for instance, did not predict it, and certainly did not imagine it — proving Einstein’s wisdom, “Imagination is more important than knowledge.” Russ Tibbitts: “Leaders such as Reagan and Bush … take huge risks … they do more than see and understand the tipping point; they make the the thing tip.” Precisely. As Alan Kay once said, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.” Ted Koppel could use some “reframing” himself: the purpose of leadership is not to predict, but to lead. Washington historically has done a pretty poor job of predicting the future (again, see 1989), but I give the Bush administration credit for boldly trying to invent it.
Comment by SF Bay Guy — 3/1/2005 @ 2:06 am
But when the wall comes down across the region, will it also come down for the Kurds? They are a contiguous people occupied by four foreign powers(Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran). That will be the real test of supporting self-determination over stability. Don’t hold your breath.
Comment by Robc — 3/1/2005 @ 3:16 am
Friedman pushed for the Iraq invasion, then when it looked like the President was actually going to do something, he jumped onto the “don’t act unlaterally” bandwagon. Now, his line is “the invasion was a good idea, but the Bush Administration shouldn’t have acted unilaterally and they failed to adequately plan for after the invasion.” In short, Friedman’s position changes everytime the DLC’s propaganda line changes Weird, huh?
Comment by Some Guy — 3/1/2005 @ 7:22 am
Re: Comment #3 I think you are incorrect. I predict Iran will be the last of the major ME countries to change. The mullahs will hold out to the bitter end. Next is clearly Syria, then Egypt. Once Syrian and Iraqi oil demotes Saudi oil from the strategic heights, Saudi comes after. Along the way Israeli and Palestinian peace breaks out, and Iran hangs on as long as possible, then falls. I think that last one will take years. PS
Comment by Storminator — 3/1/2005 @ 8:41 am
If Friedman “backed off” to the extent you say, I’ll accept that and your criticisms of him; however, we can’t overlook the importance of his “pre” back-off columns, when he and the lead editorials (not the opinion columns) in the Washington Post took a clear hard line on Iraq, not so much for WMD as for building democracy and stability in an vital but unstable region. Their work brought the light to a lot of peoples’ eyes who would have never have seen it, and who would have opposed everything going on over there. Yet with all the great punditry coming out of the last 3 years (Hitchens, Sullivan, Bay, etc.) what I miss the most is the voice of the Post’s Michael Kelly, killed in a Humvee accident in Iraq. What I wouldn’t give to down a beer with him and shoot the breeze on current world events.
Comment by David Foster — 3/1/2005 @ 9:26 am
Storminator - The Syrians have almost no oil to speak of, for what it is worth. As for Friedman and his likes, well, they are but commentators, responsible for no policy, no action, nothing at all, including that which they write. They think themselves Mandarins, and if the commentator should be the likes of Fareed Zachariah, all events are judged through the lens of their just-published book. But unlike Mandarins, they watch, point fingers, make sly and cunning and witty statements sotto voce, and sometimes even lie like Maureen Dowd, all in the polish manner of courtesans practicing highbrow gossip mongering. Oh, the better ones out of concern for personal reputation will consistently place the proper caveats at the appropriate times to ensure they’ve straddled the fence ever-so-neatly and almost imperceptibly, but straddle they do still. So no matter which way events fall, they will always, always be right. And there is but one thing you can count on - they will always tell you they were right – even if they were wrong.
Comment by Tim — 3/1/2005 @ 9:57 am
I suspect Friedman takes his cues from KSA not DLC.
Comment by Mrs. Davis — 3/1/2005 @ 10:56 am
Tim- Well said-very well said.
Comment by kent — 3/1/2005 @ 11:03 am
Tim is absolutely correct — commentators only comment, and do not bear the workload as folks such as my Army son and his fellow soldiers do. His thesis also holds for Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Coulter as well as anyone else. My point was that the millions of people who read the Times and Post, and otherwise rely on MSM, were getting a different viewpoint from Friedman and Post editors than the rest of their own papers’ content or MSM at large were putting forth. Those readers were likely never to have given a second thought to Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Coulter, or even Austin Bay, and would have gone unchallenged in their liberal/pacifist caccoons without Friedman being a lone voice in the wilderness of the NT times; therefore, what he was writing was extremely valuable for its time. (There, if I have backtracked enough to tell you “I was right even when I was wrong,” I’ve succeeded. You can read more of my own Iraq punditry on my newspaper’s web site at http://www.TheRepublicanNews.com — go to the “columns” section. Heh.)
Comment by David Foster — 3/1/2005 @ 11:20 am
The funniest thing about the Times article is the last paragraph, where they wonder why all of this awakening in the Middle East has taken so long. What a laugh! In a paragraph they can just re-write history so as not to include their years of obstructing the policy they now praise, slightly. Longer version here.
Comment by Rob — 3/1/2005 @ 12:58 pm
Hey, Austin - my trackback got refused for some reason. But sign me up re: the Iraqi people and the Nobel prize.
Comment by Robin Burk — 3/1/2005 @ 1:10 pm
#24 Tim and #27 David — You are so right about the commentators. They are like movie critics: they critique that which they are incapable of doing. The best thing about the blogosphere is the experts. I may or may not like what warbloggers are telling me, but I can have a strong measure of trust in their expertise. I have no such faith in any expertise of any kind on the part of anyone in the MSM. They are experts at nothing, actually. They don’t do; they just bloviate, opinionate and spin from a position some miles to the left of the mainstream of this country. Austin, love your commentary and insights, even when (or especially when) wrangling with one of my alltime faves, Mark Steyn.
And thank you for your service.
Comment by Peg C. — 3/1/2005 @ 2:54 pm
Here’s my fisking of the NYTimes editorial. http://www.doctor-horsefeathers.com Horsefeathers We should all enjoy the signs of panic in the editorial board room at W. 43d Street
Comment by Stephen — 3/1/2005 @ 6:35 pm
Grudging as it is I do not sense that this ostensible awakening we’re seeing by the MSM is genuine. I think it more a desperation move to retain power and its associated revenue. I don’t believe their basic belief systems are changing - even though they’ve been rattled mercilessly over the past several years by the cold hand of inevitability; I don’t believe they are seeing the historic events occurring in the ME for what they are; and I don’t believe we are seeing the beginning of the sea change needed in the MSM if they ever hope to retain some relevance. No, the only reason the MSM is not lying through their teeth as usual and telling us “I told you so” about Iraq and the ME right now has less to do with reality - which is not their strong point anyway - and everything to do with the fact that millions of people just like me do not have to just swallow their crap any more. I believe that if it were not for the effect of the neo-MSM (blogs and their evolutionary successors), the MSM would not appear to be ‘awakening’ in any way shape or form. It would be business as usual. But it’s not - the environment has changed once and forever, and this blubbering and stammering (comparisons to 1989?!) is the best they can do in the new environment. Scan the Democratic Underground for some perspective on what the MSM would like to be ‘reporting’ to us right now. And the only reason they aren’t is because - for once - they think there is a good chance that they couldn’t get away with it. Paradigm shift indeed.
Comment by Terry — 3/2/2005 @ 12:32 am
It has long struck me that Friedman waffles and wavers a lot. Almost as if he’s afraid of offending his freinds in New York.
Comment by Dean Esmay — 3/2/2005 @ 5:56 am
Um. . . not to get off topic or be annoying, but this whole “tipping point” stuff is kinda stupid; not so much from an idea standpoint as a terminology standpoint. I mean, we already have a term for this in the sciences; and unlike “tipping point”, which is kind of stupid, “paradigm shift” sounds cool. So why not use that?
Comment by matt — 3/2/2005 @ 10:06 am
[…] eneral — site admin @ 3:02 pm When I read Comment 1 on my February 28 post, “Glory Be, The New York Times and Washington Post Discover Democracy Strategery” I laughed. […]
Pingback by Austin Bay Blog » “Not in your name” — 3/5/2005 @ 9:02 pm
Paxil
Comment by Paxil — 4/19/2005 @ 1:31 pm
nelson ned Glory Be: NY Times and…
Trackback by Zaya Mastala — 7/16/2005 @ 2:48 pm