In his own way, President Obama has brought the country to the right strategy for Bush’s “war on terrorism.” It is a serious, focused combination of global intelligence coordination, targeted killing of known terrorists and limited interventions — like Libya — that leverage popular forces on the ground and allies, as well as a judicious use of U.S. power, so that we keep the costs and risks down. In Libya, Obama saved lives and gave Libyans a chance to build a decent society. What they do with this opportunity is now up to them. I am still wary, but Obama handled his role exceedingly well.
No doubt George Bush and Dick Cheney thought that both Iraq and Afghanistan would be precisely such focused, limited operations. Instead, they each turned out to be like a bad subprime mortgage — a small down payment with a huge balloon five years down the road. They thought they would be able to “flip” the house before the balloon came due. But partly because of their incompetence and lack of planning, it took much longer to flip the house to new owners and the price America paid was huge. Iraq may still have a decent outcome — I hope so, and it would be important — but even if it becomes Switzerland, we overpaid for it.
So let’s be clear: Up to now, as a commander in chief in the war on terrorism, Obama and his national security team have been so much smarter, tougher and cost-efficient in keeping the country safe than the “adults” they replaced.
Oh my God. Does Friedman write this stuff this way because he knows his fanboys in the White House read him? And give him weight? Get a freaking room, Tom.
Seven months after we hit the silks to invade Afghanistan and crossed the berm to invade Iraq, the wars looked pretty won. Claiming massive big-brained, nuanced super-genius levels of competence is rather premature when speaking of Libya. Have you noticed that the Iraqis stiffed our super-genius effort to keep American troops in Iraq after this year? When everyone--Americans, pro-American Iraqis, and anti-American Iraqis know we are needed? Have you noticed that our super-genius foreign policy witnessed President Karzai of Afghanistan (you know, "he may be a son of a bitch, but he's--no wait, just stop there") say he'd side with Pakistan in a hypothetical US-Pakistan war? Stop the nuance! It burns!
Shoot, I bet that weather vane of conventional wisdom, Mr. Friedman, probably supported both Afghanistan and Iraq when the wars were 7 months old. President Obama better not count on Tom's big brain to defend him if Libya doesn't turn out to be a leading-from-behind cake walk.
Still think Libya is a win in the bank already? Especially when the low cost of Libya was simply transferred from Americans to Libyans by letting the weak Khaddafi regime hang on so long, where they could kill a lot more Libyans even as American pilots remained out of reach.
Claiming Libya was brilliant requires you to believe two things. One, that in 8 years, Libya will look as good as either Iraq or Afghanistan as far as giving our Moslem allies chances to build better lives. Don't look now, Tom, but you may have just bought a bad sub-prime mortgage.
And two, it requires you to believe that President Obama will be as resolute as President George W. Bush in fighting a war to win--even after all the smart guys say it is doomed and never worth fighting.
The White House should watch its back if it thinks that the deep thinking of Thomas Friedman is in its corner. He sucks the generals and kicks the privates. That's what a king of conventional wisdom does. You think you're different, and Tom will really respect you in the mourning? Don't listen to Friedman. He isn't your SOB.
