Capturing Friedman posted by Richard Seymour

Look at this face:



I don't know if I want to step on it or throw up on it. It is, of course, the timeless image of Thomas Friedman - the New York Times' invaluable guide to what the Democratic Leadership Council is thinking to itself. In his latest column, reproduced in the International Herald Tribune , Friedman wonders why

too many Arab countries have opted to drill a sand dune for economic growth rather than drilling their own people...

Ah ah! Don't jump to conclusions:

...rather than drilling their own people - men and women - in order to tap their energy, creativity, intellect and entrepreneurship.

Now, Friedman's case is that the Arabs spend too little time trading with one another, and too much time talking about Zionism or finding "dignity in Pyrrhic victories like Fallujah". In this regard, he rails against Saudi Arabia:

A week ago we were treated again to absurd Saudi allegations that "Zionists" were behind the latest bombing in Saudi Arabia, because, said Saudi officials, "Zionists" clearly benefit from these acts. Someone ought to tell the Saudis this: Don't flatter yourselves. The only interest Israelis have in Saudi Arabia is flying over it to get to India and China - countries that actually trade and manufacture things other than hatred of "infidels."

Well, before moving on to the rest of Friedman's screed, let me just ponder on a point of fact. Friedman may be correct that Israel has no reason to bomb Saudi Arabia, but he has the explanans wrong:

"If, despite all our precautions, we are confronted with an Iran already in possession of nuclear installations and in mastery of launching techniques, we would be better off if the explosive charge of the Israeli-Arab conflict is by then already neutralised through signing peace treaties with states located in our vicinity - concretely with Syria, Jordan and the Palestinians. We would also be better off if, until that time, we succeed in fighting Islamic fundamentalism. It would be good for us if all sane states of this region unite to resist the forces of radicalism." (Labor Knesset member, Efraim Sneh, quoted in Yo'av Kaspi, "Hotam", Al Hamishmar, 21 May 1993.)

Saudi Arabia is a stable monarchy which represses Islamic radicalism, while Iran is the touchstone of radicalism in the region.

Allez Friedman!:

The Bush team has made a mess in Iraq, but the pathologies of the Arab world have also contributed - and the sheer delight that some Arab media take in seeing Iraq go up in flames is evidence of that.

It's time for the Arab world to grow up - to stop dancing on burning American jeeps and claiming that this is some victory for Islam.

No, what they ought to do is dance around with big goofy grins on their faces while torturing prisoners. I assume Friedman means the term "pathologies" in the sense of manifesting a disease of some sort. That disease could be called "occupation", no?

As I said, the Bush team has made a mess in Iraq. And I know that Abu Ghraib will be a lasting stain on the Pentagon leadership. But here's what else I know from visiting Iraq: There were a million acts of kindness, generosity and good will also extended by individual U.S. soldiers this past year - acts motivated purely by a desire to give Iraqis the best chance they've ever had at decent government and a better future. There are plenty of Iraqis and Arabs who know that.

Unfortunately, Tom, most Arabs can see the forest and the trees. Certainly, the bulk of Iraqi Arabs are prepared to urge the eviction of the US and its allies. This was true even before the torture scandal . But Friedman thinks "we still have a chance to produce a decent outcome in Iraq, if we get our eye back on the ball", whatever that means. And he is eager to ensure that Arabs take some the blame again:

Yes, we Americans need to look in a mirror and ask why we've become so radioactive. But the Arabs need to look in a mirror too. "They are using our mistakes to avoid their own necessity to change, reform and modernize," says the Mideast expert Stephen P. Cohen.

This tendency to speak of "the Arabs" as if they were a homogenous bloc, identifiable through certain traits, comes directly from the lexicon of Orientalism. Indeed, the late Edward Said himself had cause to rebuke the "insufferably conceited" Friedman in a telling word or two :

When Thomas Friedman tiresomely sermonises to Arabs that they have to be more self-critical, missing in anything he says is the slightest tone of self- criticism.

Isn't it telling that, even when pro-war commentators such as Friedman ought to be drowning in shame, he still manages to make a sermon out of it?