Tom Friedman: It's still their fault (Updated)

Thomas Friedman, the establishment "liberal hawk" of the NYT editorial page, let loose yesterday on Muslims for getting mad that the US is occupying two of their countries:

 The Narrative is the cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11. Propagated by jihadist Web sites, mosque preachers, Arab intellectuals, satellite news stations and books — and tacitly endorsed by some Arab regimes — this narrative posits that America has declared war on Islam, as part of a grand “American-Crusader-Zionist conspiracy” to keep Muslims down.

Mr. Friedman seems desperate to explain why someone like Nidal Hasan would think to take up arms against his fellow soldiers.  He seeks to deflect blame from what the US is actually doing and craft some type of "narrative" that those Muslim "extremists" believe in.   Of course, the US done nothing to inflame tensions.  In fact, Mr. Friedman feels we've been all too benevolent to this region:

Yes, after two decades in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny — in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan — a narrative that says America is dedicated to keeping Muslims down is thriving.

I've said it before and I'll say it now: I like Tom Friedman's work.  The World is Flat is one of my favorite books.  Some of Friedman's examples here are credible.  Yet he manages to show not just his establishment credentials here but his imperial ones also.  It's folly to suggest that the US was interested in "rescuing" anyone from atrocities that had already taken place (Bosnia) or would take place (Somalia).  It's more accurate to say that the US was merely following its interests in the area and claimed humanitarian goals alongside that.  It is the height of idiocy to say the US "rescued" Iraq from Saddam because the world was clamoring for it to do so.  In fact, when it comes to "half-truths" and "propaganda" I would say the US is more complicit in that when it comes to its war-mongering.  Where were those WMDs again?  The culmination of his argument really takes the cake as far as American exceptionalism goes:

Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence, but primarily to destroy two tyrannical regimes — the Taliban and the Baathists — and to work with Afghans and Iraqis to build a different kind of politics. In the process, we did some stupid and bad things. But for every Abu Ghraib, our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders.

Some "stupid and bad things."  It's amazing how much malfeasance can be covered up in one sentence.  It's staggering that such a notion can be put forth in a major newspaper in 2009.  Apparently Mr. Friedman feels the US is completely vindicated with "fist-punching" a country totally unrelated to the 9/11 attacks.  That he would use such boisterous language is a testament to his inability to realize what has happened in these countries since those attacks.

After 9/11 the goodwill the world felt toward America was vast.  This was since squandered twice over.  Once with our failure to complete anything in Afghanistan (from where we were actually attacked, not "the Arab/Muslim world") and twice with the worst foreign policy debacle of this generation.  And yet Mr. Friedman seems compelled to blame some sort of illogical and twisted "narrative" that proves Muslims have no reason to be angry about anything.  He makes a good point in saying that not all their grievances should be foisted on the West.  True, some of these regimes are autocratic, brutally repressive, and beat down their own people for protesting elections (Iran).  And yet, what exactly has the US done to improve the situation?  Eight years on Afghanistan is a worse and far more corrupt state.  Iraq has been ethnic cleansed, and over a hundred thousand Iraqis have perished.  Friedman praises the US for giving Muslim countries "a better chance to succeed with modernity" without mentioning that both of these countries' infrastructures have been bombed back to the stone age by the US military.  True, Iraq has had two elections since we invaded.  But their government appears to have little influence over the various sectarian interests and Prime Minister Maliki seems to be much more popular with Iran than the US.  And they're one of those "evil axis" countries!

The bottom line is that this type of thinking is what got the US into this mess in the first place.  I suppose I could admire Friedman for his consistency on this, but he's still wrong.  The US felt it needed to "punch a fist" and chose the easiest target (again, after those that actually attacked us) in Saddam.  Of course, by not planning for anything after that the US was setting itself up for a massive disaster.  Things like Abu Ghraib didn't help matters; nor did the torture of Muslim prisoners around the world.  For all Friedman's bluster about what America has done right in the "war on terror," he sure missed a lot of what it hasn't.  I understand he feels the need to be on the side of America.  But wouldn't it be better to take a more nuanced appraisal now that we have occupied these countries longer than the Second World War?  Friedman would rather blame their religion, speaking in Obama's voice no less:

“Whenever something like Fort Hood happens you say, ‘This is not Islam.’ I believe that. But you keep telling us what Islam isn’t.

Sound familiar?

UPDATE: Glenn has more on Friedman's chickenhawk-isms.