For the full Friedman editorial, see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/opinion/friedman-the-man-with-pink-hair.html?comments#permid=102
Overall, for the first time in some time, I agree with the general thrust of Mr. Friedman's column: bombing Syria to punish it for using chemical weapons, when acknowledging that this would to little to nothing to stop such use of chemical weapons, was ridiculous, and the push to attack was by the top elite (beholden to the Military/Industrial Complex), and vehemently opposed by the majority of "us".
However, even here Mr. Friedman cannot keep himself from including the typical myopic, that is to say American-centric view of the world, when one would expect a much broader perspective from a "journalist".
"I guess worrying about Syria is the tax you pay for being an American or an American president — and coming from the world’s strongest power that still believes, blessedly in my view, that it has to protect the global commons."
PLEASE!! If one is truly a "journalist", and not what seems like a small-town high school teacher, one would know that America for the most part does NOT enter into military engagements for altruistic reasons, "protect[ing] the global commons", but to, often ruthlessly, further its mostly commercial interests, i.e. on behalf of the 1% Oligarchy.
During the Cold War these impulses were tempered by the real fear of nuclear armageddon. Now that America is the single overwhelming military power, America has increasingly operated under the "might makes right" doctrine, with terrible results, for itself, and the world at large, Kosovo being an exception.
No comments:
Post a Comment