In his two latest columns, Tom Friedman of The New York Times lays out a sensible, centrist analysis of the “Arab Awakening” in the Middle East.
Friedman, who knows that part of the world as well as anyone in American journalism, warns that the 350 million Arab people present U.S. policy makers with “a minefield of tribal, sectarian and governance issues.”
Friedman also makes the case that our 8-year military excursion in Iraq offers some valuable lessons for how to proceed in dealing with Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Syria.
One key lesson, he said, is that a “neutral arbiter” – in Iraq’s case, the U.S. military — is necessary to prevent civil war and to broker a smooth transition from dictatorship to democracy.
Friedman said he hopes that a few Arab versions of Nelson Mandela will emerge. Just as conservative commentators in America fear that Muslim extremists are planning to take hold throughout the region (a fear that the Israelis do not share), when Mandela was finally freed from his South African prison critics portrayed him as a wild-eyed Marxist radical.
Instead, he became the embodiment of dignity and humanity.
Friedman urges the new emerging Arab leaders to demonstrate civility and commonality with other tribes and sects.
As the character playing Mandela in the movie “Invictus” says: “We have to surprise them with restraint and generosity.”
You can read the full column here.
In his follow-up column, Friedman also touches on the difficulties of the U.S. trying to play a role – but not too much of a role – in shaping the emerging freedom movements in the Middle East.
In one mind-boggling paragraph – three sentences, 212 words – he describes all the uncertainties and policy compromises we already face.
The former New York Times Beirut bureau chief, Friedman said that the Arab nations that may be transformed by new leadership have a lot of catching up to do.
“When an entire region that has been living outside the biggest global trends of free politics and free markets for half a century suddenly, from the bottom up, decides to join history — and each one of these states has a different ethnic, tribal, sectarian and political orientation and a loose coalition of Western and Arab states with mixed motives trying to figure out how to help them — well, folks, you’re going to end up with some very strange-looking policy animals. And Libya is just the first of many hard choices we’re going to face in the ‘new’ Middle East,” Friedman said.
In the end, President Obama is going to need all the good advice and luck possible to negotiate the coming maneuvers.
“The truth is,” Friedman concluded, “ that it’s a dangerous, violent, hope-filled, hugely positive or explosive mess – fraught with moral and political ambiguities.”
You can read the full column here.
