His argument reminds me a lot of the ones used by enablers -- enablers of abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics, you name it: That is, "they" won't change until "they" want to. We can't
Advertisement
Such an approach might well make sense in cases of private behavior -- thankfully, I don't have enough experience to know one way or another. But when it comes to very public behavior -- behavior that can result in a suitcase nuke going off in a major American city -- the reasoning is defective.
Friedman's approach might have worked in a different age, one without cell phones, computers and -- oh, yeah! -- suitase nukes. But if we fall for Friedman's line that a "stronger America" will result from abandoning Afghanistan, and then just leave, what could happen as a result? After all, it's important to weigh the risks of a proposed strategy, not just consider possible positive outcomes (as critics like Friedman would have been the first to tell the Bush administration).
Will America really be "stronger" -- as Friedman argues -- if Afghanistan falls to Al Qaeda and its allies, who then push the fight into the already-unstable nuclear power of Pakistan?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member