Thomas Friedman defends Iraq, again. And wants more too?

Maybe I will seriously consider the NY Times' paywall only when the paper seriously rethinks having Thomas Friedman and Maureen Dowd as columnists.  Most of their columns are just fluff, or worse.

I am only now catching up with Friedman's column, thanks to conference stuff. (editor: when will you catch up with your classes? Awshutupalready!)  I had a metaphorical falling off the chair moment when I read this in his ranting:

The Arab world desperately needs its versions of South Africa’s Nelson Mandela and F.W. de Klerk — giants from opposing communities who rise above tribal or Sunni-Shiite hatreds to forge a new social compact. The Arab publics have surprised us in a heroic way. Now we need some Arab leaders to surprise us with bravery and vision. That has been so lacking for so long.
Another option is that an outside power comes in, as America did in Iraq, and as the European Union did in Eastern Europe, to referee or coach a democratic transition between the distrustful communities in these fractured states. But I don’t see anyone signing up for that job.

WTF! What a horrible "liberal" warmonger Friedman has been and continues to be!  Hey, here is an idea--even if those countries slip into civil war, which is their problem to begin with, why not employ your own Friedman Unit to advocate for patience?  You know, tell the American public that in six months those civil wars will turn a corner and, therefore, the US should simply stay out?  And then say the same thing again when the six months end. And again. And again. 

We need pundits to tell us the complex stories in language simple enough for all of us to understand.  Carl Sagan was a master at that. Paul Krugman does it well. Friedman, however, increasingly is being merely simplistic. Awful.