Why Don't People Like Tom Friedman?

OPINION: "In the Age of Pirates," by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 15 April 2008; and "Another Friedman Special," by Hooman Majd, Huffington Post, 15 April 2009

This is not the great age of diplomacy.

But this is increasingly an age of pirates, failed states, nonstate actors and nation-building — the stuff of snipers, drones and generals, not diplomats.

As such, I fear we are sliding into commitments in Afghanistan and Pakistan without a real national debate about the ends or the means or the exits. That is a recipe for trouble.

Once again, Tom Friedman takes a complicated topic and makes it understandable for folks that don't work in the foreign policy or national security fields. In this case, Friedman posits that the U.S. has four big problem countries -- Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea -- and no good solutions, or solutions that require more than the U.S. is willing to invest. The Obama administrations solution is to do just enough to avoid collapse but not enough to solve problems, which is really no solution. This solution is essentially just kicking the can down the road with hope that time will solve the problem.

If instead the students at Friedman's school are taught that it's not about pulling levers or demanding things of foreigners, but about negotiating according to the culture and customs of both parties, of understanding that problems cannot be solved in this "flat world" without considering the vital interests of all parties, then we might have a shot. It's not, as Mr. Friedman fears, about adopting a "middle ground," it's about fundamental change, as Mr. Obama promised in his campaign and as he is slowly, but surely, delivering. Iran, for one, appears to be patiently waiting.

Hooman Majd makes some good points in his "rebuttal" of Friedman. However, I think he misses Friedman's main point: the unwillingness of the U.S. to make the appropriate investment to solve problems in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea. Ultimately, his rational argument is lost in the petty sniping and, borderline, professional jealousy he directs toward Friedman.